Jon Keller has an interesting piece in Boston magazine on how the state is becoming more purple. Like his previous foray into this discussion, his 2008 book the “Bluest State”, Keller cherry picks a few anecdotes like a woman who’s son was killed by a drunk undocumented immigrants driver or Somerville parents angry at remote schooling or an Arab shop owner angry at high crime and Rachel Rollins. With these examples he paints a picture of a state that is increasingly dissatisfied with one-party rule but also unlikely to back the MAGA Let’s go Brandon waving abortion banning Republican Party. In this way it can also be read as a companion piece to his Globe magazine article on the struggles of the MA GOP to find a moderate and electable identity in a post-Baker but not yet post-Trump political climate.
It’s worth reading since some of the old issues are cropping up. Aid for those who were unemployed during the pandemic was bountiful, but no gas tax relief is forthcoming. The undocumented get drivers licenses which was a huge priority for Beacon Hill, but it does not seem like similar action is being taking on pandemic era learning loss or using the surplus to lower costs. I am not saying I personally agree with this narrative, but it is definitely one I hear in my more purple neck of the woods.
Do I think Healey is in danger against Diehl or Doughty? Probably not, but we should hear more from her and she should pivot back to the center now that progressive primary challenge of Sonia Chang Diaz has been vanquished. Do I think Galvin might lose to his crazy Republican opponent? No, but I might think twice about voting to retain him in the primary so she does not have a better chance in the general. I might want an AG focused on preventing crime as much as fighting to protect choice and LGBT rights. I would also be worried about the ballot questions not going are way. Even though the fair share amendment is on millionaires, the electoral timing to ask for higher taxes and more revenues is not great. Similarly, to give a perceived “benefit” to the “law breaking” undocumented immigrants (granted I fully support this so my students and parents can safely drive and access more services, but do moderate independents who are the silent majority in Massachusetts?).
I recently saw reference to a poll indicating that MA voters are inclined to favor keeping the license law in place. I wish the party could do more to sell the benefits of being a Dem, but the law works against us. A key reason I favor closing the primaries is I suspect lots of folks would become Dems as the price for continuing to participate.
I think that would backfire, and most unenrolled voters (including this one) like the ability to pick their ballot. If anything, I think we should have a single non partisan primary ballot. That way the general will always be between center left and center right candidates with the partisan extremists unable to advance.
There is no way Trump or AOC would win pluralities in their primary if the first round was open to all voters. I like the way Alaska combined this idea (championed by our own Pablo) with ranked choice voting in the final round. Seems like the best of both worlds.
New York did not see any higher Democratic registration or participation rates with their closed
primary, if anything, it angered a lot of independents attracted to Sanders that they had to be in the party for a year in order to participate. I know Wyoming you can declare on the same day which is what Liz Cheney is banking on, but under a top two or top four primary she would still advance to the general.
I want to keep the partisan nominations separate. I also want moderates to stop complaining about their choices and participate. Many unenrolled voters have pretty strong habits anyway so just make it official. With no actual Dem running for the House in WY Cheney is a special case, but generally I want people who are members of the party picking party nominees. Picking a side just isn’t that hard.
I’m likely to unenroll in the Democratic Party of Massachusetts after being a member since moving here in 1974. I’m weary of decades of paralysis or worse from a legislature that has had a veto-proof Democratic majority all the time I’ve lived here.
When the Democratic Party of Massachusetts starts acting as if it represents my values and priorities, I’ll be more inclined to support it.
Ayanna Pressley does not represent me. I’m not sure about Maura Healey yet. At least Erika Uyterhoeven is returning my emails.
What is the Democratic Party of Massachusetts doing RIGHT NOW to respond to the literal collapse of the MBTA?
What is the Democratic Party of Massachusetts doing RIGHT NOW remove the Big Dig debt from the MBTA?
What is the Democratic Party of Massachusetts doing RIGHT NOW to tax the wealthy and ultrawealthy in MA?
The answer — as it has been for nearly fifty years — is NOTHING.
I agree that picking a side isn’t hard.
