"But within hours after the final results were tallied, we had an emerging national consensus that voters were rejecting Obama and health care."

I can see rejecting Obama, but health care? Statistical reports indicate around 45,000 Americans die every year because of a lack of health care. Other reports indicate around 20 million children lack health insurance and thus health care. Is there a majority of Americans who don't give a damn about these fellow citizens?

Then there are the many thousands of people who go bankrupt each year because of no or inadequate health care insurance. Are these Americans opposed to health care reform aware that they could be next?

Or, are these voters who are reported as being against health care more opposed to the bungling of Congress than proper health care reform?

In the Year 2000 report from the World Health Organization, the United States came in at 37th for attainment and performance - below Chile, Dominica, Greece, Iceland, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, San Marino and Andorra, none of which is a member of the powerful economic club known as the G8.

What exactly are the 'source cues' in this situation; where were they from and are they accurate, might be a pertinent question to ask in this situation.. Most people, especially the Fox Not-News viewers that I talk with, think that 'what they know they know'; that conventional wisdom that everybody they know knows is correct when in actual fact it's not.

Was 'death panels' a source cue for instance and was it an accurate cue? I think it was and of course it's not. It may just show that republicans are more easily manipulated by catchy ad agency devised bumper sticker catch-phrases than other categories of voters.

I think what the election in Massachusetts showed was that if you are enough of a tone deaf campaigner and run a completely horrible race under just the right circumstances, it's possible to lose any seat, even Ted Kennedy's, to a republican.

My take on all this is that after working incredibly hard in '06 and '08, Democratic voters are furious and depressed at how little the President and Congress has managed to get done, especially of Health Care, given their majorities in both the House and especially the Senate. We gave money, we worked for Democrats, we voted them in and this is the best they can do? We'll then just kick Joe Liberman to the curb for starters if he won't help the President.

Republicans on the other hand are just angry about everything. They hated losing and they hate the President so they are very motivated to vote. Democrats, not so much.

I see much less in that election than the conventional wisdom of the talking heads do. And after all, to them, everything and I mean everything, no matter what it is, is always good for republicans no matter what.

Paul should take a walk around the block. His comment reminds me of conservative responses to talking about institutionalized racism. They grumble, "Isn't it racist identify black people as black people?" They shut down the conversation with this question, and put everyone on pins and needles, defensive and defenseless.

The other reason Paul should back off? If having doubts about our electorate is elitist, he should really spend some time talking to voters. Many self-identified average Americans--a term that is positive and comforting for 80% of Americans--share the same concerns. That's why a lot of them vote...so they know the people who are wrapped up in the opposition's rhetoric don't get their way, which the average American would see as wrongheaded.

I also want to agree cues are not the same as policy expertise. Cues are watered down, thinned guestimates of the bills or candidates.

Lest my post turns into a therapy session to work out Paul's sore points, I just want to say I think voter misdirection campaigns and quality of media representation are important issues to talk about, and reevaluating the Party's relationship with the voters is not elitist, but necessary. The celebration party for 66 & 67 passing struck me strangely. What I might have guessed is entitlement but could have been fatigue needs to be checked, choked off, killed, and chained in the back of a windowless dungeon.

Party leadership is more than patting ourselves on the back. It's about inspiring us to do better for ourselves. Not just the dedicated few, but the deserving masses; not just the unions or lobbyists to manicure relationships, but the everyman to make a people. I didn't see the spitfire. Speakers should have blown the roofs off of brick houses. I think we progressives must work on our messaging and branding, so they're equal parts perspiration, inspiration, and substantiation, and not just perspiration.

I never said and I don't believe that voters are stupid

Some voters are, clearly, stupid. And if "elitist" means educated, informed, engaged, and not driven by religious prejudice - we could use a few more elites...

Case in point: Sponsored ad on this Blue Oregon page - "Sarah for 2012 - Vote Here!"

