Here’s a map of where the opponents of the bill represent:
Republicans in Red. Democrats in Blue.
Areas of the state heavily dependent on tourism, such as the Berkshires and Cape Cod, strongly opposed the bill. These reps are probably worried that Bostonians will spend their money in casinos and have nothing left for summer vacations.
Another region with a lot of opposition is the liberal middle class inner suburbs: Cambridge, Somerville, Belmont, Jamaica Plain, etc. are all largely represented by reps who voted no. It is again a testimony to the awesome power of the editors that every rep who represented even a sliver of Arlington voted against the bill. Clearly David is more feared than Deleo there. đŸ˜‰
Minority neighborhoods of Boston also had considerable opposition. There was scattered opposition in some of the secondary cities of Massachusetts, such as Lawrence, Fall River and Springfield.
Lastly, Conservative opposition to the bill seemed to center around rural Central Mass. Republicans and Democrats opposed the bill in rough equal proportion to their numbers in the House, though presumably the GOP had less pressure from the leadership.
If you don’t mind my asking, how did you put this together?
http://gardow.com/davebradlee/…
<
p>I got the descriptions of the districts from the official websites of the legislators and colored in the wards and precincts on Dave’s map. There were a couple of things that seems slightly inconsistent between the data sources, like a legislator representing precincts 2,3 and 5 of a town where Dave’s map only showed 4 precincts, but nothing drastic.
….as Baker supports casinos and Mihos opposes them.
<
p>GOP ‘leadership’ wanted a Yes.
has always opposed gambling proposals, even if the so-called resorts were going to be out here in the western part of the state. (Maybe Gov. Patrick should sell his estate to Harrah’s for a “resort.” I wonder how he’d feel about having it in his backyard?)
<
p>The fact is that, regardless of the Tanglewood crowd, the Berkshires remain one of the poorer areas of the state and casino gambling disproportionately hurts poor people. It is predatory.
<
p>Also, study after study shows that gambling does NOT promote overall economic growth of an area. In fact, several studies demonstrate that gambling HURTS nearby business rather than help. We are not Saratoga where the wealthy go to watch the ponies. We are a place where the locals make-due on around $29 k per year as opposed to $49 k in the rest of the state.
<
p>Opposition to DeLeo’s racetrack stimulus plan was based on the economic principle that it would hurt constituents and would do nothing for the overall local economy. It was not based on pop-psychology.
when two or more districts abut, it’s sometimes hard to gauge representation… land area doesn’t vote, people do.
<
p>It’s hard to see how many districts are in that western blue blob. For example, are there more representatives in that blue blob or in the Boston-metro section?
<
p>I know, I know — look at the roll call.
I’m surprised there isn’t more outrage on BMG about Rep. Michlewitz’s support of the bill.
<
p>As you know, I ran for the 3rd Suffolk State Rep seat, last year. I was strongly and firmly against casinos then and I am now. At the time, Aaron seemed to be on board against casinos even though he said, “It’s not an automatic ‘No’.”
<
p>Now he goes and votes ‘Yes’, citing a bad economy and the appeal of thousands of jobs.
<
p>The economy sucked last year, too and there were promises of thousands of jobs last year, too. Nothing has changed between now and then.
<
p>Well, except that Speaker DeLeo made it clear that he wanted this passed, now, and with ironclad support.
<
p>Reps. Marty Walz, Alice Wolf, and Byron Rushing all seemed to see the light and voted their conscience.
<
p>It’s beyond belief that Aaron voted ‘Yes’.