A lot are saying this is very bad for Tolman. Maybe that’s true, but I would have guessed Healey would get really strong showings in urban areas and be a bit weaker in southern and central MA. We’ll see.
jarstarsays
I expect Healey’s numbers to be rout-like. I can’t speak for central MA, but out here in the Valley, she has had an enormous presence. I haven’t seen a single Tolman sign. I think Tolman did a walk around with the Mayor of Northampton last week but mostly there’s no sense it’s a two-candidate race.
cossays
Tolman will end up winning a small handful of cities and towns, while in a larger number of cities and towns Healey will have over 60%. The rest will be Healey wins by less than 20 points.
doublemansays
Her campaign was great, but I thought Tolman’s experience and labor machine would have helped a lot.
The machine helps bring out turnup, more than change people’s opinion, and turnup targeting is not a very exact science. So bringing up turnup is more effective in a candidate stronghold. Otherwise, you risk turning up voters for the opponent. That may explain why Mayor Walsh machine-made calls were not as helpful in Boston, where they did make thousands of calls for Tolman, as reported on WBUR.
oceandreamssays
…if he thought having two white guys in the race was wise since it split that special interest demographic
BillMcCannsays
In Springfield, Eric Lesser leads with 61% Senate First Hampden Hampshire 11% reporting (wwlp.com).
HeartlandDemsays
has Tim Allen (D) Springfield leading:Massachusetts –
22 of 54 Precincts Reporting – 41%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Allen, Timothy Dem 1,743 57%
Lesser, Eric Dem 755 25%
Harrington, Chip Dem 395 13%
Saunders, Aaron Dem 133 4%
Lachiusa, Thomas Dem 55 2%
HeartlandDemsays
By the last minute Longmeadow rally to put Lesser in the victory seat. Eric upset what appeared to be an Allen upset.
JimCsays
At 9:01
blueinsaugussays
Tierney down to Moulton 41% to 50%…..
….many places yet to be counted, including Lynn, Salem, and Peabody
cossays
Based on the early results available so far, it looks almost certain that Maura Healey will win for AG, and very likely that Goldberg gets Treasurer.
HeartlandDemsays
Two exceptionally bright, capable, Progressive women!
I expect that Cambridge is not in (unless they’ve changed for this time) and that would likely be a really big area for Sullivan.
I still think “neither” should have taken that race, though.
JimCsays
n/t
JimCsays
Meghna Chakrabarti @MeghnaWBUR 1m
BREAKING .@johntierney_MA just gave exactly what sounds like a concession speech without using the word. #mapoli #ma6
drikeosays
Berwick has 43,266 with 38.5% reporting. Baker has 40,781 with 31.4% reporting.
johnksays
that’s the question. No Republicans showed up, there was nothing to vote for, forget the totals today.
drikeosays
There just aren’t that many of them. Charlie doesn’t inspire much in the way of enthusiasm. Today’s vote totals also don’t indicate he’s got a GOTV operation of any quality.
As for your % question between Berwick and Fisher, I can’t think of a single reason why that would matter.
johnksays
don’t kid yourself.
johnksays
shows that Mark freakin Fisher did a better job than Berwick reaching out to his base today.
drikeosays
The turnout in the two races makes them two different beasts. Plus, Coakley and Grossman both actively courted the liberal base of the Dems. Baker didn’t spend an ounce of energy going after Tea Party types. Fisher proves 25% of Republican primary voters in MA will pick a lunatic. That’s about it.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Berwick ran a poor campaign. You’ve got to do a lot more be a walking set of position papers to move Dem primary voters.
kbuschsays
Berwick significantly outperformed his polling. That’s a sign that the campaign did indeed do an excellent job with GOTV.
I think some of my disagreement with Berwick partisans has been over how much canvassing can accomplish in a campaign of this nature. The election results, to my mind, show something near the upper bound of what one can accomplish with an active ground game. I think the more starry-eyed among us thought it could land one’s candidate an extra 20% not an extra 6%.
Canvassing can certainly have other indirect benefits: it can build a corps of volunteers and identify progressives for future elections. I hope those benefits come to be realized.
