Reminds me of the old, unanswerable question: if you hold an election rally, but none of the people there can vote, did it really happen?
kathysays
And of course, today the news lead off with Brown and his ‘thousands’ of supporters in Worcester. Then they showed Obama stumping for Coakley. So an empty suit who the media loves trumps a sitting president.
somervilletomsays
The Massachusetts media audience has always been racist. It’s the reason why Willie Horton played so well here. It’s the back-story for most of the talkshow hate-mongers. The news media are desperate for cash and desperate for ratings.
<
p>President Obama is black. Scott Brown is white. What do you think Scott Brown is telegraphing when he says “I drive a pickup truck”, and to whom? I don’t think this is about transportation, gas mileage, or utility. This is uglier tribal sh*t.
<
p>Martha Coakley is a pawn in this game. An important 7th-rank pawn in the end-game, I grant you, but a pawn nevertheless.
<
p>This is about who we are and who we want to be.
bostonshepherdsays
Massachusetts media audience = racists. Yes, sir, every last one of them. No one is excluded. They’re all racists.
<
p>Scott Brown’s pickup truck … yep, a tribal, racist metaphor if I’ve ever seen one.
<
p>If you don’t vote for Coakely, you’re a racist. But wait, she’s white, isn’t voting for her racist?
<
p>I don’t like chocolate milk, Tom, am I a racist? Where can I go to get away from racism?
<
p>Tom, are you a racist?
christophersays
I don’t know where you get the idea the state is racist on the whole. Willie Horton was a national ad; Dukakis did just fine in 1988 in his own state. Barack Obama won our electoral votes handily and I highly doubt losing to Clinton in the primary had anything to do with race. Deval Patrick won comfotably in 2006 and Edward Brooke was the first state AG in the country AND the first popularly elected black US Senator in the country. I take exception to these comments.
kathysays
It’s a different voting generation, and those voters that are racist tend to NOT vote Democratic.
somervilletomsays
Massachusetts has its racism (and sexism) today, just as it has in the past. Today’s GOP is far more shameless in pandering to it then the conservative movement (both Democratic and Republican) of the 80s.
<
p>Scott Brown and the GOP are pandering to the most base, most tribal instincts of scared and insecure white men. There are lot of them, and the media pick it up accordingly. This is the “good-old boy” game, as its been played since at least the civil rights era.
<
p>If you think this isn’t breaking along race and gender, go take another look at these crosstabs from the BMG poll:
p>Whether we talk about them or not, the splits are real and the underlying attitudes that provoke them are real. We saw the same thing when the Cambridge Police perp-walked Henry Louis Gates away from his own home.
<
p>I didn’t say Scott Brown is a racist or sexist; I have zero clue what is racial or gender attitudes are. I said he is pandering to racism and sexism. He (and too much of the Boston media) is pandering to the same audience that Rush Limbaugh seeks with his offensive comments about Haiti.
<
p>Surely we can agree that the curling-iron comment was sexist. He heard it, he chuckled, and said “we can do it.” If that isn’t pandering to misogynistic attitudes, what would be?
<
p>Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are in the hate-game for the money. Do you think it’s accidental that they choose to play to racist and misogynist stereotypes?
christophersays
…and frankly your crosstabs don’t say a whole lot. I don’t doubt that there is and will be a gender gap or race gap in the polls. There often are such gaps, but that’s not what you said. You called a large swath of the population racist and there’s a huge difference. This reminds me too much of the 2008 Democratic primary where I felt like as a white man I ran the risk of being called sexist if I didn’t support Clinton or racist if I didn’t support Obama. It turns out I supported Clinton on her own merits but at the time wanted Obama as VP. If this race is turning out to be white men for the Republican then that’s just par for the course in recent years and does not have to suggest anything really sinister. I’d also prefer a direct cite of Brown saying something racist or sexist himself rather than resorting to guilt by association.
somervilletomsays
Christopher, I invite you to re-read the comment I’m responding to and that we are therefore talking about (emphasis mine):
And of course, today the news lead off with Brown and his ‘thousands’ of supporters in Worcester. Then they showed Obama stumping for Coakley. So an empty suit who the media loves trumps a sitting president.
