Hey, there! Log in / Register
Are the people who voted for Lively anti-Semitic homophobes, too, or just sending a message to Baker? Does it matter?
By adamg on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 10:03am
WBUR considers the 37% turnout (98,000 votes) for professional hater Scott Lively in the Republican gubernatorial primary, interviews a leader of a pro-Trump group that the vote might be more of a sign of support for Trump than an endorsement of Lively's campaign to blame everything from the biblical flood to the Holocaust on gays. Then again, she also wonders if Baker is actually a Democratic plant.
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
Does it matter?
That's like asking if they are lawful stupid or chaotic stupid.
Lively is an evil troll and any attention he gets is not good attention.
Baker is a..
RINO: Republican in name only.
Not really
He's a traditional New England republican. There used to be many.
He wouldn't make it through the GOP primaries but he'd be very popular as a president.
Not just New England
Rockefeller Republicans were far and wide before Goldwater and later Reagan.
The party has been taken over
the coup part one - just because racist homophobic morons have taken over the party doesn't mean the rest have to change their designation. By today's definitions, Nixon and Reagan would be RINOs too. The GOP has to get their house in order. They teamed up with tea party crazy for the votes and have brought this on themselves - just please leave the rest of us out of it please.
True, but at what point does
True, but at what point does one just no longer want to be associated with that? The fact that there are still so many registered Republicans at least gives them the illusion of much broader support than they actually have.
I used to be a Republican, having grown up in Pennsyltucky, and I left when the neocons took over because a) I just didn't want to be associated with them in any way, and b) I moved here, to an open primary state where I could be an independent/unenrolled and not lose half my votes.
A Lively voter is a Trump voter is a Diehl voter.
Thats your republican party.
98,000 - That's 1.4% of the State's Population
But he pulled in 21% of all registered Republicans in the state, not just the ones who voted, but all registered Republicans.
He had a near consistent 35% to 40% showing across the state, not just in the Bridgewater Triangle, which is traditionally, in terms of adjoining swampbilly towns, the most redneck part of the state.
That being said, for those of you who do not leave the 6 mile radius around Coolidge Corner all too often, there are a lot of racist, bible thumping, hatin' them gays, a-holes in this state.
There are just more of us, a lot more, who think differently. Thank Scott Lively's imaginary sky god for that.
Yes, we know
"there are a lot of racist, bible thumping, hatin' them gays, a-holes in this state."
Exactly why many of us don't leave the 6 mile radius around Coolidge Corner
Six miles is too short. Belle
Six miles is too short. Belle Isle Seafood is at about 7 1/4 miles out from Coolidge Corner and we’ve got to keep that. Besides, Shopper’s World and the IKEA are nearly 15 miles out and are worth keeping too. But that’s probably far enough.
You
...should get out more. Really.
Tactical Voting?
The article didn't really mention tactical voting at all.
I briefly considered getting a Republican ballot and voting for Lively. The reason is because I know he'd get smoked in the general election. My vote would not have been "I support Lively", my vote would have been "I want a Democrat to be governor".
I have no idea how many Lively voters had similar thoughts, but probably at least some did.
I remember the early days
I remember the early days when people thought Trump wouldn't win...
And if this country ran on
And if this country ran on individual votes alone, he wouldn't have.
And were a Republic
For that exact reason, to avoid mob rule!
Yeah -
And maybe if there were 5 downs instead of 4 in football the Pats wouldn't dominate the league like they do.
I've said from the beginning - Trump is a putz, not a POTUS other than in name only - and recent revelations expose him as potentially a dangerous putz.
That said - he won - and if the system were different, maybe he would have gotten more votes - a lot of conservatives in Mass, NY, CA and other blue states don't bother voting because their vote doesn't count and they know it.
You can't virtually rerun the game under different rules and then say it would have come out differently.
People in MA are smart and
People in MA are smart and tolerant enough to not vote for a sack of garbage like Lively or Trump, fortunately. The uneducated, intolerant red states on the other hand....
really?
Because a whole bunch of MA residents just did. Hell, I have plenty of family in MA that voted for Trump. You know there are areas of the state other than Cambridge right?
Sadly, he doesn't know that,
Sadly, he doesn't know that, as every single comment he's made on this site for the last several years amply demonstrates.
The uneducated, intolerant red states on the other hand....