*
One should remember that, even in Massachusetts, there are a lot of “entertainment” conservatives listening as I write or you read to Fox News or talk radio or navigating to any number of red red red websites. There are a lot of such conservatives for whom Mr. Baker’s moderation and centrism are anathema. It’s amazing Mark f. Fisher didn’t get a larger share of the GOP vote.
fenway49says
Berwick didn’t outperform his polling any more than Grossman. The undecideds just settled on someone, someone not named Coakley.
drikeosays
Republicans secretly love Charlie Baker. So much that they don’t turn out for him in a contested primary and largely keep mum about him. Also, he’s saving up that killer GOTV operation for the general. It’s so good in fact he doesn’t even need to test it.
Or maybe he’s got no particular groundswell and is counting on the folks who generally vote Republican in governor’s races and for the true indies to break his way.
liamdsays
n/t. Looks like Moulton is our nominee.
merrimackguysays
Yowzaa
JimCsays
Don’t put “Breaking” on your election night tweets. We know.
jconwaysays
A newcomer takes on an established candidate and beats them handily. We should be happy the anti-Tierney vote was strong enough to sink him in the primary so that we can beat Richard Tisei with a fresh face. Still some questions I’d like to ask Seth, and a lot of lessons to be learned. I think we will likely see Ryan and Healey triumph in their races for similar reasons.
Also looks like there is a Grossman surge, and this is a lot closer than it looks. Berwick doing surprisingly well.
JMGreenesays
62/37 with 52% in.
JimCsays
48% reporting.
JimCsays
n/t
doublemansays
The polls.
Close races were blowouts, blowouts were close.
kbuschsays
not voting for Grossman.
JimCsays
He didn’t get your vote. Everyone had the same shot at it.
jotaemeisays
As he’ll be conceding in a second, so will I.
The progressive block should have united. It’s for this same reason that it’s so difficult to get new progressives on to city councils. They split the vote.
jotaemeisays
n/t
JimCsays
This isn’t a football game. It’s an election. For the candidate it’s about winning, but for voters, it’s about choosing. You voted for who you wanted. Thank you for voting.
On to November. Unless Steve has a late surge … in which case, on to November.
kbuschsays
You’re saying we should use some pieces of knowledge but not others in deciding who to vote for. It’s kind of like buying a washing machine but deciding to only pay attention to features and to ignore reliability data.
JimCsays
Didn’t you start this by saying the polls were wrong?
It’s unknowable — even Nate Silver would concede that, I think, with turnout this low. You vote based on what you know and what you WANT. Strategizing based on the next race is a good way to drive yourself crazy.
kbuschsays
The polls, for example, were completely accurate about the order in which the gubernatorial candidates placed. GOTV can pull up tallies by 5% to maybe even 10%. Clearly, that benefited Grossman and Berwick.
But that’s also my point about washing machines.
Reliability is never perfectly knowable but only an imprudent buyer would ignore such information.
JimCsays
I submit that the kind of handicapping we do, on every race, skews us. We sweat over electability more than whose platform (or history) we like best. F that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that just becomes more and more narrow.
For example: in 2007, the conventional wisdom was that the eventual entry of Fred Thompson would shake up the GOP presidential field dramatically. Some voters undoubtedly avoided committing to other candidates because Big Fred was coming. When he came, he sank like a stone.
Granted, polls are more accurate than that sort of speculation. But the point is the same. Had Fred Thompson had a real issue that excited GOP voters, he’d have done better. Instead it was like he believed he didn’t need one.
kbuschsays
I’m certainly not saying forget issues. I’m just saying use all the information.
GOP primary voters in 2007 certainly had an interesting collection of candidates to choose from. And today, I make an exception from my usual practice of using “interesting” as a compliment. It’s not clear if Republicans would have come up with a lunatic superior to Senator McCain if only they hadn’t been waiting for Fred Thompson. Moreover, in contests like that, there’s also a wide difference between potential and actual candidates: potential candidates can be the collection of incompatible hopes; actual candidates not so much.
By contrast, Coakley, Grossman, and Berwick had been campaigning since spring. The polling was pretty steady. I suspect that the only way in which the polling fell short was in underestimating the effect of GOTV. So maybe I could have deduced that Grossman was going to do much better than I thought.
JimCsays
But it’s unknowable. 🙂
So stop beating yourself up. You voted. In November, you get to vote again.
kbuschsays
till your good is better and —
JimCsays
n/t
kbuschsays
is its best.
fenway49says
You could have posted in JANUARY about how this would play out and been right. Unknowable? I don’t think so.
johnksays
Yes, it is about choice and a vote for the Berwick vanity campaign was a choice to F-over Democrats.