<
p>We are talking about the media and its apparent love for the rightwing, and that conversation most certainly does include Rush Limbaugh.
<
p>You wrote:
If this race is turning out to be white men for the Republican then that’s just par for the course in recent years and does not have to suggest anything really sinister.
<
p>Excuse me?
<
p>Predicate: If this race is turning out to be white men for the Republican
<
p>Consequent: then that’s just part for course in recent years
<
p>I think you just agreed with me. Just how is that predicate followed by that consequent not racist?
<
p>We have live video of the following exchange: Male Scott Brown Supporter: Shove a curling iron up her butt. Scott Brown: pause and smile We can do this.
<
p>That disgusting call-and-response stark is enough evidence of sexism for me. You apparently disagree.
<
p>The Massachusetts media, the national GOP campaign, its national spokesperson Rush Limbaugh, and its local Scott Brown counterpart are each playing to a Massachusetts audience. The crosstabs (they aren’t “my” crosstabs, by the way, they are from the BMG poll sponsored by the editors) support the stark racial divide in the respondents.
<
p>The White population is split 46/45. The Black population is split 86/4 and the Hispanic population 63/11.
<
p>I hear that you don’t want to talk about it. You acknowledge the stark racial gap in the polls. You agree that such gaps are frequent. It sounds to me as though you reject my conclusion because it is uncomfortable, rather than because it is false.
somervilletomsays
It’s really too bad these comments can’t be edited after being posted.
<
p>I meant “par for the course” and “is stark enough evidence…”
<
p>Sorry for my carelessness.
christophersays
So yes they play up the tightness of what should be a walk for Democrats and they find the most controversial aspects and comments to focus on – just ask Rev. Wright. Some also see their job as presenting a false balance. If this race were going the way a lot of us thought it would there would be no story and the media wouldn’t want that.
<
p>I still think you’re overgeneralizing way too much. It really does sound like you’re saying that any white man who votes for a Republican is automatically a racist or sexist or at least legitimately exposes himself to those suspicions. I completely reject that. As much as you (or I) may disagree it’s perfectly legitimate for a white man or anyone else to vote Republican because he wants lower taxes and less government, he prioritize a strong national defense over social welfare, or he does not believe health reform proposals are appropriate. None of those opinions is inherently racist or sexist. Again I’m not denying the statistics from the polling; in fact I’m not the least bit surprised. I do absolutely reject your conclusion as false and frankly on the MLK holiday it’s worth pointing out that I don’t think he would demonize all white men like that even if they voted a different way on an issue not directly related to civil rights than he would.
somervilletomsays
I fear you are putting words in my mouth.
<
p>I do not argue that “any white man who votes for a Republican” is automatically a racist. My contention is that there are enough racist white men who do vote their prejudice that both the Republican party and the national media pander to them.
<
p>The Democratic Party rejected racism in the immediate aftermath of the 1968 convention. It lost its traditional lock on the South when it did so, and the GOP eagerly offered itself to those disaffected southern racists. The GOP welcomed the segrationist former-Democrats with open arms. Have you forgotten Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond? The GOP has moved progressively rightward since then, and has become progressively more blatant in its pandering to the most base elements of our culture — including our racists and misogynists.
<
p>The racist message of the media and the GOP has been thinly veiled during the campaign of President Obama and after his election. The recent comments of Rush Limbaugh did not come out of the blue, and they did not repulse his audience.
