Hey, there! Log in / Register
Governor of the Commonwealth
By Suldog on Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:13pm
Ed. note: Through no fault of his own, Suldog's original poll didn't work. This one should. -- Ye. ed.
Given the interesting discussions on these boards concerning the upcoming gubernatorial contest, I think it's time for the first entirely unscientific poll of the U-Hub political season. If you had to vote for governor today, for whom would you vote? In case anyone is wondering, choices are listed alphabetically.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Alphabetically by...?
n/t
It's an unscientific poll
It's not a scientific poll, while ballot order is eye brow raising with the "ballot order effect". Uhh... I guess we can't demand the poll names to randomly switch around per view.
Except it did
First time I looked, it was alphabetical by last name. Now there is no obvious order.
Weird!
A quick double check
I went to the poll once and voted. I checked it again and the order had changed.
So I guess it randomizes with each reload. Cool.
Did Adamg just added
Did Adamg just added randomization or was it already randomized and I didn't refresh to check/notice?
Pretty cool either way. Unbiased scientific partiality score raised!
Order of voting rank
At least that's the sequence I see after voting -- Cooksey, then Baker, then the various independent/third party candidates by vote tally.
Undecided
How about an "Undecided" choice? I don't like any of them, including the independents. I'm honestly going to wait this one out and likely will choose the day before I go to vote. I'm waiting for one of them to say something I really like. (Or to a lesser extent, something I really don't like.)
For some reason, I can't add that
But I can add a "fill in the blank" choice, so you could use that.
Also, the order should now be random.
And, yes, this is completely an unscientific poll. Don't make any financial decisions based on it. Consult your physician to see if this poll is right for you.
Sign Recycling
I dare someone to write in Doug Bennett.
Don't even joke about it!
Don't even joke about it!
To the Martha Coakley Voters
Yesterday, I bit on a question and put up the effort response to a post asking for reasons why a person does not find Coakley competent.
I'm partially quoting that that post to get more eyes and raise to people who are voting for her why the list is not deterring you as it deters me.
I said some additional stuff after (and a header before the list), but I'll reword that part. I added somewhat positive notes about her by noting there is a recent Uhub post where one person did endorse her. I neglected to note there is one recent post of a least one action most here would deem positive (going after a group of banks for fraud) though the results is still pending.
That said, personally, the reasons I do have to root/support/vote for her are currently Democrats' reputation for being more willing to support transit and she being a fellow BU alum (but that also mean voting for her merits but party affiliation historical policies and from the list above, her connection to BU arguably undermines my pride instead).
However, from the list above, that's not enough to override the stuff above for me. But to those who still intends to vote for her. What reasons still tip that scale towards her?
Simple
I dislike her less than Baker.
Same here
As I always say when it comes to voting.. pick your poison or pick the one of two lesser evils.
"Indeed it has been said that
"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Voting is not democracy
Voting is a pre-requisite for most forms of democracy (for obvious reasons), however it itself is not a form of government, like democracy is. It's a generic category of methodology for enabling democracy to occur. In that way, there are lots of specific methods which are in the generic category of voting that would do us a lot better than our current "first past the post" method.
More like the Evil
..of two lessers as has been noted in past electoral outings where mediocrity is touted as a sign of leadership..
Lifelong Democrat
Voting for Baker for same reason.
Oh, and for giving the world Scott Brown.
you could try voting for, e.g
you could try voting for, e.g. Falchuk instead.
I will never understand our country's obsession with believing in only binary options.
Let me get this correct...
You hate her for allowing Scott Brown to win...so you're going to take the same action that resulted in that in the first place.
You're not a very deep thinker, are you?
Responsible governance and Baker
These words don't belong in the same sentence unless separated by a "not".
Baker was a key player in hiding the true cost of the Big Dig -- and then coming up the scheme that saddled the MBTA with crushing debt in order to help mask the Big Dig problem until after the 1998 election. Not exactly a great track record when it comes to responsible governance. Coakley's flaws are trivial -- in comparison.
Demonizing caregivers
I don't think that is trivial.
Protecting her contributors by going after a small out-of-state business whose product was blatantly misused. Not trivial.
Obstructing implementation of a law that would result in competition with her contributors. Not trivial.
Scapegoating and grandstanding and witch hunting and obstructing - none of these are what I would call "trivial" flaws.
Fells Acres
In a rational society, participation in the Fells Acres witch hunt would render Coakley unfit to show her face in public, let alone run for governor.
