Poll: Mass. Voters Protested Against Weak Wall Street, Health Care Policies

[brentspeak]

Anyone who persists in claiming that the Massachusetts vote wasn't a reflection on the White House and the Democratic Congress' weak-kneed leadership will simply appear to have lost all reason:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

First Posted: 01-20-10 11:07 AM | Updated: 01-20-10 05:16 PM

Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.

A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.

It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest.

The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Weak Policies must be the new Corporatist Policies

[tabatha]

2. Maybe this will give Obama cover to do so.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Regarding the Mass voters who backed Barack Obama and switched their support to Brown.

They're what I would call useful idiots.

[Stargleamer]

4. Helping Wall Street more than Main Street?

So they vote for a Republican, who's very essence is to help the rich? 36 percent thought the Health Care Bill didn't go far enough--so they vote for someone who thinks it goes too far? Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies--so they vote for a Republican who wants to carry out such policies?

Sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Or, even New Englanders can be incredibly gullible and/or stupid.