Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Debate liveblog tomorrow
I will be blogging, hopefully live-blogging, the debate between Tim Dodd and George Peterson tomorrow in Grafton. In a contest between a motivated selectman and teacher, and a do-nothing Republican whip on the other, this is a clear choice for anyone who cares about education in the Commonwealth. I'll do it here, possibly on BMG, too.
Ride the wave: Dodd and Cutler
I suppose we could play defense and say that 2010 is an anti-Democratic year. Try to keep what we can keep. Surrender. Alternatively, we could micro-analyze every warp and woof of the governor's race and ignore every other election slated for November. I think there's a better way.
I suspect that 2010 is an anti-people in charge year. Sure, that's a problem for many of us as most of the people in charge at the moment happen to Democrats. Rather than stop at fighting over whose fault is the economic downturn that began months before Obama took office, let's use the tide. Let's ride the wave. No need for Bennett, Murkowski, Crist, and Castle to be the only Republicans thrown out of office this year.
If people want to vote out incumbents, we have a couple Democrats working very hard to help them here in the Bay State. Tim Dodd and Josh Cutler. Two hard-working guys giving of themselves in a tough environment, while the Democratic Party runs its usual incumbent-protection racket. They deserve our help.
Is there an easier job on Beacon Hill than Republican whip? What does that entail -- keeping people awake so they can vote no? Well, Tim Dodd is looking to replace that piece of decorative furniture that is George Peterson. Dodd is a current selectman -- he knows what the towns are going through and how to improve laws to better people's lives. He's a teacher -- he knows how to reform education, not just perform a sound bite. He'll work with the state leadership, not just vote no and go home. And hustle? The guy's everywhere in that district -- and you should see his proposed schedule for district hours. It would make a lesser man keel over. Don't look for him at campaign HQ though, as he's knocking on doors.
Some Republicans offer a differing voice in the Legislature. Peterson offers his constituents indifferent service, and the rest of us a seat warmer. Dodd wants to change that. Smart work on budgets, education, environment, jobs. Far more than "not my fault, I said no" that typifies the incumbent. Unfortunately, the reactive ethics law in force prevents this candidate, pretty much alone on this, from asking for campaign donations. So I'm doing it for him -- give this guy some scratch. Ride the wave, and get someone who knows how to work, and wants to work, in the State House.
Josh Cutler has stepped up when so few would -- to take on a longtime incumbent in SE Massachusetts. To color blue a district largely surrounded by blue, and to add a voice to the Beacon Hill conversation whose vocabulary will extend beyond "no". He's been running hard for several months now, and unlike the current occupant -- he wants this job. He's a businessman who knows how to be responsible for his actions. Cutler knows how to get away from our over-reliance on capital gains taxes. Cutler knows 40B and Open Meeting Law have problems. He's willing to take positions...and fight for them. If the people in Webster's district want to get rid of the incumbent. It will be a real step up. Will you help?
I suspect that 2010 is an anti-people in charge year. Sure, that's a problem for many of us as most of the people in charge at the moment happen to Democrats. Rather than stop at fighting over whose fault is the economic downturn that began months before Obama took office, let's use the tide. Let's ride the wave. No need for Bennett, Murkowski, Crist, and Castle to be the only Republicans thrown out of office this year.
If people want to vote out incumbents, we have a couple Democrats working very hard to help them here in the Bay State. Tim Dodd and Josh Cutler. Two hard-working guys giving of themselves in a tough environment, while the Democratic Party runs its usual incumbent-protection racket. They deserve our help.
Is there an easier job on Beacon Hill than Republican whip? What does that entail -- keeping people awake so they can vote no? Well, Tim Dodd is looking to replace that piece of decorative furniture that is George Peterson. Dodd is a current selectman -- he knows what the towns are going through and how to improve laws to better people's lives. He's a teacher -- he knows how to reform education, not just perform a sound bite. He'll work with the state leadership, not just vote no and go home. And hustle? The guy's everywhere in that district -- and you should see his proposed schedule for district hours. It would make a lesser man keel over. Don't look for him at campaign HQ though, as he's knocking on doors.
Some Republicans offer a differing voice in the Legislature. Peterson offers his constituents indifferent service, and the rest of us a seat warmer. Dodd wants to change that. Smart work on budgets, education, environment, jobs. Far more than "not my fault, I said no" that typifies the incumbent. Unfortunately, the reactive ethics law in force prevents this candidate, pretty much alone on this, from asking for campaign donations. So I'm doing it for him -- give this guy some scratch. Ride the wave, and get someone who knows how to work, and wants to work, in the State House.
Josh Cutler has stepped up when so few would -- to take on a longtime incumbent in SE Massachusetts. To color blue a district largely surrounded by blue, and to add a voice to the Beacon Hill conversation whose vocabulary will extend beyond "no". He's been running hard for several months now, and unlike the current occupant -- he wants this job. He's a businessman who knows how to be responsible for his actions. Cutler knows how to get away from our over-reliance on capital gains taxes. Cutler knows 40B and Open Meeting Law have problems. He's willing to take positions...and fight for them. If the people in Webster's district want to get rid of the incumbent. It will be a real step up. Will you help?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Random Tuesday thoughts
It's been a while since I could say anything huge and original, so I've been mainly quiet. But a few things come to mind:
- I heard Deval Patrick on my radio today talkin' up Massachusetts as a great place to do business. I'm not quite sure why he's selling Massachusetts via Boston radio -- their listerners have already bought into the state by the act of being here. In the radio ad I heard, Deval introduces himself and says that we're going to hear another Massachusetts business success story, and then we get the real commercial, a CEO talking about their successful Bay State Business. Deval then comes on and tells us to visit a website. Three thoughts came to me: 1-Deval doesn't have a voice for radio, 2-About 1/4 of the ad time was spent on Deval talking, not the meat of the ad, and 3-Just how long has this been running? It doesn't seem like a wise use of money for Massachusetts, but not a bad use of money for our embattled governor.
- Lots of gnashing teeth over the amazingly precarious state of the Boston Globe on the Internets. I certainly agree that ideas are needed to keep the only paper around here with valuable coverage outside the sports section. Granted, a fair bit of the problem is rooted in the poor decisions of the paper's absentee managers in NYC. These buffoons struggle to an online model work the way the LA Times has, and are seemingly unable to gather news that breaks inside their own building. Still, I would like to see things turn around for the rag.
Newspapers are valuable the way that the Pony Express was...with perhaps the same long-term prospect. Their main stated mission is to gather news, and there is pretty much possible way they can do that nearly as quickly, immediately, or thoroughly as radio, television, or the Internet these days. While many paper defenders say that rags should focus on local news, that's even iffy. The best source for key Lowell news isn't the Lowell Sun, it's leftinlowell.com. My town has a weekly paper that isn't bad, but it has six blogs that I know of that get updated more frequently. The town paper is the single worst source of information on the area casino debate, among other things. With the Internet replacing obits and classifieds, I wonder if all that's really unique about newspapers is their (disappearing) investigative journalism, and their columnists. Maybe that's where the money should go. - Vermont joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa on the side of fulfilling still more of America's promise to its people. And they did it the old-fashioned way -- over the objections of a milquetoast Republican governor. (Funny story: I met Douglas once while tagging along at a VIP tour of the State House. It was campaign season, and my Hillary button was prominently on my jacket as we shook hands. To enter Boston's State House you go through metal detectors to enter the State House, in Montpelier you go through a door.)
- My town voted recently in town election, resulting in a clear and close split between the townie ticket (motto: "The people who got us into this mess are the only ones who can get us out") and the anti-townie ticket. I'm seeing similar things happen around the state. Anyone who can figure out how to get 10% of a town's voters to the polls can pick his/her job in most of suburban Massachusetts.