This is why there is a good chance the Democrats won't take the house in November. East/West Coast liberals going around thumping their chests saying they are smarter than everyone else.
couldn't agree more
It's really easy to just call someone stupid and move on. It's a lot harder to try to understand where they're coming from, even if they are being hateful or a bigot. And people will absolutely vote out of spite, just look at the president..
Understanding
What bout when you try to understand where they're coming from, and why they make the choices they do, and you come to the conclusion that they're being willfully stupid?
Exactly
If you warn someone not to stick their hand on a hot stove, and they do, and then announce they want to do it again, what other conclusion am I to draw other than they're an idiot?
It’s not about the hot stove
It’s about
white nationalismeconomic anxiety.Spitting in their face
Isn't going to get them to change their mind either. There are plenty of stupid people who won't change their mind. But there are plenty of people willing, and smart enough, to listen to another side.
Despite the many obvious signs that Trump isn't fit for office, I think we are on the road for 6 more years. The Clinton type "deporables" type talk is just isn't going to get the Democrats anywhere.
Calling them out on their stupdity
Not the same as spitting in their face.
I refuse to walk on eggshells because some fool insists that reality does not exist and we should all be careful of his or her feelings.
That's abusive drunken parent bullshit - I had to live under it until I left home. I won't let it go unchallenged as an adult just because somebody thinks they are special and has a right to not think.
then at least you tried
Which is better than just insulting people and then wondering why they haven't come around to agree with you.
Generally, when you insult someone's viewpoint and treat them like an idiot, they just want to oppose you more or do something to spite you, like voting for someone they know you hate.
Get out of Boston once in a while
Take a bike up into the space between the Valley of the Pioneer and the wine- and brie-soaked summerlands of the Berkshires.
You will find Massholachia.
Banjo music isn't just for Somerville Porch Party Weekend.
You...
...don't have the least clue what you're talking about.
Living firmly between the "Valley of the Pioneer" and the Berkshires, I'm in a position to know exactly how much ignorant shit you're talking here.
It's on the other side.
Between the Pioneer Valley and Worcester.
The area that H. P. Lovecraft wrote "The Dunwich Horror" about.
Look at the map in the WBUR link
See all the pink? It's a Lively scene out there!
Those are the towns that Lively won.
Sorry if it reduces your real estate value to live among massbillies.
remember...
Massachusetts is one of the most educated states in the country and most educated areas in the world. Yet, nearly 100,000 people voted for this "man"..
Sobering...at least until tonight's sportsball game when the Eagles raise their banner.
You know, the Eagles. who had the morals (unlike the Cheat-triots) to not attend the White House. What great leadership on and off the field.
Wrong.
Nice try with the Eagles BS, but that isn't what happened.
What happened was many of their players did not want to attend, Trump got offended, and canceled the celebration. The Eagles were still fully prepared to attend with some of their players:
"Eagles coach Doug Pederson told reporters on May 22 that the team would visit the White House on June 5.
Owner Jeffrey Lurie did not want to put his players in a tough spot and eventually decided to send a smaller contingent of fewer than 10 players, one that included Super Bowl MVP Nick Foles, Garafolo added. Other players were going to have an optional day at the team facility.
Eagles quarterback Carson Wentz said when the visit was announced that he planned to attend, adding he didn't see the event as a "political thing" even if some of his teammates don't feel the same way.
It was also suggested that the entire Eagles organization travel to Washington, D.C, as a "team trip," during which some team members visit the White House while others work in the community, meet with lawmakers or go sightseeing."
You just made my point...
that is the polar opposite of the Cheat-tiots "won" the Super Bowl.
God, you're such an ignorant twit
Nice lazy-googling, though, Never-SoBo-Always-Obnoxious-Presumptuous-Twit. You managed to stitch together a few pseudo-sentences that you got off some knuckle-dragger Iggles site and make it sound like you actually even know what any of those things mean. In fact, all you are is an ignorant obnoxious shit-stirring liar.
Thanks for the insults but
Thanks for the insults but can we get back to the facts.
A majority of the Eagles didn't want to attend the White House. The Cheatiots did want to attend and they did. Also, it is well document that Kraft and Trump are BFFs. Tim Brady said Trump would make a great president.
One team has good moral leadership, the other doesn't.
More likely anti-Baker sentiment
Remember back in 2012 when a guy who was in jail performed well against Obama in the West Virginia Presidential primary. My gut is that it was more of the Trumpers not liking Baker’s moderate stances than an embrace of Lively’s worldview.
