I’m seriously considering running against my current rep. in the next election. I know that it’s a huge step and requires a lot of financial support, but I just saw it done when I was living in Somerville, and I know it could happen here too.
Also, it pretty much sums up the feeling of the country nationally in the past election, where so many pro-Iraq Senators and Reps. were ousted for those not in favor of the war. Is gay marriage Massachusetts’ Iraq? Would running against these clearly discriminating Reps. locally work? Or is it too late for that? What about the threat of just having opposition for their seats…would that make a difference?
What do you all think? Anyone else up for running in their district?
Please share widely!
Do it!
<
p>
But aren’t you in Carl’s district? Doesn’t he represent the general Davis Square area?
I am in Carl’s district and he’s great.
<
p>
I’d move back in to my parent’s house if it meant overtaking Medford’s Representative. He’s clearly out of step with his constituents, much like the guy Carl ousted a few years ago.
and I realized I said “my rep” above. That’s because I still consider myself a citizen of Medford even though I’ve been residing in Somerville. I was born and raised in Medford and my entire family lives there. Sorry to confuse you. đŸ˜‰
I’ll move to wherever I have to.
Entitlement if I ever saw it.
<
p>
His 2004 opponent — Republican Larry Novak — was later arrested for laundering drug money. I’m still not sure who I wish had won that race.
Or would OCPF require you to reveal your secret identity?
<
p>
We’ll sponsor the big unveiling!
Here’s the URL – enjoy:
<
p>
http://www.townonlin…
So I can cover it. This is almost exactly what I was talking about on my blog. We need to start fielding candidates now, raising money and volunteers now and making sure all these schmucks feel the heat now.
<
p>
Instead of giving boatloads to Deval, the state dem party, etc. etc. etc. from this point on, people who donate contributions should find these small congressional races and give their $500. Furthermore, we need to start PACs to both recruit and help wage battle in several individual districts. Organizations like MassEquality and KnowthyNeighbor are well positioned to help do that.
<
p>
It’s time we take the fight to them and get a route. There are dozens of Joyce Spiliotis out there (rep from Peabody who has barely won her seat in primaries TWO times in a row and is extremely weak, unpopular and can be defeated with an organized effort).
The Rep. I’d like to replace is Donato. (See post on front page below this one!) I grew up in his district and have only lived out of it a few years. I’d gladly move back in if I knew there was support for a new candidate…and I feel that there just may be.
Money = influence and power.
The more you can give to candidates who need it, the better =p
<
p>
Here’s how I’d prioritize donations for everyone:
<
p>
1. Donate to people who could use it the most.
<
p>
A. Donations are most relevant to smaller offices, such as State Rep. $500 – even in Massachusetts – means a lot in a competitive state rep race.
<
p>
B. Of course, in a close Governor’s election or Senate election, send your cash in there too. It’s very important to win those, but also important not to forget close state rep races that can really make a difference.
<
p>
2. Donate to people who will put it to good use. Parties and candidate PACs who will get it to causes and candidates you support are great. Organizations like Moveon are great too. I’d tend towards an organization that put the money most closely where you wanted it spent first, before I’d give it to the State Democratic Party.
<
p>
3. Give to candidates you like, who may not necessarily need it. For example, if you just LOVE Ted Kennedy – and there are lots of reasons to love him, he’s been a great Senator for us – then toss him some cash if you have it.
<
p>
I almost expect Deval Patrick to be on this list in 4 years, because I’m hopeful that he’ll do well enough that the power of competent incumbency will make him a shoo-in, especially without having to deal with a divisive primary. So my suggestion to not give to Deval didn’t mean I didn’t want Deval to get money, only that it would be more meaningful to give to candidates who could use it the most and who would do the most to advance your cause. My suggestion came with the assumption that most people don’t have more than $500 to give.
Ryan, you might need to go back to civics class down there at your state school. Congressmen serve in Washington at the federal level, not at the State House in the State Legislature!
for a childish insult over a typo.
I know they’re state reps; it was a simple quick-thinking typo that happens on forums – who seriously edits all their replies? In the words of Yoda, “When 70 words a minute you write, you type so well, hmm?”
<
p>
The insult at going to a state school is completely unnecessary. I know enough people from Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Tufts, etc. that I’m convinced intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite at elite private schools. If it makes you any happier, I could have gone to Holy Cross – but didn’t feel like having a mortgage after I graduated. Is that sufficiently elitist?
<
p>
I assure you some of the most intelligent people I’ve met – and I have the tendency to befriend class valedictorians (seriously, it’s wierd) – have come from state schools.
You are internalizing it too much.
Just do it!
Grab the Elephant by the trunck!
And hold him responsible
Not to put a damper on the enthusiasm in this thread, because I’m completely behind it. But…What is to stop Travaglini from ramming through another vote at the ConCon, which will reconvene in May (right?). I mean, can we get challenge campaigns going strong enough to make 15 or so legislators quake in their suits that early? The ConCon reconvenes in just 5 months!
