Media advance dubious claim that MA Senate election was a referendum on Obama
The Associated Press, the New York Post, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough advanced the claim that the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election was, in Scarborough's words, "a rejection of Barack Obama." But election night polling showing that the majority of Massachusetts voters approve of Obama's job performance undermines this claim, and Scott Brown himself has stated that the race was "not a referendum on Obama."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Media advance claim that MA election was referendum on Obama
AP: "Race seen as a referendum on Obama's first year in office." The AP wrote in a January 20 article that the Massachusetts Senate race was "seen as a referendum on Obama's first year in office."
NY Post: "Republicans said the race was a referendum on Obama." A January 20 New York Post article claimed that "[g]leeful Republicans said the race was a referendum on Obama." The Post then quoted a National Republican Senatorial Committee statement as saying, "Democrats nationwide should be on notice."
Scarborough: Election a "rejection of Barack Obama." On the January 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Scarborough said of the Senate race, "[A]nyway you look at it, this is a rejection of Barack Obama."
Exit polls of MA voters show majority support for Obama
Rasmussen: Fifty-three percent of MA voters approve of Obama job performance. In its election night polling, Rasmussen Reports found that 53 percent of Massachusetts voters "approve of the way that Barack Obama has handled his job as President." As Media Matters for America has documented, pollster Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, reportedly worked for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and for the Republican National Committee in 2003 and 2004.
Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates: Obama held a 59 percent favorability mark and 55 percent job approval rating among MA voters. A January 20 Politico article reported that a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates exit poll found that "Obama's personal favorability remained high with voters." The poll found that "Obama boasted a 59 percent favorability mark" and "Obama's job approval rating even stayed at a respectable 55 percent as voters trekked to the ballot box to oppose the candidate he campaigned for just two days earlier. The president even earned a passing mark on his handling of the economy (50 percent approval) and received a clear majority's support for his work in the war in Afghanistan (59 percent approval)." Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates is a Republican polling firm.
Even Brown himself stated that the election was "not a referendum on the president"
Brown's "Last Pitch": "It's not a referendum on the president. There are many issues." In his January 18 "Last Pitch" interview with Boston's ABC affiliate, Brown said of the race: "It's not a referendum on the president. There are many issues; you're talking about national security, taxes, spending -- the health care plan certainly is important."
In 2006 Ted Kennedy...one of the most liberal senators in history...won the election going away...69-31.
In 2010...a republican not afraid to run on conservative values crashed the party.
I won't go so far as to claim it's a referendum on Pres.Obama...but ignoring the possibility is bad for democrats and good for republicans.
You can bet that those congressmen running for re-election this fall have taken a nervous peek at their hole card.
And his Budget
Corporate Bailouts
Bank Bailouts
Auto Bailouts
Now I realize that some of these were started under Bush, However Obama supported everyone one of them. So he is just as responsible.
Thus spake americanpatriot76.
Got a couple of questions. When you talk about all this money being handed out, do you mean the hundreds of billions of dollars in no-bid defense contracts? Or, perhaps, the hundreds of billions of dollars that went to Wall Street? Because, if you look at the numbers, you will discover that industry and corporate interests got the most money from the government over the last decade, and they vote Republican. The poor actually did less well under Bush than under Clinton, and have always done less well in terms of overall spending. The biggest outlays by the federal government have been to corporate welfare, always.
You're right about it being immoral to give billionaires bailouts and let poor people starve to death or die from lack of health care. It's trying to re-institute a nobility in America, something the founding fathers would doubtless disapprove of. Most of the 'massive spending' you are complaining about actually happened under the previous administration, who had a grand time looting this country and others for their greedy execudroid buddies.
Why don't you also blame the housing bubble collapse on poor people having a hard time paying back predatory lending, rather than putting the blame for that where it belongs, which is firmly with the banks and investment firms who saw a chance to get a little wealthier on the suffering of others and just couldn't pass it up. Why don't you blame Iraqi civilians for what bin Laden did while he was living in Afghanistan? Hey, and blame those who got tortured for their torture, as well. If they had just cooperated with Bush's thugs, and sworn to the lies they were told to, none of that unpleasant torture business would've even been necessary, right?
screaming racism. see You Tube.
