Breaking –Election 2012 – Attorney’s from MA and NY to Monitor Polls – in the Bay State.

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney campaigning in PA, image US News & World Report online

The world has turned upside down – for some reason attorney’s will be monitoring the general election in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, according to Mass. Lawyers Weekly. A Boston Attorney, Vincent DeVito, noted that “lawyers from New York will be on loan to help with the Massachusetts Republican Party’s poll-watching efforts on Nov. 6.”, and shockingly: “This year Massachusetts is a battleground state.” (Mass. Lawyers Weekly)

Of course, common perception is that Massachusetts is a completely Democrat state, however, the truth is – not so much. With over 50% of the electorate registered as “unenrolled”, and up until recently an extremely anemic Republican Party with few, if any contested races prior to 2010, there was little choice each election – resulting in votes for myriad cartoon characters.

That said, with the Romney PAC running ads in Massachusetts to reach New Hampshire, and the fact that New York City is a disaster area comparable to Katrina, with people diving into dumpsters to find food, electrical crews turned away from volunteering because they were non-union coupled with the unemployment rate in Massachusetts climbing for the third straight month and most importantly, Scott Brown’s race with Obama appointee and part-time Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren, the impetus will be a drive to the right by Independents.

Again, to emphasize, Massachusetts voters voter roles have again seen an increase in Independent (unenrolled voters) as of February 2012(Boston.com) and Masslive, the website for the Springfield Republican, noted this morning that “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is growing more popular in Massachusetts, particularly among independent voters.” This is based on poll findings by Western New England College/Masslive, which saw an increase for Romney in the Bay State: The pollster had Obama leading by 30 points, that lead is now at an incredible 18 points. This poll was conducted similar to the polls in the 2009 special election which gave then candidate Martha Coakley a 15 point lead over then candidate Scott Brown. (In that case, Democrats were counted as equal to the number of unenrolleds, and Republicans’ were over counted by 2 points, in addition, geography counts, Worcester County the second most populated area of the state, was counted at lower percentage than Western Massachusetts. Of note: Conservative leaning independents in the Worcester area are far more prevalent than the less populated, Western Mass area.)

In other words, the poll is suspect. A private polling firm released a poll on a Massachusetts District race in one of the most Democrat areas of the Commonwealth. In that poll, before the debates, Romney was tied with Obama. Granted that was a Congressional District Poll, but, again, in an area that actually leans Democrat. Therefore, with the Dead Voting, trolling for votes in Alzheimer’s wards, and other hi-jinks by the Democrat Party in MA, one might think that Attorney’s coming in to watch the polls is prudent at this stage. It is also known that the media is interested in what appears to be a “hotly contested race” for the Senate between Brown and Warren, so eyes will be on Mass.

The last time Massachusetts voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate: 1984 (also 1980) – for President Ronald Reagan.

The state’s “Independent Streak” which was responsible for the Reagan win, has broadened in scope since the 1980’s with the largest percentage growth of the electorate – as unenrolled. Therefore, if Romney is appealing to the Independents, it is quite plausible that Poll watchers may be necessary, and that Massachusetts with its 10 Electoral College votes, might bear watching. It is more likely, all polls now stand as “Safe Democrat” and the state was automatically put into the President’s column. It was also a given for James Carter.

The Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in New York – Why Wasn’t the majority of the East Coast Prepared, and why weren’t Individual Prepared? The Economy, Failure at the Federal Level and No Self-Reliance.

In reading the heartbreaking articles and looking at videos of the aftermath of “Sandy” in New Jersey and New York, one must understand that there were several factors involved in the resulting chaos – including extreme food shortages as well as loss of fuel that will continue through this weekend and possibly into next week in many of the affected areas. I have read comments under articles describing individuals going through extreme hardship, and those comments are callous to the extreme. There are those who have lived through a natural disaster with some comfort because they were prepared well in advance, and that is a growing group of Americans. Call them “preppers”, or survivalists, or in some cases, just people that have been through a several day blackout, learned what to do or not to do and are now more vigilant. In answer to the question: why weren’t New Yorkers’ and those in Connecticut and New Jersey prepared for this type of event? There are multiple answers. The least discussed is the absolute failure of the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Service to adequately name the storm a “hurricane” – in technical jargon, it was called a “nor’easter, or a Franken-storm (due to the hybrid nature of a hurricane far north meeting with a nor’easter. This led forecasters on the local level, to be a bit more at-ease that they should have been, and by the time the realization that a massive hurricane/nor’easter was hours away, there was no time to take action. Yes, there were mandatory evacuations of those areas of New York and the Jersey Coastline, a day or two before the storm hit. It appeared that those governors, mayors and emergency management teams understood that something significant would occur – but there was no plan in place to accommodate this type of disaster.

