The other thing I've been thinking about today is the First Rule of Economics over at Charlie Pierce's blog on Esquire - "Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money" - and the seeds of voter discontent.
Among the inevitable unpacking of results, I expect we'll find that one of the themes of why people voted Trump was economic uncertainty. The idea that even with improvements in employment and (although lagging) higher wages, there isn't a feeling of financial security, that people can't save for larger expenses and aren't confident that what work they do have is going to provide for their family (or even continue).
Which leads to this question - what if, rather than spending the bulk of his political capital and Democratic majorities in Congress getting the Affordable Care Act passed, President Obama focused on a comprehensive recovery and jobs bill? I know, there were a number of measures passed along these lines, but I can't help but think that the seeds yesterday's results were sown when the recovery seemed to benefit the financial sector (and largely passed on holding anyone accountable) at the expense of individual workers.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
09 November 2016
I've been thinking a lot about Scott Brown today.
Brown, as some of you may know, was the Republican state senator who parlayed the popular anger over whatever people were angry about in 2010 to win the special election to complete the US Senate term of Teddy Kennedy. He did so by beating Martha Coakley, the somewhat flawed and uneasy campaigner who was, at the time, the state's attorney general.
A Republican of middling talents fueled by populism taking a surprise victory from a more experienced Democratic woman.
Sound familiar?
For those of you wondering how history might repeat itself, Brown lost his re-election bid to Elizabeth Warren. Ponder that.
Thinking about Brown also has me realizing that, as an early Trump supporter, he could wind up being the US ambassador to the UN or something. I need to stop thinking about Scott Brown.
Brown, as some of you may know, was the Republican state senator who parlayed the popular anger over whatever people were angry about in 2010 to win the special election to complete the US Senate term of Teddy Kennedy. He did so by beating Martha Coakley, the somewhat flawed and uneasy campaigner who was, at the time, the state's attorney general.
A Republican of middling talents fueled by populism taking a surprise victory from a more experienced Democratic woman.
Sound familiar?
For those of you wondering how history might repeat itself, Brown lost his re-election bid to Elizabeth Warren. Ponder that.
Thinking about Brown also has me realizing that, as an early Trump supporter, he could wind up being the US ambassador to the UN or something. I need to stop thinking about Scott Brown.
22 October 2016
With less than 20 days to go until the election, it's time for a semi-annual tradition: the coveted Blogalicious endorsements!
Local Races
We have local races for state representative, Governor's Council, and Essex County sheriff. Blogalicious endorses voting for somebody. Honestly, I have no real feel for any of these races, but there are two interesting notes:
Four statewide questions in Massachusetts this year:
Question 1 would allow for the licensing of a new slot machine parlor. The way it's written limits the location of the parlor to horse tracks, pretty much limiting its location to Suffolk Downs.
We're not against gambling per se, but another slots parlor on top of Plainridge Park, the Wynn casino in Everett, the MGM casino in Springfield, Twin River in Rhode Island, and Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods in Connecticut, just means the regional share of gambling revenue will just be split that much more narrowly. Suffolk Downs is ripe for redevelopment now that it no longer offers regular horse racing, but it needs a plan that can stand on its own. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 1.
Question 2 would lift the cap on charter schools in the state and allow the approval of 12 new schools (or increased enrollment at existing schools) each year. We're against commodifying public services on principle, and stories like this give us little faith in what is essentially for-profit primary and secondary education. Charter schools with appropriate local control and oversight have their place, but it should be within a revamped public school framework, not by opening the door to the likes of Michelle Rhee. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 2
Question 3 would ban the confinement of pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens where they cannot enjoy a certain freedom of motion. It also bans the sale of products from animals raised in overly-confined space.
This sounds like a good thing - who among us wants to be intentionally cruel to animals? - but it's an odd question for our state, where only one farm uses methods the question would ban (the linked story is a pretty good overview of both sides of the question). There's also the question of how this will impact food costs, especially for lower income families and individuals. Similarly, the ban on out of state products may weigh more heavily on smaller businesses, who don't have the resources to independently verify that the products they're buying were raised properly.
To our mind, this is probably an issue better served by a more thorough investigation by the legislature that results in legislation better tailored to farming practices in Massachusetts (we can dream, can't we?). Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 3
Question 4 would see Massachusetts follow Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana use for anyone 21 and older. Individuals would be allowed to use, grow, and possess marijuana subject to certain guidelines and limitations (no use in public, limits to amounts one can possess and grow at any one time). A state board would regulate the sale and taxation of marijuana and related products.
Supporters see this as a common sense move that would put marijuana on par with alcohol and tobacco, provide new revenue, and remove non-violent drug offenses from court dockets. Opponents voice concern over public health and safety, the potential accessibility of marijuana for minors, and consequences for cities and towns home to marijuana stores (as depicted in a charmingly absurd TV ad).
We understand the concerns of those opposed to legalization, and there would clearly be a need to review how this gets implemented and what impacts it has on individuals and communities, but looking at other states, their experience suggests that the benefits of "legalize and tax" outweigh the negatives. Blogalicious endorses a YES vote on Question 4
President
We often endorse a third party option here - though usually in general (more than once) - and this seems like the perfect year to follow the trend. Neither major party candidate is especially well-liked, both have significant baggage, and the two best-known third-party candidates are back from the 2012 campaign (Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, Jill Stein for the Greens). And then there's Evan McMullen, the conservative independent whose run is motivated by providing an alternative to Donald Trump for Republicans.
But these options have their drawbacks as well. Gary Johnson showed his limitations on foreign policy with his Aleppo moment and inability to name a world leader. Jill Stein has gone around the bend in her quest for votes, courting both anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. Evan McMullin is in the best position to win electoral votes, but his road to victory involves the election going to Congress (he's also only on the ballot in 11 states).
Which leaves us with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And if the Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democrat in its 126 year history, opts to do so, it's a pretty clear sign. Trump is woefully underqualified and tempermentally unfit to serve as the leader of the free world. Blogalicious endorses Hillary Clinton.
Local Races
We have local races for state representative, Governor's Council, and Essex County sheriff. Blogalicious endorses voting for somebody. Honestly, I have no real feel for any of these races, but there are two interesting notes:
- The state representative race features an incumbent Democrat versus a candidate from the United Independent party, a reform-minded party originally formed for the 2014 governor's race. The UI candidate is a bit of a local gadfly, having run for other offices as a Libertarian and an independent.
- The sheriff's race is the first one in decades that does not involve the current sheriff, who is retiring. It's a four way race with a Republican with a background in corrections, a Democrat who is currently the police chief in Lynn, and two independents.
Four statewide questions in Massachusetts this year:
Question 1 would allow for the licensing of a new slot machine parlor. The way it's written limits the location of the parlor to horse tracks, pretty much limiting its location to Suffolk Downs.
We're not against gambling per se, but another slots parlor on top of Plainridge Park, the Wynn casino in Everett, the MGM casino in Springfield, Twin River in Rhode Island, and Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods in Connecticut, just means the regional share of gambling revenue will just be split that much more narrowly. Suffolk Downs is ripe for redevelopment now that it no longer offers regular horse racing, but it needs a plan that can stand on its own. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 1.
Question 2 would lift the cap on charter schools in the state and allow the approval of 12 new schools (or increased enrollment at existing schools) each year. We're against commodifying public services on principle, and stories like this give us little faith in what is essentially for-profit primary and secondary education. Charter schools with appropriate local control and oversight have their place, but it should be within a revamped public school framework, not by opening the door to the likes of Michelle Rhee. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 2
Question 3 would ban the confinement of pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens where they cannot enjoy a certain freedom of motion. It also bans the sale of products from animals raised in overly-confined space.
This sounds like a good thing - who among us wants to be intentionally cruel to animals? - but it's an odd question for our state, where only one farm uses methods the question would ban (the linked story is a pretty good overview of both sides of the question). There's also the question of how this will impact food costs, especially for lower income families and individuals. Similarly, the ban on out of state products may weigh more heavily on smaller businesses, who don't have the resources to independently verify that the products they're buying were raised properly.
To our mind, this is probably an issue better served by a more thorough investigation by the legislature that results in legislation better tailored to farming practices in Massachusetts (we can dream, can't we?). Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 3
Question 4 would see Massachusetts follow Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana use for anyone 21 and older. Individuals would be allowed to use, grow, and possess marijuana subject to certain guidelines and limitations (no use in public, limits to amounts one can possess and grow at any one time). A state board would regulate the sale and taxation of marijuana and related products.