"The first is that we can't know whether there was a unifying message from the Massachusetts senate election a couple weeks ago. There were no exits, and so far as I know, no subsequent polling. But within hours after the final results were tallied, we had an emerging national consensus that voters were rejecting Obama and health care. "

Hysteria is not too strong a word for that. It is like the "moral values" mania about that one exit poll (2000 or 2004) where people in journalism and politics went nuts about "moral values " being the next big thing when a) that answer was only chosen by something like 25% of respondents

b) turned out the wording of the question was something like "choose one--which is most important: a) the economy b) national security c) education d) moral values.

There was a time a few weeks after the poll was such a big deal that people started reacting to the reporting and asking where they could find the poll themselves.

Turned out to be a lot more vague than reported.

Another thing is that "people who go to church at least once a week are likely to vote Republican" garbage.

Did the pollsters stand outside churches and ask people how often they attended and which way they voted? My guess is that they would have gotten a lot of turndowns had they done that.

Or was it the proverbial sample of maybe 500 people who agreed to answer the poll. Yes, yes, I know polling is supposed to be a science.

But who here would agree to believe in whatever 500 Oregonians told a pollster?

Thank you T U L:

"I think what the election in Massachusetts showed was that if you are enough of a tone deaf campaigner and run a completely horrible race under just the right circumstances, it's possible to lose any seat, even Ted Kennedy's, to a republican. "

Oregonians should look no farther than 3 Gordon Smith elections:

Jan. 1996 when Wyden ran an outstanding campaign and beat him

Nov. 1996 when Bruggere probably ran as poor a campaign as Coakley

Nov 2008 when Merkley beat him.

Yes, I am leaving out 2002---the atmosphere that Rove et al created that election year is the reason. Someday someone should do a study of the 2002 midterm elections and the 1942 midterm elections (first ones after Pearl Harbor). My guess is that politics was more poisonious in 2002.

Nov. 1996 election Gordon Smith ran more of a Scott Brown campaign--out among people, being a friendly guy who wanted your vote and was working hard to get it. Jan. 1996 he ran that obnoxious "we're all real tired of career politicians" ad. 2008, not only could he not say a legislative presiding officer lacked experience (given that he had been St. Sen. Pres. before being elected to US Senate), but the tone of the campaign started some people saying "exactly how long does someone have to be in office before we can say we are tired of career politicians?".

"just how stupid are we" by Rick Shenkman

bill maher on american stupidity/ignorance etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html

Bill Maher on American stupidity/ignorance http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html

I believe the electorate wanted to be informed about Healthcare reform, but for the most part was unable to. The Obama administration kept most of the details secret, and refused to televise the proceedings. Most of the proceedings were done behind closed doors in a partisan way.

So there were only leaks with little information. You'd think you Jackasses would have learned from HillaryCare, but apparently not - and it cost you control of the Senate.

And failing to address the Ponzi Scheme that is the US Economy will cost a whole helluva lot more than that.

The The Illahee Lecture Series speaker at the First Congregational Church in downtown Portland tonight should be interesting: - Jonah Lehrer "The Power to Change Our Minds".

They interviewed him on KPOJ this morning. He was talking about people voting for stories that speak to their heart more readily than just facts that speak to their head. Really, you don't need to get cynical and condemn people as stupid because you can't get through to them by the Socratic Method.

"people believe the "story" that justifies & rationalizes that vote"

Excellent TedTalk from Jonathan Haidt regarding moral roots and the "moral mind" that predicts political preferences. The "story" could be considered the same reality, the same facts viewed from different perspectives.

Haidt followed up with a Q & A applying these points specifically to the healthcare debate.

Does it absolve us of the responsibility to understand what policy preferences are held at large because we don't know how many voters in a particular election were motivated by them?

Is it to be believed that opinions of the Administration are unimportant to the voters deciding whom they send to implement the President's policies?

Kevin gave a link to the MoveOn.org/DFA poll in the "Americans Know Bubkes" post, but the idea of a useful poll was disdained.