Senate President Travestyni will gavel a vote through before they settle in their seats, claiming the measure has “already been debated.” Oh, this legislature has never debated it? Too bad, we have to follow the process. Except when it affects the guys offering me my next job (Partners).
<
p>
Yes, I think the only way out is not to show up–and blame Travestini.
I ran Monica Palacios-Boyce’s campaign against Todd Smola (R – Palmer) in 04. I will most definitely help find someone to run against Smola in 08. Go after all of them!
Shawn
There are a few in the Worc and Springfield areas that have got to go!
As satisfying as it may be, I don’t think starting by threatening your local rep with your electoral wrath is the way to go.
<
p>
Odds are, you’re going to lose. From my observation, the same-sex marriage isn’t going to drive that many votes. People want two things from their legislators. They want their phone calls returned and their cut of the state budget pie. you can argue about civil rights all you want. That’s not going to trump “he helped me with my medicare” or “he got funding for the town swimming pool.”
<
p>
In fact, at this point, I’d suggest the opposite approach. I really think there’s a block of votes in the 62 that voted yes based on the idea that somehow 130,000 signatures overruled their duty to decide on the merits.
<
p>
Current estimates are that 5 or 6 of them need to have their minds changed. That requires persuasion, not threats. One things those reps are going to need is political cover for when they switch their votes. So, this year, rather than “change your vote or else,” try “change your vote and we’ve got your back.”
<
p>
I know it’s not as satisfying, but the words you wsnt to hear first are “48 votes in the affirmative, the motion does not carry.”
<
p>
And if that doesn’t work, kick their asses.
There was a major change in the legislature away from support for an amendment only AFTER a couple anti-equality reps were defeated in 2004 — Howland and Ciampa.
<
p>
The reps got scared, even though MOST of them were reelected.
<
p>
Two recent examples this past year, John Rogers and Gene O’Flaherty — both of whom just voted against the amendment. Of course they both might have seen the light on their own, but in both cases they saw the light almost immediately after pro-gay-marriage candidates announced against them.
<
p>
This is not an argument against persuasion, that’s important too (though there’s not a single legislator who hasn’t heard it all from both sides by now). But look at the evidence before you develop your theories.
<
p>
More evidence: Parente and Pope aren’t coming back this year. Both defeated by pro-equality opponents. And not ONE pro-equality incumbent has been defeated since this all began.
<
p>
The final 55 or so bad votes know the issues, they know the politics of it and they know that the only chance they have of paying a price for their vote is if they have opponents. Yes, odds are they hold their seats. But have you met these people? They don’t want to take the chance!
Never works.
<
p>
The election is two years away, the next ConCon vote perhaps months.
<
p>
Frankly, if I were a State Rep. I wouldn’t be all that scared of someone promising to run against me. Probably happens all the time. Yet most of them keep getting re-elected
<
p>
I think a close examination of public statements and actions can identify legislators who are persuadable. I’d start with the 39 who voted “yes” on the previous version of the bill, since they’re either comfortable with some sort of partnership rights for gays or are at least demonstrably wishy-washy.
<
p>
Many who voted Yes are true believers, but I stick to my contention that a few have simply fallen under the “let them vote” spell.
<
p>
A threat to do something two years from now just doesn’t strike as very effective.
And then I pointed out concrete examples that suggest that the facts don’t support what you are saying.
<
p>
I’m saying that both approaches need to be used. You’re claiming that only one should be used because running people won’t work. But it has been one of the most effective things so far.
<
p>
In fact, I think NO ONE is arguing against trying to persuade legislators on the merits. Why would you suggest not ALSO doing what has been proved effective already?
Spending 2007 plotting vengeance takes away from the immediate problem, convincing 6 or so legislators to switch votes, all of whom will catch hell no matter what they do. I’m sure the anti-SSM crowd is already considering who they have to keep the pressure on.
<
p>
I’m not convinced your concrete examples prove anything. The A doesn’t neccesarily follow through to B then C. Maybe they switched votes because of the one issue, maybe they were convinced via some other means. Neither of us know.
<
p>
What I do know is that unseating an incumbent is very difficult. I also know, as I said before, threatening to do something which you may not be able to carry out, sometime in the future is a hollow threat. Trust me, I’ve got kids, I know.
<
p>
If this argument was taking place in early 2008, I might very well change my tune. So to end my half of this discussion, stop thinking about how to punish them, there’s plenty of time for that later. Think about how to persuade them now.
It IS about persuasion and you just don’t want to accept the facts.
<
p>
At least I’m providing concrete examples. You’re basing your theory on what you think ought to be true.
<
p>
I also find it odd that you are saying only to use one approach when neither takes away from the other and in fact they might work together great.
<
p>
If the legislator you are trying to persuade has an opponent, you can pledge to help defend the incumbent if he/she switches votes.
<
p>
Indeed (though I know you don’t like facts) this DID happen not just with the two legislators I mentioned but with others as well. Again, I would NEVER suggest that they switched for reasons other than it was the right thing to do… but…