Supporters see this as a common sense move that would put marijuana on par with alcohol and tobacco, provide new revenue, and remove non-violent drug offenses from court dockets. Opponents voice concern over public health and safety, the potential accessibility of marijuana for minors, and consequences for cities and towns home to marijuana stores (as depicted in a charmingly absurd TV ad).
We understand the concerns of those opposed to legalization, and there would clearly be a need to review how this gets implemented and what impacts it has on individuals and communities, but looking at other states, their experience suggests that the benefits of "legalize and tax" outweigh the negatives. Blogalicious endorses a YES vote on Question 4
President
We often endorse a third party option here - though usually in general (more than once) - and this seems like the perfect year to follow the trend. Neither major party candidate is especially well-liked, both have significant baggage, and the two best-known third-party candidates are back from the 2012 campaign (Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, Jill Stein for the Greens). And then there's Evan McMullen, the conservative independent whose run is motivated by providing an alternative to Donald Trump for Republicans.
But these options have their drawbacks as well. Gary Johnson showed his limitations on foreign policy with his Aleppo moment and inability to name a world leader. Jill Stein has gone around the bend in her quest for votes, courting both anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. Evan McMullin is in the best position to win electoral votes, but his road to victory involves the election going to Congress (he's also only on the ballot in 11 states).
Which leaves us with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And if the Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democrat in its 126 year history, opts to do so, it's a pretty clear sign. Trump is woefully underqualified and tempermentally unfit to serve as the leader of the free world. Blogalicious endorses Hillary Clinton.
19 March 2016
Lentorama 2016: #Lent
Day 34: At least there's no comparison to hairstyles
A piece that compares Jesus to Donald Trump, in an indirect way. More on point than expected.
Day 34: At least there's no comparison to hairstyles
Over at @HuffPostRelig with my latest post: The Politics of Palm Sunday#palmsunday#lenthttps://t.co/o18AWXYWdj— Chris Gilmore (@iamchrisgilmore) March 19, 2016
A piece that compares Jesus to Donald Trump, in an indirect way. More on point than expected.
18 March 2016
Lentorama 2016: #Lent
Day 33: They pulled off the tricky double asshole
So this is the Twitter account for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops initiative to "defend" marriage. I've awarded them the double asshole for the following:
Assholery the First: the crack about bacon always smelling the best on Lenten Fridays. You're the people who keep us from eating bacon in the first place, why rub our noses in it?
Assholery the Second: the use of the term "religious liberty" on the attached image. Look, if the church wants to oppose same sex marriage, so be it. But to somehow say that religious liberty is at stake simply because same sex marriage exists - when the church is in no way required to solemnize or recognize such marriages - is asinine. We've had same sex marriage in Massachusetts for over a decade, and in no way has my liberty to worship been infringed. Make your argument on positive theological points, not reliance on some PR phrase that's turned into a thinly veiled code for bigotry.
Day 33: They pulled off the tricky double asshole
Bacon always smells the best on Fridays in #Lent. Join the #CalltoPrayer intention to your fasting today! pic.twitter.com/rcWOL6ezeN— USCCB Marriage (@MUR_USCCB) March 18, 2016
So this is the Twitter account for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops initiative to "defend" marriage. I've awarded them the double asshole for the following:
Assholery the First: the crack about bacon always smelling the best on Lenten Fridays. You're the people who keep us from eating bacon in the first place, why rub our noses in it?
Assholery the Second: the use of the term "religious liberty" on the attached image. Look, if the church wants to oppose same sex marriage, so be it. But to somehow say that religious liberty is at stake simply because same sex marriage exists - when the church is in no way required to solemnize or recognize such marriages - is asinine. We've had same sex marriage in Massachusetts for over a decade, and in no way has my liberty to worship been infringed. Make your argument on positive theological points, not reliance on some PR phrase that's turned into a thinly veiled code for bigotry.
14 February 2016
With things heating up in the US Presidential primaries, it's time to give out the coveted Blogalicious endorsements.
On the Democratic side, Blogalicious endorses Bernie Sanders. We don't think he'd make a particularly great President, but do think he's spot on about the increasingly corruptive influence of dark money on politics and the burgeoning financial-governmental complex. A Sanders presidency would also make various GOP heads explode, which would be entertaining.
Speaking of the GOP, Blogalicious endorses John Kasich, due to his positive campaign and executive experience. He's not as moderate as portrayed - we think he gets the label by being graded on a curve, and he's been pretty conservative where abortion is involved - but is moderate enough that bipartisan governing is a possibility. He's not exactly the candidate for this cycle where the party is concerned, but in the long term is more likely to attract independents and conservative Democrats, which will help in the swing states that someone like Ted Cruz is unlikely to win.
So there you go, endorsements for candidates who have almost no shot at winning - until now!
On the Democratic side, Blogalicious endorses Bernie Sanders. We don't think he'd make a particularly great President, but do think he's spot on about the increasingly corruptive influence of dark money on politics and the burgeoning financial-governmental complex. A Sanders presidency would also make various GOP heads explode, which would be entertaining.
Speaking of the GOP, Blogalicious endorses John Kasich, due to his positive campaign and executive experience. He's not as moderate as portrayed - we think he gets the label by being graded on a curve, and he's been pretty conservative where abortion is involved - but is moderate enough that bipartisan governing is a possibility. He's not exactly the candidate for this cycle where the party is concerned, but in the long term is more likely to attract independents and conservative Democrats, which will help in the swing states that someone like Ted Cruz is unlikely to win.
So there you go, endorsements for candidates who have almost no shot at winning - until now!
19 June 2015
First it was the campaign to put a woman on the $20 bill to replace Andrew Jackson. Now the news that the planned $10 bill redesign will see a woman potentially replace Alexander Hamilton. While it makes sense to introduce a woman on a bill that's planned for a redesign, it does stick in the craw to think that the father of the American financial system will have a reduced presence while Jackson, who didn't even like paper currency, remains on the $20.
So my thought - why not have a man and a woman on each denomination of paper currency, half of each printing for each gender?
$1 - George Washington stays, of course, but is joined by Martha Washington. She's the obvious choice, both for being the first First Lady and for already appearing on a $1 note.
$2 - Thomas Jefferson remains on our least circulated bill, joined by Pocahontas. Like Martha Washington, Pocahontas has appeared on a US paper note, and like Jefferson she is from what is now Virginia, and like Jefferson she spent time in Europe (though for very different reasons).
$5 - Abraham Lincoln is joined on the fin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, for obvious reasons. I went with her over the likes of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton as the latter two opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments (for not providing voting rights to women as well as men of all races). I can understand the rationale, but it seems wrong to pair Lincoln with anyone who was against those amendments.
$10 - Hamilton stays, and is joined by Frances Perkins. Perkins was the first woman in the US Cabinet, and is still the longest serving Secretary of Labor.
$20 - for now we'll keep Jackson here, and pair him with Harriet Tubman, who won the Women on 20s vote. I'd like to think that would annoy Jackson to no end.
And if we wanted to dump Jackson, we could pair Tubman with another figure from abolition, like Frederick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison.
$50 - If we're looking for a military counterpart to Grant, the obvious choice here would be Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, whose contributions to computer science include writing the first compiler, developing the language COBOL, and coining the term debugging.
$100 - I would pair Ben Franklin with Eleanor Roosevelt, as both played roles in international diplomacy and both were known for work in newspapers. Not the strongest connection, but I think it's enough.
So my thought - why not have a man and a woman on each denomination of paper currency, half of each printing for each gender?
$1 - George Washington stays, of course, but is joined by Martha Washington. She's the obvious choice, both for being the first First Lady and for already appearing on a $1 note.
$2 - Thomas Jefferson remains on our least circulated bill, joined by Pocahontas. Like Martha Washington, Pocahontas has appeared on a US paper note, and like Jefferson she is from what is now Virginia, and like Jefferson she spent time in Europe (though for very different reasons).
$5 - Abraham Lincoln is joined on the fin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, for obvious reasons. I went with her over the likes of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton as the latter two opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments (for not providing voting rights to women as well as men of all races). I can understand the rationale, but it seems wrong to pair Lincoln with anyone who was against those amendments.
$10 - Hamilton stays, and is joined by Frances Perkins. Perkins was the first woman in the US Cabinet, and is still the longest serving Secretary of Labor.
$20 - for now we'll keep Jackson here, and pair him with Harriet Tubman, who won the Women on 20s vote. I'd like to think that would annoy Jackson to no end.
And if we wanted to dump Jackson, we could pair Tubman with another figure from abolition, like Frederick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison.
$50 - If we're looking for a military counterpart to Grant, the obvious choice here would be Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, whose contributions to computer science include writing the first compiler, developing the language COBOL, and coining the term debugging.
