?

Log in

No account? Create an account
DT: come reap

preach it, mr. president.

Posted on 2010.27.01 at 22:08

Comments:


peacey at 2010-01-28 15:55 (UTC) ()
<...but that wouldn't make me vote for a sucky candidate.</i>

Well, degree of suckiness is subjective, of course, but it seems the majority of the Mass. electorate so opposed the direction the President and Congress are steering the nation that they rated "the candidate's leadership and personal qualities" only fifth on a list of what voters considered "extremely important" in who they chose to vote for. The list goes thus:

Health care reform efforts in Washington
The economy and jobs
The way Washington is working
The federal budget deficit
The candidates’ leadership and personal qualities
The Obama administration’s policies on terrorism suspects2
The government’s handling of banks and financial institutions
Taxes
Local and Massachusetts state issues

Based on the poll results, when asked which of those was the single most important factor in determining their vote, the list went thus:

Health care reform efforts in Washington
The economy and jobs
The way Washington is working
The Obama administration’s policies on terrorism suspects
The candidates’ leadership and personal qualities
The federal budget deficit
Local and Massachusetts state issues
The government’s handling of banks and financial institutions
Taxes

Entire poll can be found here. Very interesting stuff.
peacey at 2010-01-28 15:57 (UTC) ()
Ugh. Brassinfrackinwrackin' formatting.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 17:41 (UTC) ()
I think both candidates were pretty sucky. IMO, Coakley was the least sucky, which was one of the Dem's biggest problems with the campaign.

Of course, you realize that this is Massachusetts, which already has a state-run healthcare system, so the citizens really don't have to worry so much about changing the federal system.

The way Washington is working sucks, no matter how you look at it. Of course, it's always been like that. Or most of always. ;) And, sometimes doing the right thing www.megaupload.com/?d=403KQLRP
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 17:44 (UTC) ()
I think both candidates were pretty sucky. IMO, Coakley was the least sucky, which was one of the Dem's biggest problems with the campaign.

Of course, you realize that this is Massachusetts, which already has a state-run healthcare system, so the citizens really don't have to worry so much about changing the federal system.

The way Washington is working sucks, no matter how you look at it. Of course, it's always been like that. Or most of always. ;) And, sometimes doing the right thing ≠ doing the popular thing.

Interesting poll. I've read a little of it and will read more after I've had more coffee and checked the weather forecast (it's snowing again, wtf?).
Previous Entry  Next Entry