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:

• 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. 

Ballot Questions

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.

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!

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.

So we have another year with a Senate election here in Massachusetts, filling the seat vacated by John Kerry when he became Secretary of State (which comes up for re-election next year, making it five straight years in which we'll have voted for a US Senator; Elizabeth Warren better keep a wary eye out during 2015). The election is tomorrow, so it's apparently time for another Blogalicious endorsement.

On the Democratic side we have US Rep Ed Markey, who's been serving in Congress for the last 37 years. He's pretty much what you'd expect from a Massachusetts Democrat, a lefty who's provided solid if generally unremarkable service to his constituents. On the Republican side we have newcomer Gabriel Gomez, a former Navy SEAL who has made a pile in the financial sector.

The race itself has been similarly unremarkable. Both have runs ads you'd expect for the candidates - Markey touting his experience while trying to paint Gomez as a 1 percenter, Gomez talking about his service and being a "new" Republican while trying to make Markey the poster boy for Congressional partisanship - and their three debates have done little to inject any spark into the race. There have been some third party ads (Gomez refused the "People's Pledge" to keep third party money out, as he needed that money to keep from having to self-fund his campaign), which have been as witless and partisan as you'd expect (though it did introduce us to the comically named Americans for Progressive Action).

So what we have is a standard Massachusetts Democrat versus a weaponized version of Mitt Romney.  Neither is particularly exciting, and neither candidate seems primed to change the Washington culture. Markey is taking his one best shot at moving up from the House, while Gomez's "new ideas" include linking Congressional pay raises to balanced budgets and term limits, which were fresh ideas during the Reagan administration.

And that might be my biggest problem with Gomez. He's trying to run the Scott Brown playbook by painting himself as an independent Republican, and he's tried to work the Romney pivot a little from his positions in the Republican primary. It's not working particularly well in this case, either, as his remarks pretty much place him in the current GOP mainstream. So while I'm not over the moon about him, in this race, Blogalicious endorses Ed Markey. Let's hope he uses his brief term to find an identity.

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.

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. 

With the silly season of midterm elections drawing to a close, time to hand out some endorsements.

Governor While there are four candidates in the race, it's a two person fight between incumbent Deval Patrick (D) and former Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charlie Baker (R). Baker's followed the GOP playbook for these elections, blaming the incumbent for not solving the economic mess and touting his plan, which as far as I can tell is the usual cut taxes to spur job growth line.

And with people as apparently pissed as they are, it should be working for Baker. But it's not, at least to the extent he wants. The recession, as bad as it's been, has not hit Massachusetts as hard as other states. There's been some talk that we're getting out of the recession earlier than other states as well. This sort of talk makes the economic angle harder to sell, as it becomes more nuanced, and there's nothing less capable of discussing nuance than someone running for office. It doesn't help that Baker's public demeanor can be charitably described as flippant. He's trying to improve his image, but it may be too late.

Patrick hasn't exactly showered himself in glory over his four years, and whatever case he makes for his role in the recovery gets overshadowed by the tax hikes, most notably the sales tax increase to 6.25%, which are not popular. Patrick's ads are marginally less annoying, as he keeps it mostly positive. He just comes off as a little too earnest. I won't even get into the third party ads, which are awful. Thanks again, Citizens United.

For those finding neither of these guys to their liking there's the independent, Tim Cahill, and Green-Rainbow regular Jill Stein. Cahill, the state treasurer, broke from the Democratic party, apparently over tax hikes, though it wasn't hard to read that an indepdendent may do well this cycle. Of course, Cahill has never been able to capitalize, as he's never found a consistent message. It didn't help when his running mate defected and backed Baker, or when some of his strategists did the same thing, leading to a lawsuit. Cahill's numbers are now in the single digits.

Stein, for her part, continues to do what she's done in all of her campaigns: speak consistently (if occasionally buzzwordily) about the issues and policies that impact the most vulnerable Massachusetts residents. She's also not run any TV ads that I've seen, which is a nice change from the wall to wall crapfest we've had for the last couple of weeks. Which is why Blogalicious endorses Jill Stein for governor.

Treasurer - The race here pits long-time Democratic fundraiser Steve Grossman against Republican state representative Karyn Polito. Polito has run most of the ads, again stressing the lower taxes more jobs mantra. She's also made a point of noting she's against politicians receiving pensions, which is the sort of issue that gets talk radio all hot and bothered but isn't something you'd gain widespread traction with, even with the need for pension reform.

The only thing I can think of for Grossman is that he wants to put the state's checkbook online. It's a nice move for transparency, but isn't much to go on.

A late-breaking story about Polito's role in getting low numbered Red Sox/Jimmy Fund license plates to her family, friends and other associates is finding a little traction, but it's hard to tell how big a deal this is. It hurts Polito's attempt to paint herself as a reformer and watchdog (which she stressed in an ad where she appears with a Great Dane, who had better line delivery), but it's also the sort of issue that has become more or less expected from people in state government. So it just could be more white noise.