$100 - I would pair Ben Franklin with Eleanor Roosevelt, as both played roles in international diplomacy and both were known for work in newspapers. Not the strongest connection, but I think it's enough.
29 October 2014
Another election, another round of Blogalicious endorsements!
Ballot Questions
Question 1: This question seeks to repeal the gas tax law passed last year where the tax will automatically increase with inflation. Backers of the question tend to frame this as taxation without representation, which I'm kind of meh on (seems to me to be more about transparency, but we may just be dealing with semantics). Opponents say not indexing the tax will cause shortfalls when it comes to funding infrastructure projects (but do not say the real benefit to indexing is that they don't have to vote for tax increases which can be used against them in future elections).
We think anything that changes the amount of tax people pay should be approved openly, be it in the legislature or by ballot initiative. So we're actually endorsing a Yes on Question 1.
Question 2: We were in junior high when voters approved the bottle bill, putting a 5 cent deposit on bottles and cans for soda and beer. This question seeks to expand the deposit on to other beverages, most notably water and most non-carbonated non-alcoholic beverages. The beverage industry and their cronies have spent the most money on ads asking us to vote against the question.
And the ads have been as effective as they've been inaccurate. Backlash has led to some differently worded ads, including what might be the first #whitepeopleproblems ad, where a suburbanite bemoans having to sort bottles and find recycling machines (hint: they're at the entrance to your supermarket).
There is one thing that our 30 years of experience with the bottle has shown, and it's that containers with a deposit are recycled at a much higher rate than those that don't have a deposit. So go take a second and find your recycling machines, as we're endorsing Yes on Question 2.
Question 3: We're just on the cusp of actually having casinos in Massachusetts, so the timing is perfect for a question that would stop casino gaming in the state. This is one of those crazy questions where "yes" means "no" and vice versa.
Proponents of the question say the legislature's decision to allow gaming doesn't reflect the will of the people, gaming is bad, the license-granting process is flawed/corrupt, casinos won't help the economy, etc. Opponents mostly tout job benefits and the idea that the money spent by Bay Staters in Connecticut and Rhode Island casinos should stay home.
We don't particularly care about casinos, but generally feel like there's been enough discussion to continue with approving and building them. So we endorse No on Question 3.
Question 4: there's actually been very little talk about what, to us, seems like an important question. If passed, Question 4 would require most employers to give sick time to employees (based on hours worked). Most opposition comes from food service, where employers can pay sub-minimum wage but would have to pay sick time at minimum wage. Connecticut has a similar (but more lenient) law, and costs have not risen greatly for most employers. And while we don't necessarily want to pay more for meals, we do like the idea that our server didn't have to choose between working sick and not getting paid. Vote Yes on Question 4.
Offices
Governor: We have five candidates for governor, though the focus is on Charlie Baker, the Republican taking his second shot at the office, and Martha Coakley, who won the Democratic primary due to what can only be assumed was widespread amnesia regarding her Senate campaign.
Baker is a slightly more affable candidate this time around, but his message is still one of tax cuts, pro-business policies and reforming welfare. That's still more of a plan than what Coakley's presented, as her ads have been very vague outside of a call to provide more mental health services (which is a personal issue for her based on her brother's suicide).
Any way you look at it the major parties are offering us leftovers, and it looks like those of us at the buffet are tending towards Baker (even the Globe endorsed him).
But we cast our eyes towards the three independent candidates, and find one that's more appealing than Baker or Coakley. Evan Falchuk is running as a member of the United Independent Party, which he is hoping to get past the threshold where the party gets better ballot access, etc. And it's not a bad time to try this, as neither of the major party candidates are inspiring and the majority of Massachusetts voters continue to be unenrolled in a party. We also like the deeper thinking Falchuk has presented on improving quality of life in Massachusetts by addressing how the high costs of housing and health care make living here difficult for many. So we're endorsing Evan Falchuk for Governor, to at least give us more choice among candidates.
Treasurer: The main candidates have basically run one ad each. Democrat Deb Goldberg ties her being an adoptive mother to understanding how important it is to give people opportunities to succeed. Republican Mike Heffernan's mentions his private business experience and showcases his wacky family. Given those choices, we endorse Green-Rainbow Party's Ian Jackson for Treasurer.
Attorney General: Maura Healey for Attorney General based on her experience in the AG's office.
Secretary of State: While we've given him the occasional mocking for being a lifer, we'll endorse William Galvin for Secretary of State.
Auditor: As last time, we're going to endorse the candidate with actual auditing experience gained outside of being state auditor. So the GOP's Patricia St. Aubin for Auditor
US Representative: We don't have anything against Richard Tisei, but don't like the idea of giving this particular set of House Republicans another member to obstruct with. Or, perhaps worse, a member who'll be marginalized as a RINO. We also have to admit to having a liking for someone whose big reveal about his military past is that he doesn't talk about the medals he was awarded. So it's Seth Moulton for MA-6.
All the other races: we really don't care who you vote for in any of the other races, so we'll endorse voting for all the third party candidates who may be listed, or the non-incumbent if it's a two party race.
For any unopposed race (like 2nd Essex State Senate), we endorse writing in Mark Coen.
Though that might prove tricky if he doesn't live in your district.
Ballot Questions
Question 1: This question seeks to repeal the gas tax law passed last year where the tax will automatically increase with inflation. Backers of the question tend to frame this as taxation without representation, which I'm kind of meh on (seems to me to be more about transparency, but we may just be dealing with semantics). Opponents say not indexing the tax will cause shortfalls when it comes to funding infrastructure projects (but do not say the real benefit to indexing is that they don't have to vote for tax increases which can be used against them in future elections).
We think anything that changes the amount of tax people pay should be approved openly, be it in the legislature or by ballot initiative. So we're actually endorsing a Yes on Question 1.
Question 2: We were in junior high when voters approved the bottle bill, putting a 5 cent deposit on bottles and cans for soda and beer. This question seeks to expand the deposit on to other beverages, most notably water and most non-carbonated non-alcoholic beverages. The beverage industry and their cronies have spent the most money on ads asking us to vote against the question.
And the ads have been as effective as they've been inaccurate. Backlash has led to some differently worded ads, including what might be the first #whitepeopleproblems ad, where a suburbanite bemoans having to sort bottles and find recycling machines (hint: they're at the entrance to your supermarket).
There is one thing that our 30 years of experience with the bottle has shown, and it's that containers with a deposit are recycled at a much higher rate than those that don't have a deposit. So go take a second and find your recycling machines, as we're endorsing Yes on Question 2.
Question 3: We're just on the cusp of actually having casinos in Massachusetts, so the timing is perfect for a question that would stop casino gaming in the state. This is one of those crazy questions where "yes" means "no" and vice versa.
Proponents of the question say the legislature's decision to allow gaming doesn't reflect the will of the people, gaming is bad, the license-granting process is flawed/corrupt, casinos won't help the economy, etc. Opponents mostly tout job benefits and the idea that the money spent by Bay Staters in Connecticut and Rhode Island casinos should stay home.
We don't particularly care about casinos, but generally feel like there's been enough discussion to continue with approving and building them. So we endorse No on Question 3.
Question 4: there's actually been very little talk about what, to us, seems like an important question. If passed, Question 4 would require most employers to give sick time to employees (based on hours worked). Most opposition comes from food service, where employers can pay sub-minimum wage but would have to pay sick time at minimum wage. Connecticut has a similar (but more lenient) law, and costs have not risen greatly for most employers. And while we don't necessarily want to pay more for meals, we do like the idea that our server didn't have to choose between working sick and not getting paid. Vote Yes on Question 4.
Offices
Governor: We have five candidates for governor, though the focus is on Charlie Baker, the Republican taking his second shot at the office, and Martha Coakley, who won the Democratic primary due to what can only be assumed was widespread amnesia regarding her Senate campaign.
Baker is a slightly more affable candidate this time around, but his message is still one of tax cuts, pro-business policies and reforming welfare. That's still more of a plan than what Coakley's presented, as her ads have been very vague outside of a call to provide more mental health services (which is a personal issue for her based on her brother's suicide).
Any way you look at it the major parties are offering us leftovers, and it looks like those of us at the buffet are tending towards Baker (even the Globe endorsed him).
But we cast our eyes towards the three independent candidates, and find one that's more appealing than Baker or Coakley. Evan Falchuk is running as a member of the United Independent Party, which he is hoping to get past the threshold where the party gets better ballot access, etc. And it's not a bad time to try this, as neither of the major party candidates are inspiring and the majority of Massachusetts voters continue to be unenrolled in a party. We also like the deeper thinking Falchuk has presented on improving quality of life in Massachusetts by addressing how the high costs of housing and health care make living here difficult for many. So we're endorsing Evan Falchuk for Governor, to at least give us more choice among candidates.