You wrote:"White Americans increasingly believe that Obama has bankrupted the nation, and represents a threat to the founding principles"
so other non-white Americans believe otherwise? In fact, is it your contention that non-white Americans, when pressed, would be able to describe the founding principles? I think you have put forth a rather simplistic generalization of white americans here.
White voters, particularly white male voters, have been relatively hostile to the Democratic party for a while now. This is not new. But Fox News has touched a nerve among certain members of this demographic. And they've done it by lying REPEATEDLY about what the administration is doing, and about who caused problems like the budget deficit, the financial crisis, etc.
I'm not going to point fingers, but if you are accusing Fox of lying it better not be just because you don't agree with how they are covering Obama. Fox, unlike many other news outlets, does not praise or promote Obama blindly and they try to bring to light the things that he is doing that may endanger the country. Yes, they do lean to the right, but what other big name tv-news networks do? I don't believe I know of any. There needs to be a balance in the news coverage, but unfortunately there is not a balance: you cannot deny that the majority of the media in this country is left-leaning.
Also, I don't remember there being anything wrong with the left reporting misinformation on Bush, so why all of a sudden is it bad for Fox to try to expose the truth on Obama? This whole ordeal appears to be one-sided, don't you think?
Pl. keep it coming.
All three networks lean right, because they are corporate interests. Individual anchors may be liberal, but the overall tone of the news is conservative and always has been. 'Liberal media' is a myth, created for a political campaign, and about as believable as the jackalope.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the objections to Bush had actual basis in fact:
He DID lie about WMDs, and willfully.
He DID lie about torture.
He DID epically fail the city of New Orleans.
He DID hand over U.S. energy policy to big Oil.
He DID waste hundreds of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts.
He DID illegally invade a foreign country.
He DID illegally wiretap the entire nation.
As opposed to Obama, who is falsely criticized for:
Turning American into a Socialist country (not true)
Creating legislation with 'death panels' (not true)
Hanging out with radical marxist communist socialists (self contradictory and not true)
Taking over the health care industry (not true)
Taking over the auto industry (not true)
Taking over the banking industry (not true)
So, saying both sides do it, when one side lies and one side doesn't, is actually a bit one-sided, don't you think? No, you don't think. You listen to FOX Propaganda, and nod, and think you are informed. You are not. Information is not what FOX Propaganda is about.
Death panels? They just call them end of life counsuling. Socialists, Marxists,radicals Van jones, Bill Ayers And the Reverend Wright.
Health care, try Barney Frank saying that what we really want is single payer. Read that as "the Goverment".
The bigger the goverment the smaller the individual.
People were solidly opposed to invading Iraq. There were protests, and those protesters were called traitors, and worse, by FOX Propaganda among others. The government spied on protesters, infiltrating their organizations. There was a diplomat who spoke out against the invasion, and the Bush White House painted a target on his wife's back by outing her as a CIA agent. Does that ring any bells?
I saw that Chris Dodd’s wife is a board member of 3 pharmaceutical companies and one senior assistant company. I guess they were all benefiting for the healthcare bill. Is that why Chris Dodd dropped out the race?
22% of Massachusetts Dems voted for a so-called 'tea-bagger', 78% if unaffiliated voters did too, despite the nutroots nation and all of MSNBC demonizing everything about the Tea Parties. How can that be?
And why don't these nutroots loons acknowledge the huge upset victory that the Tea Partiers just pulled off in less than one full year of existence?
However, be careful what you wish for. The tea-baggers may rack up victories in 2010 by riding a wave of disenchantment and misinformation, but you reap what you sow. White anger will not win many more elections in America. The clock is ticking, and this type of scorched earth strategy has serious long-term implications for the Republican party. The younger generation, and the growing non-white population, will not soon forget what Republican politics is all about.
one out of how many?