"Your "Obama kept the details secret" nonsense is simply not borne out by facts."

But he and his accomplices in the White House (Rahm Emanuel, et al) were secretive in their dealings with the consiglieri representing Big Pharma (Billy Tauzin, etc.) and the insurance mafia. The White House wouldn't even provide a list of names of the visitors ambushing the occupants with their bribes and deals, never mind providing a chance to listen in on the conversations.

Paul Gronke, who does political thinking for a living, took me to task.

No doubt. You broke out of "thou must not fault the electorate" mode for an instant. I like the original post better. "Who knows it feels it" (four days left). Here is where Occam's razor could be applied. To take this tack you have to postulate factors that simply aren't required to explain people's perceptions. Parsimony is next to godliness. I find the original hypothesis much more parsimonious.

There was a poll referenced in a Daily Kos Diary that I think shows this was not a referendum on health care reform:

There was overwhelming support for working government and passing legislation under Democratic leadership. 82 percent of all voters should Scott Brown should work with the Democrats. Only 11 percent said he should "stop the Democratic agenda." That includes 75% of Brown voters. 60% of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama. * There was overwhelming support for passing health care reform. 70% of all voters think Brown should work with the Democrats to get something passed. Only 28% want to 'stop Obamacare'. Brown voters are sharply divided on the question. Only 50% want to 'stop Obamacare', whereas 48% of Brown voters want Brown to work with Democrats on health care. 94% of Coakley voters want the same.

"70% knew that Reid is speaker."

And Pelosi is Sen. Majority Leader?

"voters are extremely adept at using source cues in order to substitute for detailed policy knowledge."

Kind of like Congress did withe Health Care plan when not a one of them had a clue about what that 200-page document meant - except for their share of the pork.

Blaming voters for something pols are just as guilty of is too easy an out. Maybe pols shoudl be a bit more forthcoming with all the facts instead of propagandizing their issues.

"First, you can view a list of all White House visitors here."

That list must have been published after the press raised some hell about the White House keeping the visitor list to themselves.

"Second, you fail to acknowledge that the bills were drafted and amended in public in the committee process live on C-SPAN which not only exposes your previously factless claims as just that, factless bullshit, but also renders the recurring bette noir of the "back-room big Pharma" deal in the almost urban legend zone."

If I was just addressing one point why should I just go rambling off on others? Of course, some of the debating was shown on C-Span, but surely you don't believe all of the debating was open to the public. Was the debating and dealing between Billy Tauzin and Obama and Emanuel regarding prescription drugs at the White House on C-Span?

What does a "bette noir (sic)" (a small, black pleasure boat for fishing used in the Marseille region - assuming this is some attempt at French) have to do with this topic? Did you by chance mean bête noire - a type of black wild boar (literally) or pet aversion (figuratively)?

"28 Jan 2010 // Boast requires explanation

"The statement

"'For the first time in history, my administration posts our White House visitors online.'"

"President Barack Obama, in the State of the Union speech Wednesday

"The ruling

"It's true the Obama administration is releasing more information on White House visitors than any previous administration and posting those details to the Web. But the story is more complicated than that. When Obama first took office, the administration did not immediately release information on visitors, and it refused records requests from the news Web site msnbc.com and the advocacy organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (My emphasis) CREW filed suit for the records in July 2009, and by September, the White House announced its intention to release some of the logs in a settlement with CREW. Starting Sept. 15, the White House said it would release records of all visitors, but the records would be released 90 to 120 days after the visits occurred. And the administration outlined a series of exceptions for records that would not be released, including those related to a "small group of particularly sensitive meetings (e.g., visits of potential Supreme Court nominees)." It's a point that stuck out to us. That seems like a standard that can encompass an awful lot. "The problem with these exemptions is that they're just exemptions that (the White House is) making up," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. So far, the White House has released one month of visitor logs." Source: http://www.citizensforethics.org/

Also try a Google for "white house visitor lists undisclosed secret"

Well this thread certainly has proven there is no intelligent life in Blue Oregon. You're wasting your time Paul G.