Treasurer: The main candidates have basically run one ad each. Democrat Deb Goldberg ties her being an adoptive mother to understanding how important it is to give people opportunities to succeed. Republican Mike Heffernan's mentions his private business experience and showcases his wacky family. Given those choices, we endorse Green-Rainbow Party's Ian Jackson for Treasurer.
Attorney General: Maura Healey for Attorney General based on her experience in the AG's office.
Secretary of State: While we've given him the occasional mocking for being a lifer, we'll endorse William Galvin for Secretary of State.
Auditor: As last time, we're going to endorse the candidate with actual auditing experience gained outside of being state auditor. So the GOP's Patricia St. Aubin for Auditor
US Representative: We don't have anything against Richard Tisei, but don't like the idea of giving this particular set of House Republicans another member to obstruct with. Or, perhaps worse, a member who'll be marginalized as a RINO. We also have to admit to having a liking for someone whose big reveal about his military past is that he doesn't talk about the medals he was awarded. So it's Seth Moulton for MA-6.
All the other races: we really don't care who you vote for in any of the other races, so we'll endorse voting for all the third party candidates who may be listed, or the non-incumbent if it's a two party race.
For any unopposed race (like 2nd Essex State Senate), we endorse writing in Mark Coen.
Though that might prove tricky if he doesn't live in your district.
31 December 2012
With the last hours of 2012 slipping away, it's time to wrap up the Book Log (expect another 4 or 5 posts for that before the day is out) and, for the first time ever, name a Blogalicious Person of the Year. And for 2012, that person is Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com.
This honor isn't as much for his election forecasts - which were accurate and well-reasoned, to be sure - but for how his work underscored what should be obvious: political punditry is a nearly useless practice. You didn't have to look far to find examples, from the online pipe dreams of Dick Morris and the ironically named Unskewed Polls to Karl Rove's adventures in math on election night. It was a sight to behold, as a entire class of otherwise educated people demonstrated that they had no working understanding of math.
(Note that I don't mean to exclude left-leaning pundits here. They bloviate just as much as their conservative counterparts, but had the numbers on their side this time around and thus weren't as obviously trapped in their ideological bubble.)
My hope is that Nate's ability to show how a rational approach to poll data can inform the average person will get everyone to take two steps away from their partisan watering hole of choice and actually try to understand how the candidates, their positions and the polls all interact. That looks unlikely, but it's my hope for 2013.
This honor isn't as much for his election forecasts - which were accurate and well-reasoned, to be sure - but for how his work underscored what should be obvious: political punditry is a nearly useless practice. You didn't have to look far to find examples, from the online pipe dreams of Dick Morris and the ironically named Unskewed Polls to Karl Rove's adventures in math on election night. It was a sight to behold, as a entire class of otherwise educated people demonstrated that they had no working understanding of math.
(Note that I don't mean to exclude left-leaning pundits here. They bloviate just as much as their conservative counterparts, but had the numbers on their side this time around and thus weren't as obviously trapped in their ideological bubble.)
My hope is that Nate's ability to show how a rational approach to poll data can inform the average person will get everyone to take two steps away from their partisan watering hole of choice and actually try to understand how the candidates, their positions and the polls all interact. That looks unlikely, but it's my hope for 2013.
31 October 2012
With just under a week to go until election day, it's time to hand out some endorsements. As in the past, we're only dealing with what's on the ballot here in MA (and in my district specifically). Let's start with...
Ballot Questions
Question 1: The first question is about the "right to repair," and would require automakers to share proprietary information with independent repair shops, thus allowing them to fix things that currently require a trip to a dealership. The question's a moot point now, as the legislature passed a bill at the end of the last session that was basically a negotiated settlement between both sides. There's a fear that approving this question will screw up the new law, but as the legislature sees free to not act on ballot questions (we're still owed that lower tax rate we voted for back in the day), I'm not so concerned. But I do figure that it doesn't make sense to vote in favor of a question whose issue has apparently been addressed. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 1.
Question 2: This question seeks approval for legalized physician assisted suicide. I'm not a fan of some of the particulars of how this would be carried out - heirs can witness both the decision and death, the doctor does not need to be present when the death occurs, and the determination of terminal illness/six months to live is inherently problematic - so I'm going to pass. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 2.
Question 3: This question would legalize medical marijuana. Outside of all the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about drugs being bad, the thing that gives me pause about this question is the involvement of the state Department of Public Health. Given the recent DPH chemist scandal, I'm not sure I trust them right now to administer a statewide program of pot dispensation and individual cultivation. We decriminalized possession in 2010, and while it still makes getting pot difficult, I don't know if this law is the best next step. I'd rather have the Department of Revenue be in charge, if only to smooth things over for the legalize-and-tax system that'd be on the ballot in, say, 2018.
Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 3.
Public Offices
State Representative: the incumbent is running unopposed, so Blogalicious endorses writing someone in. Preferably me.
State Senator: Fred Berry retired, leaving Democrat Joan Lovely to square off against Republican Richard Jolitz. Both seem to hold positions typical of their party - Jolitz seems more conservative than the average Massachusetts Republican - but there's been sufficiently little coverage of the race to really get a lot of background. Jolitz doesn't seem to have a campaign website, opting to use social media as his main conduit for communications. The top hit for the Google search "jolitz state senate" is an article from when he ran in 2010. Based on the ability to at least learn what each candidate stands for, Blogalicious endorses Joan Lovely.
Governor's Council: I'm not even going to bother, because (a) no one knows who's running without looking it up, and (b) the Governor's Council is archaic and should be disbanded. Blogalicious endorses writing someone in here, too. Preferably Mickey Mouse.
US House MA-6: The only "issue" in this race is whether or not the incumbent, Democrat John Tierney, knew that his wife was involved in a gambling ring involving her brothers. He claims he didn't, and is quick to quote a judge in the case who says so. The challenger, Republican Richard Tisei, is equally quick to say that's nonsense. He doesn't have any proof of this, other than statements by his (now incarcerated) brothers in law. But there's enough traction there to make this a close race. Just not an interesting one, if you're concerned about what approach either candidate will take towards the economy, or education, or pretty much any substantive issue.
(Tierney, for his part, has worked hard to link Tisei with the Tea Party folks, which isn't the most natural fit given that Tisei is pro-choice and openly gay.)
The only candidate actually talking about issues is a first-time candidate for a third party, so he's gotten almost no coverage. Which is a shame, as he's regularly shown himself to be a thoughtful candidate unafraid to address serious issues and, in the big picture, the very role of government. For going where the muckrakers fear to tread, Blogalicious endorses Libertarian Daniel Fishman. Tell your friends.
US Senate: Hope sprang eternal in this race between incumbent Republican Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren. They agreed that if any third party ran an ad for them in this campaign, the candidate would have to make a donation equal to the amount of the ad buy to a charity of the opponent's choice (it happened once, and the donation was made). With that, it seemed like we could actually have a civil, issues-driven campaign.
Whoops.
What we've gotten is occasionally more dignified than the average mud-slinging. Brown has spent most of his campaign burnishing his bipartisan regular guy persona, getting plenty of barn coat time and making ads and debate references to various blue collar industries (fishing, for example) and "union guys." He's studiously avoided mentioning he's a Republican, and in at least one debate engaged in some pretty significant verbal gymnastics to avoid backing Mitt Romney and confirming that he would vote for Mitch McConnell as his party's leader in the Senate.
His other focus in the campaign has been to say that Elizabeth Warren isn't who she says she is (referring to her staking out a claim as the protector of the middle-class). This has mostly covered talk-radio friendly subjects, like her claim of Native American ancestry and her work for insurance companies in cases involving asbestos and steel workers. Hard to say how much of this has worked - you don't hear much of anything about these issues in these last days of the campaign.
Warren, for her part, has stuck to her main campaign theme - the political and financial systems are working together to stack the deck against average Americans - though at times she's stuck too closely to it (most notably in the debates, where references to "millionaires and billionaires" made a good drinking game counterpoint to Brown's effusive use of the title "Professor" when referring to Warren). She's mostly attacked Brown on his votes on women's issues and the potential for his re-election leading to a Republican-controlled Senate.
Over all of this, though, the thing that's surprised me the most about this race has been Brown's tendency towards dickishness.It was evident in the debates, and was especially evident in his (since recanted) suggestion that some of the people appearing in Warren's ads were paid actors. Combine this with his vague grasp of issues, and it's not much of a choice. Blogalicious endorses Elizabeth Warren.