<
p>I haven’t demonized “all white men”, I have observed that too many white men in Massachusetts are racist and that too many GOP politicians and media directors pander to them. I have my own speculations about what MLK might have had to say (I regret that he is not here to say them), and you have yours. Perhaps we would best leave it at that.
christophersays
I’m also not quite as ready as you are to throw Scott Brown into the same category as Jesse Helms. Republicans elected in this state who have been those who could pass as Democrats in a lot of places: Weld, Cellucci, Swift, Brooke, even the 2002 incarnation of Romney. When Weld was up for Ambassador to Mexico a “man on the street” said on camera, “Well, I hear Jesse Helms doesn’t like him so to me that means he’s probably all right.” I suspect he speaks for a lot of Bay Staters.
somervilletomsays
Scott Brown is the current Senate candidate of the same GOP that was proud to claim Senator Jesse Helms. The same GOP that allows Rush Limbaugh to be its national spokeperson.
<
p>Sorry Christopher, but Scott Brown has thrown himself into the same category. The video evidence is all around you.
<
p>It sounds to me as though you’re “not quite as ready” to admit the obvious facts of just who Scott Brown and the GOP really are.
christophersays
…then we should have nothing to worry about tomorrow. If I’m proven wrong then it will be very scary indeed.
somervilletomsays
I hope we are able to laugh a nervous laugh tomorrow night (or Wednesday morning) and then begin to gather our strength for what promises to be a grueling, harsh, and passionate campaign.
bostonshepherdsays
I called 30 out-of-state college, graduate school, and business pals, and got many of them to contribute. One guy from Colorado I think donated the federal maximum ($2,400,) and his wife too!
<
p>I note in your photos handmade Scott Brown signs. What’s that mean? The Brown campaign RAN OUT OF SIGNS! That’s enthusiasm.
<
p>While union members had to be told to attend Coakely rallies, regular folks are flocking to Brown events on their own steam. The enthusiasm is palpable. Even from out of state.
<
p>Scott Brown for President?
throbbingpatriotsays
And unlike his staff, I don’t think this move was just to dodge providing health insurance:
The Brown campaign is hiring scores of paid temp workers from temp agencies to help staff Brown’s get-out-the-vote effort, work that’s typically handled by unpaid volunteers, a Massachusetts temp agency tells me. […]
Diamond Staffing, a temp agency in central Massachusetts, circulated an email to other temp agencies telling them that they are sending temp workers to the Brown campaign in response to the campaign’s request. The email asked other agencies to send their own workers, according to Joe Asciotti, the president of Reliable Temps, an agency in Agawam.
The text of Diamond Staffing’s email soliciting Brown workers from other agencies read as follows, Asciotti tells me:
“Workers will be supporting candidate Scott Brown (Republican) by handing out pro-Brown literature or asking people to vote for him. Workers do not need to be Republican. However, they must perform the job of supporting Scott Brown.”
patricksays
Why not?
christophersays
Maybe Coakley didn’t, but I’m on various political jobseeking email lists. Do you have any idea how many emails I get during the last days of the campaign seeking paid canvassers. The candidate gets last minute help and political newbies get a quick boost to wallet and resume. It’s a win/win.
throbbingpatriotsays
No campaign wants to waste money paying canvassers. You want your volunteers –real people who know and are actually excited about the candidate and live in the areas where they canvass.
<
p>This is a desperation move from a campaign lacking grassroots support.
christophersays
…but really on this one I know what I’m talking about and you don’t. Yes, plenty of campaigns hire GOTV staff from a GOTV director down to extra canvassers, and there are generally volunteers on top of that. BTW, these are mostly college students and maybe even teenagers who are passionate about the candidate anyway. They generally pay just this side of minimum wage so while the extra cash in the pocket doesn’t hurt they certainly aren’t doing it for the money per se. No conclusions can be drawn based on whether canvassers are getting paid; frontrunners do it too. I’ve had training, experience, and even a degree in campaigning so trust me on this one.
msantos1116says
That are coming to lend their support. I don’t see that as being a bad thing. The majority of the people at these rallies are still from Massachusetts.