Still, when Gonzalez gets 36%, what will we say then?
This is the mailer he sent out.
Maybe conservative GOP voters found it persuasive.
Ah yes, limited government
I.e. the government has the right to make it illegal to use medically safe birth control or marry the other human being you love.
I mean, just admit you want to control other humans and don't believe in limited government unless you're not in control of said government.
Funny how O-Fish lacks the gumption to defend his boy Lively here.
You could understand your opponent
Or you could ridicule them. I mean, Clinton went the ridicule route and it worked out well for her.
"Constitutionalism" would mean a strict interpretation of the Constitution, as opposed to the "Living Document" concept that has traction in the American Left. The late Nino Scalia used to point out that he would never be the guy to write an opinion making abortion illegal, even though he thought Roe v Wade was constitutional overreach. Rather, he never thought that the Supreme Court should not be discussing abortion at all, since it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That means the legislative branches (of the states, one would assume, since it would be difficult to pass muster with Constitutionalist of this being a federal issue) could decide if taxpayer funded abortion on demand up to 40 weeks gestation would be allowed or if no abortions at all would be allowed, though most likely it would be somewhere in between.
Now, reading his other points, yes, he is selling a very conservative platform, but on the first point, he could be talking about Citizens United and how corporations have been given personhood just as well as he is talking about Roe and how a fetus only gets its personhood after 24 weeks, both per the courts.
I'm not 'ridiculing' them
I'm calling Scott Lively and his supports unrepentant bigots whose very concept of the idea of the United States is opposite and antagonistic to the one I hold dear and believe in.
I do understand him and his supporters and I think they want to destroy the freedom and happiness of millions of Americans so we can go back to the 50s when gays were closeted, blacks and women were disenfranchised and white men ran everything.
Sure, I haven't read ever nuance of his platform but I did read about his efforts to criminalize homosexuality in Uganda. Am I to just ignore that? Do you really think that guy is concerned about Citizens United? Why not roll out the fact that Hilter helped create the Autobahn if we're going to start trying to parse small details while ignoring major glaring issues?
Live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Lively only believes in one of those things and not in the same way I do at that.
Yep
TL/DR: Placating scared old white man feels at all costs is no basis for a system of government!
Free free to hate his platform
Since it is pretty horrible.
I just wanted to point out that the Constitutionalist argument is a bit deeper than one would think. It doesn’t mean one can find fault with it, but there is no inconsistency in believing in it and any views on what should or should not be law (excepting the legitimate states rights arguments, which includes things like Washington not interfering in legal pot in Massachusetts, for example.)
deep?
The Constitutionalist (aka originalist) argument is about as deep and consistent as the Libertarian argument. It's profoundly felt when it's convenient, it's abandoned and ignored when it's not.
Scalia was a judicial activist who misused his power in favor of results-oriented jurisprudence. Scalia grossly re-edited the Constitution in Heller and overthrew hundreds of years of understanding. Show me a so-called Constitutionalist who doesn't kick his "beliefs" under the rug when you bring that up.
Plus, a strict/literal
Plus, a strict/literal interpretation of a 200+ year old document is just kinda dumb.
Almost as dumb as a strict/literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book.
I have a family full of such folk
I also grew up in trailer parks. I stay in decent contact with many such people who I have engaged to the point of a quiet stalemate on politics.
They are not lazy, they are not stupid, they do not lack empathy - they just have some exceptional blind spots that keep them from facing reality, and these leave them open to be repeatedly swindled.
You want some unifying factors in that understanding?
1. impulse control - they all lack it
2. basic math - they all suck at it
3. poor critical thinking/decisionmaking skills - combined with poor impulse control, this leads to repeated "own goal" situations complicating their lives
4. Blind faith that "it will all work out". Except it very rarely does.
5. belief in supernatural - not just talking prayer and churchgoing, but the belief that they will be saved/redeemed from their bad decisions. God will send me Prince Charming so I can raise my kids outside poverty and be treated like a queen. I will win the lottery. My "investment" in this get rich quick scheme will work out! Their lack of critical thinking skills hobble them when it comes to seeing how they might find their way out on their own.
6. all of the above lead them to be easily swindled or taken in, used, and dumped
When you consider these functional deficits, is it any wonder that they honestly believe that Drumpf will save them and still believe that there should be no systems to help people like themselves when they "own goal"? Oy.
