|
|
|
|
So, How Important Was
ObamaCare to the Outcome of Last Night's Elections?
Part Three of Four By Dave Andrusko Talk about cutting to the chase. From the Hill.com's HealthCare blog this morning, "Democrats who voted for their party's signature domestic achievement dropped like flies throughout the evening, adding credence to Republicans' claim that the American public wants them to repeal healthcare reform."
NRLC commissioned a poll that very thoughfully asked people how both the abortion and rationing components of ObamaCare played into their vote. You will read about that in Part Two. But the results found by the polling company for NRLC was not the only demonstration of this important fact. Earlier this morning GOP pollster Bill McInturff released "The Impact of the Obama Health Plan on the 2010 Elections?," a poll of 1,000 voters, which carefully deconstructed the impact of a wave of advertising against ObamaCare. He did so in several ways, beginning with comparing the change in impact from a poll taken a month ago to one taken last night, and also by focusing on how that influenced 100 "Target House Seats" (more about that below). In a nutshell people saw the political ads and were sending a message of opposition to ObamaCare with their votes. From the Executive Summary, first the recognition factor… "1. Health care reform was very much a key part of the debate this election with nearly seven in ten voters (69%) saying they have seen, read, or heard a Congressional candidate advertising on the topic of 'the changes to the health care system that have been enacted by Congress and the Obama Administration.' This is up significantly from the 42% recall in our October pre-election survey. "2. The health care advertising could not be clearer to those respondents who recall seeing it in terms of message: 70% say the ad was in opposition to the Obama plan, 8% in support, with another 20% of voters saying they recall advertising on both sides of the issue." And voters not only recognized what the ads were saying, their votes were against ObamaCare. "3. This election was a clear signal that voters do not want President Obama's health care plan. Nearly half (45%) of voters say their vote was a message to oppose the President's plan, while 28% said it was a message in support. This opposition is higher among Independents and voters in the 100 target House seats." Among seniors, 47% said their vote was a message in opposition to ObamaCare to only 28% who said it was in support. Among Independents 52% said their vote was sending a message of opposition to only 18% in support of the Obama health care plan. What were the aforementioned "Target House Seats"? Those were "the 100 House races that the Cook Political Report had as Toss up, Lean Democrat, or Lean Republican as of October 28, 2010 and represents 23% of the country." What happened there? In those target house seats a whopping 51% said their vote was a message opposing ObamaCare to only 20% saying it was a message in support. The voters spoke clearly last night. They not only elected many more pro-lifers, they also made it clear that ObamaCare must go. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
The
public's rejection of ObamaCare was crucial to the turnaround
last night which will increase pro-life strength in the House by
around 50 seats and at least five in the Senate. The elections
will be spun by many as being driven almost entirely by concerns
about the fragile economy, but that misses the overwhelming
evidence that opposition to President Obama's "health care plan"
was a powerful force.