We all know last night’s big results in Massachusetts: a Democratic sweep with extra Democratic. Others, like Charley and David, have extrapolated a lot of the wisdom we can learn from it — the strategies we should take, the respect John Walsh should have from both friend and political foe alike, and the fact that reason seemed to win out. That said, there’s some surprises, weird and otherwise, from the night.
- The Pot at the End of the Rainbow. Lots of interesting things happened this election in Massachusetts, but the most interesting thing to me is Palmer, Massachusetts, was the only town with results posted to vote against legalizing either marijuana or medical marijuana in the entire state. Roughly 70 other cities or towns voted to legalize. I’m not a pot smoker, but it’s seeming very silly to keep propping up the black market by keeping pot banned. More importantly, it seems very silly to hundreds of thousands of other Massachusetts voters, too.
- Holy Almost, Batman! Though many tried, some with a gusto, not a single Republican was able to defeat a Democrat in the State Senate. Was that pure luck, or was there a reason why State Senators were far more able to fend off challenges than their House counterparts?
- Three swings, you’re out! Carla Howell must now successfully be the least successful political figure in Massachusetts history to have so many damn initiatives put on the ballot, only to fail so badly. Seriously, it’s starting to get embarrassing for her now. In 2002, she tried to repeal the state’s income tax and lost. In 2008, she tried to repeal the state’s income tax yet again — this time trying to hoodwink a few extra voters by calling it a ‘phase out,’ but failing badly. Now, in 2010, she’s swung and missed in her efforts to cut the state’s sales tax in more than half. Carla, did you ever consider the fact that your ideas are just not wanted here in Massachusetts? Please stop wasting our time.
Please share widely!
Had she pushed an initiative for 5%, I bet it would have passed.
3% was viewed as too far and maybe even reckless, at least short term. You can send a message without a nuclear weapon (sorry about the war analogy) and this was nuclear.
<
p>5% would have passed and probably would have had support from many of the business groups and Republican candidates who favored 5 over 3.
that lost?
<
p>It’s very easy to say it “would have” passed, when there’s no way to test it.
<
p>Finally, it still doesn’t take away from my point: Carla Howell’s ideas just aren’t in tune with Massachusetts voters. The fact that she “overreached” is only illustrative of my point.
I was agreeing with you based on the results of the last 3 ballot questions she sponsored.
<
p>I also agree that it is hard to prove a hypothetical that a laid out. But, it is based on personal anecdotal observations where people in both parties said that they would have voted for 5 but not 3. However, that does leave out the proposition that if only 5 was only the ballot that you would have had the same arguments against it and the vote would have turned out the same. We’ll never know so a moot point.
<
p>One of the reasons why I am not a fan of ballot initiatives in general. Making law requires nuance and ballot questions don’t allow for that nuance. So we end up with all or nothing propositions neither of which is what would come from good debate and lawmaking.
The reckless 3% sales tax which even Baker came out against would have cut revenue the same amount as Baker’s sane and sober 5% sales, 5% income, and 5% corporate.
He didn’t pass either.
Marijuana questions were only on the ballot in certain towns.
<
p>I believe we actually picked up one Senate seat; Katherine Clark was elected to the seat vacated by Richard Tisei.
We did gain a seat in the State Senate. Perhaps I should have included that fact as a bullet point, but I was just more amazed by the fact that Republicans couldn’t beat a single, solitary Democrat in the State Senate.
<
p>As for the marijuana questions, you’re absolutely right — it was only in “certain” towns — but it was in a lot of them. Over 70, in fact. And it only passed in a single one of them, failing every single district, most by fairly wide margins (these kinds of ballot questions are done by district). This is on top of the fact that the state voted to decriminalize pot two years ago. I think the writing’s on the wall on this one, if it’s on the ballot.
part of the reason that no Republicans beat any Democrats in the Senate is that no Democrats ran against any of the incumbents. Three of them (Tarr, Knapik, and Ross) were unopposed, and one of them (Hedlund) faced only an independent candidate (who got trounced).
<
p>I know the MA Dems had a great night and all, so I’m reluctant to nitpick. But I was surprised to learn we couldn’t find an opponent for any incumbent Republican Senator!
They’re down to 4. Seems a bit cruel to knock off the last breeding pairs.
this is Clara’s gig, this is how she gets a pay check. There will be ballot initiatives like this as long as those donation emails still get a response.
Co-sign.
In a post-election radio interview she sounded like Sharon Angle, twisting this into a victory and encouragement. She said the numbers of voters going for her question has been slowly climbing. She said that makes her eager to do it until she wins. I think everyone’s a bozo on her bus.
She tried to eliminate the income tax in 2002, and failed by 10 points.
She tried that again in 2008, and failed by 40 points.
So then she tried to cut the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%, and failed by 15 points.
<
p>Seems to me, the percentage of voters going for her question has been falling. The much smaller sales tax slash this year got less support than the complete income tax elimination in 2002.
<
p>But she’s right that her numbers rose from 2008 to 2010, so here’s the winning strategy I can see for her based on that: Her next question should be to cut the gas tax from 23.5 cents/gallon to 23 cents/gallon.
47% of the Blue Dogs lost their seats (over 20 seats lost).
<
p>4 out of 80 members of the progressive caucus lost their seats.
<
p>Some of that can be explained by geography — a lot of it can’t. The fact of the matter is people don’t like voting for people who don’t show conviction, and when given the choice between Republican and Republican-lite, they’ll go with real thing.
You’ve got the Blue Dog number backwards, I think. Out of 54 Blue Dogs, 29 won’t be returning, leaving 25 – so that’s about 46% remaining. IIRC the numbers are 23 lost re-election, 4 retired, and 2 ran for Senate instead of their House seat.
<
p>Also, while the Progressive Caucus lost 4 members, it seems likely that several newly-elected Democratic members will join it. It’s actually possible that the Progressive Caucus grew as a result of this election. And I’d be surprised if it ends up a net loss greater than 1.