Of course!
The fact that the prosecutor in that case, Harshbarger, and Coakley weren't disbarred for what they did is a travesty. Gerry Amirault is a better man than I am, as I'd be on the campaign trail every day educating people on the evil that is Coakley.
Amen
Instead, she got a promotion!
Waiting for the press to bring this up
I'll probably keep waiting, though, we went all through the Senate race without anybody making an issue out of this railroading of innocent people.
Coakley showed then that she was an opportunist, eager to make political gains with whatever the popular witch-hunt of the day was. She'd show real courage if she apologized even now, but I see no evidence of that in her character. I'm glad to see that other people haven't forgotten either. Martha Coakley will never get this Democrat's vote.
She should never be forgiven
She should never be forgiven for what she did to those people. She ruined that family. A modern day witch hunt for sure.
Demonizing caregivers?
Lots of invective here, but a lot more heat than light.
Besides I believe I said "comparatively trivial" -- and, with all due respect, I think the financial disaster this supposedly fiscally responsible fellow inflicted on the state and the region and on public transportation users outweighs (by a wide margin) Coakley's screw-ups (some of which were not inconsiderable). Unfortunately, the choice here will boil down to one between Baker and Coakley. And, paradoxically, Coakley will have less of a free hand as governor as a Democrat than Baker will have as a Repuiblican (who will happily cut all sorts of behind-closed-door deals with the Democratic legislative bosees, just like his Republican predecessors).
Yes. Demonizing Caregivers
Her pogroms against childcare workers were anything but feminist, and drew upon the worst unfounded fears and stereotypes.
Fells Acres - major railroad job there. Tainting witnesses, mystery tunnels, etc. Wrong. Worse yet, she has NEVER admitted wrongdoing.
She also unilaterally ruled out the Eappen family (with no basis to do so - they should also have been suspects and certainly SHOULD NOT have been allowed to participate in the autopsy!) and proceeded to railroad Louise Woodward because she was conveniently unable to fight back and fear of childcare sells.
Sorry, but these are not "trivial faults". She protects her cronies and preys on those who can't fight back effectively or aren't seen as her "base".
I also think the Fell Acres prosecution was misguided...
... but jurors, judges and appellate judges apprently did not agree. The same is true of the Woodward case. You disagree with the results. But there WAS sufficient evidence to require prosecution in both instances.
What was the sufficient evidence
In the Fells Acres case? Coerced testimony by children? There was ZERO physical evidence.
No evidence -- in your opinion
But not in the opinion of the people the law entrusted to render a verdict and those entrusted with the role of reviewing that verdict. In all honesty, I have little faith in thw wisdom of jurors, despite all the rhetoric -- but that is the system that our forefathers set up -- and that you and I (and all our fellow citizens) have not seen fit to change. If Coakley was wrong, so was the whole legal system we have set up.
The legal system WAS wrong
Clever prosecutors, inept defense, a public easily swayed by a media firestorm, it happens all the time. Look at all the death-row inmates freed years later by DNA evidence. Hundreds of wrongly-convicted people have been freed by the Innocence Project. And with Martha Coakley, it created a path to higher office. She needs to be taken off that path.
It's the job of prosecutors to prosecute....
and it's the job of defense attorneys to defend. I don't think either sort of attorney should be barred from office because they have done the job they are hired to do.
I would note that it is the job of the press to investigate impartially and hopefully thoroughly -- and would suggest that the press did a pretty piss-poor job.
Selective prosecution
It isn't the job of the prosecutor to selectively prosecute the easier party to vilify for the sake of running up her scorecard when there are multiple possible suspects.
Your subjective reading...
... of what happened.
It _is_ the job of a prosecutor to move ahead with the evidence he or she has. Our legal justice has massive faults, but these were not created by Coakley. The appellate court found no legal basis to overrule the jury in either the Fells Acres case or the Woodard case. If the case was a s flimsy (and unjustified) as you claim, the courts could have said so. But they didn't. They said the convictions were justified.
You don't like the results. And_I_ don't like the results either. But charging Coakley with moral turpitude for doing her job -- in the face of legal decisions that said the convictions were proper -- seems a bit ... extreme.
can you site your sources?
Id be interested in some good reading about either candidate's "transportation background".
I can't find a live link to the original article..
But here is a summary (partisan):
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/10/ap-finds-devastating-memo-from-charlie-...
This might give you hints on where to explore further.
