Tuesday Update: When the papers went in, Wilkerson had sought recounts in five Boston Wards in Roxbury and Central Dorchester. The Herald reports those are 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Her campaign cited voter complaints of uncounted ballots. Chang-Díaz filed for a recount in a single JP Ward.
The Globe quotes Wilkerson spokesman Jeff Ross as saying the recount should bring “closure and resolution.” (He left out finality.)
Please share widely!
They just might play out the same — the GOP voted for Lieberman because he was less liberal, they might vote for Wilkerson simply because she embarrasses the Democratic party. After all, the policies of DW and SC-D aren’t far apart.
<
p>Even if the district is 5% GOP, that’s enough of a potential swing for DW to beat the Democratic candidate.
amongst her key constituents in November.
The Republicans HATE Wilkerson. It’s not like the Lieberman situation where he had a strong base of more moderate and conservative voters. Even though the embarrassment temptation would be strong, I think they’d have a hard time pulling the lever.
Did I call it, or what?! What do I win, the tote bag or the mug?
You get the same as I do, the smug.
against the Democratic Nominee – as far as I’m concerned, she’s done in Massachusetts politics. Toss her off her city and ward committees, throw her off the DSC. You do NOT run against or endorse against the Democratic Nominee as a Democrat. That’s just, well, insane. And insanely stupid.
<
p>She could bide her time and mount another challenge next primary… but running against the nominee is just not kosher in party politics. Given the fact that she’s benefitted greatly from the party machine, she ought to realize that. This is certainly very Joe Lieberman of her, if she actually does it.
<
p>I guess the recount is okay, but for the sake of her career (whatever she could salvage of it, anyway), it ought to end there. I was hoping I wouldn’t have to write about Dianne again, but if this thing extends past the recount… all bets are off.
Why wouldn’t both candidates want a district-wide recount? What happens when Diaz has one total based on HER precincts, and Wilkerson has another based on hers? And both claim victory?
It’s not a per-precinct total in the recount, favoring one or the other by demographics. If all 10 precincts are in, it’s a recount of Second Suffolk. If it is any subset, the per-precinct change adds to or subtracts from the total for all candidates (there were a tiny percentage of write-ins).
<
p>Unlike the hand-counted and visual sticker version two years ago, we shouldn’t expect any real differences. It might bring a tiny bit more emotional closure to the Wilkerson forces though.
<
p>That written, I’m not sure they are ready to accept the results.
You have a very short time to collect 50 valid signatures from each ward to be recounted. I was on the signature collection effort for Sonia in 2006, and we tried very hard to do a districtwide recount but did not qualify for every ward, IIRC. That time, there was very good reason to believe that the votes had not been counted correctly (heck, a number of precincts didn’t count them at all), and it was very frustrating that they made us go through all those hoops when sound process would’ve just required Boston to recount the whole district.
<
p>This time, there’s no particular reason I know of to believe the count was done poorly (other than the general problem of Boston being bad at counting votes). Whose effort is it worth to collect all those signatures? It’s hard to get signatures from the right ward when most people don’t even know what ward they live in, and you have a limited time to do it in.
<
p>However, once Dianne’s campaign committed to doing a recount for some of her strongest wards, it’s important for Sonia to get her strongest wards recounted too, just in case each precinct gets a minor adjustment. We have no reason to believe it’ll change the result, but on the off-chance that it does, focusing some resources on the wards at the opposite end of the vote distribution from the ones Dianne is doing makes it less likely to be changed on a fluke.
<
p>Ideally, if there were any question about the accuracy of the count, they’d recount all of it, but a) there isn’t really, and b) are you going to go collect those 50 signatures in low-turnout wards where the vote was evenly split?
That’s a firmly established part of democracy; if she wants the recount, recount the whole enchalada. It was certainly close enough that one could be warranted. I’d be shocked if the results change, but if she wants it, it’s her right under the laws of this state.
<
p>I’m just talking if she does anything beyond that. There’s a lot of chatter that she will. If she does, as a loyal Democrat, that’s backstabbing the entire party and the system of party politics. It just shows that they weren’t loyal to the party – only themselves. As someone who wants change – and recognizes that it can only happen through working with a team – betrayal of that team by a former member is intolerable. The money, time and energy it would take to ensure Sonia’s victory for the second time (even if it would be easier than the first) would be a real waste – money, time and energy that could have gone to helping Barack or, locally, in a race like Sara Orozco.
<
p>But a recount? If it’ll make Dianne feel any better, it’s her right to do it.
Hmm, where’s that supposition from? I consider it unlikely, unless you have information I don’t?
…the table.
<
p>Primary night and the next day and the next day, her spokeswomen said she had ruled nothing out, not a recount, and that she’d consider all options, including a write-in or sticker campaign. They are widely quoted in both major dailies, the Phoenix and so forth.
<
p>For one example, a Globe piece on the 18th included, “According to two people in the Wilkerson camp briefed on the situation, the senator may also mount a sticker or write-in campaign and run as an independent in November.” There are quite a few similar examples.