What it does is blame everything on Charlie Baker, which will far has led it to lose 2 out of 3 elections to him, and it will be unable to do that once he leaves office. Baker really hurt the Democrats by refusing to run for a third term since now they have to run on their own agenda. They did legalize sports betting and codify Roe a third time, but they have yet to fix the T, the housing crisis, or the education inequality that are my top three issues as a voter.
I will say it was nice to see one of my favorite Massachusetts Democrats, joeltpatterson, at the Cambridge jazz festival yesterday in his MTA shirt repping the Fair Share Amendment. So that issue issue a good reason to stay active this cycle. I lost interest in being a delegate or even a party member when I lost interest in running for office, but that could always change.
You threaten to unenroll every few months. I want to stay in because the preponderance of your views match the party. If you don’t think elected officials who run under our banner are moving fast enough on the issues you care about I want you to stay in, support primary challengers (even run yourself?), participate in partisan committees and activities. Leaving the party will not help. Elected officials are accountable to their constituents and not every district is progressive.
I am a constituent whether or not I’m a registered member of the party.
I haven’t yet left because I can’t see that doing so what make any difference at all and unenrolling requires a trip to City Hall that I’d just as soon avoid.
No trip to to City Hall required, Tom! Just go to the SoS’s website and click on “Update Address and/or Party” and follow the prompts. I did it back in 2020 when I unenrolled from the Dem Party and it was easy- peasy. You’ll receive a confirmation via snail mail too.
Just do it. It *does* make a difference.
About 40% of the country rejects both sides. A plurality of Massachusetts voters do. If you close the primary to independents, you will only see the hardcore activists pick the nominees. It will be Ted Cruz vs. AOC every election in every race. Our state party convention is already dominated by far left activists and will be exclusively their domain if independents are shut out of the primaries.
It does not have to be Cruz vs. AOC! My theory is that moderates come into both parties and pull both back to the center. My theory is also that they stay out of parties because there are no incentives to join, but if that is the price of admission they will. Conventions are already for party members only and that’s not enough incentive for most voters. I want to incentivize party membership for rank and file non-activists. What is your suggestion to accomplish this end? Independents can even sign nomination papers and amazingly even vote for party committee members on whatever presidential primary ballot they pull. I want SOMETHING that is both restricted to party members and routine enough that average voters would want access to the process. The vast majority aren’t interested in joining party committees or participating in the convention/caucus process. If moderates don’t join and it does become Cruz vs. AOC they can’t complain they don’t like their choices. They could have participated if they just checked the darn box when they registered to vote.
The data from primaries is unfolding all around us in a contentious GOP primary season. The risk for the GOP — and I hope it is a MAJOR issue for them — is that the candidates must be so extreme to win primary voters that the selected winners are unelectable in the general election.
Primary voters are reliably more motivated and more extreme than the general electorate. We see that in the crazy GOP primaries unfolding as we speak. The candidates do and say whatever they must in order to win a majority of primary voters. Those candidates than pivot back to the center as soon as the primary is finished in order win back the general electorate.
A closed primary amplifies this natural tendency.
Which Democratic Party candidates in MA have said they want to impose a tax on the wealthy and very wealthy? I’m not talking about the ballot question, that’s an income tax. Which candidates have said they want to invest the tens of billions needed to address the capital needs of the MBTA? Which candidates have said they want the state to remove the Big Dig debt burden from the MBTA?
To her credit, Erika Uyterhoeven is doing what she can on all three.
So far as I can know, Ayanna Pressley is advocating fare-free buses in MA cities (like Chelsea). Yet another swing and miss for Ms. Pressley.
When I meet and become aware of candidates who support my values and priorities, I support them and contribute to their campaigns. FWIW, the money I used to tithe to whatever church or synagogue I attended I now give to political candidates and campaigns.
The Democratic Party is, so far as I can tell, completely divorced from any candidate selection process. That’s why I don’t give to the party. I’ll not give a dime to any organization that supports Colleen Garry — no matter what the rationalizations and excuses are.
I’m pretty sure the party does not give anything to Colleen Garry, but state law allows anyone to seek the nomination. Are you calling for a return to a party-dominated nomination process even at the expense of transparency?