A choice to have a nut job like Polito and her positions in a place with higher authority and impact. Un-be-freakin-lievable.
So aggregated right now.
JimCsays
… voted for Berwick because he was pretty.
It was based on issues, John. Issues matter to primary voters. Nobody knows that better than Steve Grossman, who I was proud to support.
To say anything else — What made it a vanity run? He didn’t deserve it? — is simply un-democratic.
But perhaps I should shut up, and we should resume this tomorrow. Re: the analogy, winning is important, but it’s not the only thing. Had Steve been further from Martha, he would have won more Berwick voters. But he didn’t — he ran true to himself, and he lost. Viva democracy.
johnksays
that’s all.
Have a good night.
kbuschsays
The national loss in 1980 has had terrible effects with which we’re still living. It was the beginning of income inequality growing.
I don’t think we’re just Democrats in the way that some people prefer Burgundies and others Bordeaux. We’re Democrats because we think the difference from Republicans matters and it matters enough to want to win elections and to care about making sure we win elections. It’s not like, “oh rats, I lost that argument and have to watch an hour of bad reality TV.” It’s wealth and poverty, environment and pollution, fairness and discrimination.
JimCsays
Let’s stay on topic. I may have been led us off by invoking winning.
Like I said, way back in July, anyone in this field can beat Baker.
Therefore, we should vote for who we want.
I stand by that, even though my guy lost. If you feel differently, I really see no point in convincing you otherwise. You’re just going to tell me I’m contradicting myself. I am not, and I can link to prove it.
kbuschsays
Weld’s victory was part of what gave us 16 years of Republican governors.
My point is that winning elections is pretty important. You seem to have difficulty accepting that and its consequences.
*
To get all philosophical here, this is sort of like a replay of a debate between utilitarian ethics (me) and virtue ethics (you).
JimCsays
Utilitarian ethics aren’t good enough. The status quo has too much control over the definition of utility. I thought we supported change?
Utilitiarian ethics say “Single payer won’t pass,” “This isn’t the right time” and stuff like that. I’m getting too old to wait for these things.
kbuschsays
That’s really not a correct understanding at all.
JimCsays
Motive consequentialism
Another consequentialist version is motive consequentialism which looks if the state of affairs that results from the motive to choose an action is better or at least as good as each of the alternative state of affairs that would have resulted from alternative actions. This version gives relevance to the motive of an act and links it to its consequences. An act can therefore not be wrong if the decision to act was based on a right motive. A possible inference is, that one can not be blamed for mistaken judgements if the motivation was to do good
That summarizes my point as well as I could. (I guess you win, in that that definition comes from utilitarian ethics.) So maybe I am utilitarian, but my bad for assuming the meanings.
But this is beside the point. My point stands: we all did what we thought was right. Fine by me.
fenway49says
The cite is inexpertly written but I think it says you can’t go wrong if, and only if, the downside of going with choice B is no worse than the downside of going with choice A. In that case, why not?
That is not, I think, what we have here.
kbuschsays
“utilitarian” and “ethics” don’t have a special meaning when used in combination.
JimCsays
Mistake noted above.
petrsays
I don’t think we’re just Democrats in the way that some people prefer Burgundies and others Bordeaux.
… nobody really “prefers’ a Burgundy: it’s more an outcome of poor breeding, a second rate education and possibly the result of excess pressure on the fontanelle during early childhood. How else you gonna explain it? (He says, sipping a very nice Montelpulciano in place of the Bordeaux he can’t afford because all the rich SOB’s inflate the prices, buy it all up and don’t drink it… Bastards!)
So, there’s that… You got any other analogies, perhaps??
jotaemeisays
I still voted for Berwick. We wound up getting a candidate that neither one of us wanted.
A few days ago, people were arguing over math. One person responded that even if all Berwick supporters voted for Grossman, Coakley would still come out on top. Well, with 99% of precincts reporting (and there’s no telling how many only left the house to vote for a specific candidate but would have stayed in otherwise), or that 1/2 of Grossman supporters wouldn’t go for Coakley, but…:
Grossman and Berwick combined netted ~308 k while Coakley received ~226.5 k
She got a plurality, not a majority, and in yet another broken part of our American political system, we don’t have follow up 2-person run-offs in most of our elections, something that can be found more easily in other countries.
