Loscocco’s not a bad guy, but he hasn’t exactly brought a lot to the table except for a reliable vote for the Republican line. His best vote was the last-minute switch to defeat the “protection of marriage” ballot initiative last year — although with an utterly convoluted explanation after strongly being for it.
“By simply leaving our constitution alone, the Legislature the elected representatives of the people and not simply the courts, will have the ultimate ability to refine the law in this area and react to unforeseen challenges which may arise,” he wrote. “Changing our constitution means imposing the perceived certainties of the present upon future generations who may very well view the world differently.
“As an attorney, I have consistently taken what I believe to be a principled position on the gay marriage issue based upon adherence to my understanding of the law,” Loscocco wrote. “However, I belatedly came to the realization that my role in the constitutional process as a legislator differs from that of an attorney. As a legislator, I represent all of the people in my district, not just those of any particular group.
“Having taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the Commonwealth, my obligation at the constitutional convention is to ensure that a vote on this issue actually occurs and that any proposed amendment is consistent with the underlying principles enshrined in our constitution. Weighing the relative benefits and harms affecting the various constituents I represent under competing constitutional principles, I conclude that proposed amendment has no place in our cherished Massachusetts constitution.”
The district has historically had a Republican lean, but is really more of a swing district with lots of high tech employees. The last several election cycles have seen increasing numbers of Democrats turning out.
We had a great progressive representative (Barbara Gardner) before Loscocco– it will be interesting to see whether Carolyn Dykema has the race to herself or if others will sign up to run before the May deadline.
The district in question (Eighth Middlesex) gave George W. Bush 44.8 per cent of the vote in 2004 (I think; I mean, this district didn’t exist before 2002), and gave Mitt Romney 63.2 per cent of the vote in 2002. I don’t have any numbers for Deval Patrick, Kerry Healey, and Christy.
<
p>Full disclosure: I know this because I am currently interning at the MassGOP and this is one of my projects. Before you think that I am completely opposed to everything you do, please know that my opposition is in smaller quantities (I am a libertarian at heart).
<
p>So this is one of the strongest Republican districts in the Commonwealth (whatever that’s worth). There are 57 similar House districts and 15 Senate districts (i.e., those that gave Dubya at least 42 per cent of the vote and gave Mitt at least 52 per cent of the vote. They include the two districts the Democrats are challenging as seen in the sidebar. The First Middlesex is 48.6 and 61.3, respectively; and the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex is 42.1 and 53, respectively. So don’t think that you are automatically going to be handed these seats. Besides, veto-proof majorities and effective one-party rule, regardless of who it is, well, stink. đŸ˜‰
I’d much rather see Dems have 60% of Senate and House, and watch them fight with the Greens/Green-Rainbow/whatever over the other 40% of the votes. Maybe throw in a few libertarians just for fun.
<
p>If the alternative is to have the locally anti-civil rights GOP and nationally anti-all things good(tm) GOP prevent veto-proof majorities, than no thanks.
<
p>Eating pasta for dinner every day might get old, but it beats alternating between pasta and dog food.
Dems already have well above 60% of seats in both houses of the Commonwealth’s legislative bodies. But if you mean the Dems keep everything they have and the Green-Rainbows and Libertarians start to get competitive in the most progressive of districts and most anti-tax/fiscally conservative, respectively (something that neither party seems to be in much shape to do, I’ll tell you; I did some research on them when I was trying to get members of both parties to run against anti-marriage Democrats and anti-marriage Republicans, respectively, and they don’t have the candidates or resources to even take advantage of good showings statewide and translate that into victories down ballot), then OK I understand, and I tend to agree.
<
p>Too bad it will never happen, and even though a guy who served as communications secretary for the Green-Rainbows wishfully said there are two parties “The Dems and us”, right now the Mass GOP is the only opposition game in town, and you know just how much that is saying… perhaps the wealthier fiscal conservatives should give up on the GOP brand in the state and start investing in promising Libertarian candidates in certain districts where Republicans are retiring in this and future cycles. I know MASS progressives are far from ready to give up on the Democratic Party in even a single state legislative district, and will only seek to get rid of corporatist incumbent DINOs by primary challenge alone.
Even though the Democrats have swept everything in Massachusetts and, as the four recent special elections show, the voters would rather let them keep over the GOP, the Greens are still failing to capitalize on voters’ natural tendencies to want a two-party system in most places:
<
p>
<
p>So all they could get in a year where liberal/progressive voter turnout is excessively high is less than 2,000 votes, which they tried billing as an 81.4% increase from 2004, to make it seem waaaaay more impressive than it actually is. If voters are still looking to try to make this a two-party system and still reject trusting the GOP ever again, it’s clear the Greens aren’t the alternative they’re looking for to keep a check on excessive Democratic power. Their only major success in Massachusetts is Boston city council member Chuck Turner, who is considered a member of the G-R Party.
The core of this district — Holliston/Hopkinton — was the core of the district before 2002, thank you very much. The rest of the district consists of one Medway precinct, two Southboro precincts, and one Westboro precinct. The 2006 voter breakdown for these two towns is:
<
p>Holliston — 9,682 total voters; 2,759 D, 1,590 R, 5,272 I
Hopkinton — 8,847 total voters; 2,116 D, 1,932 R, 4,761 I
<
p>It was a Republican district when it was more rural, but those days are gone. This is a classic swing district, with a highly educated block of voters and a lot of high tech workers. However, it has historically elected Democrats. It was very ably represented by Barbara Gardner, a progressive Democrat who stepoed aside to take an executive position at DOE. Senator Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) represents most of the district and is highly regarded.
<
p>I certainly never said or ever would say that the 8th Middlesex would be an automatic win — for either party. Loscocco was able to win reelection for his second term because of a very fractious Democratic primary, and no one opposed him for his third term. A Democrat who focuses on issues important in Metrowest — economic development, education, local aid, and Pike fairness — and runs a good campaign can win it. Given the amazing level of energy and turnout for the March Democratic primary within the district, and the amount of organizing which is happening at the local level in support of the national election, any Republican who pulls papers will have an uphill climb in the general election this time out.
FWIW.
<
p>Patrick: 8513 (48.03%)
<
p>Healey: 7651 (43.17%)
<
p>Mihos: 1226 (6.92%)
<
p>Ross: 311 (1.75%)
<
p>Others: 24 (0.14%)
<
p>Blanks: 141