I’m telling you that I don’t care who are what the Democratic Party of Massachusetts supports or opposes.
The brand is meaningless.
I know you like to cite Colleen Garry as an example of what’s wrong with the party, but she’s an outlier. A couple of years ago according to a progressive scorecard she was actually the ONLY House Dem to not be more progressive than every single Republican. It is neither accurate nor helpful for someone as politically aware as you so say that party identification is meaningless.
I know more about my values and priorities than you, thank you very much. I am indeed politically aware. I do indeed pay attention.
Am I supposed to actually believe that Ron Mariano didn’t know about the 1986 law that was allegedly “dropped” on the legislature? Seriously?
Either Mr. Mariano is lying, he and is staff are utterly incompetent, or both.
Am I supposed to be believe that sending “relief” checks from a “surplus” while public transportation is literally collapsing from lack of funding is consistent with Democratic Party values and priorities?
I value truth, candor and competence. I am being forced to choose whether I believe that the entire Democratic Party leadership in the state legislature is either utterly incompetent, is lying to the voters, or both.
I’ll tell you that the “Democrats” in the House leadership are acting like Republicans everywhere else — and have been doing so for decades.
Perhaps you can say more about what you think claiming “Democrat” actually means for a candidate — my impression is that for years now you’ve been saying that it means nothing.
For years, you’ve been explaining why the Democratic Party is powerless to in any way provide any carrots or sticks regarding what elected officials who identify as “Democrat” actually do.
As elections and candidates come and go, claiming affiliation as a Democrat in Massachusetts becomes increasingly irrelevant to what any official says, does, or votes for.
I stand by my characterization.
When Democrats in Massachusetts start to act like Democrats, I’ll revise my opinion.
Voting records pretty consistently reflect differences. I understand the party does not go as far you would like on some things, or that not every elected official under its banner is as progressive as you would like. That is very different than saying the party label is completely meaningless. Seriously, when was the last time you chose a Republican over a Democrat in a contested partisan race? I still don’t know what you would like the party to do (possibly by citing examples of how either MA Republicans or other state Democratic parties better control their elected members) that is both legal and respectful of their own voters. JConway and I have been debating closing the primaries. He’s concerned that only activists will become members and vote in primaries, but to alleviate your concerns maybe activist-only primaries are exactly what is needed to make sure there are what you would probably call real Democrats. Of course sometimes Dems themselves like more conservative members. Colleen Garry served a while as chair of the Dracut Democratic Town Committee, so it’s not like they would veto her nomination if they could.
I’m beginning to think that some new kind of entity is needed, perhaps a Frankenstein of PAC, party, and even religion.
That last bit is because I really have been using the money I used to give to whatever church or synagogue I was attending as a “tithe” to selected local officials. It’s made me wonder about my own distinction between church and political party.
I’m contemplating a separate diary, though probably not in the immediate future.
We have tested this theory many times over and in states with closed primaries more extreme nominees get selected. New York is a prime example and a good reason why AOC beat Crowley in a low turnout primary. GOP states with closed primaries shut out moderates and independents.
Georgia which has a top two non partisan primary has produced some big gains for Democrats including the two senate seats. In CA and WA it has produced center left candidates who have largely shut out the GOP in those states. In Oregon vote by mail and fusion voting has kept candidates in the center. Doug Jones won in part because the AL GOP selected a mad man and accused pedophile for their nominee. Murkowski has only gotten re elected because of independents and Democrats crossing over to support he, she cannot win a closed primary. The two pro-impeachment Republicans in WA are banking on their non partisan primary. The only pro impeachment Republicans to win renomination was in CA with a non partisan primary. Anyone in their ranks facing a partisan primary has either lost or retired.
Independents do not want to join any party! This is why they are independent. I learned this the hard way during my UIP days. Closing the MA Democratic primaries to registered Dems will surrender the party to the left just as the MA GOP has surrendered to the right. Doughty is fatally appealing to Diehl voters rather than appealing to switch hitting independents especially with the Dem governors race a done deal.