So, I’m thinking the “vote your heart” philosophy makes sense intuitively as we think idealistically as how a system *would work if it worked as it probably should*, but that we may not be able to accept that until our system operates in such a fashion, perhaps we should think strategically, even in primaries. Can we say who the spoiler was here? Is a spoiler just someone who got under 5% or is it the system when we have to weigh these values of voting our idealism and voting about our likely future?
jotaemeisays
This was probably posted here, but according to this poll reported on in the Globe last month, just 28% of Grossman voters say they’ll vote for Coakley in the general, while 48% will bolt and vote for Baker.
Hopefully that 48% will reconsider now that it is no longer a hypothetical.
jotaemeisays
Hillary Clinton urged the PUMAs in 2008 to vote for Obama.
Christophersays
Grossman made it very clear last night that we all need to get behind Coakley. As a former state and national party chair I’m sure he sees any other option as unthinkable.
cossays
The people who were really right were those of us who campaigned for instant runoff voting, and we need to do it again. The MA Democratic party as a whole has been hostile to the idea, and this kind of mess is entirely the party’s fault.
As for whether the Grossman or Berwick folks were right about strategic voting in this election, that’s debatable. To begin with, Grossman isn’t even close to as progressive as Berwick. Secondly, I’d guess a majority of people whose priority was defeating Coakley went with Grossman, which means a majority of Berwick’s votes were from people who specifically wanted Berwick, not “anyone but Coakley”.
JimCsays
n/t
jconwaysays
I knew what, no matter what result he got, he’d get 3rd, so I was sort of hoping he or Grossman wouldn’t be close enough for the spoiler narrative to take hold. In my case, had I been eligible to vote, I’d have voted for Berwick. No sense not voting for your first choice if your second choice is wrong on an a few issues of significant importance to you.
Christophersays
I believe since primaries are a state affair here it is a law rather than party rule that would have to change.
jotaemeisays
If it were just Grossman and Coakley, I would have voted for Grossman.
If there were IRV, I’d like to believe that many Berwick fans would rate him as 1 and Grossman as 2, resulting in making Grossman the winner.
IRV and EDR should be top priorities.
jconwaysays
According to AP.
He got blown out good. Congratulations to Maura Healey our next Attorney General on a well run, well flight, and successful first time campaign. A good night for first timers do far. Looks like Deb Goldberg will win her race as well, and handily at that.
sabutaisays
I’m looking at the results from my little union-thug-in-a-red-region perspective trying to find a common thread that would cause a voter to vote Coakley/Kerrigan/Goldberg/Healey It’s not experience, or any policy position I can find. What unites these four? I get that this is an additive process and there aren’t too many people who voted those four. But if we’re going to play “what did the electorate say?” I’m having trouble finding an answer.
jotaemeisays
As far as the rest of them, they’re not who I voted for.
cossays
One common thread is that in all three contested races in which a woman was running, she won.
jotaemeisays
Hillary Clinton’s got an incredibly high approval rating, including from Democrats while grassroots, more activist Democrats can’t stand her, see her as an opportunist, are opposed to her hawkish positions on war. Why exactly for the large difference of support? Well, I have my guesses.
jotaemeisays
To many on the Left, Elizabeth Warred is a hero, while to your run-of-the-mill Democrat, they want Hillary Hillary Hillary in the White House. Warren polls in the single digits.
jconwaysays
Outsiders versus insiders, women vs. old boys network. Moulton and Healey were fresh faces beating long time insiders who had questionable ethics and were rusty campaigners. Ryan had a similar victory over Sullivan, largely a ‘stick with the devil I know’ kind of election there. And Goldberg was also a woman who wasn’t an elected official, unlike her two male opponents, and was able to portray herself as warm but competent.
I guess Kerrigan is the aberration here, he had no presence on social media or on BMG, and nearly all the activists I know were backing Cheung or Lake. But he managed to get the right people to come out for him in the right places, is also a first time candidate, and is openly gay and active in the LGBT community. So a bit of a combination.
Coakley successfully portrayed herself as outside of that establishment, and it didn’t help that most of it rallied to Grossman. Grossman is the real loser of tonight, had he campaigned the last two months like he had the last two weeks he might’ve won.