<
p>Initially, Wilkerson seemed enough in denial to qualify her belated concession in some sort of magical thinking. She had all the cards and was the dealer, but she still lost the big hand. That seems more than she can accept easily.
<
p>In fairness, I did a brief show with her strategist and friend Joyce Ferriabough last week. With all the shields up and artillery fired, Wilkerson’s camp has not fully realized the loss. They were armed with everything except the moral and legal high grounds.
Get ready . . .!
<
p>Diane has a way of surprising all pf us. Don’t underestimate her ability!
<
p>If Diane wantsto stay on Beacon Hill, she will. She fits right in up there with the other scoundrels.
<
p>Go on girl! My money is on Diane!
<
p>Chang-Diaz would make us all too proud. She would be honest and forthright. That would be too much of a shock for the State House.
<
p>
she should request a recount. We DEMS do believe in DEMocracy even if it’s inconvenient don’t we? Wouldn’t you request a recount if there were only 228 votes separating you and the winner. Plus there were 400+uncast votes. I do think that is Sonia prevails in the recount that Dianne should bow out. Despite some of things that are said about Dianne on this site, she is an extremely intelligent woman who has been a fierce advocate for her constituents. I’m sure she’ll be fine in the event she needs to seek employment in the private sector. By the way where is the outrage over this story? With all this talk of Wilkerson, this post got 10 comments. It’s funny, since we are all about accountability. Some of Wilkerson’s biggest critics didn’t even comment on this post. I would have thought more folks would have been all over this. Again, different strokes for different folks. I wish Wilkerson the best of luck in her recount and future endeavors.
<
p>2. The Rogers scenario is a little different. For starters, I – along with many others – were quite willing to forgive one major transgression. That could be an accident, or a stupid act – and we’re all (IMO) entitled to be stupid on the job once or even twice. However, with Dianne, it was habitual. Hence the electoral results.
<
p>So, honestly, it’s unfair to be angry that there wasn’t a chorus of POd posters in that particular diary – especially given the fact that on the date it was posted, there was a lot of other stuff going on that captured the crowd’s attention (which just happens in the blogosphere – some of the best posts get buried behind whatever’s cool and hip that day).
<
p>3. That said, you’d be a fool if you didn’t think the Rogers thing will have serious repercussions for him, though many of them behind the scenes. As David said in that post you linked to,
<
p>
<
p>So even if the BMG crowd isn’t railing against Rogers, don’t think he may someday seriously regret that he did this to himself. He just added another hurdle to his chances of ever becoming Speaker – which, for politicians like Rogers, may be one of the few things keeping them in the game (lest they move on and make hundreds of thousands a year in the private sector).
there are several members of the House who are quite corrupt, but who are better able to avoid getting caught red-handed than Diane Wilkerson. Wilkerson’s “crimes” have a pathetic quality to them, for the most part, and seem like the actions of someone who is essentially broke. Missed condo fee payments, missed tax payments, faulty paperwork, missing campaign funds (obviously no joke). However, Mr. Rogers has “raised eyebrows” before, and he will probably continue to do sketchy things (Any animal lovers out there?) but there will probably never be a smoking gun. Rogers and DiMasi are alike in their cleverness and their legal elusiveness.
To a certain extent, they are obviously getting their money’s worth with all their “consultants”, “friends”, and “advisors”, as both have managed to avoid felony charges for their tortuous white collar schemes. Wilkerson is a little bit like Nixon- busted in part because of the vulgarity of the crime (a burglary?!), while DiMasi and Rogers are crooks of the Bush-Cheney generation, with their legions of lawyers, PR hacks, and illusionists hired to make these inconvenient charges vanish, or at least fade away over time.
I just saw this in the Globe, and I had to come to BMG to see if anyone had noticed the Jeff Ross connection. Good money says that Wilkerson “spokesman” Jeff Ross is this Jeff Ross, last year’s sketchiest Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex Senate candidate, whose primary residence is in Wilkerson’s district. In which case: these two are MADE for each other. Take a look; you’ll see what I mean.
<
p>Can anyone confirm this is the same guy? It’s a small town, and I’d hate to defame anyone unnecessarily by associating them with the serious questions and issues raised in that post.
same guy
per AP story online at The Herald http://news.bostonherald.com/n…
<
p>Wilkerkon’s signatures were certified for 3 of the 5 wards that she was reportedly seeking a recount in. Chang-Diaz’ signatures were certified for the 1 ward she collected in. The recount will take place Sat. at City Hall.
<
p>
Not that anyone needs them, but I have more on these stupidities here and here.
PolitickerMA is reporting that Wilkerson’s ready for a rematch and will run a sticker campaign:
Please, Senator, don’t do this. Don’t force activists to take time in Boston on election day when we could be sending them to New Hampshire or Pennsylvania, or Ohio or Florida.
As sco and Politicker suggest, and now the Glob reports:
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>