Person #2547: 82 Posts

Recommended: 572 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. I'm a little confused here. (0 Replies)

    From the Wakefield Observer:

    According to unofficial results from temporary Town Clerk Rosemary Morgan, Kate Morgan received 1,142 votes, Tiro 982 and Iengo-Cook 842.

    The 2010 Census indicated that Wakefield had a population of 20,942, of whom 19,154 were twenty years old or older.

    Given the low turnout, why was there no GOTV for the progressive candidate?

  2. Nope (0 Replies)

    …I’m pretty confident it is doomed and now it’s all about face saving.

    They’re still in heavy-duty denial, building cloud castles with air bricks.

  3. Rent control in Somerville was abolished in 1979 (1 Reply)

    The only places left were Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge.

    In 1994, there was a Statewide referendum, Question 9, which abolished rent control in those municipalities, despite local support. Interestingly, the three adversely affected cities opposed the referendum, which passed with 51% of the vote.

  4. Thanks for that (0 Replies)

    I was only familiar with the first meaning of the term.

  5. Then you might like this bill filed by Sen. Pacheco (0 Replies)

    Below is a partial quote from S1786:

    (e) Said subsection (b) of said section 7 of said chapter 21 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the last sentence the following sentences:- “All revenue derived from said economy-wide price on carbon shall be placed into a Clean Energy and Transportation Fund. 20 percent of the fund shall be used for public transportation and energy projects which will reduce carbon emissions and help Massachusetts transition from fossil fuels. The remaining revenue shall be returned to all Massachusetts residents through a revenue rebate program established by the Department of Revenue.

  6. Let me address these points in order given: (0 Replies)

    Point 1: I was not presuming guilt on Tierney’s part; I was thinking in terms of public perception. When a spouse and brother-in-law (in Frank’s case a romantic partner) are involved in a scandal, there are matters of guilt by association that Frank addressed competently and Tierney didn’t. The results were a sympathy bounce for Frank and negative public perceptions for Tierney.

    Point 2: There is a tendency on the part of Massachusetts Congressional Democrats to presume a static electorate, ignore creating permanent on-the-ground organizations, and overemphasize media at the expense of field operations. It must be remembered that Tierney had no primary opposition in 2012, so that specific cycle is irrelevant to my point. However, in the absence of an organized support base (as defined by the Barney Frank rule), Moulton’s media campaign was sufficient to the task in 2014.

    Had Tierney spent some time in 2011 – 2013 creating a town, ward, and precinct organization loyal to him in MA06, and created halfway effective voter ID and GOTV operations,the 2014 results might have been different.

    So, while we can debate whether or not Tierney had good political instincts, I submit to you that he had limited political skills, based upon the only criterion I care about: getting re-elected.

  7. I think you were caught defending against an apples and oranges argument (1 Reply)

    The political demographics of the Fourth and Sixth Districts are sufficiently different that one really can’t compare Frank’s and Tierney’s political traction in ideological terms.

    The difference was that Barney Frank was politically competent and Tierney was not, when it came to dealing with a political crisis. The 1989 Gobie scandal could have ended Frank’s career, but by addressing the issue and admitting fault Frank saved his seat.

    However, I think Barney Frank’s District in 1989 was on the whole more tolerant and forgiving than the Sixth Congressional in 2014.

    One of my favorite Barney Frank quotes – paraphrase actually – defined one’s base as “those people who are with you when you’re wrong”. By that definition, Tierney had an insufficient base.

    Granted, it was Tierney’s wife and brother-in-law who were at fault in the gambling scandal that crippled him, but Tierney handled the matter in such a sloppy fashion that guilt by association was inevitable.

    While a case can be made concerning who was the more progressive of the two in the abstract, the argument is irrelevant insofar as their respective political survival is concerned – except in the unsentimental sense that Barney Frank was a better politician, relative to his District.

  8. Re: Will Keyser (0 Replies)

    is the Will Keyser you identify as Baker’s guy the same one of that name who was once Marty Meehan’s chief of staff on Capitol Hill?


  9. My point was that the power to enforce "our standards" with the IOC (1 Reply)

    …is slim to none, particularly in light of the near-total absence of pre-bid research and analysis on the part of Olympics supporters.

    The organizational culture of the International Olympics Committee operates on the premise that “what’s yours is mine; what’s mine’s my own”.

    This is as good a metaphor for Boston 2024 as any.

  10. Christopher, the IOC doesn't give a rat's ass (1 Reply)

    ..about the “most prestigious” such race in the country.

    What they care about are (in equal amounts) are governmental subsidies, revenue from broadcast rights, and perks for their members including (but not limited to) dedicated traffic lanes for IOC officials.

    What we’re seeing is little more than vanity politics in support of corporate welfare.

  11. I'm not saying that it's impossible to sway Moulton (0 Replies)

    I am stating, however, that it will require some serious and systematic bottom-up organizing.

    I am also saying that it is unfair to Senator Warren presume that she should attempt to do the job that in-District progressives should do for themselves.

  12. Not to rain on anyone's parade (2 Replies)

    … but Scott Brown won the MA06 Congressional District by a comfortable margin in 2012 ( 53.62% – 46.38%).

    Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have much in the way of grassroots political leverage within the District insofar as Congressional politics are concerned.