JMGreene says
by 40%-36%-23% with 5% reporting.
JimC says
Per Boston.com, at 8:52
doubleman says
I think a decent amount has been from Boston, where some larger pockets for Grossman and Berwick might be expected.
JimC says
But percentages are holding.
doubleman says
Good coverage here.
A few minutes ago:
A lot are saying this is very bad for Tolman. Maybe that’s true, but I would have guessed Healey would get really strong showings in urban areas and be a bit weaker in southern and central MA. We’ll see.
jarstar says
I expect Healey’s numbers to be rout-like. I can’t speak for central MA, but out here in the Valley, she has had an enormous presence. I haven’t seen a single Tolman sign. I think Tolman did a walk around with the Mayor of Northampton last week but mostly there’s no sense it’s a two-candidate race.
cos says
Tolman will end up winning a small handful of cities and towns, while in a larger number of cities and towns Healey will have over 60%. The rest will be Healey wins by less than 20 points.
doubleman says
Her campaign was great, but I thought Tolman’s experience and labor machine would have helped a lot.
I’m happy, though. Healey is great.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
The machine helps bring out turnup, more than change people’s opinion, and turnup targeting is not a very exact science. So bringing up turnup is more effective in a candidate stronghold. Otherwise, you risk turning up voters for the opponent. That may explain why Mayor Walsh machine-made calls were not as helpful in Boston, where they did make thousands of calls for Tolman, as reported on WBUR.
oceandreams says
…if he thought having two white guys in the race was wise since it split that special interest demographic
BillMcCann says
In Springfield, Eric Lesser leads with 61% Senate First Hampden Hampshire 11% reporting (wwlp.com).
HeartlandDem says
has Tim Allen (D) Springfield leading:Massachusetts –
22 of 54 Precincts Reporting – 41%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Allen, Timothy Dem 1,743 57%
Lesser, Eric Dem 755 25%
Harrington, Chip Dem 395 13%
Saunders, Aaron Dem 133 4%
Lachiusa, Thomas Dem 55 2%
HeartlandDem says
By the last minute Longmeadow rally to put Lesser in the victory seat. Eric upset what appeared to be an Allen upset.
JimC says
At 9:01
blueinsaugus says
Tierney down to Moulton 41% to 50%…..
….many places yet to be counted, including Lynn, Salem, and Peabody
cos says
Based on the early results available so far, it looks almost certain that Maura Healey will win for AG, and very likely that Goldberg gets Treasurer.
HeartlandDem says
Two exceptionally bright, capable, Progressive women!
JimC says
https://twitter.com/gintautasd
doubleman says
Yeah, I was surprised to see that.
I expect that Cambridge is not in (unless they’ve changed for this time) and that would likely be a really big area for Sullivan.
I still think “neither” should have taken that race, though.
JimC says
n/t
JimC says
drikeo says
Berwick has 43,266 with 38.5% reporting. Baker has 40,781 with 31.4% reporting.
johnk says
that’s the question. No Republicans showed up, there was nothing to vote for, forget the totals today.
drikeo says
There just aren’t that many of them. Charlie doesn’t inspire much in the way of enthusiasm. Today’s vote totals also don’t indicate he’s got a GOTV operation of any quality.
As for your % question between Berwick and Fisher, I can’t think of a single reason why that would matter.
johnk says
don’t kid yourself.
johnk says
shows that Mark freakin Fisher did a better job than Berwick reaching out to his base today.
drikeo says
The turnout in the two races makes them two different beasts. Plus, Coakley and Grossman both actively courted the liberal base of the Dems. Baker didn’t spend an ounce of energy going after Tea Party types. Fisher proves 25% of Republican primary voters in MA will pick a lunatic. That’s about it.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Berwick ran a poor campaign. You’ve got to do a lot more be a walking set of position papers to move Dem primary voters.
kbusch says
Berwick significantly outperformed his polling. That’s a sign that the campaign did indeed do an excellent job with GOTV.
I think some of my disagreement with Berwick partisans has been over how much canvassing can accomplish in a campaign of this nature. The election results, to my mind, show something near the upper bound of what one can accomplish with an active ground game. I think the more starry-eyed among us thought it could land one’s candidate an extra 20% not an extra 6%.
