Person #2547: 116 Posts

Recommended: 704 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. Condolences for your loss (0 Replies)

    … and my thanks for all you’ve done on and for this site.

  2. You might also want to read this: (0 Replies)

    Who Will Tell the People by William Greider.

    All the more important now (given that it was written almost a quarter century ago), the book discusses how, in the aftermath of Democratic disinvestment from locally-organized grassroots politics, the result was what Greider called the Grand Bazaar and the emergence of “rancid populism” as a Republican tactic, the logical extension of which is the Trump candidacy.

    FWIW, one can chart Massachusetts-specific iterations even today in the Republican triumph-by-default in Worcester County.

    On a milder level, the same grassroots disinvestment by the DSC was Charlie Baker’s biggest political asset in 2014. Consider that one-half of Baker’s margin of victory in ’14 came from his increased support in Boston, relative to 2010.

  3. You made my point for me. (1 Reply)

    Precisely because referenda were options, pols in those States didn’t have to make tough (and potentially politically disadvantageous) decisions.

    The system worked.

  4. Sigh (1 Reply)

    Misunderstanding the quote and the context thereof is not “Trumpist”.

    Binary approaches – and I speak as a Clinton supporter – don’t help elect the Secretary.

    Like it or not, John’s beliefs are not uncommon, his issues are genuine, and the Clinton campaign is conspicuously incompetent in addressing this.

    I’m not giving the media a pass (Paul Krugman is correct about media hostility to the Secretary), but it occurs in a climate of political malpractice by her campaign.

  5. One problem with that assessment (1 Reply)

    A ballot question is not an ideal way to legalize pot, but Beacon Hill is not willing to engage in any kind of alternative and so must be punished (emphasis in original).

    Actually ballot questions reward inaction by the Lege by passing difficult issues to the electorate as a whole, thus absolving the polls from dealing with (politically) difficult issues.

    As such, IMHO they (in theory) increase initiative by, and accountability to, citizens as a whole. In fact they reward the work ethic and political skills of one side or the other, but such is life…

    I’m not condemning the electeds in this: Not everyone has the same political priorities, elected officials have to balance contending issues, and politics aren’t (and should not be) morality plays. For those reasons I consider the ballot question approach a useful safety valve, in light of the decline in organized statewide grassroots politics in Massachusetts.

  6. Interesting that you raised that point (0 Replies)

    …given that Trump is outspending Clinton online.

    Money quote, per Campaigns and Elections magazine:

    Assuming the numbers are correct, I’m honestly mystified by Clinton’s relative Internet abstinence, particularly because several of the audiences she most needs to reach now, including Millennials and the college-educated, are eminently targetable through digital channels.

    Her digital team is experienced and talented, and we can assume they’ve been advocating for a more aggressive digital outreach posture. My suspicion is that these resource-allocation decisions are being made at the top, perhaps by people who may not have entirely internalized the power of online outreach to connect with niche audiences.

  7. Homerism Defined (0 Replies)

    Per the Urban Dictionary

    In sportcasting, having a bias toward your hometown team or toward the team for which you play/used to play.

    The local newspapers practice homerism, predicting that the hometown teams will win and complaining about the refs when the local teams lose.

  8. CNN/ORC Poll (0 Replies)

    Released today:

    Just one point separates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in two states that are critical to both candidates’ chances of becoming president, according to new CNN/ORC polls in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

    In Colorado, likely voters break 42% for Trump, 41% for Clinton, 13% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 3% for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Pennsylvania’s likely voters split 45% for Clinton, 44% for Trump, 6% for Johnson and 3% for Stein. Those divides are well within each poll’s 3.5-point margin of sampling error.

  9. The Washington Post/ABC News poll states otherwise (1 Reply)

    The poll (released today) shows the race to be a dead heat, with the Clinton numbers evaporating, relative to her August lead.

    Money quote:

    Clinton’s critique is not shared by most Americans, with more than 6 in 10 saying it is unfair to describe a large portion of Trump supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities. Still, almost 6 in 10 say Trump is trying to win support by “appealing to people’s prejudices against groups that are different from their own.” That includes 46 percent who say that he is making such appeals strongly. When asked the same about Clinton, the public was split, with 45 percent saying she, too, is appealing to people’s prejudices, while 46 percent say she is not.

  10. Boston turnout is abysmal (0 Replies)

    …at 27,927 votes (7.0%) as of the six o’clock count.

    Cambridge 6:00 numbers are 9,443 (14.0%).

  11. Three words (1 Reply)

    Players count blanks.

    As you pointed out above, “blanks” are votes of no confidence, and believe me, above a certain threshold (depending upon the office). an uncontested candidate becomes a weak incumbent.

  12. Yes and no. (1 Reply)

    Yes, laborers have to be organized, but given the size of the U.S. economy, we need to reindustrialize; specifically, we need more value-added manufacturing, as in Canada, where:

    Manufacturing is the major source of productivity growth in the Canadian economy.

    I mention in passing that Canada’s middle class has a higher after-tax income than we do in the U.S.

  13. Kareem Abdul-Jabarr addressed this issue in the WP (0 Replies)

    I quote:

    During the Olympics in Rio a couple of weeks ago, Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Sam Kendricks was sprinting intently in the middle of his pole vaulting attempt when he heard the national anthem playing. He immediately dropped his pole and stood at attention, a spontaneous expression of heartfelt patriotism that elicited more praise than his eventual bronze medal. Last Thursday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose not to stand with his teammates during the national anthem. To some, Kendricks embodies traditional all-American Forrest Gump values of patriotism, while Kaepernick represents the entitled brattish behavior of a wealthy athlete ungrateful to a country that has given him so much.

    In truth, both men, in their own ways, behaved in a highly patriotic manner that should make all Americans proud.


    What makes an act truly patriotic and not just lip-service is when it involves personal risk or sacrifice. Both Kendricks and Kaepernick chose to express their patriotism publicly because they felt that inspiring others was more important than the personal cost.

  14. Or Confederate States (contiguous with unseceeded Union States) (1 Reply)

    …where there was a critical mass of pro-Union sentiment. Tennesee comes to mind…

  15. Barr is bigger and more powerful. (0 Replies)

    …and is arguably much more militantly pro-charter school than TBF.

    A useful overview can be found here.

  16. Actually your biggest threat comes from the philanthropic Left (1 Reply)

    Specifically the Boston Foundation.

    The role of the Barr Foundation in this was addressed earlier on this site.

    As can be seen here and here, TBF supports increased charter schools, and given the activist community’s dependence upon their resources for funding (and the lack of credible opposition on the ground in the Commonwealth’s urban communities as I write this) …

  17. The Apollo One disaster happened during a testbed operation. (0 Replies)

    …but broadly, it took from 1961 to 1969 to engineer the means for the first Moon flight; and three programs: Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.

    That being the case, both you and Christopher are right.

  18. Let's agree to disagree (1 Reply)

    …since we have different frames of reference on this.

    Prior to the Khan speech at the Democratic Convention, Trump’s actions accrued to his political advantage; and hence were rational. It was the specific target of Trump’s contempt, not the action per se that caused the backfire.

    In the absence of a son who gave his life for his country, attacking the Khans would have worked. Because the decision to attack was rational and fit Trump’s history of rational and successful exploitation of fear and bigotry (and since I’m not licensed to practice psychiatry), I’ll forego playing games with the DSM, and call it as I see it.