As David Bernstein points out, there were some Democratic voters who showed up for the primary, but who either stayed home or jumped ship for the general. The total number of votes in the Democratic primary was 55,517. But yesterday, Tsongas garnered only 54,363. Not a huge drop in absolute numbers, to be sure — but, as you’d expect, turnout was higher for the general (28%) than for the day-after-Labor-Day primary (18%). So, since 37,000 more total voters showed up yesterday than for the two primaries, you have to be concerned about the roughly 1,100 vote differential between Tsongas’s total yesterday and total Dem turnout in September.
Presumably, the unenrolled contingent accounts for a lot of the disparity. Ogo picked up only about 12,000 votes in the primary, and his opponent had only 1,479, yet he had nearly 48,000 votes yesterday. But good heavens — if turnout yesterday was 37,000 votes higher than it was in the primaries, then the vast majority of those 37,000 voters voted for Ogo. Hmmm.
I’d be interested to hear from those who were heavily involved in GOTV for the general. What did Eileen Donoghue, Jamie Eldridge, etc. do to make sure their primary supporters turned out for Niki yesterday? Did the state party deploy its resources effectively? Did you talk to primary voters who weren’t sure they would show up for the general, and did you ask them why?
What can we learn from this election?
Emails very often, lots of phone banking at old office.
It seems he delivered the southern part of the district for Niki. A good plurality of Eileen’s votes probably went to Jim. Eldridge’s in place grassroots team in the towns surrounding the “moonbat highway(route 2)” gave this to Niki.
… that doesn’t bode well for the GOP. They are very unlikely to win over JE voters.
(in this case for a region that voted for Romney in 2002) it reminds me that facts and truth are on the side of progressives, and that the right wing can only resort to name calling.
become more limousine liberal (i.e. moonbat, it was meant as humor by the way) with each election. LIberalness, moonbattery, progressiveness whatever you want to particularly call it, has moved further west with each passing year. MassINC has taken note of this as well.
<
p>
I was not the first on this site to show the difference between middle class towns and wealthy towns.
Moonbats are the polar opposites of wingnuts. On the one hand you have Rush, on the other you have people who want to have a resolution on impeaching Bush on the agenda at town meeting.
<
p>
Moonbats and wingnuts are the political forces that, in a more perfect world, would both be marginalized. Alas, this has not been so for some time, much to the detriment of the republic.
… there are “people who want to have a resolution on impeaching Bush on the agenda at town meeting.” is because there are are a great many who “should resolution on impeaching Bush on the agenda of some meeting? Preferably in Congress, but if not…”
that they propose and pass a resolution of the Committee of People Who Sleep in their Bedroom, and leave the town meeting alone.
… that they were not being heard in Washington, they made themselves heard locally. Whats the problem? Should they just accept that they are not heard?
Just because the Congress chose to answer “no” doesn’t mean they weren’t heard.
<
p>
And when you attempt to “be heard” by wasting everyone’s time, your claim to being forlornly ignored and you become an obnoxious left wing crank, a.k.a. “moonbat.”
insert “you forfeit your” before “your claim to being forlornly”.
rather than a “waste of time” the nay-sayers instantly become wingnuts while the moonbats instantly become centrists.
… that went into bankruptcy because there was no time left to pass a budget.
Typically they are (wingnuts/moonbats) who try to declare ownership of the mainstream and declare anyone to the (left/right) of them to be extremist, fringe partisans. This seems to be a fairly large but oddly not a very cohesive group.
The small numbers for Miceli voted for Ogo, probably at a 95% rate. Its not alot, but it is a factor.
<
p>
Then when you look at the northern part of the district, from Lowell to Metheun and Haverhill, who were the people that voted for Donohue? People who didn’t like Tsongas, possibly because the didn’t feel her resume was worthy of a seat in Congress. Nothing against Donohue, but being a city councilor isn’t that compelling of a resume either.
<
p>
I assume that the typical Donohue voter either didn’t vote on Tuesday or went to Ogo.
<
p>
We are talking about Massachusetts Democrats, they take more joy in fighting other Democrats than fighting Republicans.