Canvassing can certainly have other indirect benefits: it can build a corps of volunteers and identify progressives for future elections. I hope those benefits come to be realized.
*
One should remember that, even in Massachusetts, there are a lot of “entertainment” conservatives listening as I write or you read to Fox News or talk radio or navigating to any number of red red red websites. There are a lot of such conservatives for whom Mr. Baker’s moderation and centrism are anathema. It’s amazing Mark f. Fisher didn’t get a larger share of the GOP vote.
fenway49 says
Berwick didn’t outperform his polling any more than Grossman. The undecideds just settled on someone, someone not named Coakley.
drikeo says
Republicans secretly love Charlie Baker. So much that they don’t turn out for him in a contested primary and largely keep mum about him. Also, he’s saving up that killer GOTV operation for the general. It’s so good in fact he doesn’t even need to test it.
Or maybe he’s got no particular groundswell and is counting on the folks who generally vote Republican in governor’s races and for the true indies to break his way.
liamd says
n/t. Looks like Moulton is our nominee.
merrimackguy says
Yowzaa
JimC says
Don’t put “Breaking” on your election night tweets. We know.
jconway says
A newcomer takes on an established candidate and beats them handily. We should be happy the anti-Tierney vote was strong enough to sink him in the primary so that we can beat Richard Tisei with a fresh face. Still some questions I’d like to ask Seth, and a lot of lessons to be learned. I think we will likely see Ryan and Healey triumph in their races for similar reasons.
Also looks like there is a Grossman surge, and this is a lot closer than it looks. Berwick doing surprisingly well.
JMGreene says
62/37 with 52% in.
JimC says
48% reporting.
JimC says
n/t
doubleman says
The polls.
Close races were blowouts, blowouts were close.
kbusch says
not voting for Grossman.
JimC says
He didn’t get your vote. Everyone had the same shot at it.
jotaemei says
As he’ll be conceding in a second, so will I.
The progressive block should have united. It’s for this same reason that it’s so difficult to get new progressives on to city councils. They split the vote.
jotaemei says
n/t
JimC says
This isn’t a football game. It’s an election. For the candidate it’s about winning, but for voters, it’s about choosing. You voted for who you wanted. Thank you for voting.
On to November. Unless Steve has a late surge … in which case, on to November.
kbusch says
You’re saying we should use some pieces of knowledge but not others in deciding who to vote for. It’s kind of like buying a washing machine but deciding to only pay attention to features and to ignore reliability data.
JimC says
Didn’t you start this by saying the polls were wrong?
It’s unknowable — even Nate Silver would concede that, I think, with turnout this low. You vote based on what you know and what you WANT. Strategizing based on the next race is a good way to drive yourself crazy.
kbusch says
The polls, for example, were completely accurate about the order in which the gubernatorial candidates placed. GOTV can pull up tallies by 5% to maybe even 10%. Clearly, that benefited Grossman and Berwick.
But that’s also my point about washing machines.
Reliability is never perfectly knowable but only an imprudent buyer would ignore such information.
JimC says
I submit that the kind of handicapping we do, on every race, skews us. We sweat over electability more than whose platform (or history) we like best. F that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that just becomes more and more narrow.
For example: in 2007, the conventional wisdom was that the eventual entry of Fred Thompson would shake up the GOP presidential field dramatically. Some voters undoubtedly avoided committing to other candidates because Big Fred was coming. When he came, he sank like a stone.
Granted, polls are more accurate than that sort of speculation. But the point is the same. Had Fred Thompson had a real issue that excited GOP voters, he’d have done better. Instead it was like he believed he didn’t need one.
kbusch says
I’m certainly not saying forget issues. I’m just saying use all the information.
GOP primary voters in 2007 certainly had an interesting collection of candidates to choose from. And today, I make an exception from my usual practice of using “interesting” as a compliment. It’s not clear if Republicans would have come up with a lunatic superior to Senator McCain if only they hadn’t been waiting for Fred Thompson. Moreover, in contests like that, there’s also a wide difference between potential and actual candidates: potential candidates can be the collection of incompatible hopes; actual candidates not so much.
By contrast, Coakley, Grossman, and Berwick had been campaigning since spring. The polling was pretty steady. I suspect that the only way in which the polling fell short was in underestimating the effect of GOTV. So maybe I could have deduced that Grossman was going to do much better than I thought.
