Rumor has it (I haven’t checked) that Hub Politics ascribes Deval Patrick’s victory to MA voters being “dumb.”
More thoughtful analysis from the sages of Beverly. And folks wonder why the MA Republican party is in the crapper. Anyway, another Boston-area conservative blogger, Dean Barnett, has a different take (not specifically on the MA race, but on the crushing national defeat for the GOP).
Most importantly, we didnt lose because our countrymen suddenly misplaced the virtues that make America great. It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame the people when they dont vote as one would dictate. Ill brook none of that from our side. The fact is, we thought our country would be better off with a Republican congress. We made a case to the American people. They didnt buy it because they thought it was a weak case. And you know what? They were right.
Now, I’ll of course disagree with Barnett that being a sore loser is a distinctly “liberal” trait (though there was quite a lot of that from our side when Bush won in 2004 — remember “Jesusland“?). And I’d say today’s silliness from Beverly proves me right that sore losers span the political spectrum.
But Barnett’s main point is correct. Campaigns are candidates’ opportunity to make their case directly to voters. If the case is weak, the candidate will almost always fail (especially when the opposing case is strong, as it was in MA). That’s in part what happened here, and just about everywhere else, last night.
tim-little says
Here
kathy says
what a bunch of whiners. We’re so dumb we keep electing Teddy? Too bad that those little right-wing trogs cannot see that it’s the policies of the RNC and state Repubs that drove people to vote for Deval.
peter-porcupine says
…since, Cassandra-like, every dire prediction I made about where we were headed message-wise came true.
<
p>
Just ONCE I wish they’d listen before, instead of after, the fact.
<
p>
Down here, all our incumbents were reelected, although we also did have a few GOP pick-ups in the Assembly of Delegates (sort of a county level city council).
<
p>
My numbers are shaky – but I THINK we are status quo in the Legislature. Olly deMacedo offsets Shirley Gomes, Barrows holds Coppola’s seat, etc.
<
p>
I’ll be posting about this later, but bottom line – in a ‘blind taste test’ – the voters agreed with Kerry’s positions. However, the Patrick sizzle overcame because it was hopeful, and people wanted that, not wonky but true ideas.
<
p>
Point in fact – a friend who works in state govt. told me she voted a GOP ticket, EXCEPT for Kerry. When I asked why, she said that she had 30 years in the system, and Kerry would have taken away her pension. I pointed out to her that all Kerry proposed was CONSOLIDATING the various pension boards, but more than that – had Deval EVER said he would NOT do exactly the same thing? Her mouth dropped open as she realized that NOTHING specific was said by him.
<
p>
We can look forward to a lot of that in the coming weeks.
johnk says
I’m not posting this to debate or argue about it, I just want to know if that’s your true belief or are you just defending your party.
peter-porcupine says
I only write my true beliefs.
<
p>
In situations like that skanky Ted Stevens busting the bank, I try to observe the 11th commandment and not speak ill of a fellow Republican (whoops!), but what I DO wrtie is what I think.
nopolitician says
<
p>
I expect that this is only true if you phrase the questions in to favor a Republican response, which can mean both either in a biased way or one that simplistically discusses a complex issue.
<
p>
For example, let’s talk about in-state tuition for illegal aliens. It’s a complex issue. I could ask:
<
p>
“do you favor giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens”?
<
p>
Most people will say “hell, no”. But look at the language used. “giving to illegal“. Who is going to support giving something to someone illegal?
<
p>
What if the question was this?
<
p>
“Do you support denying the children who attend Massachusetts schools the right to pay the same tuition rate at state schools as other children simply because their parents are not legal immigrants”?
<
p>
I suspect the results would be different.
<
p>
The more subtle thing here is that the contrary position is not stated here. We have illegal aliens in this state, and there is little the state can do to stop them. Those illegal aliens have children. Those children attend MA schools. What is the effect of making it harder for them to pay for state colleges out of their own pockets (not the “free tuition that Healey supporters, particularly Howie Carr, loved to spout).
<
p>
Illegal immigration, plus all the other Republican “issues”, was designed to be hot-button, fit-it-into-a-sound-bite. Of course people will respond the way they are designed to.