Six sixes and an “amen” for this.
ONLY IF THE VOTERS LET IT! I want a civic cultural where party registration is the default. If you even lean left, become a Dem; if right, a Republican. I don’t believe you answered my previous question as to how to increase party membership. I want IRV within each primary followed by an IRV general.
I want a civic culture where nobody is registered to a party and people can think for themselves and have choices to vote for the candidates they agree with at every election. I think it would do a lot to help cure our country of this authoritarian impulse and extreme polarization endemic to our politics.
Our founders did not anticipate parties and were aghast when they developed and we have not done enough to address the flaws in our system that could enable one party to take over the government.
Congress should always be jealous of its powers and work to check the power of the presidency and judiciary. We saw this when Republicans and Democrats banded together to check the out of control presidency of Richard Nixon. We saw Republicans circle the wagons to defend Reagan, Bush, and Trump and we saw Democrats circle the wagons to defend Clinton. I would argue that partisanship trumped genuine oversight in all of those cases.
Instead we have devolved into a de facto parliamentarian system where extremely partisan primary voters have replaced the whips to hold incumbents in lockstep on every issue. Partisanship has kept us from addressing the deep structural problems with our system of government.
The Electoral College was nearly eliminated in the 1970’s with clear bipartisan support. Keeping it or ditching it should not be a partisan issue, but a genuine debate about who we want selecting the presidency as it was during the original convention. Instead since Bush v Gore Democrats have hated the EC and Republicans like it since they assume it benefits one side and hurts the other. As opposed to debating whether voters or states should be picking presidents in a modern democracy.
The same is true for statehood and house expansion. We used to regular add states and add house seats with every census, instead we have been stuck at 50 since Hawaii came in, the longest time in our history with no new states. We have been stuck at 435 for a century now, also the longest time in our history with no new house seats. This sclerosis at the federal level has trickled down stateside.
48/50 state legislatures are dominated by one party, with a majority of states under a full trifecta. This is the kind of environment that breeds corruption, rule by decree, and stifles genuine debate. All legislatures should be like Nebraska. Non partisan and unicameral. Making such a change is next to impossible since the parties in power increasingly get to control the electoral process through partisan elections for election officials, judges, and ballot questions that partisan voters vote up or down based on partisan advantage rather than the merits.
So I think moving away from this would help. We have already seen what happens to one party when it becomes a cult of personality, and while I obviously prefer Sanders or AOC to any Republican, I do think their die hard supporters have a cult of personality as well. We are seeing this play out in New York where the DSA is now hallowing out the NYC Democratic Party from the inside. Where ranked choice likely saved Eric Adams and kept a more polarizing mayoral nominee from advancing to the final.
So I like the Alaska system best since it ensures that every candidate regardless of party had to win a majority of all voters to advance. In both rounds. Whether this leads to a non partisan democracy or a genuine multiparty one is up to the voters, but I would rather more than two crappy choices in the general election. I think forcing people into parties goes against the founding ethos of this country.
The Framers were familiar with parties and while mostly smart guys were woefully naive in their wish/assumption they wouldn’t form. Heck, THEY formed the first ones! I cannot disagree more about your party-free utopia. I think folks will always be inclined to join forces to elect like-minded candidates for a variety of offices, as well they should. I want party labels to give a quick idea of what people stand for and how they are likely to vote. I agree there are flaws to how much polarization has manifested especially recently, but I think it might increase turnout when people know for sure that when you elect Dems ABC will happen and when you elect Republicans XYZ will happen. Even if nominees are of the most activist wings of their respective parties they still have to appeal for votes of non-party members in the general election. Nebraska’s legislature may be officially non-partisan, but they are in practice Republican so they might as well say so. I agree with eliminating the EC and wish we had the Wyoming Rule for House apportionment, but I think both are separate discussions.
The lead paragraph of this exemplifies the bigotry and lies of the GOP.
Immigration status has nothing to do with drunk driving. Most Massachusetts drunk drivers — including drunk drivers who kill people — are true-blue Americans. Most drunk drivers aren’t prosecuted because they are wealthy and powerful and know how to talk (or buy) their way out of trouble when pulled over.