  13. Rubio is extremely unpopular with Latino electorates (1 Reply)

    From Latino Decisions (April 10, 2015):

    Net Negative with National Latino Electorate: This past November we asked 4,200 Latinos who voted in the 2014 midterm elections whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Rubio. Nationally, only 31 percent had a favorable view (12 percent “very favorable, and 19 percent “somewhat favorable) while 36 percent hold an unfavorable opinion of the Senator (22 percent “very unfavorable, and 14 percent “somewhat unfavorable”), a net of -5. Should Rubio become his party’s nominee, the campaign would need to engage in substantial Latino-specific outreach as we find that one-third of Latino voters had either never heard of Rubio (13 percent), or had no opinion (20 percent).

    And in states with Latino critical masses:

    Net Negative in Key Latino-influence States, Including Florida: At the state level, the trend is not much different. In competitive states where Latinos comprise a significant share of the active and eligible electorate, Rubio’s numbers remain in negative territory. In his home-state of Florida — where Latinos are a critical component to this famously competitive state– Rubio’s favorables reach only 39 percent, compared to 42 percent unfavorable; a -3 net result. Similarly, his unfavorable share is just over 40 percent in North Carolina and Nevada — two states where Latino voters have played a decisive role in recent elections. Since nearly half of all Latino voters reside in Texas and California, it is important to consider Latino political behavior in these two states, regardless of the level of party competition. The large number of Latino voters in California and Texas means that Latinos can have an impact on the party primary. Rubio is at a net -11 in California, and flat in Texas (net zero with 31 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable). In both states, nearly 40 percent do not know of, or have no opinion of Rubio.

  14. The Lottery is intentionally regressive. (1 Reply)

    I remember reading some years ago (and I’d appreciate it if someone could source it for me) that Massachusetts had the highest increases in gambling addiction of all fifty States, and that the premise of the Lottery’s advertising was to expand that base of addicts.

    Similar premises were behind the push for casino gambling, because “people like us” don’t go to casinos or the towns where they’re sited, and most of my contacts at the State House had no problem with that fact (including staffers for “progressive” elected officials).

    The Commonwealth “fills the neighborhoods of the desperately poor” with Lottery outlets as a matter of conscious policy, because those neighborhoods constitute the bulk of their market. The classic case is the placement of Lottery windows next to the cash counters at check cashing services.

    We have to come to terms with the fact that overt, aggressive, and militant class bigotry is hard-wired into Massachusetts public policy.

  15. The Harvard Crimson is also structurally independent (0 Replies)

    The contact information for news tips at Harvard’s student newspaper is:

    Madeline R. Conway
    (617) 576-6600 ext. 213

  16. A caution: Demographics aren't destiny (0 Replies)

    …and politics aren’t static.

    I’ve seen the “New Generation” paradigm played before.

    What does not exist – and hasn’t existed for more than forty years – is competent outreach and organizing on the Left. The result is a lot of unfocused populism out there that benefits the Right because, in all too many cases, their operatives and activists are the only ones embedded, and hence credible, on the ground.

    Furthermore, it is dangerous to mirror-image one’s own political attitudes.

    Case in point: Anti-progressive sentiment on the part of a majority of black Chicagoans (as well as the legacy of thirty years of black-Latino tensions) was a major factor in Rahm Emanuel’s victory this past Tuesday.

    Insofar as your last sentence is concerned: As a baby-boomer, deriding another generation for selfishness would be a case of pot meeting kettle, and I try to avoid overt hypocrisy.

  17. Alas, that's an exercise in magical thinking (2 Replies)

    The data indicate that when attitudes are cross-referenced by race, the premise of “the most progressive generation of our time” tends to break down.

    I would remind you that a majority of white male millennial voters supported Romney in 2012. Per Pew:

    Only 44% of white voters under 30 backed Obama, while 51% voted for Romney.


    Overall, 53% of Millennials favor a bigger government providing more services. But white Millennials prefer smaller government by 52% to 39%. Non-whites would rather have a bigger government by an even larger margin (71% to 21%)

    Finally, insofar as racism is concerned, there is little difference between white millennials and their parents.

    When it comes to explicit prejudice against blacks, non-Hispanic white millennials are not much different than whites belonging to Generation X (born 1965-1980) or Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964). White millennials (using a definition of being born after 1980) express the least prejudice on 4 out of 5 measures in the survey, but only by a matter of 1 to 3 percentage points, not a meaningful difference.

  18. The moral case shouldn't be confused with the economic reality (1 Reply)

    Back in January 2014 Matthew Yglesias wrote a good thumbnail analysis, wherein he pointed out that divestment would have no real effect on the petrochemical industry, and that conflating fossil fuel divestment with the anti-apartheid movement is specious. Nevertheless he supported fossil fuel divestment on moral grounds:

    Making these kinds of campaigns the centerpiece of a movement against climate change would be a mistake. But despite the economic realities, as a complementary effort—and especially as something student activists are well-positioned to do—divestment campaigns make a lot of sense.

  19. The Silver Line is only free on that route (0 Replies)

    SL4 (Dudley Square – South Station) and SL5 (Dudley Square – Downtown Crossing fares) are $1.60 with a Charlie Card and $2.10 with cash/Charlie Ticket.

    With the Charlie Card there is one free bus transfer and discounted subway fare. With the ticket, there is one free bus transfer only, and no transfer for cash payments.