Donohue was not just a city councilwoman in Lowell. I understand she was a long-time mayor of that city, right up until recently.
wrong
Sorry, Shawn. Better check your facts next time. ; )
form of government.
<
p>
9 City Councilors (one of which is ceremonial mayor)
6 School Committee Members (a seventh member and chairperson is that same mayor)
City Manager, who runs the day to day operations of the city.
<
p>
The City Council in a rotating fashion elects the mayorship. Almost every city councilor in Lowell has been mayor at one point save two or three.
Both Eileen and Niki are very similar to Paul Tsongas politically: socially left-leaning and economically right-leaning. I think in the primary was played more cautiously on the issues that Niki (who though also was very cautious, took a strong stance on the war in a way that only Jamie and Jim M did). I see no reason Eileen’s voters would go to Jim O, and I think most of them would have supported Niki… Most of the crossover GOP votes probably came from the anti-immigrant Barry Finegold and Jim Miceli voters. Jamie kept the southern suburbs strong for Niki like he did for Deval, but I don’t know what the eastern suburbs had for support structure.
Unenrolleds can vote in whatever primary they please. The Dem primary was the more interesting race, so R leaning unenrolled voters voted in it anyway.
Not only was it more interesting, but there are certainly people who like to play with their primary votes as unenrolled voters, thinking strategically, etc.
to abolish open primaries.
…in Europe, the parties put up their candidates (candidates without party can run, but I’m not sure what the protocol is to get them on the ballot), but it is the parties who decide who their candidates are. Parties put up slates of candidates, so the voters know for whom they are voting.
I hate that practice.
<
p>
The only bonus of a parliamentary system, in my mind, is it allows for third party contenders who can make a big difference in government. If the government is close, especially if no party controls a majority, it’ll take compromises to tie together a full government – something a minor party could make a big difference on, if, say they were greens, etc.
<
p>
That said, I think anyone should be able to run for primaries for their own party and it shouldn’t be dictated (any more than it already is, via party annointments). Plus, I’ll take two bodies that act as a check and balance any day of the week… imagine of Bush were the Prime Minister of America? I would shudder to think it.
…of America?”
<
p>
He would have to justify his existence on a regular basis. 😉
But can you really imagine Harry Reid asking the tough questions? I thought so.
<
p>
Meanwhile, there’d be no stopping him, whatsoever. While we’ve barely stopped him on anything, at least we still have programs like social security left. At least we raised minimum wage. None of those things would have happened if America were a parliamentary system IMHO.
It’s likely that many more conservative independents and dems went with Donaghue in the primary, but voted for Jim O in the general, but there are a multitude of possibilities. Here’s one to ponder (and it’s and actual case) – female republican – switched to unenrolled for the primary in order to ensure Eldridge did not get the nomination(was betting that the demo primary winner would be next Congressman), and had some sympathy for Niki because of gender – ultimately voted for Jim O when Tsongas decided to build her political career on the trashing of the President.
I would like to see the statistics for dropping party. I changed from life-long Democrat to Independent after voting Tuesday (doing so before voting may have had more of an impact). Perhaps some of the loss can be accounted for right there.
My feelings on the matter of party loyalty, as I stated here before the election:
<
p>
“Unfortunately, there is too much money and too few real ideas in almost every race. The major parties do us all a disservice by putting party above principle, talking points above ideas, and subjugating critical thinking to an agenda.”
…and it is us.
<
p>
<
p>
You speak as though the major parties were impervious to change and ideas…
<
p>
In principle you are correct and things are as dire as you say. I don’t see that as the fault of the major parties lording it over the rank-and-file…. I see it as the rank-and-file abandoning the major parties. Too many people throw in the towel and ‘go independent’ way to early in the process: they are unwilling to compromise with their co-religionists and often stomp off in a huff. The major parties are what we make of them… even more than the government it’s distinctly ‘e pluribus unum’.
<
p>
On the issue of loyalty… I decry Reagans 11th commandment (‘thou shalt speak no evil of fellow republicans’) as puerile and counterproductive: that’s not loyalty, that’s serfdom. Loyalty to core principles (often embodied by party) however, demands you speak up and join up to get something done. People -honest, earnest and good people- often have no choice but to be loyal to their principles. That’s where a lot of the anger comes from…