Grossman, meanwhile, is a long-time back room guy for the Democrats, and is a former chair of the DNC. That's going to leave a number of people cold, but I suppose better the devil you know. Blogalicious endorses Steve Grossman for Treasurer.

Auditor - the last of the competitive state-wide races features female candidates for both major parties, with former state secretary of labor Suzanne Bump (D) takes on former Turnpike Authority board member Mary Z. Connaughton (R). This is the first time in a statewide race that the major party candidates are women, which drags the political culture here well into the 1970s.

(There is a third candidate, physics professor Ned Fortune (G-R), who will be luck to get more than 200 votes.)

The mini-scandal here is that Bump has been getting tax breaks on a "primary" residence in Great Barrington and a "principal" residence in Boston. She claimed that she checked on this beforehand and was told it was OK, but it turns out that might not be the case (she got her advice on the Boston house from an aide to the tax assessor rather than the assessor himself). As this is likely the only thing the average voter will have heard about the auditor's race, it's not going to help Bump.

Also not helping: Connaughton is an actual financial professional. Probably doesn't hurt to have an auditor who has actually performed an audit. Which is why Blogalicious endorses Mary Z. Connaoughton for auditor.

Attorney General - Incumbent Martha Coakley (D) is not a comfortable candidate. She proved that in spades in her incredibly inept run for the US Senate, and has made small strides in this race, in that she is actually out meeting the public (if only in a somewhat awkward fashion).

Luckily for Coakley, her opponent, James McKenna (R), is an even worse candidate. He doesn't appear to be all that well prepared, and his public appearances are often painful to watch. He won the nomination via a write-in campaign (the Republicans had no official candidates in their primary), and you get the sense watching him why the party didn't solicit him to run.

Coakley, for all of her campaigning faults, is a reasonably good AG, so Blogalicious endorses Martha Coakley for attorney general.

Secretary of State - Incumbent Bill Galvin (D) is running against William Campbell (R) and James Henderson (I). Interesting fact: Galvin won re-election in 2006 by beating Jill Stein, who garnered just over 18 percent of the vote. I imagine the two opponents in this race will fare better, but not by much. For no good reason other than entropy, Blogalicious endorses Bill Galvin for secretary of state.

OK, let's power through the rest of the ballot.

Ballot Questions - Question 1 would restore the sales tax exemption for alcohol, which is an issue I don't care about greatly as I rarely buy alcohol anymore. Still, I'll throw a bone to the retailers along the New Hampshire line and endorse a Yes vote on Question 1.

Question 2 would repeal the state law requiring affordable housing construction as part of larger developments. There is a flaw to the current law, but a wholesale repeal isn't the way to fix it. All of the governor's candidates are against the repeal, marking the one thing they all agree on. A no brainer - No on Question 2.

Question 3 would roll the state sales tax back to 3 percent. No one's really psyched about the hike that took it from 5 to 6.25 percent, but there's been little talk from the folks in favor of the question on how we could forego the 2 to 3 billion in revenue that we'd lose with the rollback. There's been vauge talk of eliminating waste and sweetheart jobs, which isn't enough. Blogalicious thus endorses a No vote on Question 3.

US House - interesting race in the 6th district, as incumbent John Tierney (D) takes on Bill Hudak (R). Tierney is fighting to get clear of his wife's involvement in money laundering, which claims he was unaware of. I can kind of see this, as I go home to my wife every day and have no idea how she does the finances. Still, in this climate, it's enough of an issue to drive voters to your opponent.

Unless you don't want to vote for an opponent who had a lawn sign that put Obama's face on bin Laden's body, or who has given aid and comfort to the birther crowd. Hudak's done both, which is enough to keep me away. Sadly, there's no third party candidate, so hoping there's no future indictments, Blogalcious endorses John Tierney for US House, MA-6.

State House - the 6th Essex district sees two newcomers, with Jared Parisella (D) up against Brett Schetzsle (R). I tend to think the biggest problem on Beacon Hill is that the legislature is 90 percent from one party. That puts an awful lot of power into the hands of the Speaker of the House, and given the string of them who've been indicted I'm not comfortable in having power concentrated in that office.

More diversity would help spread the power around, which is why Blogalicious endorses Brett Schetzsle for the Massachusetts House, 6th Essex district.

State Senate - And now I'm going to be a total hypocrite, as Blogalicious endorses Fred Berry for the State Senate, 2nd Essex district. Berry, the incumbent Democrat, does have Republican and independent opponents in Richard Jolitz and Matthew Fraser, respectively, but knowing nothing about them I figure stick with the person I know.

The rest - both Governor's Council and District Attorney have people running unopposed, so Blogalicious endorses writing someone in in both races. For Sheriff, Blogalicious endorses Damian Anketell, mostly because I met him when he was collecting signatures and seemed like a nice guy. I don't know if that'll be enough to unseat the Republican incumbent, Richard Cousins, but it's something, I suppose.