Anybody who thinks that forcing unvaccinated children into crowded classrooms in cities with already overcrowded hospitals and health workers is a good idea is worse than willfully ignorant. This is the kind of despicable outright lie that threatens all of us.
The attacks on Rachel Rollins have far more to with the color of her — and their — skin than any facts.
I think that “purpling” is a verb that hides the truth of what we’re talking about here.
What we’re talking about is the spread of toxic, bigoted, willfully ignorant lies. We’re talking about despicable politicians and their deep-pocketed supporters who spread these lies for personal gain.
This is about racism, bigotry, stunning ignorance, and superstition.
I think if we keep calling all of these voters racists we will continue to see them leave our party and vote for Republicans. The woman who lost her son certainly was radicalized by that situation, but it also does seem like we are not being tough enough on crime or the border.
In my view Rollins went too far. There is a balance between the kind of exorbitant bail that led to Kalief Browder PTSD related suicide and no bail at all or simply not enforcing quality of life crimes like shoplifting and loitering. Again, no need for mandatory minimums or broken windows or overly punitive approaches to those low level offenses, but there has to be some balance back toward law and order.
It is telling to me that black community groups in Philadelphia are begging their progressive prosecutor and police commissioner to restore stop and frisk (with greater oversight). I am confident Wu picked the right man to lead BPD, but defunding police and abolishing ICE are losing issues that alienate voters without actually changing the laws and systems that hurt minorities.
Even Clinton and Obama understood that you needed to secure the safety of the public first before you could push for expanding benefits or immigration reform. This is why Biden is now trying to finish the wall, precisely since by controlling the flow you can be more compassionate for the folks already here.
Now personally I would make legal immigration much easier and less bureaucratic and expand the quotas to allow more skilled and unskilled workers in. We have low unemployment and everyone who wants to work can find a job, I don’t see why Biden is keeping Trump era tariffs and immigration bans in place. It is just raising costs and hurting small businesses that are desperate to hire more people.
I agree with Christopher upstairs, we should go on the offense and show why licenses are a common sense approach to public safety. If anything using that woman’s extreme example, it would be easier to go after undocumented drunk drivers if they had the right licensing and paperwork. I experienced this myself when I get into a fender bender with someone without insurance or a license. We will be safer under this law.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna962466
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philly-police-stop-and-frisk-darrell-clarke-jim-kenney-20220708.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna40567
Tying immigration status to drunk driving is racist. That’s just a fact.
The toxins that today’s MA GOP is spreading are what they are. Pretending they are something else — such as by talking about “purpling” — only makes matters worse.
I joined Hilary Clinton in 2016 in describing a great many supporter of Donald Trump as deplorable. She and I were harshly criticized for saying so. Surely history shows that she and I were correct. Surely you agree that the rise of fascism and authoritarian white supremacy is the direct consequence of years of racist lies from the GOP.
The bromide of “When they go low we go high” failed miserably.
Drunk drivers are drunk drivers. Tying a drunken driving incident to the immigration status of the driver is sheer racism.
I reject the premise that we should avoid naming racism, bigotry, and willful ignorance for what it is.
Sure, go ahead and feel free to call the Massachusetts Republican Party and all its members racists, deplorables, whatever else you care to do. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that only about 10% of registered voters are Republican, about a third are Democrats, and a majority of registered voters, are not registered with either party.
I agree with you that “we go high” is a failed strategy but when we go low, let’s not simply take wide aim at the majority of voters in this state who are not Democrats and assume them all to be hard core Trump supporters. Many can be swayed to vote for a governor or senator or even president from either party.
I’m not talking about “going low”, and I’m not “taking aim at the majority of voters in this state who are not Democrats”.
How much more specific can I be?
Did you read the thread starter? Did you read the piece cited in the thread starter?
What is YOUR reaction to a “woman who’s son was killed by a drunk undocumented immigrants driver”? Do YOU think that the immigration status of the drunk driver is relevant to ANYTHING?