<
p>
The issues are far more complex that this. That’s why we don’t live or die by polling or by referendum on every issue.
peter-porcupine says
<
p>
As you say, it’s NOT a sound bite – or a feel-good either….
nopolitician says
You’re referring to something that hasn’t happened. Although a federal law prohibits granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants without offering it to other residents of the US, it appears as though many states offer this.
<
p>
<
p>
It’s far from settled law.
<
p>
<
p>
And whatever happened to “states’ rights” and “not letting activist judges write laws that the legislature won’t pass”, by the way?
peter-porcupine says
<
p>
And all so we can give cheaper tuition to people who are here illegally!
<
p>
THAT should be the biggest boost to the UMass financial fortunes since the HIRING of Billy Bulger!
gaspacho says
Children who were born here in the States are not here illegally, even if their parents were. Those kids are as American as you or I. So what’s your justification for denying them the rights of Americans?
<
p>
The US is a jus soli country, where citizenship is based on place of birth… not jus sanguinis, of the blood (as Germany still is– third-generation Turkish laborers in Germany are still considered foreigners!)
<
p>
If you really want to hold up medieval European law as the model to which you aspire, you could at least be honest about it.
tblade says
People have been so ill-informed about the instate tuition issue because of Healey’s and Carr’s lies that it is like “giving illegal immigrants a $40,000 scholarship”, it is outrageous.
<
p>
The fact of the matter is it be a net gain of $2M/year for the state.
<
p>
http://www.masstaxpa…
peter-porcupine says
His audits are about as big a joke as DiNucci’s – “Gee, what result are you looking for again?”
tblade says
Arguments that call this plan “free tuition” and a “$40,000 scholarship” are lies and hack arguments. Mass Taxpayers aren’t the only people in the country to make this argument.
<
p>
My main point is, as it stands right now, there is no good economic argument for not allowing these people to purchase education at the instate rate. The instate rate would be kids that mostly grew up here and have roots here. They would not be taking spots or resources from Mass citizens. Education stands only to help the state’s economy. This really has no effect on the everyday voters’ lives or pocketbooks, yet it is often cited as a top two reason as to why someone doesn’t like Deval Patrick.
<
p>
Why did Healey keep pounding away, distorting this irrelevent issue? Why pay so much attention to excluding 100 – 600 students rather than the 30,000+ Mass citizens who attend UMass et al? There are probably 100 more issues regarding Mass higer ed. that I would have perfered to hear the candidates speak about then excluding 100 – 600 Massachusetts high school gradutes (who would have to come up with anywhere between $2,000 – $10,000/year of their own money to attend) from paying instate tuition.
tblade says
…has written itself into irrelevancy. They are the Larouches of the Right.
lynne says
cambridgejason says
Do we know the final tally for the composition of the Mass. legislature after this election? I believe it was something like 139 dem/21 rep in the House and 34 dem/6 rep in the Senate prior to the election. Have dems made any gains?
peter-porcupine says
…because Lees left and Samiyah lost. The House, I think, is even-steven.
david says
peter-porcupine says
kathy says
http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
peter-porcupine says
…after all, Olly DID win his last recount! :>)
<
p>
I am sorry about Andy Burbine, and even sorrier about Sue Pope. Tell me – what did she so threaten that she had to be knocked off?
smadin says
I’m not sure Phil Johnston ordered a hit on Pope (after all, this isn’t Jersey…) — maybe a majority of the voters just thought Conroy was a better candidate?
bob-neer says
fdr08 says
Three factors that defeated Kerry Healey:
1. Christy Mihos. 8% of the vote that would have gone to Healey
2. Mitt Romney. 5%. I know Republicans that can’t stand Romney and the way he abandoned the state.
3. The year not to be a Republican 5%. Reagan Democrats that voted for Weld & Cellucci in the past voted for Deval this year.
<
p>
All together I figure Healey lost 18% of the vote she usually would of had which with, just one of the reasons would of kept the race close. All 3 combined spelled disaster.
<
p>
And now I hear the the Republicans want Jim Rappaport to head the party, just what they need another millionaire!