<
p>I don’t see what you are trying to get at. People are coming in buses, coming in from out of state, and coming from in state to lend support.
<
p>I don’t see how getting support from out of state is a bad thing. It seems like you’re just snapping some photos of license plates to turn it into a little whine-fest of your own.
<
p>It seems petty and childish to me, but if that’s the type of person you strive to be, you are 100% free to do so.
Reminds me of the old, unanswerable question: if you hold an election rally, but none of the people there can vote, did it really happen?
And of course, today the news lead off with Brown and his ‘thousands’ of supporters in Worcester. Then they showed Obama stumping for Coakley. So an empty suit who the media loves trumps a sitting president.
The Massachusetts media audience has always been racist. It’s the reason why Willie Horton played so well here. It’s the back-story for most of the talkshow hate-mongers. The news media are desperate for cash and desperate for ratings.
<
p>President Obama is black. Scott Brown is white. What do you think Scott Brown is telegraphing when he says “I drive a pickup truck”, and to whom? I don’t think this is about transportation, gas mileage, or utility. This is uglier tribal sh*t.
<
p>Martha Coakley is a pawn in this game. An important 7th-rank pawn in the end-game, I grant you, but a pawn nevertheless.
<
p>This is about who we are and who we want to be.
Massachusetts media audience = racists. Yes, sir, every last one of them. No one is excluded. They’re all racists.
<
p>Scott Brown’s pickup truck … yep, a tribal, racist metaphor if I’ve ever seen one.
<
p>If you don’t vote for Coakely, you’re a racist. But wait, she’s white, isn’t voting for her racist?
<
p>I don’t like chocolate milk, Tom, am I a racist? Where can I go to get away from racism?
<
p>Tom, are you a racist?
I don’t know where you get the idea the state is racist on the whole. Willie Horton was a national ad; Dukakis did just fine in 1988 in his own state. Barack Obama won our electoral votes handily and I highly doubt losing to Clinton in the primary had anything to do with race. Deval Patrick won comfotably in 2006 and Edward Brooke was the first state AG in the country AND the first popularly elected black US Senator in the country. I take exception to these comments.
It’s a different voting generation, and those voters that are racist tend to NOT vote Democratic.
Massachusetts has its racism (and sexism) today, just as it has in the past. Today’s GOP is far more shameless in pandering to it then the conservative movement (both Democratic and Republican) of the 80s.
<
p>Scott Brown and the GOP are pandering to the most base, most tribal instincts of scared and insecure white men. There are lot of them, and the media pick it up accordingly. This is the “good-old boy” game, as its been played since at least the civil rights era.
<
p>If you think this isn’t breaking along race and gender, go take another look at these crosstabs from the BMG poll:
<
p>SAMPLE FIGURES:
Men241(48%)
Women259(52%)
White447(89%)
Black20(4%)
Hispanic18(4%)
Other15(3%)
<
p>
ALL
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
OTHER
Martha Coakley
49%
46%
86%
63%
64%
Scott Brown
41%
45%
4%
11%
9%
Joseph Kennedy
5%
6%
—
—
—
Undecided
5%
3%
10%
26%
27%
<
p>
ALL
MEN
WOMEN
Martha Coakley
49%
43%
55%
Scott Brown
41%
46%
36%
Joseph Kennedy
5%
7%
3%;
Undecided
5%
4%
6%
<
p>Whether we talk about them or not, the splits are real and the underlying attitudes that provoke them are real. We saw the same thing when the Cambridge Police perp-walked Henry Louis Gates away from his own home.
<
p>I didn’t say Scott Brown is a racist or sexist; I have zero clue what is racial or gender attitudes are. I said he is pandering to racism and sexism. He (and too much of the Boston media) is pandering to the same audience that Rush Limbaugh seeks with his offensive comments about Haiti.