JimC says
But it’s unknowable. 🙂
So stop beating yourself up. You voted. In November, you get to vote again.
kbusch says
till your good is better and —
JimC says
n/t
kbusch says
is its best.
fenway49 says
You could have posted in JANUARY about how this would play out and been right. Unknowable? I don’t think so.
johnk says
Yes, it is about choice and a vote for the Berwick vanity campaign was a choice to F-over Democrats.
A choice to have a nut job like Polito and her positions in a place with higher authority and impact. Un-be-freakin-lievable.
So aggregated right now.
JimC says
… voted for Berwick because he was pretty.
It was based on issues, John. Issues matter to primary voters. Nobody knows that better than Steve Grossman, who I was proud to support.
To say anything else — What made it a vanity run? He didn’t deserve it? — is simply un-democratic.
But perhaps I should shut up, and we should resume this tomorrow. Re: the analogy, winning is important, but it’s not the only thing. Had Steve been further from Martha, he would have won more Berwick voters. But he didn’t — he ran true to himself, and he lost. Viva democracy.
johnk says
that’s all.
Have a good night.
kbusch says
The national loss in 1980 has had terrible effects with which we’re still living. It was the beginning of income inequality growing.
I don’t think we’re just Democrats in the way that some people prefer Burgundies and others Bordeaux. We’re Democrats because we think the difference from Republicans matters and it matters enough to want to win elections and to care about making sure we win elections. It’s not like, “oh rats, I lost that argument and have to watch an hour of bad reality TV.” It’s wealth and poverty, environment and pollution, fairness and discrimination.
JimC says
Let’s stay on topic. I may have been led us off by invoking winning.
Like I said, way back in July, anyone in this field can beat Baker.
Therefore, we should vote for who we want.
I stand by that, even though my guy lost. If you feel differently, I really see no point in convincing you otherwise. You’re just going to tell me I’m contradicting myself. I am not, and I can link to prove it.
kbusch says
Weld’s victory was part of what gave us 16 years of Republican governors.
My point is that winning elections is pretty important. You seem to have difficulty accepting that and its consequences.
*
To get all philosophical here, this is sort of like a replay of a debate between utilitarian ethics (me) and virtue ethics (you).
JimC says
Utilitarian ethics aren’t good enough. The status quo has too much control over the definition of utility. I thought we supported change?
Utilitiarian ethics say “Single payer won’t pass,” “This isn’t the right time” and stuff like that. I’m getting too old to wait for these things.
kbusch says
That’s really not a correct understanding at all.
JimC says
That summarizes my point as well as I could. (I guess you win, in that that definition comes from utilitarian ethics.) So maybe I am utilitarian, but my bad for assuming the meanings.
But this is beside the point. My point stands: we all did what we thought was right. Fine by me.
fenway49 says
The cite is inexpertly written but I think it says you can’t go wrong if, and only if, the downside of going with choice B is no worse than the downside of going with choice A. In that case, why not?
That is not, I think, what we have here.
kbusch says
“utilitarian” and “ethics” don’t have a special meaning when used in combination.
JimC says
Mistake noted above.
petr says
… nobody really “prefers’ a Burgundy: it’s more an outcome of poor breeding, a second rate education and possibly the result of excess pressure on the fontanelle during early childhood. How else you gonna explain it? (He says, sipping a very nice Montelpulciano in place of the Bordeaux he can’t afford because all the rich SOB’s inflate the prices, buy it all up and don’t drink it… Bastards!)
So, there’s that… You got any other analogies, perhaps??
jotaemei says
I still voted for Berwick. We wound up getting a candidate that neither one of us wanted.
A few days ago, people were arguing over math. One person responded that even if all Berwick supporters voted for Grossman, Coakley would still come out on top. Well, with 99% of precincts reporting (and there’s no telling how many only left the house to vote for a specific candidate but would have stayed in otherwise), or that 1/2 of Grossman supporters wouldn’t go for Coakley, but…:
Coakley, Martha 226,488 42%
Grossman, Steve 194,737 36%
Berwick, Don 113,204 21%
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2014/by_state/MA_Page_0909.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS
Grossman and Berwick combined netted ~308 k while Coakley received ~226.5 k
She got a plurality, not a majority, and in yet another broken part of our American political system, we don’t have follow up 2-person run-offs in most of our elections, something that can be found more easily in other countries.