Why
Because she has that coveted "D" after her name?
No big Coakley fan
...but anyone who self-identifies as a Republican these days might also just as well declare themselves a Scientologist, UFO Cultist, or flat-earther as far as my interests in having them decide on any laws is concerned.
Anyone
who thinks like you must be hooked up an iv bag full of cool-aid. Many people vote Republican solely because of fiscal policy and the size of Gov.
Anyone
...who thinks that the Republican Party is in any way actually responsible for sound fiscal policy and small government is hooked up to something a hell of a lot stronger than cool-aid [sic]
Gobbledygook
Those people are morons then who can't even concentrate long enough to make Kool-Aid.
The Republican "fiscal policy" is a myth and a scam. In theory it has been proven incorrect. In practice, it's been demonstrated to fail. AND in reality, Republicans don't vote for it anyways.
The same goes for "size of government" as neither party has a monopoly on growing the government or reducing the federal workforce. Growth is almost always in response to war (military personnel are all federal employees) and decline follows peace with the non-military labor numbers remaining relatively unchanged over the past 50 years. ( http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/fed... ). So, the idea that the first thing Republicans do is chop the "size of government" is bullshit from a labor force standpoint and if we're talking spending....well, refer back to "fiscal policy".
So, at this point, if you're voting for Republicans because of "fiscal policy and size of government", you are the problem, not the solution.
What he said ,
What he said , he being Rhonin....
Plus this , she is supposed to know the law...
Martha Coakley’s campaign funds in disarray
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/02/attorney-general-martha-coak...
Trouble for Coakley
If she is even remotely close to Baker in this poll among a very Democratic crowd - she is in big trouble in the election. Maybe somebody's just stuffing the box out here - but as of this post she's actually losing to Baker. R's usually take a 2-1 or even 3-1 drubbing out here.
Some of the independents sound interesting. I wish at least one of them were more viable. Alas...
The Catch-22 of Politics
Candidates don't become identified as viable until they have a certain level of media support. Candidates don't usually achieve that level of media support until they are seen as viable.
The main problem with our elections lies with the reporting process. TV, newspapers, radio, whatever else, decide early on who is viable and who isn't. Then they tend to ignore any candidates who haven't already secured that seal of approval.
If all candidates for any office were given equal exposure concerning their stances on the issues alone; were all included in polling; and if it were possible to have blind polling (that is, on the stances on issues alone, excluding extraneous and usually unimportant factors in job performance, such as gender, race, good or bad looks, etc.); the electoral landscape would be vastly different.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
^^ LIKE
Agreed. This is the problem with US politics in general. We only see what the media wants us to see, not if people are qualified or match the issues we're looking for.
If we had truly a flat election or were able to see ALL canadiates, I think our elections would be far different.
PS - We also need to get Citizens United reversed which will help things. Getting the big corporate donations out of politics will help also.
we agree
On virtually everything you note - I'll add that we need to get the union donations out of politics as well as corporate donations. Natural persons only with reasonable limits depending on the race - first amendment and all that.
Still have power of incumbency - but I'm not sure there is a good fix for that.
"Reasonable limits"
are impossible to define. It's easy to come up with an arbitrary dollar limit, but what about non-monetary donations? If Ellen decides to feature and endorse a specific candidate, isn't that worth more than $2600?
Union donations, corporate donations, "special interest" donations, PACs, etc are all the same...groups of people banded together with a common agenda.
I'm not sure how Democratic a
I'm not sure how Democratic a crowd this is. Seems like a lot of anons wake up in their mom's basement, read the Herald while trying to not move their lips, then start posting.
Not very Democrat....
Ulta-liberal!
Isn't necessary to write
Isn't necessary to write anyone who voted for Baker in the poll above as part of the as a bunch of mouth breathing basement dwelling losers? Only serve to antagonize (which also leads to voting by identity) rather than discuss any merit between any candidates.
Been out here over 5 years
This is a very liberal crowd - and Republicans get trounced out here. If Coakley can't win a poll on uhub by 15 points or more over Baker - she doesn't stand a chance in the general.
Nonsense
It all depends on who votes on an online poll. Yes, the majority of commentators tend towards liberals. But that doesn't mean they care to vote in online polls that they know make no difference.
For example, I voted for "Other: Kaz", but I'm not going to vote for myself in November. Trying to draw real world implications from this poll is just stupid.