- Chris Dodd the most threatened Democratic Senator? Strange, that, and an unpleasant surprise. Not that he doesn't deserve it, mind you -- a waste of a presidential "campaign" that shafted his real constituents, and some dodginess over his role in the AIG mess. I have to agree that Dodd is done, and hope Lamont or Blumenthal rides in on a white horse. Plus, saying this allows me to post one of my favorite bits of 2008 political comedy:
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Minor concern about Obama's electoral map
It's clear that Obama and Clinton are looking at different strategies should they become the nominee. In a recent campaign memo, Obama HQ (aka Hope Central) declared that it would be looking to win using with swing states such as North Carolina, and "New States" such as Montana, Texas and North Dakota.
Leaving aside the hilarious notion of a Democratic candidate winning by way of Texas and North Dakota, the most remarked-upon piece in the memo is the absence of Ohio and Florida. Many people have been, to say the least, surprised, because these states have many electoral votes and are within the grasp of Democratic candidates. Granted, Obama runs far behind Clinton in head-to-head matchups against McCain in those two states...but that doesn't keep them from being important and obtainable states.
There's something I'd like to add however, particularly on the subject of Ohio. In the aftermath of the 2004 election, there was a great deal of anger at the machinations of Ohio electoral officials, particularly under Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Governor Robert Taft, both Republicans. Attempts to stifle the votes of minority groups who traditionally vote Democratic certainly gave Bush an advantage in what would end up as the fulcrum of 2004. This was certainly a stain, especially in the wake of Florida Secretary Katherine Harris's antics on behalf of Bush in Florida, 2000.
It seemed that Ohio was trending slightly Democratic and would be a good "add" to the column (don't remember similar feelings about North Dakota back then...) So, as good Democrats, we all put some extra special effort into changing the situation in Ohio. More or less explicitly to end such shenanigans, Democrats put one of their own in the governor's office, and the secretary of state's office. If nothing else, we can be sure that the 2008 election will be held fairly in Ohio. We can expect that "vote caging" will not be happening, and we can expect and equitable distribution of voting machines. In Ohio, the votes will be counted and the voters will count.
So what does Obama propose to do, skip a state that is not only within Democratic reach, but will be governed fairly. Personally, I would rather compete on fair ground instead of states whose elections will likely be held under "Zimbabwe Rules". Wonder what gives Obama such confidence that they won't cheat him...
Leaving aside the hilarious notion of a Democratic candidate winning by way of Texas and North Dakota, the most remarked-upon piece in the memo is the absence of Ohio and Florida. Many people have been, to say the least, surprised, because these states have many electoral votes and are within the grasp of Democratic candidates. Granted, Obama runs far behind Clinton in head-to-head matchups against McCain in those two states...but that doesn't keep them from being important and obtainable states.
There's something I'd like to add however, particularly on the subject of Ohio. In the aftermath of the 2004 election, there was a great deal of anger at the machinations of Ohio electoral officials, particularly under Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Governor Robert Taft, both Republicans. Attempts to stifle the votes of minority groups who traditionally vote Democratic certainly gave Bush an advantage in what would end up as the fulcrum of 2004. This was certainly a stain, especially in the wake of Florida Secretary Katherine Harris's antics on behalf of Bush in Florida, 2000.
It seemed that Ohio was trending slightly Democratic and would be a good "add" to the column (don't remember similar feelings about North Dakota back then...) So, as good Democrats, we all put some extra special effort into changing the situation in Ohio. More or less explicitly to end such shenanigans, Democrats put one of their own in the governor's office, and the secretary of state's office. If nothing else, we can be sure that the 2008 election will be held fairly in Ohio. We can expect that "vote caging" will not be happening, and we can expect and equitable distribution of voting machines. In Ohio, the votes will be counted and the voters will count.
So what does Obama propose to do, skip a state that is not only within Democratic reach, but will be governed fairly. Personally, I would rather compete on fair ground instead of states whose elections will likely be held under "Zimbabwe Rules". Wonder what gives Obama such confidence that they won't cheat him...