President: Speaking of Republicans trying to grab the bipartisan mantle, we have Mitt Romney, who is looking to complete his Etch-a-Sketch/pivot campaign by tacking back to the middle after running to the right in the primaries. Which is all well and good as an electoral strategy, but leaves me with one lingering problem. I do not believe that Romney has any core principles outside of getting elected. As Gertrude Stein would say, there is no there there, though that doesn't seem to bother a significant portion of the electorate.
Which you think would lead me to endorse President Obama, But it doesn't. I tend to think that his focus on health care prevented a more substantive approach to improving the economy, and his willingness to bail out financial institutions while not holding anyone accountable for putting the economy into the tank in the first place doesn't smack of hope or change. It smacks of business as usual. There are any number of things that have happened during his administration that I can get behind (repeal of DADT and dispatching bin Laden, most notably), but I can't get worked up for four more years of this.
Which leads me to do pretty much the same thing I did in 2004 and 2008. If you're someone who tends to vote Republican, you have as an option another former governor, one who made his vetoes stick and who got balanced budgets passed. And for all of you who drift towards the fiscally conservative, socially liberal stance, he's (sort of) pro-choice, supports same-sex marriage, and wants to end the drug war. For those of you who tend to vote Democratic, there's a candidate who is consistently left of center on pretty much everything and supports a New Deal-style program for creating jobs though investing in clean energy and putting greater oversight on the financial services sector. Depending on how you swing, Blogalicious endorses either Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson or Green candidate Jill Stein.
Ballot Questions
Question 1: The first question is about the "right to repair," and would require automakers to share proprietary information with independent repair shops, thus allowing them to fix things that currently require a trip to a dealership. The question's a moot point now, as the legislature passed a bill at the end of the last session that was basically a negotiated settlement between both sides. There's a fear that approving this question will screw up the new law, but as the legislature sees free to not act on ballot questions (we're still owed that lower tax rate we voted for back in the day), I'm not so concerned. But I do figure that it doesn't make sense to vote in favor of a question whose issue has apparently been addressed. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 1.
Question 2: This question seeks approval for legalized physician assisted suicide. I'm not a fan of some of the particulars of how this would be carried out - heirs can witness both the decision and death, the doctor does not need to be present when the death occurs, and the determination of terminal illness/six months to live is inherently problematic - so I'm going to pass. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 2.
Question 3: This question would legalize medical marijuana. Outside of all the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about drugs being bad, the thing that gives me pause about this question is the involvement of the state Department of Public Health. Given the recent DPH chemist scandal, I'm not sure I trust them right now to administer a statewide program of pot dispensation and individual cultivation. We decriminalized possession in 2010, and while it still makes getting pot difficult, I don't know if this law is the best next step. I'd rather have the Department of Revenue be in charge, if only to smooth things over for the legalize-and-tax system that'd be on the ballot in, say, 2018.
Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 3.
Public Offices
State Representative: the incumbent is running unopposed, so Blogalicious endorses writing someone in. Preferably me.
State Senator: Fred Berry retired, leaving Democrat Joan Lovely to square off against Republican Richard Jolitz. Both seem to hold positions typical of their party - Jolitz seems more conservative than the average Massachusetts Republican - but there's been sufficiently little coverage of the race to really get a lot of background. Jolitz doesn't seem to have a campaign website, opting to use social media as his main conduit for communications. The top hit for the Google search "jolitz state senate" is an article from when he ran in 2010. Based on the ability to at least learn what each candidate stands for, Blogalicious endorses Joan Lovely.
Governor's Council: I'm not even going to bother, because (a) no one knows who's running without looking it up, and (b) the Governor's Council is archaic and should be disbanded. Blogalicious endorses writing someone in here, too. Preferably Mickey Mouse.
US House MA-6: The only "issue" in this race is whether or not the incumbent, Democrat John Tierney, knew that his wife was involved in a gambling ring involving her brothers. He claims he didn't, and is quick to quote a judge in the case who says so. The challenger, Republican Richard Tisei, is equally quick to say that's nonsense. He doesn't have any proof of this, other than statements by his (now incarcerated) brothers in law. But there's enough traction there to make this a close race. Just not an interesting one, if you're concerned about what approach either candidate will take towards the economy, or education, or pretty much any substantive issue.
(Tierney, for his part, has worked hard to link Tisei with the Tea Party folks, which isn't the most natural fit given that Tisei is pro-choice and openly gay.)
The only candidate actually talking about issues is a first-time candidate for a third party, so he's gotten almost no coverage. Which is a shame, as he's regularly shown himself to be a thoughtful candidate unafraid to address serious issues and, in the big picture, the very role of government. For going where the muckrakers fear to tread, Blogalicious endorses Libertarian Daniel Fishman. Tell your friends.
US Senate: Hope sprang eternal in this race between incumbent Republican Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren. They agreed that if any third party ran an ad for them in this campaign, the candidate would have to make a donation equal to the amount of the ad buy to a charity of the opponent's choice (it happened once, and the donation was made). With that, it seemed like we could actually have a civil, issues-driven campaign.
Whoops.
What we've gotten is occasionally more dignified than the average mud-slinging. Brown has spent most of his campaign burnishing his bipartisan regular guy persona, getting plenty of barn coat time and making ads and debate references to various blue collar industries (fishing, for example) and "union guys." He's studiously avoided mentioning he's a Republican, and in at least one debate engaged in some pretty significant verbal gymnastics to avoid backing Mitt Romney and confirming that he would vote for Mitch McConnell as his party's leader in the Senate.
His other focus in the campaign has been to say that Elizabeth Warren isn't who she says she is (referring to her staking out a claim as the protector of the middle-class). This has mostly covered talk-radio friendly subjects, like her claim of Native American ancestry and her work for insurance companies in cases involving asbestos and steel workers. Hard to say how much of this has worked - you don't hear much of anything about these issues in these last days of the campaign.
Warren, for her part, has stuck to her main campaign theme - the political and financial systems are working together to stack the deck against average Americans - though at times she's stuck too closely to it (most notably in the debates, where references to "millionaires and billionaires" made a good drinking game counterpoint to Brown's effusive use of the title "Professor" when referring to Warren). She's mostly attacked Brown on his votes on women's issues and the potential for his re-election leading to a Republican-controlled Senate.
Over all of this, though, the thing that's surprised me the most about this race has been Brown's tendency towards dickishness.It was evident in the debates, and was especially evident in his (since recanted) suggestion that some of the people appearing in Warren's ads were paid actors. Combine this with his vague grasp of issues, and it's not much of a choice. Blogalicious endorses Elizabeth Warren.
President: Speaking of Republicans trying to grab the bipartisan mantle, we have Mitt Romney, who is looking to complete his Etch-a-Sketch/pivot campaign by tacking back to the middle after running to the right in the primaries. Which is all well and good as an electoral strategy, but leaves me with one lingering problem. I do not believe that Romney has any core principles outside of getting elected. As Gertrude Stein would say, there is no there there, though that doesn't seem to bother a significant portion of the electorate.
Which you think would lead me to endorse President Obama, But it doesn't. I tend to think that his focus on health care prevented a more substantive approach to improving the economy, and his willingness to bail out financial institutions while not holding anyone accountable for putting the economy into the tank in the first place doesn't smack of hope or change. It smacks of business as usual. There are any number of things that have happened during his administration that I can get behind (repeal of DADT and dispatching bin Laden, most notably), but I can't get worked up for four more years of this.
Which leads me to do pretty much the same thing I did in 2004 and 2008. If you're someone who tends to vote Republican, you have as an option another former governor, one who made his vetoes stick and who got balanced budgets passed. And for all of you who drift towards the fiscally conservative, socially liberal stance, he's (sort of) pro-choice, supports same-sex marriage, and wants to end the drug war. For those of you who tend to vote Democratic, there's a candidate who is consistently left of center on pretty much everything and supports a New Deal-style program for creating jobs though investing in clean energy and putting greater oversight on the financial services sector. Depending on how you swing, Blogalicious endorses either Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson or Green candidate Jill Stein.
02 January 2012
I don't normally give out the coveted Blogalicious endorsement until I'm actually able to vote (Massachusetts doesn't hold their primary until March), but I figured I'd do so earlier this year to give voters in Iowa and New Hampshire one more data point to consider.
To my way of thinking, it's a pretty clear choice. There is one candidate in the field who:
1. Has executive experience, having been a governor.
2. Has foreign policy experience, having been an ambassador.
3. Is rational, noting in an early debate that the GOP is flirting with irrelevance if they become a party whose position on science patterns itself after the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo.
From that, it's probably obvious that Blogalicious endorses Jon Huntsman, Jr. for the Republican nomination for President.