Misinformed, sometimes purposefully, is probably more accurate than uninformed. Some people would simply rather believe what they want to believe instead of facts that contradict their warped world view.

"Misinformed, sometimes purposefully, is probably more accurate than uninformed. Some people would simply rather believe what they want to believe instead of facts that contradict their warped world view."

I'll second that.

Bill- I'll third that.

The people waving copies of the Constitution at Kurt Schrader appeared brainwashed or something.

"What part of the Constitution do you think he is violating?" "All of it" "Exactly how is he violating the Article on Judicial powers?" Blank stare.

Actual conversation after the Kurt Schrader town hall meeting where tea party types tried to shout him down.

Re: "...a faction willfully attempting to spread misinformation...":

We Progressive Democrats may be such a faction, but we are attempting to spread misinformation less evilly.

We Progressive Democrats are the only ones in this country who are indoctrinated sufficiently to be the deciders.

Ox:

This is a core mistake you progressives, as you wish to be known, do make.

You point a finger at others and say, "more evil" and at yourselves and say, "Less evil! Less evil!".

It is politics you play. It is all judging and making of judgements.

How in the world can you tell me that someone who votes conservative singing their baby to sleep is more evil than you, singing your baby to sleep. Please.

You may not hate mexicans, or blacks or... but you spend a lot of time up here, too many of you, hating SOMEthing instead of.

Get honest. Get honest. Every last one of us here plays evil and plays good. And every last one of us here has some righteously-rationalized hate, errrr... evil.

rw and others who are irony-challenged:

oksy moreon = oxymoron

As in Progressive Democrats. They don't exist. They aren't less evil. They are worse than Republicans because they coopt the energy that otherwise would cause the dismantling of illegitimate power systems.

Oksy and rw, you're violently in agreement! You look at the load of self aggrandizing and intellectually dishonest crap that gets spewed here and decide to fight each other? You're putting me off my dinner! Why not have a go at Bill B while you're at it.

Time series. As I've said ad nauseam, real progressives get a rush of blood to the head when they see tepid Dem BS as usual dressed up as progressive, because Rush sez liberal is a bad word. With time one learns to look into the eyes of the abomination without blinking, but at first, it's pretty grotesque. Would you like to see the eloquence with which I addressed the phenomenon the first time I posted? Wish I could reference it, but I'm still paying for lawyers and having to deal with cops since people that I had restraining orders against found my name in the blogosphere to be too tempting to resist. (Professionally I have shut down a number of .com frauds and fought the Russian mafia, so I have more than a few mortal enemies. And Tom Vail, who is repeating that ridiculous line to lestatdelc, in another thread, "what do you have to hide"...FUCK.YOU).

Bottom line, why not try to not attribute maliciousness where ignorance suffices to account. Sure, there are people like t.a. (see Tom Vail) that really want to screw the word around, and Carla that only cares about scoring personal points. Most are well intentioned and simply overly motivated by fear and swayed by personal and family influences. The way Jeff moderated his comments is a case in point. Just the 4 of us at a bar would likely be 100% in agreement on this. A professional hack shows up, and, well, maybe it was overstated. We all know it starts with the electorate, to hell with the disclaimers, they are butt ignorant and proud of it. Screaming is good. Just, please, try to direct it at a more worthy target!

<h2>First, I think you go into this with all sorts of presumtions. The same presumptions that have shown us, time and again, that the Democratic Party has become out of touch with their core. Brown didn't win the Democratic bastion of MA because he was against Obamacare. Rather, he won because Coakly was a dull lifeless person with absoltely no personality. You could litterally replace her with a cardboard cutout and some talking points and do better. It really doesn't matter how good you are when it comes to policy, if we can't listen to you more than ten seconds without feeling like were back in highschool english literature class. Presentation does count for a lot. Just ask the GOP on that one.</h2>