Reply #4: People dont compare to others. They compare to where they were before.

[Mass]

Also, one of the reason we are there is because the state pays for it. This is why taxes are high. Not paying more taxes for other states to reach the same level of insurance we have was a pretty high incentive for people to vote Brown. Selfish, but also self-preservation for many.

BTW, Nate has an analysis of the reasons of this loss.It seems pretty much correct.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/20/whos_to_blame.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+(Taegan+Goddard's+Political
Who's to Blame?
Nate Silver tries to explain the 31-point swing in the Massachusetts vote: from Barack Obama's 26-point victory in the 2008 presidential election to Martha Coakley's 5-point loss last night.

He blames 10 points on the national environment, citing generic ballot tests that show "the Democrats' position has worsened by a net of 10 points since November 2008."

Another 11 points of blame "should be assigned to Coakley. That represents the difference between the 58 percent of vote that she received at her high-water mark in the polls to the 47 percent she received on Election Day."

The remaining 10 points are spread out "as evenly as possible, giving 3 more points to Coakley, 3 more points to the national environment, and 4 to Massachusetts-specific special contingencies."

Conclusion: "If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley."