Here where her talking points:
1.I will counterbalance the legislature and keep taxes in check.
2. Beacon Hill is out of touch with voters. Not only did they spend the 1 billion dollar surplus but they are trying to spend 500 million of the rainy day fund (while we are running a surplus)
3. Allowing needles (drug paraphernalia) to be sold over the counter is lunacy and a majority (66%) of voters (state house poll) back her.
4. Gay marriage should be put to a vote say the voters can have their say.
My take:
1. She came across surprisingly well and her points where presented in a convincing manner. This is not to say I agreed with all or most of them.
2. She stumbled on gay marriage when it was compared to civil rights (as it was in the smack down last night).
3. The more she talks the and hammers away on the tax issue the more dem voters will be become concerned about electability and when that happened Patrick and Reilly loose out.
4. What can I say? My heart is with Patrick but my mind is with Gabrieli.
hearts win out over minds in elections…
“We keep focusing on how to win elections when everybody else wants to know why we should win them.”
The pocketbook beats both.
$3 Dollars and 57 Cents a Week..Fifty One Cents A Day..That is What the Average Working Family will see from The “Tax Relief” rollback to 5%.
Not Enough For a cup of Coffee never mine the Doughnut!
And The Average Working Family Has Seen “Fees” for Trash Pickup, School Sports, Music Programs and now they have to Pay Extra so the children have a Safe Ride to School.
They Are Being Bled..and are Now Realizing the Connection of Tax Cuts, to the Rise in “Fees” and Property Taxes.They Have Felt the Lack of Services that only a Well Managed Goverment Can Provide.
We Must Find a way to Clearly Explain that Investment in Our Future (such as in the Interstate Highway System or The GI Bill in the Past) is What Made this Country Great and Led to Prosperity and Economic Growth.
As a Commonwealth, we should recognize that all should pay A Fair Amount of the Money needed to provide the Goods and Services we Need to “Enjoy the Pursuit of Happiness” and that 0.3% of The Average Working Family’s Income means a lot less than 0.3% of Kerry Healey’s, yet the “Fees” (in many cases) Remains the Same.
Here’s a letter to the editor from today’s Berkshire Eagle:
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t know this letter writer. There was a similar letter on the EMT fees earlier this week, so this group may be getting organized.
…that created the nursing home fees?
<
p>
Belittling the tax cut by saying you won’t get enough money back to make it worth our while to comply with a voter mandate is – at best – arrogant. You see, it’s MY damn cup of Dunkin’, not yours to decide if I should have.
In a negotiation, when the opposition asserts that the price diff is too small to matter (i.e. $3.53), they’ve lost.
<
p>
If it’s too small to matter to me, then it’s inconsequential for you. Give it up.
Actually the Dem argument is that it is NOT ENOUGH. So we haven’t lost, we are looking for more. Property taxes are an area that will allow greater relief than the roll back. Furthermore we can “double dip.” By reducing property taxes and not income taxes we get the first benefit I mentioned above and second we get the benefit of making sure the state coffers are full. Plus, I don’t really think $200 is relief when it will mean increased costs far exceeding the relief.
It’ll never happen. 2 1/2 will make sure it will never happen.
<
p>
2 1/2 made sure that tax revenues would not be raised too much each year, and also established a ‘floor’ that the local towns assume as a given.
<
p>
I’ve no statistics but I’d wager that no towns, or at least a tiny number of towns, have actually reduced property taxes since 2 1/2.
<A HREF="http://www.municipalcareers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=649&Itemid=287
“>9 underrides in eight years.
<
p>
How many towns in Mass? 2300? And 9 underrides in eight years. Kinda proves my point that property taxes won’t be decreased.
<
p>
[quote from link] “Since 1994, a total of nine underride questions have been placed on ballots in eight communities, according to the DLS. Eight of these questions have been approved by voters, the largest being a $2 million reduction in Plymouth for fiscal 1996. The other underrides that passed were in Ayer, Holland, Orleans, Shelburne, Upton and Williamsburg (twice), all for amounts below $325,000. A proposed reduction of $388,353 was rejected by voters in Norton in 1994.”
Jim – Most recent polls show Deval Patrick with the biggest lead over Healey, and the highest favorability of the Dem candidates, and that’s without spending the millions on advertising that Gabrieli has already spent. So who is more electable?
There is no discounting the polls that give Patrick the lead, but three things (IMHO) have lead to his current lead.
<
p>
1. Tremendous grassroot orginization.
<
p>
2 The average voter is not paying attention, although that is starting to change quickly in light of the recent tragedy.
<
p>
3. No Republican involvement in the 5.0 discussion.
<
p>
Once people start to pay attention and there is more focus on the rollback to 5.0 Deval will take a hit. Will it hurt him enough to knock him from the lead? I think so.
<
p>
I’d love to see an electability question in the next poll.
included in any poll because the question is leading and the results relevant for all the wrong reasons. What you’ll get in response to Patrick’s electability is, among other things, people’s sense of bigotry in other people, and that’s neither contributory or accurate. IOW, if enough people misjudge their neighbors, the result only scares off people who would normally vote for the candidate. The question is potentially damaging, bordering on push polling, and creates, ultimately, a false reality.
<
p>
Electability, as a polling notion, is corrosive; indeed, the notion should be relegated to the woodshed.
You assume that many people will feel Patrick is unelectable for “racist” reasons. AS someone who is concern about Patrick’s “electability” I’m offended by your assertion.
<
p>
This issue can easily be explored in a poll in a manner tht avoids the pitfalls you suggest.
<
p>
In fact, it can be asked in a poll without mentioning any candidates names. (In fact should be asked that way.) This avoids any charges of push polling and other charges I can’t really understand.
<
p>
Hence the worhtless rating.
She said “among other things,” she didn’t say “many” people. Where you’ve got prime-time pundits like Jim Braude loudly wondering whether Massachusetts is “ready for a black Governor” (and I heard him ask that question), seems to me the issue is out there and it’s silly to pretend it doesn’t exist. The only reason anyone would hypothesize that MA might not be “ready for a black Governor” is because the speaker thinks some people might be less likely to vote for Patrick because he’s black.
David, you and I have been having the “is Deval electable” question for a long time. We’ve always talked on the level of perceived “liberalism” with the tax rollback and much of rhetoric of “hope” that translates into spending to a lot of independent voters. This is Deval’s “electablity” issue.
<
p>
When Braude asked, are voters “ready for a black Governor”, his context is definitely racial. The context of “electablity” is totally in the context of politics and very different. But a few posters at BMG have knee jerked “racist” when other folks say they oppose Deval’s candidacy.
<
p>
If Iris meant her comment more along the lines of Braude’s comment, then, yes, the rating should have been a 4 for “Needs work”, because she was very unclear. But if it was equating the “electablity” issue of Deval as racist–which I interpreted, then it was “worthless” because Deval’s electablity issues have nothing to do with race.
<
p>
But actually David, a far different issue is at work here and that is your stupid rating system. (You know I don’t think of you as stupid–but you know I think the rating system is.) Because of my interpretation of her comments was a 3, I come across what I see as vindictive retaliation from Iris in rating my comment a 3, as worthless
<
p>
So I went back and posted the above comment to explain my reasoning (maybe it did need work–I’ll take constructive criticism from someone who is able to Clerk for a Supreme Court Justice), but I damn well want to know from Iris what was wrong with my postingâaccept for the fact that I had rated her comment a 3.
<
p>
By the way, here’s another example of how well your rating system is working. Like I predicted, it’s going to bring out the worst in people…including me. Drop it and go back to the checks and balances of the three branches of government at BMG (if you missed that post, the three branches are listed here.
I actually think the system is working reasonably well, though obviously it goes off the rails now and then like any system is going to. Seems to me that, in general, the level of discourse around here is quite good, and that it has improved a bit since our whole Rules of the Road discussion of which the “new” ratings system (which isn’t really any different from the old system, except for hidden comments) is a part.
<
p>
I don’t want to go back to the “free-for-all unless one of the three of us deletes it” system. For one thing, I barely have time to read all the comments on the site at this point – I do actually have a day job, you know. For another, I think it’s good for the community to self-police.
<
p>
One thing we could do is make the system less “judgmental” and have it function solely as a means either of saying “wow, fantastic comment,” or “out of bounds comment that should be deleted.” That would lead to many fewer comment ratings, since most of the time neither of those would apply. Would that be better?
…because no one likes their comments to be considered “worthless”. I mean, for a site that is fairly civil–calling someone comments worthless would be pretty harsh and people would be coming down on folks for using that tone. Given that, why rate someone’s comments that way on the very same blog? I think the words behind 4,5,6 are fine. Worthless is mean.
<
p>
I understand your point about having a life and needing “others” to help police it. Am I being overly senistive here? I certainly get a fair # of 5s and 6s, and I’m certainly capable of some worthless comments. But I do think some people are using it in a manner that it is not intended for. I’ve cited some examples in the past–am I off base or do you think that has merit?
That’s exactly right.
Ed Brooke was a great public servant, and gave a real barnburner speech at the GOP convention in Lowell.
<
p>
Why wouldn’t we elect a black governor as well?
<
p>
Of course, I’m ACTUALLY interested in our first elected WOMAN governor….
I know Gabrielli sits on a big pile of money and has tried to position himself “strategically” on issues, but I remain utterly underwhelmed by the “electability” arguments. Sure, his early poll numbers vis a vis Healy are good–but same goes for the other Democrats, and the general (and I think accurate) consensus on this site seems to be that we shouldn’t take these too seriously for anyone. Beyond that? The guy’s 0 for 2 in elections, despite major spending. He’s got little charisma, minimal rhetorical gifts, and an awkward public manner. His attempts to split the difference between Patrick and Reilly have made him look evasive, even opportunistic, thus undercutting whatever might be gained from his wonky seriousness about policy. His run with O’Brien probably blunts any attempt to be effective in positioning himself as the principled outsider who can take on the Beacon Hill establishment. Don’t get me wrong: if he gets the nomination, I’ll support him without reservation, and I think he’d be a decent Governor, though not nearly as good and effective as Patrick. But supporting him now as a “thinking” choice makes no sense. Or, rather, it sounds all too familiar: most of the support I hear for Gabrielli sounds to me much like the reasoning of all those lukewarm liberal Kerry supporters who backed him in the primaries not because they personally found him very appealing but because they imagined some other people out there in the middle of the country would go for him. I think there’s an element not only of wishful thinking about Gabrielli’s charms but of condescension about our fellow citizens in that kind of support. (For “People in the red states really go for war heroes, right?” just substitute “I like Patrick MYSELF but I don’t know if those OTHER people will elect a guy like him as Governor.” Maybe not only Bluemassgroup posters but ordinary citizens (that is, people who aren’t political junkies) would like to elect a an inspiring leader who will take on long-ignored problems while holding out the hope that our governenment can be both more equitable and more effective.
You seem to be a well informed and active participant in the dicussion of politics who has already(?) made up their mind. You are not as susceptible to the electability argument. But I believe you are not in the majority. Most voters either donât have the time or yes donât care enough to pay attention until the very end of an election and very often I believe get caught up in electability.
has to do with some of his positions on issues. Patrick thinks illegal immigrants should be given driver’s licenses and that they should get public housing with no preference given to American citizens. Really????? Patrick clearly stated this out of the mainstream posistion in the housing debate at Faneuil Hall. Further, Patrick does not want to roll taxes back to 5.0 as was voted for by the voters. Look, I voted against it but the majority of people differed with me. I think the voters’ wishes have to be recognized but the rollback needs to be done responsibly as Gabrieli’s plan lays out. Patrick is no outsider. Patrick has worked on the public payroll for most of his adult life. He has the endorsement of a bunch of insiders( 4 congressmen, many state reps etc etc). Just look on his website. Patrick is an insider. Your definition of insider seems only to be: a person who has held elected office or has run for political office before. Gabrieli has never before worked in the public sector. Gabrieli is a self -made millionaire and has donated much of his own time on and money to many worthwhile causes. Gabrieli is really 1 for 3 in elections. He WON the Democratic Lieutenant Governors primary in 2002. In fact, he was the highest vote getter of any democratic candidate who ran for any office in the 2002 primary. With respect to the general election, Chris ran on a ticket with Shannon O’Brien. People vote for the gubernortorial candidate in the final not the Lieutenant governor candidate. In other words, it is the top of the ticket that really counts. After all, if anyone was influenced by the Lietenant governor candidate in the final, I think is is a safe bet that Romney would not be governor today. That loss cannot be attributed to Chris. Gabrieli is a self -made millionaire and has donated much of his own time on and money to many worthwhile causes. What specifically has Patrick (who is also a millionaire) personally worked for or financially supported that benefited the people of Massachusetts? I think the voters of Massachusetts are “inspired” by someone who has worked for them and someone who will continue to work for them. Chris Gabrieli is that man. He has a record of achievement and results that have made and will continue to make a difference in people’s lives.
That is simply not correct. Patrick worked for about three years in the Clinton administration, and to my knowledge has otherwise worked only in the private and nonprofit sectors. Here’s his bio. Well?
Gabrieli won the Lt. Gov. nomination in 2002 because he ran with O’Brien. If he didn’t run with O’Brien, I think the outcome would have been completely different. Yes, he polled better than Shannon in the Primary results, but he wasn’t going up against the likes of Birmingham, Reich, and Tolman. I think Slattery would have won if Gabrieli didn’t run with Shannon.
How do you figure?
<
p>
If, arguendo, the issue is Beacon Hill, seems to me Healy cuts through Gabrieli like a hot knife through cheese.
<
p>
Of course, that’s her issue–the victory likely goes to the candidate who wins the agenda struggle.
<
p>
2. Healey is likely to argue that as LT Gov she was being loyal to Romney in an attempt to distance herself from Romney. So if the LT gov has no power, how much does someone who ran for LG and lost have?
<
p>
How can you link Gab to the legislature? If anything he is the exact opposite having spent most of his time in the private sector.
Gabrieli lives on Beacon Hill.
<
p>
Unfortunately, and to my great frustration, most of a political campaign comes down to optics, and not to policy. Gabrieli lives just blocks from the state house, was on a ticket in 2002 with consummate insider O’Brien, etc, etc. The GOP will let people connect the dots.
<
p>
It’s mostly BS, but it’s ‘truthy’.
The tax issue is all about income versus property taxes. Voters can understand that if it is presented correctly.
<
p>
Your income taxes go up when your income rises. They go down if your income falls. Your property taxes go up independently from your income.
<
p>
That means more people get squeezed with property taxes, but income tax is 100% related to your ability to pay. Make more, pay more with a little of the money you made.
<
p>
Kerry Healey wants you to sell your house when you can’t afford your property taxes. She’s on record saying that people are “overhoused”.
<
p>
Here’s her trick on the legislative spending issue. She’s highlighting small but obviously frivolous portions of the budget, and then projecting the entire spending as frivolous.
<
p>
That needs to be turned around. If Kerry Healey is opposed to spending increases, then she is opposed to the Chapter 70 and local aid increases that went out. Tell the voters that Healey’s opposition to increased state aid to cities and towns means either a reduction in services (but no property tax cut) or an increase, via an override or fees, of local taxes.
In fact, you could accurately call it an inconvenient truth.
<
p>
Seventy plus year old widow living in Boston or suburb in a house worth $1,000,000. Pretty easy to imagine, right? Fixed income, survivor pension and social security.
<
p>
What to do?
<
p>
1: Encourage her to do a reverse mortgage? Good luck, they’ll rarely do it. Too complicated; debt bad; bankers scary.
<
p>
2: Subsidize her with circuit breakers, credits for elderly, welfare, programs? Big mistake to increase budget and prolong the problem.
<
p>
3: Convince the Town that it should cut property tax? 2 1/2 has pretty much established an annual guaranteed increase to annual revenues each year equal to 2 1/2%.
<
p>
Legislature can’t do much to influence property tax. They can however, cut income tax which would in turn compel the Towns to confront its own costs and revenue at a local level.
You slipped this one in there:
<
p>
<
p>
That’s too loaded of a sentence for me to just accept it, because the underlying assumption is that they aren’t, and that it’s something that can easily be done but isn’t due to expediency.
<
p>
Can you give me examples of costs and revenue that you think could be “confronted”, and how this could be done?
<
p>
Do you think that cities and towns are offering scads of luxury services that they shouldn’t be?
<
p>
Do you think that municipal employees are generally paid too much? Please give examples, especially private market comparisons.
<
p>
[I’ll agree with you that the public pension system is out-of-synch with the state of private pensions, and that there are low-level jobs that pay far more than the private sector, however, the bulk of municipal salaries are in education and public safety. I also don’t necessarily see the pensions and salaries as a problem, since I’d love to see wages and pensions rise nation-wide, but I see their being out-of-synch with the people funding them as the problem]
<
p>
Finally, why do you think it is sound policy to move seniors out of their homes? Don’t seniors consume fewer resources than younger people, particularly families with children? Aren’t they largely responsible for having paid for the infrastructure that is in place today?
<
p>
Can’t a different solution be pursued, such as a mechanism that postpones the payment of property taxes over a set level once all residents of a house are retired? The taxes would be paid upon transfer of the property.
<
p>
I dismissed option 3 because it won’t happen, and I cited 9 examples of an ‘underride’ from 1994 – 2003 that support my proposition. 2 1/2 foreclosed option 3.
<
p>
Option 1. Only in last resort (prior to selling) will the elderly turn to a reverse mortgage.
<
p>
Option 2. If government subsidizes elderly property tax, it provides an incentive for the person to live there and not sell the home.
<
p>
Is Option 2 a good policy? I say no. The person should be compelled to tap the value in the home via a) reverse mortgage or b) sale.
<
p>
Of course you recognize that my philosophy in this respect, is quite conservative:
<
p>
First, the person uses the wealth that he or she possesses to pay expenses associated with living in the home. Quaint: if you have money you should use it to support yourself.
<
p>
Second, if the person is compelled to sell and ‘move down’ in housing then there is additional houseing supplies on the market which will have a favorable housing price effect.
I think that whether option 2 is good depends on your perspective.
<
p>
If you start incentivizing seniors to move, who is to say they won’t move out-of-state? Is it good policy to encourage a class of people who are paying taxes but not consuming the more expensive services to move? And doesn’t such a policy really go against the grain of US tradition and history, where people bought a house, worked hard to pay it off, and died there?
<
p>
Might this not have unintended consequences too, as people identify less with cities and towns because they know that they will be forced out someday?
<
p>
What is wrong with a policy that allows people to defer a portion of their taxes until their property is sold? No direct subsidies, simply deferring the money. It could mean a dip in revenue at first, but things would eventually stabilize.
To your point that a selling senior might move out of state, yes, he may, but his moving is an opportunity for someone who can afford the taxes to move into the home. Win-win-win-win.
<
p>
(1) Person who can afford the taxes (Town wins) (2) gets a better price on the house because more selling supply means lower prices (homeowner wins) and (3) the senior moves into a more affordable state and house (senior wins) and (4) when he or she dies, hopefully they’ve moved to Florida and pay no estate tax (heirs win).
<
p>
<
p>
Would that we had such an unintended consequence. It would mean cheaper housing in cities and towns.
<
p>
<
p>
Here’s an absurd example: widow lives on Comm Ave in House easily worth $2,000,000 and taxes of say, $24,000. Pension plus S.S. total say, $40,000.
<
p>
We the taxpayers should subsidize her until her death? Is that your position? If it is, then we must simply agree to disagree and consider our difference in opinion one of those intractable conservation/liberal things.
<
p>
She’s overhoused, IMHO.
My idea was a little different.
<
p>
Let’s say that someone lives in a $200k house, taxes are $5k. They retire. Their payments remain at $5k, their taxes go up. Let’s say that on average, they go up 2.5% each year. They live another 20 years, until they are 85, every year still paying the $5k in taxes.
<
p>
Their unpaid taxes over the 20 years would be $27,723.39. It would be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of the house.
<
p>
The deferred amount could be more if the community in which they live passed overrides, or if their neighborhood got ritzier than others in town, but the alternative is that a senior gets taxed out of their house.
<
p>
There could be some sticky details — such as, what if the house was already mortgaged to the hilt. But those same issues exist if someone currently fails to pay property taxes.
<
p>
$27k may not sound like a lot, but after those 20 years the difference between the $5k and the “real” taxes is almost $3k.
<
p>
Why should taxpayers “subsidize”? Well, it’s not a subsidy. It’s a postponement of taxes. The cost would be minimal, just the value of interest (which could even be added into the repayment). But the mental relief that this would give to seniors would be enormous. You wouldn’t get the same stories we get every year, of the little old lady whose tax payments spiked $1000 in a year because of revaluation.
You said,
<
p>
and
<
p>
Your “Option 3” is 2-1/2 in a nutshell. Recall that in the 80s, Democrats stepped up to the plate with massive new state aid to make 2-1/2 work.
<
p>
In the 90s and since, both parties (I am not giving the Legislature a pass here) turned their backs on the cities and towns.
<
p>
Consequently the system of funding schools, roads, sewers, police, fire, and other essential services through a capped property tax plus state aid is failing.
<
p>
Through the crisis is happening locally, the failure is at the state level, which is the only place it can be fixed.
<
p>
I don’t really know or care if Town expenses, salaries, etc. are too high. Prop 2 1/2 imakes sure that costs don’t rise too high.
Prop 2 1/2 imakes sure that costs don’t rise too high.
<
p>
Has Prop 2 1/2 kept municipal health insurance costs in check? Has it kept fuel costs down?
<
p>
Is Massachusetts head and shoulders better than other states which do not have such a constrictive law?
<
p>
From my perspective the law hampers certain communities more than others. It encourages economic segregation (this benefit is touted by Grover Nordquist and Americans for Tax Reform); people with more ability to pay move to towns where taxes and services are higher and people with little ability to pay wind up in towns where taxes and basic services are lower.
<
p>
That would be good if we were talking about optional services, but we’re not. We’re talking about police, fire, education, code enforcement, roads and bridges, etc. — all vital services that are scaled back in poorer communities because there is no ability to pay. And as these services get scaled back, this creates more incentive for people with money to leave or avoid those places. It’s a feedback loop.
<
p>
Don’t you find it odd that towns with low taxes often have lower property values, and towns with high taxes have higher property values? Wouldn’t you expect the opposite?
They hang about in town hall, misfiling doucments to get $500 off property taxes, while living on annuities purchased in the high interest boom years, which don’t COUNT as income. They make sure to spend 6 months a year in Florida so their wills can be probated there, and they can leave all assets to the grandkids (genration skipping, you see). They vote FOR lower golf fees on the municipal courses, and AGAINST anything for schools (their kids are educated now, back in Melrose, so why waste money on these Cape Cod brats?). Everything is geared to keeping the proerty rate low, and the selectmen know that they guy who’s up for reelection when it breaks $10 loses, and they comply. they have pensions, company paid health care, and beliee the press releases about the Greatest Generation, and think they have it coming.
<
p>
Overhoused doesn’t begin to touch it.
Grey terrorists.
<
p>
/not kidding
//the old, the entitled, the voters
Bob, I fail to see how Tom Reilly loses when Healey hammers away on the income tax issue. How does he somehow become less electable? Also, how does Chris Gabrieli’s nuanced position on the income tax somehow make him more electable? The promise of something that may never happen is not very assuring.
<
p>
Just wondering. . .
I mistakenly thought Bob wrote this post, but my question should have been directed to you! Thanks.
I’m not sure if that is a complement to me or an insult to Bob 🙂
I agree Reilly doesnât loose out on the tax issue. What I was implying is that tax talk will bring up electability and Patrick looses there because of his tax position and Reilly looses because of his âinsider statusâ.
<
p>
There are plenty of ways to become less electable – ask John Kerry, Michael Dukakis etc⦠In this case, not enough people are paying attention to notice who is electable and who is not. What I am saying is that each candidate has a certain level of perceived electability and that will become more apparent to the voters as they pay more attention.
<
p>
Is this the right way to go about picking a candidate? Probably not, but I still firmly believe that a lot of this type of reasoning will be talked about in the final weeks of the primary and will play a big role in the decision making of the undecided.
I may be wrong, but I think you have it backwards on who thinks about “electability.” Who are the people who say something like, for instance, “The really important thing is to stop Kerry Healy, so I’m going with the candidate who will do the best against her”? The answer, I think, is clearly the people who pay a lot of attention to politics and care a lot about it and about the fortunes of a particular–in this case the Democratic–party. I think these are the people who tend to decide early. Case in point: How many regular readers of this site are truly undecided? My bet: almost none. Conversely, I think people who pick a candidate at last minute are the people who pay the least attention and are least invested in the party system and in the horse-race aspects of politics (e.g. the people who right now don’t even know the names of most candidates). I don’t think these people are, as a general rule, going into the voting on September 19 and saying “Patrick, Gabrieli, Reilly–which one is most electable?” I think they’re likely to vote straight up, for the person who’s persona and message have appealed the most to them. (Sure, there are also plenty of casual voters who want to vote for the person who seems to be the winner, but that means the person who appears to have the buzz and the momentum; I don’t believe that’s at all the same as what you or any of us has been talking about when examining “electability.”)
…dispite giving you a 5 rating, because it was well articulated. With 750,000 Dems voting in the primary (at least that many voted in ’02) it’s tough to create a model for a typical voter. Some will be hard-core like us, some will pay little attention and quickly identify with the “picture” of Reilly, Deval or Tom…ect. And there will be a certain percentage that are currently undecided or very waek supporters of one of the three and their biggest motivation is getting a Democrat elected–it’s hard to forget that we’ve lost 4 times in a row.
<
p>
They will probably change their minds a couple of times before deciding and which ever candidate appears “strongest” the few days before election day will get their vote. (Perfect example is the way New Hamsphire voters favored Kerry very early in the primary season, dropped him for Dean and in the two weeks after Iowa, flocked back to him).
<
p>
So I would argue that there will be a “good chunk” of voters in the Dem primary who will be making this kind of “electablity” decision. And in a tight race, they can and most likely will make the difference. Although if the polls stay the way they are (and they won’t) this voting block won’t make a difference. (Understand that “good chunk” is a highly technical political science term which I’d rather not have to explain.)
Because I view my comment just as contributory as yours, irrespective of whether or not I agree, let me reciprocate. The great equalizer.
<
p>
Disagreement with someone doesn’t make their contributions “worthless,” at least, not in the real world. If people starting labelling every comment that doesn’t measure up to their personal standards of Blogging Excellence as “worthless” here, this place will degenerate into a chronic troll war just like the one the Big Kids have at the Other Place.
<
p>
A little civility goes a long way.
…your comments merited a “3”, because you were connecting the “electablity” of Deval to racism. I’m concerned about Deval’s electablity and I’ve explained this over and over and it certainly has nothing remotely to do with racism and I deeply resent the implication.
<
p>
I’ll give you credit in admitting that your 3 rating for my other comment was to “reciprocate” for my rating. Yes, to admit that it is the “great equalizer” to rate my comments as a 3 proves my point to the editors how some people now use the rating system.
<
p>
Again, I did not just “disagree” with your statement connecting the “electablity” with racism, I found it baseless, sensational and you offered absolutely no evidence to back it up.
<
p>
And I do find it amusing that you accuse me of rating your comment low because I disagree with you and you telling me that a “little civility goes a long way”.
<
p>
You
<
p>
Should
<
p>
Take
<
p>
Your
<
p>
Own
<
p>
Advice
<
p>
What most of those three ratings have to do with are people disagreeing with you and/or your candidate for Governor. And the fact that in many of these posts, others–many of the same people post after post–ganged up to rate the comments as a three further advances my argument that a certain group of people are in fact acting uncivilly and attempting to stifle debate of those they disagree with.
<
p>
No one is calling you a bigot. I know I didn’t. You may choose to deny that the color of Patrick’s skin is not a factor in his “electability” quotient, but that doesn’t make it so. Patrick’s race is very much on the minds of folks who worry that bigotry may, well, factor in this race. That’s reality. That fact that you seemed to over-identify with my comment is your problem, not mine. I did not in any way suggest you were a bigot.
<
p>
<
p>
As I said, I believed my comment was a contributory as yours, hence the equivalent rating. I made my point.
<
p>
<
p>
Do you really need evidence that there are people who are concerned about the effect of Patrick’s race on his electability? Are you kidding me? If you think for one second that there are not people in this state who will refuse to vote for Patrick because of his race, then you are extremely naive.
<
p>
Now, conflating every “3” I’ve given with my response to your “3” yesterday is bizarre. My original comment was not snarky, sarcastic, inflammatory, disruptive, nasty, or any of the adjectives you ascribed to it. I commented in good faith. Consequently, it does not merit a 3 any more than yours did. That is my point.
<
p>
Fine, you think it’s worthless–why don’t you elaborate a little? Note I just explained why your comment was worthless.