What is your view of the 1,167,202 Massachusetts residents who voted for Trump in 2020? Keep in mind that there were only 476,480 registered Republicans at that time. Clearly, a majority of Trump voters in the Bay State were not Republicans.
Yes, the post about the immigration status as an undocumented immigrant is just red meat for the 476,480 and no doubt a percentage of the rest, so what do we do about it?
Calling them racists is not going to bother them. How to Democrats tell a better story about the undocumented?
Are there any reports of prominent Republicans hiring undocumented? My hunch is that more than a few are, but then, I suspect the same for prominent Democrats who refuse to pay a fairly negotiated wage with a legal immigrant or citizen. Remember Zoe Baird? And there lies the problem, eh? We’ve painted ourselves into a corner.
Screw all racists.
Starting with the liberals who do not even realIze that by opposing upzoning and affordable housing they are endorsing de facto residential segregation and segregated schools. My hometown of Cambridge is the most liberal city in the country and a prime example of a city that has walled off opportunity for the privileged few who can still afford to live there. Somerville is not far behind. So many of my students in Revere have been evicted from both of those cities and their families can no longer even afford Everett or East Boston.
It was easy for us to oppose Wallace and Birmingham and then he came to Southie in the height of the busing crisis and was given a heroes welcome. The same thing happened with Trump who doubled his share of the Latino vote in Lawrence in 2020. These voters want affordable housing, access to quality schools, and jobs with good benefits and wages. What they do not want is more stimulus checks or liberals focusing on the plight of Latinos on the border and forgetting about the ones in their backyard. So all politics is local and I would argue that in the absence of a genuine competition between the parties we could see the rise of the right even in this state if the center left continues to fail at solving these problems. There is no Joe Manchin in our statehouse to block needed progress.
Perhaps. The “cures” advocated by progressives have so far been FAR worse than the disease, especially when it comes to affordable housing.
A two-family adjoining our property on the street behind us just came on the market after its owner passed from old age. His two children have decided to sell rather than deal with the escalating restrictions imposed by the city.
The late owner lived upstairs and rented the downstairs to long-time tenants at monthly rental that was dramatically below current market rate. Both units are tired 2-BR units with ancient and dangerous wiring, oil-fired steam heat, no insulation, and so on. The property almost surely needs lead paint remediation, asbestos removal, and all that comes with that.
The downstairs 2-BR unit has been renting at $1500/month for years. Market rate in Somerville for a 2-BR apartment in this neighborhood is $2500/month.
The downstairs tenants left the property at the end June. I strongly suspect that their departure was not particularly voluntary — new landlord restrictions took effect on July 1st.
The listing price for this property started at $1.3M.
There is NO WAY that that property can ever be “affordable” by the standards we’re talking about. The monthly mortgage — principal and interest alone — is well over $6K /month.
If the issue of housing affordability was straightforward to solve, it would have been solved a LONG time ago.
The current progressives would do well to emulate the approach of our own Tommy Vitolo on issues like this.
Instead, self-proclaimed progressives (not you, by the way) have a pronounced tendency to emulate Bernie Sanders and AOC.
That approach might win media attention and perhaps a few elections. It isn’t going to make housing more affordable anytime soon in Cambridge or Somerville.
I would argue it is relevant in so far as maybe if he had to get a license under the new law he wouldn’t have passed the test or been caught earlier. I’d persuade her to back the law since her sons case is a glaring example of why those drivers need to be licensed. It is a public safety issue. If driving is a privilege and not a right then they should have to get the same licenses as everyone else. Framing it that way is so much more effective than calling them racists and getting them to vote against it.
That strikes me as more a rationalization — an answer looking for a question — than an argument.
The statistics about drunk driving are clear and have been unchanged for decades. The overwhelming majority of drunk drivers on the road are white — that’s because whites are such a large portion of the population.
Undocumented immigrants tend to be less, rather than more, likely to commit any crime and less, rather than more, likely to drive while under the influence.
An undocumented immigrant has FAR more to lose than a typical white driver.
The drunk driving arrests are skewed towards minorities because police in MA have a pronounced tendency to pull over, arrest, and charge minorities at MUCH higher rates than whites. That’s before any exchanges happen at the driver’s window.
