The Globe’s map with yesterday’s election results is, as usual, a source of fun for me. No huge surprises other than the margin of Markey’s victory in some places (85-15 in Newton, in the 90s in many Western Mass. towns). Glancing at the map, it occurred to me that the towns Lynch won were largely towns won by Scott Brown in 2010 and 2012. I took a closer look, and so it was.
Yesterday, Markey won most of the more liberal towns in the Commonwealth, the places where he’ll need to run up the score to win the general (think Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, P’town, most of Western Mass.). He also won in towns where there are a lot of Republican voters but those who vote in the Democratic primary tend toward an upscale liberalism (think Dover, Weston, Wellesley)
Lynch won 100 of the Commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns (101 if you give him tiny Monroe, along the Vermont border, which was a 6-6 tie. The town is consistent in its evenly divided electorate: Brown eked out a 27-26 win in Monroe in 2012; Coakley won it 20-19 in 2010. Gomez, though, scored a resounding win with 5 votes compared to 2 for Sullivan and 0 for Winslow.)
Lynch was strongest south of Boston, in the Merrimack Valley, and in Central Mass. My hunch was right: in November 2012 Scott Brown won 85 of those 100 towns. And at least four of the other 15 were hardly solid Warren towns: Fitchburg, Hull, Milton and Taunton had a ton of Scott Brown voters in 2012 and barely went for Warren.
Brown did even better in the Lynch towns in January 2010, when eight of those 15 Lynch-Warren towns (Acushnet, Fitchburg, Hull, Lowell, Quincy, Southbridge, Stoughton and Taunton) went for Brown over Martha Coakley, most by about 10 points. Milton narrowly went for Coakley, a rare town in which Brown did better in 2012. Thus 92 of the 100 towns Steve Lynch won yesterday were carried by Scott Brown in January 2010. Of course, Scott Brown won a lot more towns that that in 2010. He actually won 229 of the 351. But there is a huge difference between 92% (92 of 100) among the Lynch towns (92%) and only 54% (135 of 251) among the Markey towns.
What interested me most are the rare towns where Warren defeated Brown, but Lynch won yesterday. The 14 cities and towns that went for Warren in November and for Lynch yesterday: Acushnet, Adams, Brockton, Fall River, Fitchburg, Hull, Lowell, Lynn, Milton, Quincy, Randolph, Southbridge (where Lynch won by only 10 votes, 327-317), Stoughton, Taunton. See a pattern here? Basically we’re looking at towns in Lynch’s district (Randolph is not in Lynch’s district now, but it is surrounded by it and was in his district from 2001 to 2012) or cities with a lower average income.
The towns in Lynch’s district I’m not worried about so much; they know him well and the politics of those towns match well with his. Some of the others, like Brockton, Fall River, Fitchburg, Lowell, and Lynn, bother me more. There are two explanations for their patterns as I see it. One is that they have more conservative voters and Lynch appealed to the voters of those cities more. The other — which I think is more accurate — is that the more conservative voters in those cities are more likely to show up for every election. There was a huge difference, politically, between what happened with the high turnout for the 2012 Warren-Brown race in those cities and what happened with the abysmally low turnout in the 2010 special and yesterday’s primary.
Our failure to turn out the progressive vote in those cities in non-presidential races can have a negative impact on our ability to elect Democrats over Republicans. Remember, Fitchburg and Lowell went for Brown in 2010; the rest were closer than they should have been. It also can have a negative impact on our ability to elect more progressive Democrats in primaries, as we saw by last night’s results.
Markey beat Lynch 72-28 in Framingham – a very solidly Democratic town but not exactly Cambridge or Amherst. And yes, that’s likely due in large part because Framingham is in Markey’s district, but that’s a point to remember: Markey has a district. He’s got a substantial geographic base where he starts out ahead. Gomez doesn’t.
Markey did well in a number of towns north of Boston because that’s his district. A big win in Reading (62-38), a narrow win in Woburn, where otherwise I’d expect him to get his clock cleaned by someone like Lynch.
