We didn’t lose a US Senate seat. We gained an opportunity to win a state senate seat! Awesome, thank you. Made my day. Wholeheartedly behind this!
davesokosays
Special Elections can be tough (clearly) because of the short time available to run a campaign. Luckily, there is already a fantastic progressive Democrat in the race for Scott Brown’s former State Senate seat.
<
p>Dr. Peter Smulowitz of Needham (http://petersmulowitz.com/) entered the race last November (http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/RecentlyOrganized.aspx), and has been actively campaigning almost three months. Peter is a thirty-something Emergency Room Physician at the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, and an expert on healthcare policy.
<
p>I spoke to Peter as recently as last week, and he told me that if Scott Brown beat Coakley he would be a candidate in the special election for State Senate, since he is already in the race for the same seat in the regularly-scheduled election this November.
<
p>Clearly from this diary, you can tell that I strongly support Peter. I think he has the depth of knowledge, the commitment and the values to be a truly great legislator. I urge every BMGer who wants to see Scott Brown’s seat in progressive hands to take a look at Dr. Peter Smulowitz.
tell him to clean up his website. Hell, maybe hire Lynne or someone else around here if need be. He’s got a “coming soon” issues page, and scroll bars embedded in a page with scroll bars. The photos aren’t great either.
<
p>He sounds awesome — now let’s make sure his awesomeness is apparent.
I voted for Instant Runoff Voting but I’d really put Clean Elections at the top of that list. We need to get dirty money out of our political system, or at least create mechanisms to out-maneuver it.
<
p>I’d add “Make the legislature subject to Open Meeting and Public Records laws” and “Get rid of quasi-public agencies”.
<
p>I appreciate your openness to putting a progressive into the seat and not simply a big-D Democrat. Please check out my post The Democratic Party is Dead.
stomvsays
and by a little, I mean substantially. Still, I wish you luck — the system has problems, and I too want ’em fixed. So, get on the stick — there are two open senate seats. The G-R folks need to get into those districts and register new folks as G-R (either unregistered, or converts from U or D). Run on change — G-R is liberal but isn’t part of the incumbent problem.
<
p>As a Big D Democrat and a Masshole, in my opinion the best thing for us (Dems and citizens of MA) is a strengthening G-R party.
stomvsays
I think IRV is far more important than Clean Elections as a method to get third parties traction — for just about every election, all the money in the world can’t get a candidate from 2% to 20% if he isn’t a D or an R. But, promising that voters won’t “spoil” if they vote the candidate really can make candidates credible.
<
p>As it is now, lots of Dems (and GOPers) won’t consider a third party candidate, lest a GOP (or Dem) win as a result. However, mark my words: with IRV Dems will support third parties like Working Family, G-R, even Libertarian who champion their issues. Same goes for GOPers. They simply can’t do it now, because their second favorite choice (the D or GOP candidate) losing to their least favorite choice (the GOP or D candidate) is just too terrible to risk it.
<
p>Unenrolled — totally untapped base. Nobody knows what they’ll do.
<
p>
<
p>As an added bonus, it allows the electorate to express more complex choices. If, for example, the G-R candidate comes in third but gets 15% of “1” votes, it tells the winning candidate that a sizable group of voters care about those issues first and foremost… and if you want to get their “2” vote next time you’d better earn it.
<
p>Imagine an IRV outcome like this:
D 40
GOP 30
G-R 15
Libertarian 10
Catholic* 5
<
p>If I’m the D and I win (or lose) the runoff, I know I’ve got to co-opt some other folks to keep winning… maybe I try to pickup some G-R “2” votes, maybe some Libertarian “2” votes, maybe even the Catholic vote. Same goes for the GOP candidate — probably can’t get many G-R, but could definitely work on getting a few of ’em, plus the Libs and Catholics. You might not get their “1” vote next time, but the Dem knows he’s got to “out-G-R” the GOPer to get those “2” votes, “out-Libertarian” the GOPer to get those “2” votes, etc.
<
p>Suddenly, the outcome is more complex, and the messages can be made more clear about what issues matter to voters. I guarantee you that all elected officials would be more responsive to what people care about… because they’d more clearly know what the people care about.
Hi – just wanted to offer some history of this seat. Brown won it in an election that was quite similar to the one we just witnessed. The former occupant, Cheryl Jacques, was a rather progressive fighter for gay rights. She retired and left her successor, a deputy named Angus McQuilken, to run in her place. McQuilken was sort of an unknown quality and I got the sense Brown swept him away with his charm, looks, etc.
<
p>The point of all this is that this district can easily be won back by a progressive. Needham was Brown campaign HQ, and there were Brown signs all over it yesterday, but Coakley still won it last night. If Jacques could be based her a few years ago, it’s very possible to run a similar candidate now that more liberal Newton types are moving in.
davesokosays
Coakley cleaned up in the whole northern end of the district. Towns in Brown’s district that he lost included not only Needham but Natick, Wellesley, and Wayland as well, even as he romped in the towns in the district’s southern end.
<
p>Definitely a swing-district, that one. But I guess it should be, since it runs pretty much from Wayland in the North to the RI border!
We didn’t lose a US Senate seat. We gained an opportunity to win a state senate seat! Awesome, thank you. Made my day. Wholeheartedly behind this!
