paulsimmons

Person #2547: 59 Posts

Recommended: 401 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. The number of co-sponsors has gone up to 65 (0 Replies)

    Sponsors as of now include:

    Gifford, Peake, DiZoglio, Fox, Vieira, Hecht, Farley-Bouvier, McMurtry, Toomey, Vega, DiNatale, Turner, Provost, Brodeur, Straus, Cutler, Dave Rogers, Basile, Malia, Finn, Puppolo, Khan, Keenan, Keefe, Heroux, Gordon, Cariddi, Scibak, Cantwell, Madden, Balser, Livingstone, Andrews, Dykema, Ehrlich, Kaufman, Mark, Garlick, Swan, Smizik, Nangle, Hunt, Mannal, Fernandes, Frank Moran, Calter, Schmid, Chris Walsh, Decker, Benson, Canavan, Poirier, Roy, Sannicandro, Pignatelli, Ferrante, Stanley, Rushing, Jones, Ayers, Donato, Lindsky, Frost, Conroy, Parisella

  2. Let's not forget "Tommy" Menino (2 Replies)

    This bit of political linguistics is not limited to the State House.

    It is, however, “player-to-player” jargon. When used by “players” (as defined by players, which include personal friends in and out of politics) the usage is okay. When used by non-players diminutives show both presumption in general and lack of respect for the specific person.

    Not the best way to win friends and influence people in the Hall or the Hill.

  3. First come, first served is still the rule for Boston municipal elections... (0 Replies)

    …but Dems and unenrolleds can sign for as many Democratic candidates per office as they want in State, county, and federal elections.

    Of course the signers must remember to only sign papers reserved for their town of residence.

  4. Fast Track for TPP is now comatose (1 Reply)

    Harry Reid rejected Obama’s appeal to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership yesterday.

    Furthermore, polling data has the public opposed to fast-tracking the treaty by a margin of more than two-to-one:

    By more than two to one, voters say they oppose (62%) rather than favor passage of fast-track negotiating authority for the TPP deal. Among those with a strong opinion, the ratio climbs to more than three to one (43% strongly opposed, just 12% strongly favorable). Demographically, opposition is very broad, with no more than one-third of voters in any region of the country or in any age cohort favoring fast track. Sixty percent (60%) of voters with household incomes under $50,000 oppose fast track, as do 65% of those with incomes over $100,000.

    Given the populist base of the Tea Party, Obama can’t hope for corporate Republican support in the Senate. Per the poll linked above:

    While opposition is relatively uniform both geographically and demographically, the survey data reveals a sharp partisan divide on the issue. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

  5. Great possibility, but politically conditional. (0 Replies)

    From the Globe:

    …the projects outlined in the plan are dependent on current projections of state funding. If efforts are successful to repeal the automatic gasoline tax hikes in a November ballot question, the resulting lower tax revenue could derail some of the transportation projects.

    “Make no mistake,” Davey said, “if the ballot question passes in November, the capital plan will be scaled back.”

  6. I wouldn't worry about the robocalls (0 Replies)

    They have the political traction of glaze ice on a cold night when you’re driving on bald tires.

  7. Two more quotes from the Kadzis piece: (0 Replies)

    In terms of programs and policy, Linehan is a classic lunch-bucket Democrat out of the FDR, HST, JFK, and LBJ mold.

    and:

    Linehan is Old Boston because – despite being generally supportive of gay rights [emphasis added] – he continues to march in the shamelessly retrograde South Boston Saint Patrick’s Day Parade.

    If, as I hope, Michelle Wu’s support for Bill Linehan creates opportunities for alliances between progressives and economic populists at the grassroots level, this might be a new beginning for the City.

  8. True, so let's go to the next lowest (0 Replies)

    Ward 4, Precinct 10 in the Fenway, clocked in at 9.2%, with 77 votes. There were 840 eligible voters in the precinct.

  9. Boston is exempt from reprecincting (1 Reply)

    …plus turnout varies from precinct to precinct. In the November 5 Boston Mayoral Election, the turnout per precinct ranged from a low of 6.8% to a high of 73.8%.

  10. Amen (0 Replies)

    [We need] an increased sense among voters that voting is important and worth it. I’ve always believed this, even when I didn’t love the options, because someone will win and hold the office.

  11. The dynamics of governing are always different from the dynamics of campaigning (1 Reply)

    …as President Obama keeps learning. The dynamics of power don’t cease on the first Wednesday in November.

    Electoral dynamics lose precedence to institutional power after elections.
    Sometimes that power is in the hands of organized neighborhoods; more often it’s in the hands of private interests.

