By Suldog on Tue., 9/23/2014 - 12:13 pm
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:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Alphabetically by...?
By b from Ros
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:17pm
n/t
It's an unscientific poll
By RhoninFire
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:22pm
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
By Lecil
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:29pm
First time I looked, it was alphabetical by last name. Now there is no obvious order.
Weird!
A quick double check
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:35pm
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
By RhoninFire
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:42pm
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
By HenryAlan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:26pm
At least that's the sequence I see after voting -- Cooksey, then Baker, then the various independent/third party candidates by vote tally.
Undecided
By BostonDog
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:22pm
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
By adamg
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:26pm
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
By BlackKat
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:43pm
I dare someone to write in Doug Bennett.
Don't even joke about it!
By APB
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:31pm
Don't even joke about it!
To the Martha Coakley Voters
By RhoninFire
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:44pm
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
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:40pm
I dislike her less than Baker.
Same here
By cybah
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:00pm
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
By Rob Not Verified
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:07pm
"Indeed it has been said that democÂracy is the worst form of govÂernÂment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Voting is not democracy
By Kaz
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:57pm
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
By Chris Rich
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:58pm
..of two lessers as has been noted in past electoral outings where mediocrity is touted as a sign of leadership..
Lifelong Democrat
By Bob Cahil
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:00pm
Voting for Baker for same reason.
Oh, and for giving the world Scott Brown.
you could try voting for, e.g
By tape
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:35pm
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...
By Kaz
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:59pm
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
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:03pm
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
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:11pm
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
By Scratchie
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:26pm
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!
By bosguy22
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:32pm
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
By piscis
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:33pm
Instead, she got a promotion!
Waiting for the press to bring this up
By Mark-
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:33pm
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
By Lee
Wed, 09/24/2014 - 6:00am
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?
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:33pm
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
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:06pm
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...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:10pm
... 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
By bosguy22
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:19pm
In the Fells Acres case? Coerced testimony by children? There was ZERO physical evidence.
No evidence -- in your opinion
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:31pm
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
By Mark-
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:43pm
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....
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:49pm
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
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:54pm
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...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 5:15pm
... 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?
By b from Ros
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:37pm
Id be interested in some good reading about either candidate's "transportation background".
I can't find a live link to the original article..
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 4:44pm
But here is a summary (partisan):
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/10/ap-finds-devastat...
This might give you hints on where to explore further.
Why
By anon
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:25pm
Because she has that coveted "D" after her name?
No big Coakley fan
By Michael
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:01pm
...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
By anon
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:35pm
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
By Michael
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:10pm
...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
By Kaz
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:15pm
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-anal... ). 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 ,
By kvn
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:21pm
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/attorn...
Trouble for Coakley
By Stevil
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:22pm
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
By Suldog
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:40pm
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
By cybah
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 1:51pm
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
By Stevil
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:23pm
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"
By piscis
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:40pm
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
By Carty
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 2:31pm
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....
By anon
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:49pm
Ulta-liberal!
Pages