The question as to why weren’t people able to fend for themselves comes up a great deal – especially regarding the people in New York City. It is really simple to point a finger at those who are scrambling to find food, or simply did not leave the city or move inland to get out of the way, when one forgets or has not experience the severity of this type of storm hitting such a large populated area. First, the majority were under the impression that this was a nor’easter, maybe a bit bigger, but nothing that would cause the lights to go out for over a week. After living through the October Blizzard in New England, one might have taken stock of things one needed to have on hand if one wanted to be “moderately comfortable”, but there was much that was learned after the fact: Fill up your car with gas, have adequate water on hand for a week at the least, for you, and your pets, the same goes for food that may not have to be cooked, have a second place to go in case you have to leave your home. What doesn’t work when the power goes down? Everything, there are no ATM’s to get cash, you cannot use a debit card, or credit card, the gas pumps shut down and the demand goes up once the power comes back on. One or two gas stations with power in an area without power, cannot accommodate the demand, and quickly run out of gas. That said, the October Storm took place in New England, were the population is possibly combined the size of New York City.

Individuals were, in all likelihood, financially ill equipped to purchase food, and or even the transportation to get out of the City and pay for alternative shelter.

To those who feel that people from New York and New Jersey should have known better, or somehow have been better prepared, should think about the first time they were hit by this type of disaster. They may have been ready (which is not the norm), or they may have learned by facing some hardships what to do the next time.

There is the final problem that we face - and that is reliance on government – yes, we should have protection from our Federal and State Governments, especially in the aftermath, the government is supported by taxpayers, so clean-up and keeping the peace should be their primary obligation. As to who “helps” those who are stuck, without food, water or power, that should be the local level and the able bodied individual's responsibility. Those that assume the Government will take care of them, need to be told the truth, and the simple truth is – “you’re on your own “.

Therefore, in every neighborhood, in every schoolroom, there in every state there should be an awareness, either through schools, or churches or neighborhood groups regarding how to prepare in the event o f a disruptions of services – in advance. There is no need to be in a constant state of heightened anxiety in the “event” of a storm, or other scenario -some of which may be so beyond our comprehension that any preparedness would be in vein (that in a moment). It is the simple things, with the communications we enjoy in today’s society that every single individual should be able to fend for themselves, be tended to because a neighbor has their back, and in the long run to survive and start rebuilding before relying in local services, let alone the State Government (which is responsible) the Federal Government should be the last resort.

Why not has the Federal Government take care of everything? New York City is asking the Fed’s to foot the entire bill for this disaster. Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has no clue as to the fact that the Fed is so deep in debt, they cannot afford to help. He should be asking his very capable Governor, what to do next. Actually he should have has his own plan in place to cope with exactly this type of nightmare scenario. The Federal Government is, simply put running out of money, we can print more, but in the long run, it is a question of how much can the Fed stretch what does not exist?

To Recap: The Federal Government failed in not portraying the storm as a hurricane, and warning residents to prepare for this event days in advance. The economy , in most instances, prevented individuals from buying supplies and/or transportation that would have been a drain on most families, in any event, and the over reliance on “government” in this country, rather than reliance on self must change.

What happens next? That’s the question. The what-if’s are huge, and what this blogger recalls from stories her grandmother told about life in New England in the 1930’s through the 1950’s would be a horror story today. Storms of this magnitude, both snow and rain were more common in certain periods, additionally there were more frequent earthquakes in the northeast , without knowing where the center of the quake was located, those in lower Massachusetts saw large trees split in two. She was not the type to exaggerate, but she did preach self-reliance and the fact that we lived in a free nation, and were not subject to a tyrannical government. In other words, we are allowed to take care of ourselves, in case the government neither cares, or is incompetent, or ill-equipped.

What that illustrates is that those who do not look at the past are, in almost every case, with few exceptions, we are bound to repeat it, at some time in the future.