And just so things are clear, I am white, but do not hate Obama. I respect any president as a person and have no basis of judgement for race, because race doesn't matter. However, I do not think Obama has the right policies in mind for bettering our country. I believe his agenda is going to worsen our country's status, but it's not because he's black. In regards to the tea party movement, what's wrong with wanting lower taxes and protesting higher taxes? I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want any more money coming out of my paycheck.
some outspoken blacks oppose obama and a lot of whites fawn over him. Sorry its not racial.
you are delusional.
Brown or Coakley could not have theoretically saved or doomed our country. Brown just joined the 40 + 1 Senators that were already trying to save our country.
TPMDC: Health Care Comes To Screeching Halt - Sen. Webb: No HCR Votes Until Brown Seated
Is it too much to expect even just a bit of objectivity here in these forums?
But please temm me, where do you see a lack of objectivity?
Dishonesty is certainly not a fault of MMFA. Trolls, on the other hand....
Taxes produce revenue for the government, but higher taxes are not the answer. It is proven that lower taxes bring in more revenue than higher taxes. Lower taxes allow businesses to hire more people, which in turn increases the amount of people paying taxes, therefore increasing the amount of tax revenue brought in to the federal government.
Higher taxes force businesses to lay off workers so that they can use the money that should have been for those peoples' salaries for the outrageous taxes. This could eventually lead to the closing of a business, which would then deprive the government of a taxable source, thus making them think they need to raise taxes yet again. This only results in bad economics.
If Obama follows the tax hike route, it is more than likely that this is what will happen, and it will definitely not make the "recession" any worse.
Let's pretend that she had campaigned hard and hadn't made the verbal blunders that she did. Almost any objective observer would agree that she would probably have won by double digits. That would have been accomplished without any change in her political positions or those of Brown. What that clearly shows is that there was a large portion of the MA electorate for whom personality meant much more than sending any message to the White House. It would be wrong to portray it in any large measure as a referendum on Obama.
Every time I hear an interview with an average voter who invokes the budget deficit, I want to puke. Where do you think they got the idea that the deficit is Obama's fault? Why hasn't Obama slammed the Republicans and the previous administration at every opportunity, and forced the Republicans to vote against financial reform at any time in the first year? Why didn't Obama recognize the nature of the Republican/Tea-Bagger scorched earth strategy, and fight hard against it earlier in his administration?
There is a lot of blame that falls on Coakley, this is true. But this would not even be possible if Obama had come out of the gate with guns blazing.
But, in the long view, perhaps this is exactly the elixir the Democrats needed. Complacency is no longer an option. It's time to hold the Republicans' feet to the fire. Hopefully that message has been heard in Washington.
I'd love to think you're right about this fostering a new determination on the part of Obama and the national Democrats, but I'm only guardedly optimistic. Jon Stewart had an excellent point. Republicans were better able to slam whatever they wanted through Congress with 50 members than the Democrats have been able to do with 59. It's preposterous. I accept that republicans vote more in lockstep than Democrats ever have or will, but there's got to be more to it than that. I just don't know what.
Coakley was never as popular as Obama, so it's ridiculous to use his vote level as a baseline for looking as Coakley's swing. The more honest way to examine it is by looking at her level of support before she began her self-destruction and that was just a little into double-digit territory. And at that point the voters already knew most of her positions. As you pointed out, she was already backing Obama's policies and still she held a large lead.
Voters have always voted more on perceived personality of their candidates than many people want to admit. They tell themselves they're voting on issues, but the swings we see in many elections when a candidate (of either party) becomes blunder-prone put the lie to that. It's certainly not all or even most voters, but it's a large enough minority to swing many elections.
They dont want foreign terrorists getting constitutional rights by idealist nophytes who as a reult will keep the next attack concealed until we all have an opportunity to attend funerals of a family member or of a friend.
My brothers nad sisters of Massachusets have fired the 2nd volley from Lexinton and Concord and it is greatly appreciated.