The most common outcome for a white driver pulled over for suspicion of DUI is a verbal warning.
I’m perfectly happy with the framing that you suggest. It is perfectly possible, within that framing, to explicitly state: “The suggestion that illegal immigrants are more likely to be violators is rooted in racism rather than fact”.
There is no need to call any particular voter a racist — there is a very pronounced need to name racist policies and programs what they are.
You led the charge against me and Hillary Clinton here at BMG in 2016 after Ms. Clinton described a portion of Donald Trump’s voters as “deplorable”.
How do YOU describe what the supporters of Donald Trump and the GOP have turned out to be?
I think “deplorable” is spot on. I think if we Democrats had been more aggressive about supporting Ms. Clinton in that assessment we’d have done better in 2016 and in every election since then.
Hillary made a lot of own goals and errors and this has been endlessly rehashed and well documented.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547?_amp=true
Bill begged her to address the UAW and she didn’t. Begged her to go to Notre Dame and go back to safe, legal, and rare in abortion and she didn’t. Begged her to spend more money in Ohio than Texas and she didn’t.
Bill Clinton did not call Reagan Democrats racists or deplorable, he won them back to the Democratic Party. So did Barack Obama. Both carried Macomb County which is the epicenter of the Reagan Democrat phenomenon. Biden narrowly won it back and he did so promising to unite America not divide it into deplorable and Undeplorable parts.
Is it fair or honest that Democrats have to be twice as good to win? No. And feel down I would agree that sure some of these people are racist and deplorable, but we cannot win the White House without peeling some of them back from the GOP. Bill, Barack, and Biden did it. Hillary didn’t bother.
Ronald Reagan never used the incendiary language towards immigrants and minorities that have been Donald Trump’s stock-in-trade since becoming a candidate in 2016.
A Reagan Democrat could honorably prefer Ronald Reagan without explicitly embracing the toxic hate-speech of Donald Trump and today’s GOP.
Bill Clinton was excoriated by right-wing partisans and ditto-heads in the aftermath of consensual relationship — that never involved penetration — with an adult woman.
There is nothing remotely comparable to the “Bus tape” from Donald Trump, from the several broadcast interviews such as with Howard Stern where he bragged about buying a beauty pageant so that he could invade the dressing rooms of teenage — and underage — women.
Donald Trump is FAR outside the envelope of acceptable behavior by ANY person, never mind a president.
We are not talking about “Trump Democrats”, either. The people embracing Trumpism and today’s GOP have NEVER been Democrats.
It is impossible to embrace the values and priorities that have characterized Democrats since the New Deal and also support ANY of the current GOP crazies.
This is especially true for Massachusetts voters. Whatever support the Republican nominee gains will not be from anybody who can reasonably be called a “Democrat” — Massachusetts or otherwise.
I reject that premise as well and would argue that is not what I was doing. Surely the increase in black, Latino, and Asian Americans who voted for Trump and continue to vote for conservative Republicans should be a wake up call for Democrats. I would not call these fed up voters of color racists. They are voting for Trump and other Republicans despite the racism.
It could be that we have failed to come up with our own credible alternative on questions like crime, education, housing, taxation, and immigration. Myra Flores winning a majority Latino district in South Texas should be as big a canary in the coal mine as Scott Brown winning here was in 2010 or Doug Jones winning Alabama was for the GOP in the 2018 cycle. We are seeing a banner year of conservatives of color running for office and winning and I wonder what our alternative is.
It is not white flight suburbanites in Philly asking to restore stop and frisk, it was the Philly NAACP and two black city councilors. It was not MAGA voters who threw Chesa Boudin out of office but a rainbow coalition of minorities and white middle class voters in one of the bluest cities sick of the homelessness and crime problem.
It was not MAGA Republican who threw out the San Fran school committee but angry parents across all races and income groups who were tired of not being heard. I think a lot of Bostonians were fed up with Rachel Rollins and Biden gave her a golden parachute.
So I am worried the next Trump will know how to dog whistle better and will attract far more minority support if we are not careful and tack back to the Clinton/Obama center on crime, welfare reform, immigration, and education.
We absolutely need to back things like licenses for undocumented immigrants but we have to defend them as necessary for safety. Making it a human rights issues makes it a loser.
We are talking about Massachusetts — Not Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, or California.
Do you have data suggesting that black, Latino, and Asian Americans in Massachusetts are turning to the MA GOP?
The article cited in the thread-starter is chock-full of cherry-picked anecdotes chosen to fit a specific narrative — and even then, presented in a way that distorts reality.
For example, “Jim Hill” is co-owner of an “upscale kitchen shop” in Beacon Hill. He is described as “former independent turned registered Republican” — is it surprising that he opposes the policies of Ms. Rollins? Mr. Hill is sure that “homeless encampments around the Boston Public Library” are a threat to him.
Does Mr. Hill support or oppose efforts to provide housing for the homeless? Does Mr. Hill support or oppose efforts to address the crushing wealth inequality that he skates above in the “tonier aisles” of his store? Does Mr. Hill support or oppose increased taxes on the wealthy?
We don’t learn any of that from this piece.
The piece paints a sympathetic portrait of “Ashley Jacobs”, who is convinced that her children are being forced to learn “one-sided race-based agitprop”. The piece conveniently elides ANY examples of this “race-based agitprop” that she so passionately opposes.
This piece is pitching its own agenda, and carefully omits anything that might weaken its “message”.
The piece does admit that Rayla Campbell, the “presumptive GOP nominee for secretary of state, offers “vulgar, fact-free rhetoric”. He then waves that away with abstractions like “parents get nervous”.
Here’s another fascinating paragraph. Check out THIS perspective on Scott Brown:
What Mr. Keller calls “voter discontent with liberal policies and entitlement” some of characterize as utter lies, stereotypes, and — yes — racist tropes and dog whistles. Funny that Mr. Keller doesn’t even mention Mr. Brown’s opponent. He also doesn’t mention that Scott Brown got his butt whooped by a political novice running in her very first election — and Ms. Warren won handily. The election wasn’t close.
Breakthrough? A “canary in the coal mine of things to come”? Only in Mr. Keller’s world.
In the real world, Scott Brown was the beneficiary of an utterly incompetent candidate whose campaign is or should be a case study in political incompetence.
I reject the attempt to crowbar events in Massachusetts into the narrative of red-state America.
I do not find the thread-starter constructive or informative.
Oh, and by the way, there is a summary of truly cherry-picked distortions after the body of the piece.
My favorite is the citation of the number of votes Donald Trump received in MA in 2016 and 2020 (1,090,890 and 1,167,202). The vote for the Democratic nominee was 1,995,196 in 2016 and 2,382,202.
The GOP increased its vote count by 76,312 between 2016 and 2020. The Democratic Party increased ITS vote count by 1,215,000.
This microexample typifies how propaganda pieces lie with numbers. If the premise is that Massachusetts is “purpling”, then offering GOP vote growth while not mentioning the Democratic vote growth that is more than FIFTEEN TIMES larger is simply deceptive.
Purpling? I don’t think so.
I think it’s just more media lies.
“There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics.” Benjamin Disraeli
The Republican Party has been making rather impressive gains in these demographics over the years. Asian Americans in the party increased 7% under the Trump years. Backing for Democratic Congressional candidate fell from 56% in November 2021 to 35% in March 2022. These are national trends.
Do you have data suggesting that somehow, Massachusetts is the odd exception and holding steady with these demographics.
Those making the claim have the burden of proof.
Massachusetts is indeed unusual. This state is near the top of nation in a number metrics — some good and some bad.
I invite anyone who claims that these groups are gaining traction in Massachusetts to provide data in support of those claims.
I strongly suspect it will be assertion like that I highlighted above — showing the GOP gain in isolation rather in comparison to the Democratic gain.
A story today (https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2022/08/04/boston-neo-nazi-activity-timeline/) reports what “purpling” actually means:
This isn’t “purpling”, it is racism and hate — pure and simple.