Framingham has been pretty good to Democrats in recent years. It’s no Woburn. Warren won it 59-41, Obama won it 66-32 in 2012.
isn’t the only consideration, and misses a lot of what happened. Here in Worcester Markey barely won. While Coakley barely won Worcester in 2010, the city went big for Warren in 2012. A lot of our strongest Democratic activists are union folks, many of whom went for Lynch and I think pulled out their members too. In our surrounding towns — far more conservative and Republican in general elections — the Democratic activists went much more strongly for Markey. I would concur that there was a strong blue collar vs white collar correlation as to who voted for Lynch vs Markey.
Given all that, I’m SO GLAD we’re back together now (as I said earlier this evening as I hugged a friend whose union had endorsed Lynch).
I was very happy that they appeared together and we are moving forward.
On the other point: Back in January, when I still thought Scott Brown might run, I took a look at turnout in the last five general elections. The 2008 and 2012 elections, with the presidential race on the ballot, were head and shoulders above the others. The 2010 special was the lowest turnout, but not that far behind the 2006 and 2010 November elections. In the high-turnout elections, there was a huge difference in the results we saw in Massachusetts cities.
Sometime soon I’ll post what I found, in the context of the upcoming general election. The main point is that, in a general election or in a primary, high turnout (effectively meaning we did a good job of turning out young and non-white voters) consistently gives a big boost to the more progressive candidate. We’ll need some of that in June.
is consistent with the trend I noted, though. In a low-turnout affair Lynch did very well and Markey barely won. Similarly, in 2010 Brown won 47% in Worcester, keeping it close. In 2012, with much higher turnout, that went down to only 38%.
Of course I’m not saying the activists who supported Lynch were Brown people, or that union voters went for Brown (though some might have). But if they were out there and voting for the Democrat in 2010, though, that means turnout was even lower among the non-union Democrats.
I guess that’s the most important question. If the same number of people turn out for the Special, do those Lynch voters disproportionately go to Gomez or Markey? I would hope that the unions and lunch bucket Democrats rally around Markey and that he reaches out to them, it might also be beneficial that Gomez, unlike Brown, has a terrible Bain-esque business record that needs to be exploited for this election.
Like I said above, most Lynch voters will ultimately go for Markey. Some, the most conservative among them, might not. But Markey and Lynch already have appeared together, saying nice things, at a “unity breakfast” the morning after the primary. Good sign.
Agree 100% that Gomez’s business record needs to be a big topic of discussion, particularly with union members.
Markey isn’t going to win this by being charismatic and inspiring. Apologies in advance to petr.
Markey seemed pretty fired up on Tuesday night. He’s got Warren, etc. all behind him now. I think he was largely holding his fire during the primary, knowing he’d need the support of Lynch’s voters if he made it to June.
The 2014 cycle does look challenging for Senate Democrats. There’s a non-negligible chance the GOP takes the Senate, which would be a disaster. Last year polling showed more than 2/3 of Massachusetts voters preferred the Democrats in charge of the Senate. Markey can’t base his whole campaign on the GOP bogeyman, but it’s important.
We are still doing better on defense than on offense, but I suspect the first wave of Tea Partiers will get thrown out of their Governor’s mansions (Scott, Corbett, Synder, and Kasich are dead men walking), and so far retirements have helped more than hurt. There was no way Harkin or Baucus were going to win, but Schweitzer and Braley are better replacements, and in the case of Schweitzer we will get a much better Senator (on healthcare and economics, probably not on guns). Levin should be replaced easily as well.
Where it will get tougher is WV and SD. Herseth is looking surprisingly competitive there, even against Mike Rounds, but WVA may be a lost cause unless we clone Manchin or resurrect Robert Byrd. Offense we could be doing better, no reason Collins should get a pass, and Georgia with the right candidate could work, especially if they nominate the Akin-esque Broun on the GOP side. LA, NC, and AR are polling better than expected. But yeah, it’ll be a fight and we can’t afford Gomez making it any easier for McConnell to be majority leader, wipe out the filibuster, and start obstructing even more.