Be aware that you have allowed him the fifth and right now somewhere someplace one of his associates who is as a result unidentfied is or will be initiating an acton that will have horrific consequences. You sir and those like you own this preventable catastrophe. Enemy combatants have never had such benefactors.
Who cares about jail!!!!!!
Is that the scope of your thought process!!Jail. He had committed to die for his beliefs. Jail will be a reward for his actions. He'll be a poster boy for the extremest scum.
This low life has a resevoir of knowledge about who, when and where others of his Ilk discussed, trained and planned the death of our fellow citizens. By your teams actions he is now sitting and waiting for the carnege he knows is coming. My God guys we need to do what it takes to save the women and childern who are pending victims of his friends and comrades. This idealist non sence is the harbinger of future death and destruction of members or your and my familes. Enhansed interogation is a must Yes Water boarding. You'll progessively agree when it hits home!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's just a matter of time.
So when they have facilitators like MMfA telling them that it's the kitchen sinks fault they blew an election, and certainly not any referendum on their policies or their power in government, they do not do some much needed introspection and be honest about what really happened. Instead the spinners are out in full force pointing fingers at everyone and everything except themselves. Look at how the Republicans did in 2006 and 2008, arrogantly refusing to believe that Bush's train wreck was to blame so they bury their head in the sand, head down and plow through with the same stuff.
Of course this was a referendum on Obama and the Democrats nationally, all midterms or special elections have some element of that in them. Considering the national media covers them all with that as a component, how can anyone say it is purely local. It isn't. It never is.
The Democrats have a few months to center themselves and listen to what the public is concerned about. Stop blaming Fox News or focusing on the crap they put out and take an honest look at all this government quick fix to our problems as still being the answer. Obviously the mood is less government control and intrusive involvement, it is the natural "back-up" that we Americans have always had.
Obama and the Dems better stop blustering about stupid tea baggers and Rush Limbaugh, and listen to what election results tell them.
Just as I said, it's much easier to blame Fox than to reexamine policies. Keep doing it and the Dems will suffer big time in November.
And when political parties, in this case Democrats, wake up and face reality and stop blaming the messengers, they may figure out how not to be one term-ers.
I dont even watch fox...except bones
That is a tape-measure shot, for sure.
The partisan politicos on both sides never seem to get it...until the voters rise up and throw the bums out...and then the pendulum swings the other way until the incumbents arrogance causes another uprising...swinging the pendulum the other way again.
Meanwhile, nothing really gets done. Damn that other side.
I put the blame squarely on politician's shoulders. They have earned the cynicism and the mistrust, they pander and placate voters without telling us the absolute truth. So when they can't deliver, they blame and pander some more. It's no wonder the public has little patience anymore and change their minds on a dime.
Seriously, it's amazing to me that American voters could have such a short memory as to return Republicans to Washington less than two years removed from the worst economic calamity this country has seen in 70 years, which was predominantly hatched under Republican governance. Astounding. And there's only one organization with the megaphone to have pulled the wool over the eyes of a nation in this fashion. Hint: it's not the RNC.
Take a look at your policies, your inept dreadful Congressional leaders like Pelosi and Reid and stop whining like bratty children that your biggest obstacle in the world is an illegitimate crappy news network that is so obviously in the tank for Republicans that it is no surprise to anyone, anywhere, anymore.
I suppose I could also say: All it took was a year of the Democrats being in office and American voters all-ready want to go back to how crappy it was before this charade.
Unbeknownst to most Conservatives, they’ve been supporting the policies of a president, George W. Bush, which has been debatably one of the most Liberal figures in our history. To understand why President Bush is a Liberal, one must be enlightened on the precise definition of the word in the theoretical sense and where it’s rooted in political theory.
Its policy of nation-building and the Democratization process in Afghanistan and Iraq prove that the Bush administration is Liberal. No other figure in history has attempted such an international Democratization task which is the root principle of Liberal Theory.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
BUSH IS LIBERAL
Get it?