With New England and the northeast, the future is now. But what of California and the eventual shift if the earth’s surface that may see half of the state destroyed – are Californian’s ready? Does anyone believe that those living in Los Angeles or San Francisco are prepared to survive in the event? Does one seriously believe that “the government” can’t reach them to bail them out? This is not paranoia, this is just pragmatic, and should apply to every areas of the nation that is either prone to extreme weather events, even if one has not taken place in 100 years, there are simply no “freak “events when it comes to the nature of earth science. This would eliminate, in part, the suffering that is taking place along the east coast now, and will help those who will suffer in the future. People should understand, no matter one’s background, that they must first rely on themselves, and that they must rely on their neighbors during a time of crisis. They should understand what needs to be on hand, and what steps one can take in order to try and survive a hurricane, earthquake, tornado or blizzard. It is education that will help the public and not only those that are so reliant on the governments, from the local level to the Federal , but anyone who has never faced nor excepts to face this type of event. We should have a nation of girl scouts and boy scouts – we did at one time.

In the meantime, give what you can to aid those in need, to alleviate suffering:

Catholic Relief Services

Food Bank for New York City

Operation USA

The Salvation Army

Best Friends Animal Society

Time Asks: “Remembering 1980, are the polls missing something?” – Unequivocally – Yes! The Final Analysis 2012.

Dr.George Gallup – Pioneer in Public Polling –image: (with article) Gallup.com

From Time Magazine the question of the polling taking place and the constant “too close to call” scenarios from a myriad group of pollsters in 2012, compared to what happened in 1980 speaks to the historical aspect of polling and the mistakes that occur from time to time. The article makes one claim, however, that states that since pollsters “got it wrong” so badly in 1980 – a race that saw a “too close to call” from pollsters turn overnight into an historical Reagan route”, they had made a correction to fix the system to eliminate errors. Of course, that’s not necessarily true.

In the aftermath of the 1980 general election, the pollsters were being called upon to explain themselves by the media! How could a race that was too close to call, end up a dramatic victory for the Republican, Ronald Regan, a clown by media standards? The Gallup organization, in an interview, post 1980 general election suggested that the problem with the polling was that the methodology to predict the race was based on the 1976 general election turnout, and that, somehow, between 1976 and 1980 the general electorate swung towards the Republicans (George Gallup – The Youngstown Vindicator, December 21st, 1980

That may sound eerily familiar, given the fact that there is a load of 8 points per pollster based on the 2008 election. This one fact, that should be front and center (and has been argued by some blogs (including this one), and right of center news organizations) has been ignored, by the media, and by the pollsters). Therefore, to anticipate that the Democrats will maintain an 8 point advantage (or Republicans for that matter) over a 4 year period, with the economy in a shamble and foreign policy iffy at best, to load for a previous election, defies historical fact. Although one might point out that times change and history may not be totally accurate, they would not be considering that 8 point advantage which would have applied to the 2010 general election, turned into a Republican win of historical proportions. Therefore, logically, if there is an automatic 8 point load on all polls, to beat a dead horse once again, the poll is flawed, and that 8 points could go anywhere. If the Presidential Race is tied, in every national poll, and Romney is confident, his campaign is spending on ad buys in States where the Democrats allegedly are “safe”, then one might suggest that his internal polls do are not hampered by an artificial load, but based on whose voting for whom now. On the flip side, one might suggest that the President would benefit greatly from Hurricane Sandy – and how well he is handling the situation – 5 days before the general election. They would be remise in understanding that there are no minds left to be “made up” and few people would change their vote. The biggest problem faced is that the early voting efforts by both campaigns differed and there were a good percentage of the votes cast to date – nationwide. The Republican’s focused on their hard to reach or least likely voters, while the Obama Campaign focused on getting out its most reliable voters early. Gallup reported that in early voting surveys; Romney was well ahead of the Incumbent President Obama. Since the Republicans are “enthusiastic” about the election (to say the least) the polls going into Tuesday suggest, yet again, a round of questions pointed at those same pollsters. It would therefore suggest that no polls are at present, correct; there may be a few that show Romney with an advantage, but that advantage is within the statistical margin of error. One might be tempted to think that the race is so tight that the race may come down to one state. Again, no one knows, given that the models used, are – somewhat flawed.

There are a few things to ponder – when one cannot with a certainty – know who is going to win in advance and that is as it should be. One might have an idea, or a clue, or a projection, as one does when one heads to Vegas, however, one is playing odds. Therefore, on this one, based on historical evidence that the type of polling done in 1980 clearly is in use in 2012, that the economic indicators alone are a factor in individuals decisions, that the enrollment by party is up for Republicans and down for Democrats nationally, and that there is a large enthusiasm gap between Republican’s and Democrat identifies, this race, as they say, is over, but for the voting. Of course, one might be wrong, but there is less of a feeling of maybe with this particular prediction, and more of a feeling of being “right” rather than “spinning in the hopes of a favored candidate winning “ (guilty – see 2008 election).