The unfortunate thing is that he may not be in the race by the time I get to vote. The early states are not favorable for him. Iowa and South Carolina favor social conservatives, and South Carolina in close enough to Georgia to be a decent state for Newt Gingrich. Knowing this, Huntsman has focused solely on New Hampshire, which seems like a good state for him except that Mitt Romney (a) was governor of next-door Massachusetts, and (b) has a house in New Hampshire. Romney's also spent a fair amount of time in the state, keeping damage from Huntsman to a minimum.
Still, after looking at the entire field I don't think there's another major candidate that I could support. While I don't know much about him, I'm also thinking that former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson seems like a possibility, though we'll see where things are in a couple months.
The unfortunate thing is that he may not be in the race by the time I get to vote. The early states are not favorable for him. Iowa and South Carolina favor social conservatives, and South Carolina in close enough to Georgia to be a decent state for Newt Gingrich. Knowing this, Huntsman has focused solely on New Hampshire, which seems like a good state for him except that Mitt Romney (a) was governor of next-door Massachusetts, and (b) has a house in New Hampshire. Romney's also spent a fair amount of time in the state, keeping damage from Huntsman to a minimum.
Still, after looking at the entire field I don't think there's another major candidate that I could support. While I don't know much about him, I'm also thinking that former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson seems like a possibility, though we'll see where things are in a couple months.
09 September 2011
So here's why I'm not voting for Rick Perry. As has been widely noted, Perry issued a proclamation asking Texans to pray for rain, and I figure he did his fair share of praying as well. The result? An ongoing drought, a massive rainmaker taunting the state from just beyond its borders, and wildfires.The way I look at it, if God is going to foresake Perry, I may as well, too.
18 November 2010
Two thoughts on Donald Trump running for President:
1. Will his hair have its own Secret Service protection and code name?
2. If elected, will he make Carolyn Kepcher Chief of Staff? And if so, can we get her some live CSPAN time so we can watch her smack down various undersecretaries? I know she doesn't work for Trump anymore, but this is the only possible reason I'd have for voting for the man. That and watching him turn the White House into a 118 story tower covered in glass and gold-toned accents.
1. Will his hair have its own Secret Service protection and code name?
2. If elected, will he make Carolyn Kepcher Chief of Staff? And if so, can we get her some live CSPAN time so we can watch her smack down various undersecretaries? I know she doesn't work for Trump anymore, but this is the only possible reason I'd have for voting for the man. That and watching him turn the White House into a 118 story tower covered in glass and gold-toned accents.
17 January 2010
The special election for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat is Tuesday, and I think I speak for a good many Bay Staters when I say it's not a moment too soon. What started out as a quiet little vote has blossomed into a full-on race, with a level of national attention not often seen in Massachusetts. If the "quality" of third-party ads is the same elsewhere as what we've been subjected to the past couple of weeks, then I feel very lucky that we are most often an afterthought.
The fact that this is a race can mostly be laid at the feet of the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley. She's run an incredibly underwhelming campaign; due to its short duration, she's mostly skipped public campaign events, preferring to meet local Democratic leaders, who she counted on to spread the word. She combined this with the typical front-runner tactic of not engaging her opponents - at least until the polls made it clear she needed to. She's been running ads, been in a debate or two, and has made public appearances with important supporters (including Vicki Kennedy, and Presidents Clinton and Obama).
This has all been in the hopes of stopping the apparent momentum of the Republican candidate, state senator Scott Brown. His campaign hasn't been particularly spectacular - he wants to change Washington and end business as usual, surprise - but he has been able to tap into a disdain with government (federal and state) with this fairly generic message. He's also been positioning himself as more of an independent thinker, which I don't buy. I think he's taking a page from the Mitt Romney playbook by moving more towards the center and ignoring places where he didn't (for example, he's countered questions about support of reproductive rights by forgetting about an amendment he wrote and sending his daughters out as proxies on the issue).
(UPDATE: The folks at fivethirtyeight.com have a post up calling Brown a liberal Republican. They're probably right. So maybe I just don't like the way he's handled that one issue during the campaign.)
There is a third candidate - Joseph Kennedy (no relation), a libertarian running as an independent. He benefited from Coakley's demand that all candidates on the ballot be in any debate, but is unlikely to draw many votes, and certainly not as many as Coakley would like.
In trying to sort out who to vote for, one of the things that most bothers me is that I know very little about what Scott Brown has done or stands for, outside of the most general notions. He's said very little about his time in the state senate, and the only thing I really know about possible Senate plans is that he wants to be the 41st vote against health care reform. I think his campaign is best summed up in his ad refuting negative ads about him - it debuted the same day as the negative ads, and makes no specific reference to them. As much as I don't like negative advertising, it makes me more curious when the response is something that seems like it was taped in Decemeber.
Conversely, I feel like I have a decent handle on Coakley's past and what she'd do in Washington. While that knowledge is certainly what's turning some people against her, it's something. And while I'm not 100 percent in tune with her positions, I'm certainly closer to her than Brown, so Blogalicious endorses Martha Coakley for the US Senate. If nothing else, it gives us two years to find someone we'd really like.
The fact that this is a race can mostly be laid at the feet of the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley. She's run an incredibly underwhelming campaign; due to its short duration, she's mostly skipped public campaign events, preferring to meet local Democratic leaders, who she counted on to spread the word. She combined this with the typical front-runner tactic of not engaging her opponents - at least until the polls made it clear she needed to. She's been running ads, been in a debate or two, and has made public appearances with important supporters (including Vicki Kennedy, and Presidents Clinton and Obama).
This has all been in the hopes of stopping the apparent momentum of the Republican candidate, state senator Scott Brown. His campaign hasn't been particularly spectacular - he wants to change Washington and end business as usual, surprise - but he has been able to tap into a disdain with government (federal and state) with this fairly generic message. He's also been positioning himself as more of an independent thinker, which I don't buy. I think he's taking a page from the Mitt Romney playbook by moving more towards the center and ignoring places where he didn't (for example, he's countered questions about support of reproductive rights by forgetting about an amendment he wrote and sending his daughters out as proxies on the issue).
(UPDATE: The folks at fivethirtyeight.com have a post up calling Brown a liberal Republican. They're probably right. So maybe I just don't like the way he's handled that one issue during the campaign.)
There is a third candidate - Joseph Kennedy (no relation), a libertarian running as an independent. He benefited from Coakley's demand that all candidates on the ballot be in any debate, but is unlikely to draw many votes, and certainly not as many as Coakley would like.
In trying to sort out who to vote for, one of the things that most bothers me is that I know very little about what Scott Brown has done or stands for, outside of the most general notions. He's said very little about his time in the state senate, and the only thing I really know about possible Senate plans is that he wants to be the 41st vote against health care reform. I think his campaign is best summed up in his ad refuting negative ads about him - it debuted the same day as the negative ads, and makes no specific reference to them. As much as I don't like negative advertising, it makes me more curious when the response is something that seems like it was taped in Decemeber.
Conversely, I feel like I have a decent handle on Coakley's past and what she'd do in Washington. While that knowledge is certainly what's turning some people against her, it's something. And while I'm not 100 percent in tune with her positions, I'm certainly closer to her than Brown, so Blogalicious endorses Martha Coakley for the US Senate. If nothing else, it gives us two years to find someone we'd really like.
01 December 2009
We're a week away from the primaries for the special election to fill the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy. Time to sort out who you should vote for!
On the Democratic side, we start with Mike Capuano, who is currently in his sixth term as the Congressman from the historic 8th district (former Reps include JFK, Tip O'Neill, and Joseph "Joe 4 Oil" Kennedy II). He's got the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and has worked the hardest to claim the Kennedy mantle by pushing his liberal credentials. His TV ads have focused mostly on war-related issues, even though it's more of an "it's the economy, stupid" kind of time.
He has a number of union endorsements, most notably the Massachusetts Teachers Association. His individual endorsements are kind of a mixed bag, with the most notable names being former governor Mike Dukakis and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Even with his experience and endorsements, he's stuck in second place in most polls.
The person he's trailing is Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts attorney general. She announced her candidacy scant days after Kennedy's funeral, and while there was some undercurrent of it being too soon, the quick announcement apaprently helped her get clear of the field that was still forming. That, plus strong name recognition and favorable ratings, allowed her to build a large early lead in polling, giving her time to raise money and plan. Opponents used this time to cut into her lead, but she's still holding on to a decent cushion and forwarding a message squarely focused on financial and health care issues. It also probably helps that she's the only woman in the race; she's not playing gender politics per se, but it's an obvious difference that connects her to approximately half of the voters in a way the other candidates can't match.