Maybe this time's different
And the election isn't for several weeks - but EVERY other poll out here that I've seen has the Democrat trouncing the Republican. Sure it's not scientific - but unless Uhub has suddenly caught on among the Mom's basement crowd - this is a worrisome trend for Coakley. She's now leading by a few points - but out here I'd expect it to be about 60-30 - or worse with a few Kaz/other votes.
Long way to go - but while Baker has to check his baggage (and what baggage he has is from the 90's), Coakley seems to be lugging around several steamer trunks full of luggage.
Coakley is an unpopular
Coakley is an unpopular candidate even among the Dem base. Mass is a *very* Dem constituency. We'll see who votes.
Actually, my tracking has
Actually, my tracking has found they been pretty close for the past week. Coakley has the lead in, but still within margin of error. Checking wikipedia again now, Rasmussen now call it a dead heat. Here, Baker is behind by 30 votes (and earlier in the day, it was a dead heat).
It kinda sounds about right, though I do view UHub as more liberal leaning, but then again, this is Massachusetts.
they're only "not viable" if
they're only "not viable" if people don't vote for them when they believe they're the best choice.
It's one thing to identify
It's one thing to identify issues with your party's candidate. It's quite another to abandon your party entirely. The Mass Democratic and Republican party platforms are easily distinguishable, one would expect that people will still generally vote party lines.
As for lists Baker is hardly without his issues.
"people will still generally
"people will still generally vote party lines" To me, this is a big problem.
It's 2014 fer crissakes, can't people do research and come to their own conclusions without the need for "party"?
I would suggest Independents will be more the norm - hopefully in my lifetime.
For UHub, the two big items
For UHub, the two big items was his connection to a New Jersey incident and The Big Dig. There's other stuff, but some are quite ummm fluffy (like his eyes are scary... seriously?)
The New Jersey, frankly, reading the comments - particularly Stevil's... I'm fairly convinced he really got caught up in a web of rules and laws.
The Big Dig one is the one that does have more substantial ground for me. The mitigating thing for me so far is his involvement was in a point that Big Dig was already well underway. But this can shift as more arguments are raised (which would probably make me just vote for Vermin Supreme or one of the 3rd party candidates).
Meanwhile for Coakley, well that list I complied, read on UHub over the years has been more than enough to keep me from every voting for her.
The fact you call her
The fact you call her "Croakley" in more than one instance kinda gives away your intentions, no?
No, that's actually my bad.
No, that's actually my bad. Seriously, I'm really blind to typos, grammatical errors, and well yeah... and that was a really bad mistake. I don't know if you would believe that, but I think others have noted I somehow keep making those kind of mistakes. Fixing it after typing this.
Edit 2: I went back and check the post I quoted from. I somehow managed to write that entire post without spelling her name. Which I would have likely f-up that spelling baring a lucky proofread spot check or copy-paste the name.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
To the growing upvotes to Rob
To the growing upvotes to Rob, are you upvoters still interpreting my that I am revealing some kind of intention?
Because seriously, I really did misspelled her name. The fact I misspelled it twice reveals more that I failed to make sure how to spell her name when rushing to type my post (it was around 11ish, almost lunch, but still wasn't lunch time yet). I honestly do want to hear reasons why voting Coakley is preferable over Baker. Why the list above is not a deal breaker as much as it is for me.
In terms of Coakley, I think
In terms of Coakley, I think for anyone coming out of law enforcement, there tends to be ample ammunition to hit them with. We've seen that before. Because the nature of the position is you make enemies and are dealing with tough situations a lot including having to defend the state in court even when someone else screws up. Contrast with a state treasurer, who mostly hands out money in the form of lottery aid and doesn't attract much attention unless he royally screws something up. Doesn't mean all her moves were right but it's something to bear in mind. Personally, I think her positive outweighs the negative, and to contrast with some of the above this is what factors into that for me: how she was right and out front on DOMA, similar on foreclosure issues for a lot of people who were in dire straits when everything collapsed, and also I like her focus on mental health issues which is personal to her family.
Baker is not the worst Republican to ever run for office clearly, but I don't wanna go back to the days of Weld and Romney talking good game on social issues but meanwhile slashing services, especially in the cities. I also don't understand how Baker can be against Question 4, earned sick time - even if he says he supports the concept but not this law, I don't get what his issue is and he hasn't articulated it well. Also, by and large, I think the state is in good shape and I disagree with Baker's premise that we need to make Mass great again, I think we're already doing pretty well.