A Side note: in 2008 this blogger was less than enthusiastic about the GOP candidate John McCain, preferring Hillary Clinton overall. Once Clinton was out of the race, the choice was McCain, it was a choice made when one has to “hold their nose”. It was the less than enthusiastic blogger and voter that wrote then went to the polls, not with a certainty but with resign.

Fast-forward 2012. Again, Mitt Romney was not the first choice, the second or the third, he was the last choice. Then Romney, who had been through a grueling primary – stood up and acted – Presidential. Then there were the personal and business decisions that when looked at objectively made Romney look like a stand-up guy who would do his utmost and had the experience to get the job done. Not easily convinced, this was a personal swing of gigantic proportions. This blogger is not alone. As the days approach where the polls are the first place to go, and early, on election day, this Tuesday, Nov. 6th, it will be with certainly and hope and excitement that this blogger goes to the polls and casts a vote for Mitt Romney for President. One thinks the night will be long, but perhaps not, given the speed with the 1980 election was called (again should history repeat) and one strongly believes that there will be a rather large party in Boston that very night.

November 6th – Is A Romney Landslide Possible? – Yes, Campaign Behavior to Press Caution – Opinion and Analysis.

One has to ask, why is Mitt Romney so confident that he will win in states that have been categorically stamped “Democrat”? Those states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and even New England States have seen an uptick in campaign ads in the last week from the Romney Campaign and supporting PAC’s. What one notices about these ads is the soft tone, the fact that they are continuing to remind those viewers that the economy is not improved, that groceries cost more -and that one individual is somewhat responsible – the end, one has a choice. The press and Democrats consider it to be one of several factors, none of which could possibly lead to a Romney victory. The most obvious one touted is that Romney has money to burn. Frankly, that does not sound like Mitt Romney at all. Romney was not the kind of Governor or businessman who would just throw good money after bad in a whim. This makes the decision to spend on ads in Michigan and Massachusetts (aiming for New Hampshire – but there is that trickledown effect), an odd-on bet that Romney is making investments that are, on paper, sound.

Of course, there are the prediction models, whether one used favorability or one uses the University of Colorado method of economic indicators, Romney is set to win by 330 Electoral College votes. Most national polls continue to see a tight race, and this includes NPR who has Romney leading by 1! Of course, there is history as well, that has a model that screams Romney victory – that is the election of 1980. In that scenario, the polls at the time had both Carter and Reagan tied, up to the eve of the election. What followed the day after left pundits and the press asking “what happened”? There is an article through Google archives that has the Gallup organization giving the explanation. They and other pollsters had used a model for their predictions based on the prior general election. That gave Jimmy Carter an immediate plus 7 in polling based on the numbers of Democrats who had voted in the previous Presidential election. The explanation: there were simply more Republican’s and Republican leaners from 1978 to 1980 than Democrats. That information was not included in the polling.

Fast forward a few decades and what happens? National poling firms are still using the previous election model to determine every single state and national poll – This gives President Obama and immediate 8 point lead. Therefore, the polls are “skewed” or artificially inflated. Internal polling is another story entirely – depending upon the campaign and their resources, the candidates may or may not decide to compete in certain states. There is the reason that Mitt Romney is confident.

Last night, a call came through from the only person in New York City that has power (no cable or no internet) – the request: To find out the equivalent ratio of taxes paid by “millionaires” such as Mitt Romney. The reason, an argument between two individuals, one who had called and a friend who was suggesting that the “millionaires” underpay taxes – which led to a Google search where an article, tucked away in Forbes found that GOP Candidate Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes. This was based on the fact that Romney paid taxes as a corporation and then as an individual. The author was quite perplexed that Romney was not pointing this out. The Article here at www.forbes.com was sent by text to use in a rebuttal.

The Obama supporter in question who was concerned that Mitt Romney did not pay his fair share, was up in arms due to an email received (during Hurricane Sandy) that suggested the Obama campaign was on its last dime, and that Romney had more money to spend and was going to beat Obama if the recipient did not immediately send cash. Apparently, Romney’s presence in Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio were proof of this fact. (Understanding that this is hearsay and unsubstantiated due to lack of said email) That said, the import of the aforementioned challenge between two friends, both liberal, one who had turned towards Romney, unwillingly at first, and now as gung-ho as any Midwestern Republican, the other a died in the wool Democrat who is blinded by rhetoric. One might suggest that if there are those in the middle of the most liberal leaning northeast, then there is truly trouble in the Obama Camp.

