-
- Thu 16 May 11:00 PMBruins Open Thread
5
by jconway - Thu 16 May 10:58 PMPPP: Markey Up by 7
11
by johnk - Thu 16 May 7:37 PMHenry David T vs. Energy (Goliath) Enterprise
10
by mobeach42 - Thu 16 May 3:18 PMBernstein: Gomez using "Victory Fund" fundraising approach against which Mass. GOP railed
1
by fenway49 - Thu 16 May 3:15 PMSenate Ways & Means Budget for FY 2014
2
by massbudget - Thu 16 May 8:15 AMGomez Shopped Around and Rejected Lower Appraisals for his Shady Tax Deduction
5
by johnk - Wed 15 May 3:34 PMCool image from Minneapolis, MN
13
by mike_cote - Wed 15 May 7:58 AMA Call for Change in Boston Election Signature Collection and Qualification Rules
20
by martywalsh - Wed 15 May 6:19 AMYoung Democrats to honor Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Ellen Story, and activist Harmony Wu at Roosevelt After Dark fundraiser to support Emerge Massach
2
by jkleschinsky - Tue 14 May 5:53 PMTOP TEN New Gabriel Gomez Campaign Slogans...
0
by petr
- Thu 16 May 11:00 PMBruins Open Thread
paulsimmons
Person #2547: 54 Posts
Recommended: 302 times
In addition Boston's system is linked (0 Replies)
…with the Commonwealth’s Voter Registration Information System.
The required count, plus 20% is the Boston threshold (1 Reply)
For example, for Mayor, where the threshold is 3000 good signatures, Elections counts to 3,600.
It is time-consuming (1 Reply)
…but signature-checking can be done with off-the-shelf software like Access.
The City, of course has more sophisticated applications, like scanning and handwriting-recognition technology that cross-references signatures with those of file with the Registry.
But, to repeat, it’s still time consuming given the sheer number of municipal candidates this year.
Not a lot at all. (0 Replies)
As of March there were 388, 658 registered voters in the City of Boston.
If a candidate can’t get one percent of that total on their nomination papers, they have no business running for Mayor.
It's a matter of local option (0 Replies)
Unlike State elections, where a Party-affiliated or unenrolled voter can sign for as many of that Party’s candidates for a given office in a primary, Boston candidates in City preliminary elections have a first-come-first-served process, per City ordinance.
In other municipalities, it’s up to local government to decide the process.
The dangers of overconfidence (0 Replies)
…is why we got Brown in the first place.
One of the things I learned as a child (literally on my father’s lap) was, and I quote:
Dan, I'm not in the business of being anyone's disciple (1 Reply)
I respect Obama, but I also find it interesting that both he, and Clinton before him are self-identified conservatives.
I have differences – some major – with the policies of both Presidents, but neither dealt with bullshit sophistry. To the degree that progressives have their own problems with mirror-imaging, well that can wait for another post. Both Clinton and Obama were frank about their beliefs.
Both operated as nonsentimental conservatives – and Social Darwinists – and never pretended to do otherwise. Both lowered federal debt obligations as their major economic priorities.
And neither gives a damn about the welfare state.
Both presumed that self-deception on the Left would allow them to do so; all objective information to the contrary. Anyone who reads Obama’s books should know his beliefs.
Face it, Obama is patriotic, albeit ruthless; Reagan and his heirs were a bunch of parasites.
Anything by Higgins (0 Replies)
One of his more obscure books, but the one I like best is A Year of So With Edgar.
But Reagan didn't create a booming economy (1 Reply)
I really get tired of that myth.
To avoid grinding partisan or ideological axes, I submit for your consideration two books written in the immediate aftermath of the Reagan Administration by conservatives: The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips, who cited the increase in income inequaity during those years; and The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , by Reagan’s Director of Management and Budget, who explained the rise of the Free-Lunch Right.
What was created during those years was a hollow economy, based upon debt.
The politics of gun control don't work that way (1 Reply)
First and foremost there are sizable contingents within the Democratic Party that oppose confiscating firearms. I cited northern New England, but it holds true in States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, and others.
In addition there is an intensity gap where gun rights elicits more emotional support than gun control. (Background checks are an exception, because they appeal to common sense, and don’t threaten the perceived Constitutional right to possess individually-owned firearms.)
Gun rights supporters are more and better organized.
Arguments such as Christopher’s work to the advantage of the NRA, et al, because they play into the image – and fact – of progressive sanctimony that the NRA uses to frame issues. (Which is why the Parties are running even: There is an equilibrium of hostility that adversely affects both.) For what it’s worth, I know plenty of “smart” voters who have a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Finally, mass shootings do not translate into permanent organized support for gun control (again excepting background checks). The average voter does not feel personally affected after the shock wears off.
Fortunately for gun control supporters, the Republicans overplayed their hand in the matter of those background checks, to their tactical disadvantage. It does not translate, however into support for more stringent measures; and it’s not a given that even opposition to background checks will accrue to Democratic advantages in 2014.
No cognitive dissonance at all (0 Replies)
It depends upon one’s definition of gun control (see my response to Porcupine, above). Furthermore your generic statement about Democrats isn’t a truism, State-by-State.
There are sizable qualified gun rights Democratic constituencies in other States; in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to cite examples in New England. Background checks are considered common sense, not gun control in this context by the majority of these folks, but they’d go ballistic at the prospect of banning firearms.
Relative to those blaming Republicans (1 Reply)
..the ratio of blame accruing to Obama evens out. Nevertheless the semantics of the statement are awkward.
Furthermore the Bush comparison (circa 2005) is distorted by the fact that the recession was two-plus years in the future.
In my opinion what the poll shows (but does not address) is an environment of unfocused populism that benefits Obama, but has little (at present) in the way of coattails. Thus Republicans are disliked even by those who agree with them on the issues.
There are also matters of paradox and nuance that aren’t measured by Pew.
For example, but I would suggest that even those who are otherwise Second Amendment absolutists would tend to support background checks.
What he said. (0 Replies)
n/t
Local option (0 Replies)
n/t
I really wish that the media knew how to count votes (1 Reply)
…but that’s too much to expect from the Globe.
FWIW, its just a matter of checking the voting demographics of uncounted precincts; it’s not rocket science.
It's over: Forry wins. (2 Replies)
LINDA DORCENA FORRY 10214 (47.00%)
NICK COLLINS 9836 (45.26%)
MAUREEN DAHILL 1593 (7.33%)
Write-in Votes 87 (0.40%)
One precinct left, and here are the numbers: (0 Replies)
LINDA DORCENA FORRY 10168 (47.25%)
NICK COLLINS 9686 (45.01%)
The Forry lead expands…
First Suffolk, down to the wire: (1 Reply)
LINDA DORCENA FORRY 9994 (46.88%)
NICK COLLINS 9660 (45.32%)
MAUREEN DAHILL 1576 (7.39%)
Write-in Votes 87 (0.41%)
And Tito Jackson calls it for Forry:
First Suffolk, with 93% of ballots counted: (0 Replies)
NICK COLLINS 9449 (46.52%)
LINDA DORCENA FORRY 9259 (45.59%)
MAUREEN DAHILL 1520 (7.48%)
Write-in Votes 82 (0.40%)
Now for the important race: First Suffolk State Senate (0 Replies)
It’s sort of anticlimactic to obsess on the U.S. Senate race, when the drama is local.
79.2% of ballots counted:
NICK COLLINS 8566 (48.74%)
LINDA DORCENA FORRY 7575 (43.10%)
MAUREEN DAHILL 1366 (7.77%)
Write-in Votes 67 (0.38%)