The Real Reason Scott Brown Won

I was a bit frustrated last week, holed up in my hotel room on a business trip in North Carolina. I watched political pundits and supposedly well-versed, long-time Washington reporters tell us in a thousand different ways that last Tuesday's vote was a national referendum on universal health care and a rejection of the Obama agenda. (Can someone please tell me when the supposed and vaunted liberal media plan to show up? If last week's coverage was evidence of a liberal media, what would a conservative one look like?) It's always foolhardy to jump to early conclusions before the facts are in, though that's the peril of a 24-hour news cycle. It must be fed constantly, and the easiest thing to do is go with the flow. But here are some important findings from a special election polling down by the Washington Post, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health. While it is to be expected that those who vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat will approve less of President Obama and his policies -- which the survey found -- the findings do not support the knee-jerk conclusions being bandied about.

Some of the relevant findings: 61 percent of those who voted in the special election approve of Obama, along with 68 percent of non-voters; Brown supporters, by a wide margin, thought better of their candidate's leadership skills and personal qualities than the Coakley supporters thought of theirs; the health care reform happenings in Washington werea major factor for both Coakley and Brown supporters -- but mostly because they disapproved of the political process; 70 percent of Brown voters voted for him while 40 percent of Coakley voters cast votes against Brown -- in other words, Brown was a much more attractive candidate to his folks while Coakley's support was lukewarm, at best. Also, 52 percent of Brown voters said Obama was not a factor in their choice and most of Brown's voters voted for Sen. John McCain in the '08 presidential election, while most of Coakley's voted for Obama, this in a state where Obama won by a landslide and still has high approval ratings. Brown was not against universal health care coverage. He voted for the universal coverage in place in Massachusetts -- which remains highly popular, and Brown still supports it, and a bigger portion of his voters want Brown to work with Democrats to incorporate Republican ideas into the reform instead of simply killing the legislation. Many of Brown's supporters didn't like the political process or what they think is happening in Washington with health care -- even though many of the elements being discussed in Washington are in place in Massachusetts. They don't need what Washington is selling because it was already handled at the state level, with significant federal subsidies. If Obama and the Democrats run and hide because they only have 59 percent of the seats in the Senate and roughly 60 percent in the House, I would not cry if they were kicked out of office in November and 2012. Either they lead -- especially when it's tough -- or get out of the way. The bad thing about that, of course, is that would mean the party which has done little to fix our health care system will be back in control. And remember, the official GOP plan covered only an additional 3 million of the uninsured, which does next to nothing to solve the myriad problems our current system continues to rain down on this country.

Brown won because he was a better candidate with a better message, and national health care was a part of that equation, but not nearly as large a part as the chattering class would have you believe. The Democrats won big during the previous election cycles because of their ideas -- and because of the anger towards Republican stewardship -- and one of the most important of those ideas was tackling necessary health care reform. That has not changed because of one special election in our of our smaller states. Democrats would be foolish to see it in any other way.

Some of the relevant findings: 61 percent of those who voted in the special election approve of Obama, along with 68 percent of non-voters; Brown supporters, by a wide margin, thought better of their candidate's leadership skills and personal qualities than the Coakley supporters thought of theirs; the health care reform happenings in Washington werea major factor for both Coakley and Brown supporters -- but mostly because they disapproved of the political process; 70 percent of Brown voters voted for him while 40 percent of Coakley voters cast votes against Brown -- in other words, Brown was a much more attractive candidate to his folks while Coakley's support was lukewarm, at best. Also, 52 percent of Brown voters said Obama was not a factor in their choice and most of Brown's voters voted for Sen. John McCain in the '08 presidential election, while most of Coakley's voted for Obama, this in a state where Obama won by a landslide and still has high approval ratings. Brown was not against universal health care coverage. He voted for the universal coverage in place in Massachusetts -- which remains highly popular, and Brown still supports it, and a bigger portion of his voters want Brown to work with Democrats to incorporate Republican ideas into the reform instead of simply killing the legislation. Many of Brown's supporters didn't like the political process or what they think is happening in Washington with health care -- even though many of the elements being discussed in Washington are in place in Massachusetts. They don't need what Washington is selling because it was already handled at the state level, with significant federal subsidies. If Obama and the Democrats run and hide because they only have 59 percent of the seats in the Senate and roughly 60 percent in the House, I would not cry if they were kicked out of office in November and 2012. Either they lead -- especially when it's tough -- or get out of the way. The bad thing about that, of course, is that would mean the party which has done little to fix our health care system will be back in control. And remember, the official GOP plan covered only an additional 3 million of the uninsured, which does next to nothing to solve the myriad problems our current system continues to rain down on this country.

Brown won because he was a better candidate with a better message, and national health care was a part of that equation, but not nearly as large a part as the chattering class would have you believe. The Democrats won big during the previous election cycles because of their ideas -- and because of the anger towards Republican stewardship -- and one of the most important of those ideas was tackling necessary health care reform. That has not changed because of one special election in our of our smaller states. Democrats would be foolish to see it in any other way.