Does anyone, however, really have a crystal ball on which to predict a win or a loss? No – the models given those who predict based on odds (actual betting odds – overseas online betting) have Obama up in double digits. Those betting on Obama to win may end up making the house a ton of money. The traditional polls, with the exception of Gallup, are calling the race tied. But then there is history, of which said blogger is a buff and one thing that nags, is that history repeats itself in the right time, in the right circumstances. It is what makes the argument for a landslide in November for Mitt Romney completely believable, add to that a few internal polls that maybe pointing in a win direction, and there is good reason why these ad buys are being made.

Therefore, with less than a week before the election, there is no reason to believe the outcome will be other than a Mitt Romney win. It is that simple. This is regardless of the President’s handling of the crisis of Hurricane Sandy – which was remarkable – but one event does not erase an entire four years of policy. It is the enthusiasm that is evident among the Romney Supporters, and that includes generic Republicans, Independent voters, and those Democrats now looking for hard material with which to argue a case for Romney. It is the lack of enthusiasm from those core supporters that is evident, the “why bother to vote”, “let’s not discuss politics, please” and general avoidance that is prevalent, even in Massachusetts, New York and yes, California. That’s why Mitt Romney is confident that he will win, and that is also why the Obama campaign continues to push ridiculous ads, and a need for cash, as they cannot defend even the bluest states. This is not to suggest that New York, California, and Massachusetts won’t be in the Obama column (along with 10 to 13 other states), it is just that the national model does not support either an Electoral College, or popular vote win in the 2012 election.

Interesting articles this morning:

From the Boston Globe Belmont (Boston) makes plans in case Mitt Romney votes in his home district (complete with complaints that in doing so, the mere presence of Romney would cause some voters issues). (The Globe supports Obama)

From the Herald Mitt Set to Win Maybe by a Mile (The Herald endorsed Mitt Romney)

Of interest:

Politico: “One Term Celebrity” (on the NY Times Columnist who is predicting a blow-out for Obama

Sandy Shuts Down Major Blogs: Huffington Post, Gawker and Buzzfeed Servers down – MA – PAC Ads Against Obama Running in Massachusetts?

1980 General Election Map - Blue for Republican - image via screenshot: US Election Atlas. org - see 1984 at bottom of article

The major storm that has shut down much of the east coast has left the majority of Massachusetts unscathed – Western Massachusetts which had been hit hardest last October by a freak snowstorm, saw little power outage. Meanwhile Tech Crunch has reported that a server hosting major blogs: Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and Gawker, have gone down due to a flooded basement in a building where their server is hosted (HT: , James World at Wordpress) In the final week prior to the national election, the anti-Romney “articles” coming out of Huffington Post, specifically ”As Governor, Mitt Romney Was Slow To Respond to Disasters in His State”, with a small summary suggesting that “some of the state’s local politicians” said this was the case. One has to take the Huffington Post, a blog, with a huge grain of salt. During Romney’s tenure as Governor, there was indeed natural disasters, of course, it depends on how one addresses each scenario as it unfolds – Romney preferred readiness and Massachusetts had one of FEMA’s highest ratings for preparedness under Romney’s stewardship of the Commonwealth. That said, with Massachusetts Politician’s being mainly Democrat, one might not have to go far to find one who might “stretch the truth” a bit in order to get a “jab” in for Incumbent President Barack Obama.