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.

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.

Two weeks until the election, so you know what that means. Endorsement time!

President - OK, I voted for John McCain in the primary, as I got to couple the vicarious thrill of voting in a Republican primary with maximizing my opportunities to vote against Mitt Romney. But I went into it knowing that I wouldn't vote for him again in November, and that's still the case. We're too far apart on issues, and he's clearly not the McCain of 2000. His talk is less straight now than ever, and I fully expect he'll bust out some revamped versions of John Edwards' "two Americas" stump speech before the week is out.

So then there's the other major option, Barack Obama. We in Massachusetts got a sneak preview of his campaign two years ago when Deval Patrick ran for governor, as the whole hope/change theme was the basis of his candidacy. And considering that it's been a mixed bag for Governor Patrick, I worry about similar lack of results for a potential President Obama (though I think Obama will find working with Congress less problematic than Patrick has found working with our hack-infested state legislature). So I'm at a bit of an impasse with him.

Normally, I'd settle this by going with one of the third-party candidates. In 2004 I endorsed voting for any one of them, depending on your politics. The only problem is that this year's crop of third-party candidates is sorely lacking. Your choices:

Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party: I don't know much about him as a person, but looking at the Party's website is interesting, to say the least. To quote their mission statement, "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries." Which is great news to the folks who train seeing-eye dogs. They also seem very concerned about the North American Union, a theoretical merger of the US, Canada and Mexico, though I think they're missing a fundraising opportunity by not selling party logo-embossed tinfoil hats on their website.

Bob Barr, Libertarian Party: My problem here is personal, as Barr's role in the Clinton impeachment makes me want to slap the stupid little mustache off of his face every time I see him on TV. That he's turned his back on the GOP and now may help to torpedo McCain in some states makes me a little happy, in that now people on both sides hate the twerp.

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party: Assuming I never get the change to slap Barr's mustache off his face, McKinney may be able to do the honors for me. I've voted for the Greens the last couple of times, but can't see myself doing so this time between the cop slapping and all.

Ralph Nader, Independent: At this point I think he keeps running because he likes to get out of the house.

With all that in mind, the best I can do is say that Blogolicious endorses no one in particular, but wouldn't be heartbroken if you voted for Obama. Or Nader, if you want to get your third party on.

Senate - John Kerry is up against Republican Jeff Beatty and Libertarian Robert Underwood. Kerry is actually going through the motions of a campaign, as he's run TV ads, sent out mailers (including one with him acting as the T in the word VOTE) and even had a debate with Beatty on New England Cable News. I'll admit to knowing very little about Beatty and Underwood, but perusing their websites there's not enough there to convince me that either one of them is the right agent for change. So, for what it's worth, Blogalicious endorses John Kerry, though not exactly with enthusiasm.

US House - John Tierney runs against Richard Baker, a Republican. We actually got a mailing for Baker last week, looking to get money from us to do another mailing. Why he didn't just do one mailing I'm not sure, but he did tout his experience balancing the budget of his local school district as why he's the pefect person to fix our economy. I expect his plan has Treasury agents going door to door to sell wrapping paper, scented candles, and shares of AIG. While I'm dubious on him due to his switcharoo on the bailout bill, Blogalicious endorses John Tierney.

State House - Our state rep (Mary Grant) and state senator (Fred Berry) and governor's councilor (Mary Ellen Manning) are all running unopposed, so an endorsement seems pointless. However, we'll go out of district as Blogalicious endorses Arthur Vigeant for state representative for the Fourth Middlesex District. In the interest of full disclosure I work with one of his family members, but he does seem like the right choice, given that he's a long-time Marlborough city counselor running against a Democrat who was an aide to the previous rep.

I won't bore you with county races.

Ballot Question 1 seeks to repeal the state income tax in Massachusetts, cutting it in half next year and removing it entirely the following year. This doesn't seem like the best idea, given what the medium-term predictions are for the economy, and when paired with the cap cities and towns have on raising property tax the results of this passing look pretty grim. On the other hand, if you ever wanted to pay $750 to renew your driver's license, this seems like the perfect way to have it happen. Blogalicious endorses a no vote on Question 1.

Ballot Question 2 would decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing criminal sanctions with fines and (in some cases) mandated treatment. Law enforcement and county DAs are against the question, and while I do have some concern related to public health and safety, I'm not convinced that the criminal system is the best way to approach things, so Blogalicious endorses a yes vote on Question 2.

Ballot Question 3 would ban dog racing, a proposal that's been brought up before and met with narrow defeat. While supporters focus on animal cruelty issues, I'm thinking this would be a good way to open up space for actual casinos. Trump's people have already looked at Wonderland, the track in Revere, which is located near public transportation and is likely to go bankrupt due to low revenue and significant tax debt. This could also shift racing fans to Suffolk Downs, which could use the business as well. So, perhaps twisted logic, but it leads to Blogalicious endorsing a yes vote on Question 3.