So, I’m thinking the “vote your heart” philosophy makes sense intuitively as we think idealistically as how a system *would work if it worked as it probably should*, but that we may not be able to accept that until our system operates in such a fashion, perhaps we should think strategically, even in primaries. Can we say who the spoiler was here? Is a spoiler just someone who got under 5% or is it the system when we have to weigh these values of voting our idealism and voting about our likely future?
jotaemei says
This was probably posted here, but according to this poll reported on in the Globe last month, just 28% of Grossman voters say they’ll vote for Coakley in the general, while 48% will bolt and vote for Baker.
https://twitter.com/jotaemei/status/505816813360668672
Christopher says
Hopefully that 48% will reconsider now that it is no longer a hypothetical.
jotaemei says
Hillary Clinton urged the PUMAs in 2008 to vote for Obama.
Christopher says
Grossman made it very clear last night that we all need to get behind Coakley. As a former state and national party chair I’m sure he sees any other option as unthinkable.
cos says
The people who were really right were those of us who campaigned for instant runoff voting, and we need to do it again. The MA Democratic party as a whole has been hostile to the idea, and this kind of mess is entirely the party’s fault.
As for whether the Grossman or Berwick folks were right about strategic voting in this election, that’s debatable. To begin with, Grossman isn’t even close to as progressive as Berwick. Secondly, I’d guess a majority of people whose priority was defeating Coakley went with Grossman, which means a majority of Berwick’s votes were from people who specifically wanted Berwick, not “anyone but Coakley”.
JimC says
n/t
jconway says
I knew what, no matter what result he got, he’d get 3rd, so I was sort of hoping he or Grossman wouldn’t be close enough for the spoiler narrative to take hold. In my case, had I been eligible to vote, I’d have voted for Berwick. No sense not voting for your first choice if your second choice is wrong on an a few issues of significant importance to you.
Christopher says
I believe since primaries are a state affair here it is a law rather than party rule that would have to change.
jotaemei says
If it were just Grossman and Coakley, I would have voted for Grossman.
If there were IRV, I’d like to believe that many Berwick fans would rate him as 1 and Grossman as 2, resulting in making Grossman the winner.
IRV and EDR should be top priorities.
jconway says
According to AP.
He got blown out good. Congratulations to Maura Healey our next Attorney General on a well run, well flight, and successful first time campaign. A good night for first timers do far. Looks like Deb Goldberg will win her race as well, and handily at that.
sabutai says
I’m looking at the results from my little union-thug-in-a-red-region perspective trying to find a common thread that would cause a voter to vote Coakley/Kerrigan/Goldberg/Healey It’s not experience, or any policy position I can find. What unites these four? I get that this is an additive process and there aren’t too many people who voted those four. But if we’re going to play “what did the electorate say?” I’m having trouble finding an answer.
jotaemei says
As far as the rest of them, they’re not who I voted for.
cos says
One common thread is that in all three contested races in which a woman was running, she won.
jotaemei says
Hillary Clinton’s got an incredibly high approval rating, including from Democrats while grassroots, more activist Democrats can’t stand her, see her as an opportunist, are opposed to her hawkish positions on war. Why exactly for the large difference of support? Well, I have my guesses.
jotaemei says
To many on the Left, Elizabeth Warred is a hero, while to your run-of-the-mill Democrat, they want Hillary Hillary Hillary in the White House. Warren polls in the single digits.
jconway says
Outsiders versus insiders, women vs. old boys network. Moulton and Healey were fresh faces beating long time insiders who had questionable ethics and were rusty campaigners. Ryan had a similar victory over Sullivan, largely a ‘stick with the devil I know’ kind of election there. And Goldberg was also a woman who wasn’t an elected official, unlike her two male opponents, and was able to portray herself as warm but competent.
I guess Kerrigan is the aberration here, he had no presence on social media or on BMG, and nearly all the activists I know were backing Cheung or Lake. But he managed to get the right people to come out for him in the right places, is also a first time candidate, and is openly gay and active in the LGBT community. So a bit of a combination.
Coakley successfully portrayed herself as outside of that establishment, and it didn’t help that most of it rallied to Grossman. Grossman is the real loser of tonight, had he campaigned the last two months like he had the last two weeks he might’ve won.
liamd says
n/t.
liamd says
AP about to call.