She's endorsed by a variety of unions and politicians, as well as groups like MassEquality and the Massachusetts Police Association (helps to be a former prosecutor). She also has a fair number of state politicians in her corner, including the state senate president and majority leaders from both the state senate and General Court (our quaint name for the House).
Social entrepraneur Alan Khazei is one of the two non-politicians in the race. He's the founder of City Year, a well-known AmeriCorps program, and was pretty well involved in the public service bill named for Kennedy. His vision for service finds room for both the private and public sector, and he's got experience working with folks in both arenas.
What he doesn't have is name recognition, and while he's been somewhat successful in raising money, he's not really made much headway. He does have one TV ad, whose theme is cleaning up Washington. It involves him holding a diaper (I assume it's full). He also doesn't have many endorsements, but the ones he does have are bigger names - Teddy's nephew Max Kennedy, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Presidential candidate Wes Clark, and, most surprisingly, the Boston Globe. (Although perhaps not that surprisingly, as every piece I've read about him there has been effusive with praise for his thoughtful approach to political questions).
The other non-politician is Steve Pagliuca, a former manager at Bain Capital, where he worked for once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pagliuca is using his personal fortune to bankroll his candidacy, and he's used TV ads early and often. Their progression has at least been sensible, starting with "getting to know you" ads, moving on to spots casting his liberal political cred, and then to more specific issue ads (like Coakley, focusing on the economy and health care). He's also a minority owner of the Celtics, which he's mentioned but not harped on, to his credit.
I can't find any endorsements for him on his web site, though there is a link where individuals can sign up to endorse him.
While there's something to be said for the experience of Capuano and Coakley, I have to admit I love an underdog and think it's about time we started sending non-politicans to Washington, which is why Blogalicious endorses Alan Khazei in the Democratic primary.
For the Republicans, there are two choices. Scott Brown is one of five Republicans in the state senate, and is seen as a rising star in the state party (inasmuch as they can have one, given the low GOP numbers in elected positions). That being said, he's only the third-best known person in his family, as his wife, Gail Huff, is a local TV news reporter, and his daughter, Ayla, plays basketball for BC and was a semi-finalist on season 5 of American Idol. He's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, enough that I wouldn't call him a RINO though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would.
One of those people is his opponent, Jack E. Robinson, entrepraneur and occasional Republican candidate. He ran against Kennedy in 2000, losing pretty badly (a fair amount of the GOP vote went to the Libertarian candidate), and has since run for Secretary of the Commonwealth and the US House, losing both contests badly.
Robinson's political views are varied, as he combines fiscal conservatism with social views from across the spectrum (he's for gay marriage and thinks that public transportation should be federally funded and free to use; odd stances for someone who's called Brown a RINO in radio ads). The state party doesn't care for him, as they challenged the signatures he collected to get on the primary ballot (or at least threatened to, I can't find confirmation that they actually did).
As much as I'd enjoy the theater of Robinson winning, I'm opting for experience here as Blogalicious endorses Scott Brown for the GOP primary and eventual whipping at the hands of the Democratic winner.
On the Democratic side, we start with Mike Capuano, who is currently in his sixth term as the Congressman from the historic 8th district (former Reps include JFK, Tip O'Neill, and Joseph "Joe 4 Oil" Kennedy II). He's got the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and has worked the hardest to claim the Kennedy mantle by pushing his liberal credentials. His TV ads have focused mostly on war-related issues, even though it's more of an "it's the economy, stupid" kind of time.
He has a number of union endorsements, most notably the Massachusetts Teachers Association. His individual endorsements are kind of a mixed bag, with the most notable names being former governor Mike Dukakis and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Even with his experience and endorsements, he's stuck in second place in most polls.
The person he's trailing is Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts attorney general. She announced her candidacy scant days after Kennedy's funeral, and while there was some undercurrent of it being too soon, the quick announcement apaprently helped her get clear of the field that was still forming. That, plus strong name recognition and favorable ratings, allowed her to build a large early lead in polling, giving her time to raise money and plan. Opponents used this time to cut into her lead, but she's still holding on to a decent cushion and forwarding a message squarely focused on financial and health care issues. It also probably helps that she's the only woman in the race; she's not playing gender politics per se, but it's an obvious difference that connects her to approximately half of the voters in a way the other candidates can't match.
She's endorsed by a variety of unions and politicians, as well as groups like MassEquality and the Massachusetts Police Association (helps to be a former prosecutor). She also has a fair number of state politicians in her corner, including the state senate president and majority leaders from both the state senate and General Court (our quaint name for the House).
Social entrepraneur Alan Khazei is one of the two non-politicians in the race. He's the founder of City Year, a well-known AmeriCorps program, and was pretty well involved in the public service bill named for Kennedy. His vision for service finds room for both the private and public sector, and he's got experience working with folks in both arenas.
What he doesn't have is name recognition, and while he's been somewhat successful in raising money, he's not really made much headway. He does have one TV ad, whose theme is cleaning up Washington. It involves him holding a diaper (I assume it's full). He also doesn't have many endorsements, but the ones he does have are bigger names - Teddy's nephew Max Kennedy, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Presidential candidate Wes Clark, and, most surprisingly, the Boston Globe. (Although perhaps not that surprisingly, as every piece I've read about him there has been effusive with praise for his thoughtful approach to political questions).
The other non-politician is Steve Pagliuca, a former manager at Bain Capital, where he worked for once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pagliuca is using his personal fortune to bankroll his candidacy, and he's used TV ads early and often. Their progression has at least been sensible, starting with "getting to know you" ads, moving on to spots casting his liberal political cred, and then to more specific issue ads (like Coakley, focusing on the economy and health care). He's also a minority owner of the Celtics, which he's mentioned but not harped on, to his credit.
I can't find any endorsements for him on his web site, though there is a link where individuals can sign up to endorse him.
While there's something to be said for the experience of Capuano and Coakley, I have to admit I love an underdog and think it's about time we started sending non-politicans to Washington, which is why Blogalicious endorses Alan Khazei in the Democratic primary.
For the Republicans, there are two choices. Scott Brown is one of five Republicans in the state senate, and is seen as a rising star in the state party (inasmuch as they can have one, given the low GOP numbers in elected positions). That being said, he's only the third-best known person in his family, as his wife, Gail Huff, is a local TV news reporter, and his daughter, Ayla, plays basketball for BC and was a semi-finalist on season 5 of American Idol. He's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, enough that I wouldn't call him a RINO though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would.
One of those people is his opponent, Jack E. Robinson, entrepraneur and occasional Republican candidate. He ran against Kennedy in 2000, losing pretty badly (a fair amount of the GOP vote went to the Libertarian candidate), and has since run for Secretary of the Commonwealth and the US House, losing both contests badly.
Robinson's political views are varied, as he combines fiscal conservatism with social views from across the spectrum (he's for gay marriage and thinks that public transportation should be federally funded and free to use; odd stances for someone who's called Brown a RINO in radio ads). The state party doesn't care for him, as they challenged the signatures he collected to get on the primary ballot (or at least threatened to, I can't find confirmation that they actually did).
As much as I'd enjoy the theater of Robinson winning, I'm opting for experience here as Blogalicious endorses Scott Brown for the GOP primary and eventual whipping at the hands of the Democratic winner.
26 February 2009
Lentorama 2009: Great(?) Moments in Catholics on Television
September 26, 1960: John Kennedy takes on Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised Presidential debate.
I don't think I need to go into specifics here, but if you don't know how this turned out, this page will give you a decent synopsis.
Catholics haven't fared so well in Presidential politics since, but we are currently a heartbeat away from our second Catholic president. I was reminded of this yesterday when I saw Joe Biden, complete with ashes on his forehead, on NBC Nightly News. And two heartbeats away there's Nancy Pelosi, who is also on the team. All that being said, it may not be a bad idea this Lent to say an extra prayer for the health and safety of President Obama.
September 26, 1960: John Kennedy takes on Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised Presidential debate.
I don't think I need to go into specifics here, but if you don't know how this turned out, this page will give you a decent synopsis.
Catholics haven't fared so well in Presidential politics since, but we are currently a heartbeat away from our second Catholic president. I was reminded of this yesterday when I saw Joe Biden, complete with ashes on his forehead, on NBC Nightly News. And two heartbeats away there's Nancy Pelosi, who is also on the team. All that being said, it may not be a bad idea this Lent to say an extra prayer for the health and safety of President Obama.
15 January 2009
Based on the number of entries, most of you may not remember that I put together an election prediction contest (or perhaps most of you do, and I just have a much smaller readership than the handful I assume still read this thing). It seems like it would be gauche to have the results announced after next week's inauguration, so here they are!