    In any system there are nonelected power blocs. In Boston, real estate interests and institutional nonprofits often take precedence over neighborhood concerns. Harvard has more power in Allston, and Northeastern University has more power in Roxbury than those neighborhoods’ respective residents.

    Furthermore high-information, high-turnout neighborhoods (West Roxbury comes to mind) always get more attention from municipal government, irrespective of their political preferences.

    Election results signify the (potential) beginnings of change. They are seldom change in and of themselves.

  12. The issue is not ratification (2 Replies)

    The election decided that. Neither “ratification” nor “nullification” enters into it. The issue is power dynamics in the post-election period.

  13. True, but that wasn't my point (1 Reply)

    In the Boston race, we had for all intents and purposes a Democratic civil war. Belief systems and neighborhood constituencies were at issue; the election was a contest between two Democrats in a nonpartisan race. My comment was purely in the context of Boston municipal elections and inflated expectations. I cited NYC turnout to reinforce my point.

    That said, I’ll attempt to address your comment in the context of national politics.

    You are correct that low turnout races can be spun as “mandates. The Chris Christie “landslide” was in the context of a 37.6% turnout, for example. The Virginia turnout was 43%.

    My concern – and at a time when the generic pro-Democratic Congressional preference is collapsing – is that serious, locally-based, community-accountable, neighbor-to-neighbor work is imperative.

    Furthermore, all partisanship aside, consistently low turnouts are bad for democracy, in and of themselves.

  14. The work has barely started (2 Replies)

    Lost in the give and take, triumphalism and sour grapes, etc. is the fact that we are talking about an extremely low turnout election. With a total turnout of 40.19% it’s way too early to act as if Mayor-elect Walsh can shift Boston’s civic culture all by himself.

    Ditto DeBlasio in NYC, which had the record low turnout in a Mayoral election.

    Boston will have a labor-populist Mayor, but it’s premature to equate the man with a movement.

    There’s still a lot of work to be done.

  15. Double oops! (0 Replies)

    Ward 15, Precinct 9 also went for Walsh (not surprisingly, given its Vietnamese population).

    Next time I’ll just ask David how to post a spreadsheet.

  16. Oops! (0 Replies)

    Ward 13, Precinct 9 and Ward 16, Precinct 6 went for Walsh. Both precincts’ Asian voters are primarily Vietnamese-American.

    Consistency triumphs. Including consistent typos on my part.

  17. Look at the City Unofficial Returns (1 Reply)

    The link is here (pdf).

    Below is a demographic sort of the top nine Asian precincts by voting-age-population percentage, with neighborhood designation and the winner within the precinct:

    3/8 Chinatown-Asian VAP 45.95% (Chinese-American) – C
    15/6 DOT/Savin Hill-Asian VAP 44.22% (Vietnamese-American) – W
    16/1 DOT/St. Mark’s-Asian VAP 35.80% (Vietnamese-American) – W
    5/1 South End-Asian VAP 29.70% (Chinese-American) – C
    16/3 DOT/St. Mark’s-Asian VAP 27.22% (Vietnamese-American) – W
    15/9 DOT/Fields Corner-Asian VAP 25.92% (Vietnamese-American) – C
    21/3 A/BU-Asian VAP 25.84% (Chinese-American) – C
    13/9 DOT/Columbia,Savin Hill-Asian VAP 25.49% (Vietnamese-American) – C
    16/6 DOT/St. Mark’s-Asian VAP 25.34% (Vietnamese-American)-C

    There is a Mission Hill precinct (Wd 10, Pr 2 – Asian VAP 24.65%) – which would be tenth on the list – that went for Walsh, where I’m not certain of the ethnic mix within the Asian communities; otherwise the pattern is consistent Citywide.

    FWIW, even when Asians are minorities within given precincts, their turnout rate is higher than non-Asians, irrespective of ethnicity.

  18. The Asian vote split by ethnicity (2 Replies)

    …with Chinese-Americans in going heavily for Connolly. Vietnamese-Americans going equally heavily for Walsh. Broadly speaking, the two communities are concentrated in different parts of Boston, with Chinese-Americans in the Northern precincts from Chinatown, Bay Village, Back Bay,the South End, and Allston-Brighton. The Vietnamese community tends to be in those precincts comprising Savin Hill, St. Marks, and Fields Corner in Dorchester.

  19. Bernstein also said (in the same article): (1 Reply)

    Is Boston catching Walsh fever? Often voters sense a candidate’s momentum and feel a pull to be part of it. Walsh certainly seemed like that candidate in the first half of October, but it’s these final days when it could really put him over the top.

    This can cut both ways.