<
p>Surely we can agree that the curling-iron comment was sexist. He heard it, he chuckled, and said “we can do it.” If that isn’t pandering to misogynistic attitudes, what would be?
<
p>Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are in the hate-game for the money. Do you think it’s accidental that they choose to play to racist and misogynist stereotypes?
…and frankly your crosstabs don’t say a whole lot. I don’t doubt that there is and will be a gender gap or race gap in the polls. There often are such gaps, but that’s not what you said. You called a large swath of the population racist and there’s a huge difference. This reminds me too much of the 2008 Democratic primary where I felt like as a white man I ran the risk of being called sexist if I didn’t support Clinton or racist if I didn’t support Obama. It turns out I supported Clinton on her own merits but at the time wanted Obama as VP. If this race is turning out to be white men for the Republican then that’s just par for the course in recent years and does not have to suggest anything really sinister. I’d also prefer a direct cite of Brown saying something racist or sexist himself rather than resorting to guilt by association.
Christopher, I invite you to re-read the comment I’m responding to and that we are therefore talking about (emphasis mine):
<
p>We are talking about the media and its apparent love for the rightwing, and that conversation most certainly does include Rush Limbaugh.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>Excuse me?
<
p>Predicate: If this race is turning out to be white men for the Republican
<
p>Consequent: then that’s just part for course in recent years
<
p>I think you just agreed with me. Just how is that predicate followed by that consequent not racist?
<
p>We have live video of the following exchange:
Male Scott Brown Supporter: Shove a curling iron up her butt.
Scott Brown: pause and smile We can do this.
<
p>That disgusting call-and-response stark is enough evidence of sexism for me. You apparently disagree.
<
p>The Massachusetts media, the national GOP campaign, its national spokesperson Rush Limbaugh, and its local Scott Brown counterpart are each playing to a Massachusetts audience. The crosstabs (they aren’t “my” crosstabs, by the way, they are from the BMG poll sponsored by the editors) support the stark racial divide in the respondents.
<
p>The White population is split 46/45. The Black population is split 86/4 and the Hispanic population 63/11.
<
p>I hear that you don’t want to talk about it. You acknowledge the stark racial gap in the polls. You agree that such gaps are frequent. It sounds to me as though you reject my conclusion because it is uncomfortable, rather than because it is false.
It’s really too bad these comments can’t be edited after being posted.
<
p>I meant “par for the course” and “is stark enough evidence…”
<
p>Sorry for my carelessness.
So yes they play up the tightness of what should be a walk for Democrats and they find the most controversial aspects and comments to focus on – just ask Rev. Wright. Some also see their job as presenting a false balance. If this race were going the way a lot of us thought it would there would be no story and the media wouldn’t want that.
<
p>I still think you’re overgeneralizing way too much. It really does sound like you’re saying that any white man who votes for a Republican is automatically a racist or sexist or at least legitimately exposes himself to those suspicions. I completely reject that. As much as you (or I) may disagree it’s perfectly legitimate for a white man or anyone else to vote Republican because he wants lower taxes and less government, he prioritize a strong national defense over social welfare, or he does not believe health reform proposals are appropriate. None of those opinions is inherently racist or sexist. Again I’m not denying the statistics from the polling; in fact I’m not the least bit surprised. I do absolutely reject your conclusion as false and frankly on the MLK holiday it’s worth pointing out that I don’t think he would demonize all white men like that even if they voted a different way on an issue not directly related to civil rights than he would.
I fear you are putting words in my mouth.
<
p>I do not argue that “any white man who votes for a Republican” is automatically a racist. My contention is that there are enough racist white men who do vote their prejudice that both the Republican party and the national media pander to them.
<
p>The Democratic Party rejected racism in the immediate aftermath of the 1968 convention. It lost its traditional lock on the South when it did so, and the GOP eagerly offered itself to those disaffected southern racists. The GOP welcomed the segrationist former-Democrats with open arms. Have you forgotten Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond? The GOP has moved progressively rightward since then, and has become progressively more blatant in its pandering to the most base elements of our culture — including our racists and misogynists.