Its the amount of sick time
A full time employee (2,080 hrs/yr) would earn approximately 2 weeks of sick time per year. The workforce average is 1 week (5 days).
I met Scott McCormick at the
I met Scott McCormick at the Fall Classic 5K in Cambridge on sunday. he ran it and was just coming up and chatting with people, just in a very friendly way, very casually mentioned he was running for governor...I still know nothing about his platform but he was very nice!
Charlie and Guns
I did a "real" phone poll last night. One of the things they mentioned to see how it affected my answer was that Charlie Baker has a 96% positive rating with the NRA and that he said something about there being too many gun laws. Anyone know how much of this is true? It could definitely sway my vote.
If only there were some sort
If only there were some sort of worldwide computer network where one could look up the answers to questions like this.
Yes, but....
The Internet IS a wonderful thing, but it's not really a great place to get the "real deal" on candidates. I was hoping that someone here would know the truth and share it.
Do who know who
and what party outlawed assault rifles in MA. Its not the one most people would assume, but then again people tend to believe everything they hear.
It wasn't a party
A political party does not have the authority to enact laws or issue executive orders. That authority rests with the legislature and the governor, respectively.
Baker said that
he would've signed the the overhaul of gun laws that Patrick just signed. But he's also running for office and politicians say a lot of things.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/13/debate-stark-divide-between-...
Even if one is for more restrictive gun ownership measures, it may that we don't need MORE laws but instead need BETTER laws (that are enforced).
Gun laws...
Are already in place. They need to be enforced.
Scott Lively
ugh is he really on the ballot? Does he even think he can even remotely win. Maybe in a red state but not in Massachusetts
PS - Who's the weenie who gave this guy one vote in the poll? I personally will slap you for that.
Wow....
As of this posting he's up to 3 votes.
Uhub is a fairly libertarian
Uhub is a fairly libertarian/suburban/conservative place so it's not surprising Lively and baker are getting votes here.
what drugs are you on?
What drugs are you on? Uhub? Conservative??!?
PS - Scott Lively is a homophobe who would love to see all gays put into camps if he had his way.
It's hard to say what the Commentariat
..gravity center is here. You have a few old school conservative fire and brimstone bellowers and a lot of neocon corporate weasels trying to seem rational and polite.
Then you have a weighting of self proclaimed progressives sorting themselves around lifestyle issues with a veneer of giving a shit about broader social justice so long as no heavy lifting is involved.
I like the centrists who are coy about making any special affiliation but would rather take things on a case by case basis.
The litany of Coakley denunciations center on an ugly and crappy legal case long gone.
She is impure.
She has sinned and the stain of this sin shall never be washed away because redemption is a lip service thing saved for others, usually non whites, who are yet partly patronized as quaint and fascinating things.
It's a complicated set of pirouettes. Wayward Democrats to me are like a friend with a substance abuse problem.
The GOP is a malevolent evil fucked up thing that should never ever be trusted with a wet dollop of pigeon shit, as I've said before and will surely say again to anyone who is wondering.
It died along with Frank Sargent and Elliot Richardson and has been replaced by fucked up zombie greedheads who cheerlead the destruction of the middle class while enabling wealth hoarding at a level never known in two plus centuries of a fairly impressive Republic.
Sins of omission, too
In addition to rejecting Coakley for what she has done (doubling down on Fells Acre rather than trying to achieve justice; enthusiastically supporting increased government power to spy on citizens; etc.), I also reject her for what she has failed to do. We've had a number of fairly major political corruption scandals in this state lately, and nearly all of them have been uncovered by some combination of the newspapers and Federal investigators rather than by the AG's office.
So you embrace an entitled
So you embrace an entitled plutocrat? That will teach her, eh?
Yup.
I'm not interested in teaching her anything. I'm interested in keeping her self-serving, amoral, railroad-innocent-people-for-my-own-political-gain-while-ignoring-real-corruption hands as far from the levers of power as possible.
One way to get me to vote for her would bet for the Republicans to have nominated a Tea Party candidate, or Howie Carr, but that train has left the station. Another way might be to show me the lives that Charlie Baker has ruined for his own gain in the way that Coakley destroyed the Amiraults and others.
It's kind if interesting how
It's kind if interesting how much we hear about Coakley from both "sides" here and how little we hear about Parker. What an un-interesting candidate.
Baker's running mate is a tea
Baker's running mate is a tea party member, that enough for you, especially since MA republican governors have a tendency to quit part way through.
Almost
Almost.