Special Elections can be tough (clearly) because of the short time available to run a campaign. Luckily, there is already a fantastic progressive Democrat in the race for Scott Brown’s former State Senate seat.
<
p>Dr. Peter Smulowitz of Needham (http://petersmulowitz.com/) entered the race last November (http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/RecentlyOrganized.aspx), and has been actively campaigning almost three months. Peter is a thirty-something Emergency Room Physician at the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, and an expert on healthcare policy.
<
p>I spoke to Peter as recently as last week, and he told me that if Scott Brown beat Coakley he would be a candidate in the special election for State Senate, since he is already in the race for the same seat in the regularly-scheduled election this November.
<
p>Clearly from this diary, you can tell that I strongly support Peter. I think he has the depth of knowledge, the commitment and the values to be a truly great legislator. I urge every BMGer who wants to see Scott Brown’s seat in progressive hands to take a look at Dr. Peter Smulowitz.
Sorry-
<
p>http://petersmulowitz.com/
<
p>http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us…
tell him to clean up his website. Hell, maybe hire Lynne or someone else around here if need be. He’s got a “coming soon” issues page, and scroll bars embedded in a page with scroll bars. The photos aren’t great either.
<
p>He sounds awesome — now let’s make sure his awesomeness is apparent.
To progressives who will kick serious ass! đŸ˜€
: )
I voted for Instant Runoff Voting but I’d really put Clean Elections at the top of that list. We need to get dirty money out of our political system, or at least create mechanisms to out-maneuver it.
<
p>I’d add “Make the legislature subject to Open Meeting and Public Records laws” and “Get rid of quasi-public agencies”.
<
p>I appreciate your openness to putting a progressive into the seat and not simply a big-D Democrat. Please check out my post The Democratic Party is Dead.
and by a little, I mean substantially. Still, I wish you luck — the system has problems, and I too want ’em fixed. So, get on the stick — there are two open senate seats. The G-R folks need to get into those districts and register new folks as G-R (either unregistered, or converts from U or D). Run on change — G-R is liberal but isn’t part of the incumbent problem.
<
p>As a Big D Democrat and a Masshole, in my opinion the best thing for us (Dems and citizens of MA) is a strengthening G-R party.
I think IRV is far more important than Clean Elections as a method to get third parties traction — for just about every election, all the money in the world can’t get a candidate from 2% to 20% if he isn’t a D or an R. But, promising that voters won’t “spoil” if they vote the candidate really can make candidates credible.
<
p>As it is now, lots of Dems (and GOPers) won’t consider a third party candidate, lest a GOP (or Dem) win as a result. However, mark my words: with IRV Dems will support third parties like Working Family, G-R, even Libertarian who champion their issues. Same goes for GOPers. They simply can’t do it now, because their second favorite choice (the D or GOP candidate) losing to their least favorite choice (the GOP or D candidate) is just too terrible to risk it.
<
p>Unenrolled — totally untapped base. Nobody knows what they’ll do.
<
p>
<
p>As an added bonus, it allows the electorate to express more complex choices. If, for example, the G-R candidate comes in third but gets 15% of “1” votes, it tells the winning candidate that a sizable group of voters care about those issues first and foremost… and if you want to get their “2” vote next time you’d better earn it.
<
p>Imagine an IRV outcome like this:
D 40
GOP 30
G-R 15
Libertarian 10
Catholic* 5
<
p>If I’m the D and I win (or lose) the runoff, I know I’ve got to co-opt some other folks to keep winning… maybe I try to pickup some G-R “2” votes, maybe some Libertarian “2” votes, maybe even the Catholic vote. Same goes for the GOP candidate — probably can’t get many G-R, but could definitely work on getting a few of ’em, plus the Libs and Catholics. You might not get their “1” vote next time, but the Dem knows he’s got to “out-G-R” the GOPer to get those “2” votes, “out-Libertarian” the GOPer to get those “2” votes, etc.
<
p>Suddenly, the outcome is more complex, and the messages can be made more clear about what issues matter to voters. I guarantee you that all elected officials would be more responsive to what people care about… because they’d more clearly know what the people care about.
<
p>
<
p> * anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, pro-social services, anti-war, anti-gay marriage… the whole gamut.
Hi – just wanted to offer some history of this seat. Brown won it in an election that was quite similar to the one we just witnessed. The former occupant, Cheryl Jacques, was a rather progressive fighter for gay rights. She retired and left her successor, a deputy named Angus McQuilken, to run in her place. McQuilken was sort of an unknown quality and I got the sense Brown swept him away with his charm, looks, etc.
<
p>The point of all this is that this district can easily be won back by a progressive. Needham was Brown campaign HQ, and there were Brown signs all over it yesterday, but Coakley still won it last night. If Jacques could be based her a few years ago, it’s very possible to run a similar candidate now that more liberal Newton types are moving in.
Coakley cleaned up in the whole northern end of the district. Towns in Brown’s district that he lost included not only Needham but Natick, Wellesley, and Wayland as well, even as he romped in the towns in the district’s southern end.
<
p>Definitely a swing-district, that one. But I guess it should be, since it runs pretty much from Wayland in the North to the RI border!
It is the only Senate District represented by FIVE members of Congress.