<
p>The racist message of the media and the GOP has been thinly veiled during the campaign of President Obama and after his election. The recent comments of Rush Limbaugh did not come out of the blue, and they did not repulse his audience.
<
p>I haven’t demonized “all white men”, I have observed that too many white men in Massachusetts are racist and that too many GOP politicians and media directors pander to them. I have my own speculations about what MLK might have had to say (I regret that he is not here to say them), and you have yours. Perhaps we would best leave it at that.
I’m also not quite as ready as you are to throw Scott Brown into the same category as Jesse Helms. Republicans elected in this state who have been those who could pass as Democrats in a lot of places: Weld, Cellucci, Swift, Brooke, even the 2002 incarnation of Romney. When Weld was up for Ambassador to Mexico a “man on the street” said on camera, “Well, I hear Jesse Helms doesn’t like him so to me that means he’s probably all right.” I suspect he speaks for a lot of Bay Staters.
Scott Brown is the current Senate candidate of the same GOP that was proud to claim Senator Jesse Helms. The same GOP that allows Rush Limbaugh to be its national spokeperson.
<
p>Sorry Christopher, but Scott Brown has thrown himself into the same category. The video evidence is all around you.
<
p>It sounds to me as though you’re “not quite as ready” to admit the obvious facts of just who Scott Brown and the GOP really are.
…then we should have nothing to worry about tomorrow. If I’m proven wrong then it will be very scary indeed.
I hope we are able to laugh a nervous laugh tomorrow night (or Wednesday morning) and then begin to gather our strength for what promises to be a grueling, harsh, and passionate campaign.
I called 30 out-of-state college, graduate school, and business pals, and got many of them to contribute. One guy from Colorado I think donated the federal maximum ($2,400,) and his wife too!
<
p>I note in your photos handmade Scott Brown signs. What’s that mean? The Brown campaign RAN OUT OF SIGNS! That’s enthusiasm.
<
p>While union members had to be told to attend Coakely rallies, regular folks are flocking to Brown events on their own steam. The enthusiasm is palpable. Even from out of state.
<
p>Scott Brown for President?
And unlike his staff, I don’t think this move was just to dodge providing health insurance:
<
p>http://theplumline.whorunsgov….
<
p>
Why not?
Maybe Coakley didn’t, but I’m on various political jobseeking email lists. Do you have any idea how many emails I get during the last days of the campaign seeking paid canvassers. The candidate gets last minute help and political newbies get a quick boost to wallet and resume. It’s a win/win.
No campaign wants to waste money paying canvassers. You want your volunteers –real people who know and are actually excited about the candidate and live in the areas where they canvass.
<
p>This is a desperation move from a campaign lacking grassroots support.
…but really on this one I know what I’m talking about and you don’t. Yes, plenty of campaigns hire GOTV staff from a GOTV director down to extra canvassers, and there are generally volunteers on top of that. BTW, these are mostly college students and maybe even teenagers who are passionate about the candidate anyway. They generally pay just this side of minimum wage so while the extra cash in the pocket doesn’t hurt they certainly aren’t doing it for the money per se. No conclusions can be drawn based on whether canvassers are getting paid; frontrunners do it too. I’ve had training, experience, and even a degree in campaigning so trust me on this one.
That are coming to lend their support. I don’t see that as being a bad thing. The majority of the people at these rallies are still from Massachusetts.
<
p>I don’t see what you are trying to get at. People are coming in buses, coming in from out of state, and coming from in state to lend support.
<
p>I don’t see how getting support from out of state is a bad thing. It seems like you’re just snapping some photos of license plates to turn it into a little whine-fest of your own.
<
p>It seems petty and childish to me, but if that’s the type of person you strive to be, you are 100% free to do so.