I think a lot of the 2010 gains for the GOP will be reversed. A lot of those governors are toast. Senate we still have some tough races. Though trends at the moment are encouraging, there’s still plenty of time. I’m hoping this sequester bullshit gets hung squarely around the GOP’s necks but I’m not so sure it will.
Around the horn: Agree we should try to go after Collins. Georgia I see as a lost cause, maybe even with Broun, and West Virginia’s been going the wrong direction for decades. North Carolina could be tipped by the bullshit Voter ID law if the courts don’t stop it. I really don’t like depending on voters in Louisiana and Arkansas. Hoping an anti-Snyder wave will help Dems in Michigan but I wouldn’t call that one “easy.” Hoping Iowa GOP will go ahead and nominate Steve King (though God help us if he should win).
Even though I’m as annoyed with Obama now as I was in January 2010, he’s more popular in Massachusetts now than he was then. His support could help a lot.
Obama is taking his midterms a lot more seriously now, and we have a much better shot at taking back the House than expected. It’d be very ironic if we took back the House and had McConnell to thank for ending the filibuster in the Senate. Two years of his misrule there, followed by a much better map and Hillary’s coattails in 2016 and he might actually be doing us a favor. But, for now let’s keep it in Reid’s mushy hands.
.. that you feel the need to apologize (in advance) to me, or indeed anyone, suggests a knowledge of incipient wrongdoing.
The other notion, that I’m solely and only about “charismatic and inspiring” is also problematic: The problem with the ‘swift boats’ was the wholesale untruths and complete fabrications. As long as you tell the truth about Gomez, no matter how vicious, unkind and perhaps even motivated by bloodlust, I’m fine with that. However, the minute you deviate from the truth (and you will) I’m no longer with you. I won’t apologize, either in advance or retreat, for that.
The evidence is that he is no friend of labor, no friend of the worker, especially compared to Markey. Better to define him now before he gets a change to change the narrative, and he did not sign the peoples pledge so expect a lot of outta state money and slanders against a great public servant like Markey. The way to avoid that is to pre-empt it and fight it with some fire of your own.
Personally, I think, in this situation, there is a great deal of value in silence.
Given A) Gomez’ inexperience and 2) the yogic flexions that will be needed to bring his past and present into some semblance of alignment, I predict it will not be very long before a “Todd Akin” moment emerges as he says something so phenomenally out there as to cause the whole of the CommonWealth to inhale simultaneously. But I recognize that he could get luck and such a strategy might backfire…
Fair enough.
What makes you say this? And who makes you the arbiter?
… of the truth? No need. The truth is the truth. It doesn’t need arbitration.
If, however, you are referring to the part you put in bold (the sub clause “and you will”), then consider: invoking the term “swift boats” is an implicit statement that the truth is of little importance to you. It is no different than the explicit statement: “tell lies about them.” because that was what was at the core of the “swift boat” attacks; lies. Again, no arbitration needed.
If someone were to say “give them the Tsarnaev treatment” what would you think they were talking about? What would you say if I, thereafter, accused whomever it was that might say such a thing as a likely bomber?
Perhaps you are confused with my certainty: very well, I’ll amend the statement, rather than say “and you will” I’ll say “and you are very likely to”.
anything about Swift Boats. I actually glanced at the heading on jconway’s comment only in passing and thought of the issue with Gomez criticizing Obama’s decision to go after Bin Laden. People have been referring to that as Gomez “swift-boating” Obama.
I recently used the term to describe Lynch’s presentation of Markey’s votes against port security bills as being soft on terrorism, when the votes were because the bills didn’t go far enough (i.e. no screening for nuclear bombs).
I’m all for, as theloquaciousliberal says, playing hardball, but I agree with you there’s no need to lie about it. But I’m not so sure there’s no need for a truth arbiter. The world is complex.