I fucking clawed my way out of this swamp and pulled out several of my cousins with me. My brother was the first to finish college, and I was the second. I set a good example (and counseled the youth) on how to avoid the pregger trap, wait until you can support yourself to get married, wait until you have established stability before you have kids, get more education if you can, etc. The rest? I love them dearly, but they can't think their way out of a gopher hole and don't want to hear that Trump will not only NOT save them, but is actively digging out the dirt from under them.
Critical thinking skills are the answer, but we can't have that now can we?
Nail on the head
Yes, this is exactly it, especially with regards to the magical thinking.
I'm active in an organization that aims to combat unnecessary CPS removals of children. I'm about as far left as people come. While I'm one of the first to say that progressives aren't doing great with child welfare reform either, I keep seeing exactly the dynamic you're talking about with regards to people down on their luck thinking right-wing extremists are going to magically save everyone. Many of the folks active in our groups are parents or are close to parents who have lost kids over something that would just be a meeting with the school or whatever for you and me, but they were poorer and less educated, so the system trampled all over them. So many of them are convinced that Trump and friends are going to be the ones to make sweeping changes and get everyone's kids back and expose the corruption. They're enticed by the way he and his ilk fly off the cuff and make sudden changes without looking back. Except that, as you pointed out, they lack impulse control and critical thinking, so they aren't seeing the bigger picture and seeing that of *course* the far-right aren't going to be the ones to advocate for kids remaining with poor families, single moms, parents of color, parents with disabilities, parents in recovery, and so on. They hear the "keep government out of our lives" lines, which sound appealing to them just as they do to me, but aren't realizing that these folks actually love to control exactly what goes on in families.
True Republican Values
By that we mean the values of generations of people who took their family money and used it to subsidize public service. True conservatives who sought to conserve our beaches, wildlands, and created the national park system and made them available to all for the good of all.
I think of people that I wouldn't always agree with, but that was because they actually thought differently about how to solve actual problems, not promoted selfish confiscatory greed and perpetuated fear and encouraged destruction of lives and liberties and tried to call that diversity.
When I think "true Republican values", I think of Governors Tom McCall and Bill Weld, not a bunch of shit throwing monkeys at the zoo.
Provincetown went 53-47 Baker-Lively
Provincetown results:
Charlie Baker 25 votes (53%)
Scott Lively 21 votes (47%)
Conclusion:
People must really love Scott Lively in this state.
I guess you're kidding
but if not, please note that the total Republican ballots cast in Provincetown represented only 1.5% of the population. That is not a sample size that you can draw any conclusions from.
Small town voting
I bet that nearly everyone knows where those 21 Scott Lively voters live, and avoid them as much as possible.
.
It made me laugh . sort of
I bet you're right. I don't know if this stat has been posted to the Facebook community space page but boy oh boy it would raise a ruckus.
The horrible parking lot owners
The ones that freak out if you step aside on a crowded sidewalk and touch their gravel.
That's two.
Remember Larry Craig's wide stance?
Some people have a struggle to reconcile their political beliefs and their private lives.
I don't know how to tell you this, but...
...not everyone in Provincetown is gay.
Although if you want to see the most pathetically comical straight-people behavior anywhere, just go to P-town.
Lively spent almost zero, came within 14%
You can tell Baker was very scared when he began spending money on TV ads and daily mailings. I must have gotten fifty. I mailed the donation envelopes back empty. Great for Dr. Lively earning 37%. At least Dr. Lively made Baker spend a small fortune.
Baker will probably be ok in the final but just as I predicted with Pressley, if Hernandez runs on a far left platform, raising taxes, sanctuary state, eliminate ICE, impeach Trump, Hernandez, like Pressley has a chance in a very low turnout.
No Trump Republicans or Unenrolled voters will vote for Baker. A trooper friend at the State House tells me Internal polling for Baker is terrible. If the Dems can "get out the vote" Hernandez has an outside chance, although you couldn't get a better Democrat than Baker.
I don't think you know how this works
Campaign donations must be spent or donated. When someone spends big towards the election, it's not a sign that they're "scared"; it's a sign that they are spending money that they were going to lose anyway. And why not? For someone like Baker, who certainly isn't threatened by Lively, it helps him get his message out there beyond the scope of the inbred Republican primary.
Ooh, big bold move, Fish. That'll show 'em. You twit.
"Internal polling" where? By whom?
Yup. You really are an idiot.