Monday, April 14, 2008
Dang it
You win some, you lose some. Bush's porteur-d'eau (waterboy) in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy, got pasted pretty good in local elections, and Spain returned a Socialist government unlikely to be friendly to Bush, all last month.
Things seemed great, but now we end up with right-winger Silvio Berlusconi in power in Italy again after the latest elections. Berlusconi is on the right, and was a minor partner in Bush's Elektran Adventures in Iraq. Of course, "do you like Bush?" is way down on the list of priorities of most foreign voters. However, I don't like the idea of the minority of Americans currently in control of the government getting much support abroad. The less help they get firming up their fantasies, the better.
While Berlusconi was installed by an electorate uninspired by its choices, and disappointed in a leftist government that had fallen, I don't like seeing somebody so thoroughly corrupt in office in any country. He reminds me not a little of Boris Yeltsin minus the drinking problem.
On the positive side, this is Italy, which means the government may well be gone by the time the next president delivers his/her first State of the Union.
Things seemed great, but now we end up with right-winger Silvio Berlusconi in power in Italy again after the latest elections. Berlusconi is on the right, and was a minor partner in Bush's Elektran Adventures in Iraq. Of course, "do you like Bush?" is way down on the list of priorities of most foreign voters. However, I don't like the idea of the minority of Americans currently in control of the government getting much support abroad. The less help they get firming up their fantasies, the better.
While Berlusconi was installed by an electorate uninspired by its choices, and disappointed in a leftist government that had fallen, I don't like seeing somebody so thoroughly corrupt in office in any country. He reminds me not a little of Boris Yeltsin minus the drinking problem.
On the positive side, this is Italy, which means the government may well be gone by the time the next president delivers his/her first State of the Union.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Iowa Caucus: Failing International Standards for Democracy
According to the standards of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), the Iowa Caucuses of the Democratic Party likely lead to distorted results that may prejudice voters.
You see, for a candidate to receive any support that counts in a Democratic caucus in Iowa, s/he must be "viable". "Viable" means that 15% of the voters at the caucus support that candidate. So, if 28 of 200 voters at a particular precinct supported Chris Dodd, it doesn't count. In such an example, it doesn't matter if you have zero or 28 supporters, it comes out the same way.
The OSCE of course does not comment on the Iowa caucuses, but they have talked about high thresholds before:
Source.
(I have excised the subject-specific notes, which concern the Turkish electoral system. The full quote is "The electoral system contains an unusually high threshold of 10% of the vote to achieve party representation in parliament. This leads to distortions, and concerns were expressed to the OSCE/ODIHR NAM that it unfairly prejudices Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.")
While the Council of Europe has not ruled that this high threshold is inherently an obstacle to free and fair election, the fact remains that such high thresholds are not particularly democratic. The OSCE knows this...why can't the Democrats of Iowa figure it out?
You see, for a candidate to receive any support that counts in a Democratic caucus in Iowa, s/he must be "viable". "Viable" means that 15% of the voters at the caucus support that candidate. So, if 28 of 200 voters at a particular precinct supported Chris Dodd, it doesn't count. In such an example, it doesn't matter if you have zero or 28 supporters, it comes out the same way.
The OSCE of course does not comment on the Iowa caucuses, but they have talked about high thresholds before:
The electoral system contains an unusually high threshold of 10% of the vote to achieve … representation … This leads to distortions, and concerns were expressed … that it unfairly prejudices [certain voters].
Source.
(I have excised the subject-specific notes, which concern the Turkish electoral system. The full quote is "The electoral system contains an unusually high threshold of 10% of the vote to achieve party representation in parliament. This leads to distortions, and concerns were expressed to the OSCE/ODIHR NAM that it unfairly prejudices Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.")
While the Council of Europe has not ruled that this high threshold is inherently an obstacle to free and fair election, the fact remains that such high thresholds are not particularly democratic. The OSCE knows this...why can't the Democrats of Iowa figure it out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