For example, if Gomez is against an assault weapons ban, I have no problem saying “Gomez opposes common-sense laws that would save innocent lives.” I don’t think I’d say “Gomez wants your kids to die.” But if someone said, “Gomez doesn’t care if innocent people are killed by assault weapons,” I’m not going to lose sleep over it. Even if Gomez, if asked, would (sincerely) say he’s very troubled by people being killed by assault weapons.
Because, if he’s not going to put his vote where his mouth is, it doesn’t matter very much if he’s horrified by gun killings. He’s vying to be one of 100 people with inordinate power to determine which weapons are legal in this country and which are not. If he’s more interested in some silly concept of “freedom” or in keeping the NRA spigot running, I don’t much care what bad things are said about him on the issue.
Mostly, we are talking about semantics. Our last debate (mostly the four of us) was about what “Rove-style” politics means. (For the record, I continue to agree with petr that it means lying while you and jconway seemed to continue to believ it just means playing hardball). Let’s not now get in to virtually the same debate about what “swift boat him now” means?
Speaking only for myself, I am not for outright lying, but (as my comment above indicates) I think there is a buffer zone in which statements might be “unfair” in a truly objective sense but they don’t bother me.
I join petr in rejecting swift-boat tactics. I think those are different from hardball — a good pitcher doesn’t need to aim at the head to maintain dominance of the plate.
The transition to swift-boat lies has done immeasurable harm to our political system and our society. If we cannot repair that harm without resorting to similar tactics ourselves, then the game is already lost.
I baited petr in an attempt to be snarky and it’s backfired, I apologize to all involved.
To me, a younger person who recent graduate with a Political Science degree, the term ‘swift boating’ simply means tactically defining your opponent before they get a chance to define themselves.
Eg. George Bush ‘swift boated’ John Kerry and made his war record the conversation-not the Iraq War, shitty economy, or shitty performance of the incumbent
Eg. Obama ‘swift boated’ Romney by running ads making his business record a liability not an asset and shifted the conversation to be about Bain instead of Obama’s record
Now as progressive activists, many of you assume ‘swift boating’ means lying about your opponent whilst defining them early. I suspect the Kerry-Edwards stickers still are stuck on the bumpers of your Volvo’s and Outbacks and I struck an emotional nerve with that term.
Thus I will cease to use it. I want Markey to define Gomez and define him before he gets a chance to define himself as a carpet bagging heartless Gekko esque businessman and a conservative wolfe in moderate sheeps clothing on LGBTQ, womens rights, and gun control. Define him as an aloof, rich, out of touch conservative. All we will be seeing from Gomez, and don’t doubt his 527s and personal funds will hit the air very soon, is “SEAL, IMMIGRANT, MODERATE, OUTSIDER’ and Markey as “just another politician, insider, corrupt”.
So I disagree with waiting and seeing, thats also called losing. I want to hit him first and hit him with honest but searing ads focused on his scant record of public service and questionable commitment to Massachusetts values.
of almost 38, who was 29 in 2004, it’s kind of amazing to realize how young you were. George H.W. Bush was President when I was in high school. So I do see the term as denoting lying. It’s redefining someone’s best attributes by making up bullshit about them. So I don’t think Obama “swift-boated” Romney at all.
“Honest but searing” sounds good.
I still dred the ‘where were you on 9/11’ conversation, even with youngish co-workers because it betrays my age. The crazier thing is thinking of my future sister in law and her classmates going to Afghanistan-they were 5 on 9/11…
And yeah Chicago political junkies throw terms like that around callously.
for this:
My wife and I sometimes play a game while we drive around Newton and environs. One of us takes Volvo, the other Subaru, and we see who wins. One point for the car itself, two points if it has (a) a liberal bumper sticker; (b) an elite college or prep school sticker; (c) any sticker relating to Mass Audubon, the Cape and Islands, Vermont or skiing.
…if it’s true!:)