The contest had five parts:
Part I: Pick the winners by state. There were 104 possible points here, as I threw in Guam's straw poll to get the contest to a 200 point theoretical maximum. Two of us managed to get 101 points: myself and Brian Hight. The odd number comes from Nebraska's split, as I awarded half credit to all of us who predicted McCain's win but not the split (the wife got full marks for picking the split, but then got half credit for picking a split in Maine, too).
Part II: Pick the percentages. Here you got 10 points each if you correctly predicted the popular vote percentages for Obama and McCain, losing a point for every quarter-point off one was. Kudos here to the wife, who got 17 of a possible 20 points.
Part III: Pick the Senate winners. Ten races, two points each. In order to score this I've assumed that Franken will remain the winner in Minnesota, and I gave credit for Georgia where people picked Chambliss and those who went with "other" to represent the run-off. Taking all that into account, Craig Barker ran the table and picked up all 20 points.
Part IV: Pick the next five finishers in order. This gave the minor candidates some love, with each candidate in proper order giving 5 points, those one position off giving 3, and two positions off giving 1. The wife earned all 25 points here, correctly getting the order of Nader, Barr, Baldwin, McKinney and Keyes.
Part V: Yea or Nay? Seven yea-or-nay questions, three points each. They were:
Would Santa Claus get 100 votes in West Virginia? A guy in Nevada who legally changed his name to Santa Claus was a registered write-in candidate in West Virginia, meaning that any votes for him would be reported under his name. Not surprising for a state full of coal, he only garnered 59 votes.
Would the Democrats get a 60 seat majority in the Senate? A nay for this admittedly unlikely possibility.
Would the Democrats get at least 250 seats in the House? Aye, they did.
Would any location be decided by fewer than 1000 votes? Nay, nowhere was even close to that number (though Missouri's 3903 is pretty tight).
Would the Democrats win more gubernatorial races than the GOP? Aye, they did, 7-4.
Would McCain or Obama get at least 75 percent of the vote in any state? Limited to state given the expected big win for Obama in DC, the closest we got was the President-Elect's 71.85 percent in Hawaii. Nay.
Would Obama win Dixville Notch, New Hampshire? The traditional first in the nation voting location went with Obama, 15-6, so aye.
Our wacky prop bet winner was the Left Reverend Erik Corley, sweeping the field for the full 21 points.
Entrants were also allowed to "ballot stuff" five races out a select group of state Presidential and Senate races. I don't think everyone realized that there were Senate races in play, as more than one entrant didn't use all of their stuffing opportunities. Brian was the only entrant to get the 10 extra points.
So when the smoke-filled room cleared, what were the final totals?
Coen, S. 170
Hight 167
Coen, M. 164
Barker 158
Corley 154
Sorenson 115
So kudos to the wife, whose success later in the contest made up for her McCain-friendly state picking. It should be noted that Greg's score is the result of an incomplete entry. I'm sure he'd have done much better if he'd bothered to try.
Thanks to all who played, and see you in 2012!
The contest had five parts:
Part I: Pick the winners by state. There were 104 possible points here, as I threw in Guam's straw poll to get the contest to a 200 point theoretical maximum. Two of us managed to get 101 points: myself and Brian Hight. The odd number comes from Nebraska's split, as I awarded half credit to all of us who predicted McCain's win but not the split (the wife got full marks for picking the split, but then got half credit for picking a split in Maine, too).
Part II: Pick the percentages. Here you got 10 points each if you correctly predicted the popular vote percentages for Obama and McCain, losing a point for every quarter-point off one was. Kudos here to the wife, who got 17 of a possible 20 points.
Part III: Pick the Senate winners. Ten races, two points each. In order to score this I've assumed that Franken will remain the winner in Minnesota, and I gave credit for Georgia where people picked Chambliss and those who went with "other" to represent the run-off. Taking all that into account, Craig Barker ran the table and picked up all 20 points.
Part IV: Pick the next five finishers in order. This gave the minor candidates some love, with each candidate in proper order giving 5 points, those one position off giving 3, and two positions off giving 1. The wife earned all 25 points here, correctly getting the order of Nader, Barr, Baldwin, McKinney and Keyes.
Part V: Yea or Nay? Seven yea-or-nay questions, three points each. They were:
Would Santa Claus get 100 votes in West Virginia? A guy in Nevada who legally changed his name to Santa Claus was a registered write-in candidate in West Virginia, meaning that any votes for him would be reported under his name. Not surprising for a state full of coal, he only garnered 59 votes.
Would the Democrats get a 60 seat majority in the Senate? A nay for this admittedly unlikely possibility.
Would the Democrats get at least 250 seats in the House? Aye, they did.
Would any location be decided by fewer than 1000 votes? Nay, nowhere was even close to that number (though Missouri's 3903 is pretty tight).
Would the Democrats win more gubernatorial races than the GOP? Aye, they did, 7-4.
Would McCain or Obama get at least 75 percent of the vote in any state? Limited to state given the expected big win for Obama in DC, the closest we got was the President-Elect's 71.85 percent in Hawaii. Nay.
Would Obama win Dixville Notch, New Hampshire? The traditional first in the nation voting location went with Obama, 15-6, so aye.
Our wacky prop bet winner was the Left Reverend Erik Corley, sweeping the field for the full 21 points.
Entrants were also allowed to "ballot stuff" five races out a select group of state Presidential and Senate races. I don't think everyone realized that there were Senate races in play, as more than one entrant didn't use all of their stuffing opportunities. Brian was the only entrant to get the 10 extra points.
So when the smoke-filled room cleared, what were the final totals?
Coen, S. 170
Hight 167
Coen, M. 164
Barker 158
Corley 154
Sorenson 115
So kudos to the wife, whose success later in the contest made up for her McCain-friendly state picking. It should be noted that Greg's score is the result of an incomplete entry. I'm sure he'd have done much better if he'd bothered to try.
Thanks to all who played, and see you in 2012!
12 November 2008
04 November 2008
Oh, the voting.
We got to our polling place 10-15 minutes before it opened, and there was a line of 20-25 people in front of us (depending on how you count; there were several children in the line, so while they were in front of us they weren't going to be voting, unless ACORN got to them). By the time the polls opened I'd estimate 75 or so people were in line (based on the the segment behind us looking about twice as long as the segment in front of us).
For whatever reason, about 90 percent of the people in front of us lived in the other precinct (our ward is split into two precincts, both of which vote in the same place). This made our trip to the booth much quicker than expected, and we were out of there by 7:10 at the latest. We were the fifth and eighth voters for our precinct. Go us!
No problems with electioneering out front of the location, with only the write-in candidate for state rep out there when we arrived (turns out the wife and I both wrote him in). The whole thing went very smooth, with the exception of the bake sale not being set up in time for us to make a purchase. The women running it can be excused, given how the city put the kibosh on bake sales in 2006. But they better be ready to go in 2010.
We got to our polling place 10-15 minutes before it opened, and there was a line of 20-25 people in front of us (depending on how you count; there were several children in the line, so while they were in front of us they weren't going to be voting, unless ACORN got to them). By the time the polls opened I'd estimate 75 or so people were in line (based on the the segment behind us looking about twice as long as the segment in front of us).
For whatever reason, about 90 percent of the people in front of us lived in the other precinct (our ward is split into two precincts, both of which vote in the same place). This made our trip to the booth much quicker than expected, and we were out of there by 7:10 at the latest. We were the fifth and eighth voters for our precinct. Go us!
No problems with electioneering out front of the location, with only the write-in candidate for state rep out there when we arrived (turns out the wife and I both wrote him in). The whole thing went very smooth, with the exception of the bake sale not being set up in time for us to make a purchase. The women running it can be excused, given how the city put the kibosh on bake sales in 2006. But they better be ready to go in 2010.
03 November 2008
Still time to get your entry for my election prediction game. It's due at 11:59 PM EST tonight, given that one of the questions on it will be answered by 12:15 or so tomorrow morning.
Note that the original spreadsheet didn't include Iowa, so if you filled that one out please email me with your call for that state. Sorry, Iowa.
Note that the original spreadsheet didn't include Iowa, so if you filled that one out please email me with your call for that state. Sorry, Iowa.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Lentorama 2026: Hic es: aedificia Vaticani Day 10 - Padiglione delle Carrozze Not so much its own building as part of another, the Carriage...
-
As you may have heard, there's a new question facing all of us in Red Sox Nation. Now what? It's a valid question. Citizensh...
-
And finally, U!P!N! THE NEW UPN created a new Thursday night of comedies, and seems very proud of being the only network with a full two hou...
-
A couple of months ago I went on new insurance. For the first time ever, I was asked to get prior authorization from a doctor to get a presc...