Those same politicians’ may have their hands full in this effort. Local and Cable media in Western Massachusetts ran political ads across most networks noting specifically citing the woes of the country and President Obama, while not directly naming Mitt Romney as an alternative, the messages were quite clear. There are two running from one pro-Romney PAC in several New England States, Including Massachusetts according to a Boston Globe article six days agohowever, this blogger, taking a break from the weather channel, flipped over to watch the popular drama, “Revolution” , to find several ads running that, although did not specifically mention Mitt Romney, the message was quite clear there need to be a change in leadership. As of this point, the advertisements (there were two of them, one tax related, one debt related) could not be found in a YouTube search. ) Western Massachustts television stations, may be picked up in New Hampshire, but, it is more likely the Boston affiliates would do a better job of reaching that “swing state”. The point, there may be a majority of Democrat identified politician’s, but the electorate in MA has a 51% plus majority of unenrolleds, often making the Blue State a surprise as far as statewide and national elections are concerned. The buy referred to by the Globe, (one of the few newspapers in the Bay State who endorsed the President over Mitt Romney), may or may not have included that particular ad, but it is doubtful, only because it does not mention Romney as an alternative. Therefore, the 10 electoral votes and the popular vote which are a given to any Democrat, no matter the decade, may be in need of being protected. In 1980 Jimmy Carter was remiss in protecting a state that was “safe democrat”, which Reagan took in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. That may have been an anomaly, however, the mood on the ground see Democrats up to their eyeballs in the Warren Brown race – which is now, according to polls, tied. They are not, in any way, paying attention to the state that rarely sees a visit, let alone television spots for major candidates. With the exception of ads run during the 2008 primary challenge and the 2008 campaign when cash was no object, there are rarely national ads run in the Massachusetts Markets, especially Western Massachusetts, where on might not except to find a conservative.

Those Massachusetts residents watching popular programming and the 11 PM newscast (with the exception of the 200,000 or so residents without power.) were watching thoughtful, non-aggressive, ads that just made one think.

It may have no effect at all, but those unenrolled voters that make up the majority in Massachusetts, might be worth targeting – and someone may just have figured that out.



1984 General Election Map of Massachusetts - image screenshot from USElectionAtlas.org>

The Romney Campaign Prepares for Election Eve in Massachusetts – Worcester Telegram and Gazette Endorses Romney

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney with Presidential Candidate, Incumbent President Barack Obama - Image New York Times

On Election night November 6, 2012, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be in Boston, Massachusetts, waiting for the results which could propel a Massachusetts man into the Presidency. Although some might argue, that Romney is not a “native of Massachusetts”, it goes without saying that Mitt Romney spent a good portion of his life in Boston, from college, to his marriage and early family life, up to his Governorship of the Bay State. The Commonwealth, where a Revolution began that would challenge a mighty world power, and allow for the formation of the nation which became a beacon of hope for the world, has had a history of sending leaders to the White House – from Adams, to Coolidge to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

What of Massachusetts, the “bluest state”? Will the Commonwealth elect a former Republican Governor, or take the expected and anticipated path of casting its collective vote for the Democrat, in this case incumbent President, Barack Obama? That remains to be seen, although, again, logic dictates that this will be the case. Logic also dictated that this would be the case in 1980 and 1984, however, in both instances, one Republican, Ronald Reagan, turned conventional wisdom upside down, and watched Massachusetts turn “red”. A snapshot of the Commonwealth on a state level would have one believe that there is little to no chance of a Republican prevailing. The State House and Senate are overwhelmingly Democrat as is the Governor’s office, however, that is, in large part, due to the lack of candidates identified as Republican on the ballots. 2010 was an usual year in which there were over 227 Republican’s on state ballots, and more Republican’s won seats in the Legislature than in past elections, yet the number did not make a significant dent, as it did elsewhere in the nation. Those running for National Congressional seats on the GOP ticket were also denied, but, and here is the big but, not at the margins that were forecast by those pundits who appear to know the state. Those wins by incumbent Democrats were not at the 75% projected, but at margins much tighter – 2% to 11%. Understanding that a loss is still a loss, this was an indication of the angst, just two years ago, of a growing percentage of the electorate here in Massachusetts.

There are three concentrations of population in the Commonwealth – The eastern portion of the state, with Boston, and the north and south shores, holding the largest portion of the population in that sector, followed by Worcester County, and then Western Massachusetts west to the New York Border. If one looks at the polling to date, geographical, the pollsters have been targeting the Western Massachusetts area, the area of the state that has the lowest population, and the most Democrat leaning population – one poll giving that section of the state 40 plus percent of the total poll, and Worcester County a mere 15%. It is therefore, difficult to take the polls coming out of Massachusetts much credence, with the exception of the last PPO poll with the President at 14% (most show a 30% advantage), which, was over-weighted with Democrats, at 43% (the actual, according to the Secretary of State’s office, at 34%),noted that Romney had gained momentum, and is resonating with Independents – (which make up 51% of the States electorate) – this brings Massachusetts, into what one might call a state that elected then Candidate Romney to the Governor’s office, moving to the right. It may, in this opinion, based on what is clearly flawed polling data, may be a closer race than prevailing logic dictates.

Although in today’s media consumption, the endorsements by newspapers may not appear to be all that influential with younger consumers or consumers in general, as the competition from new media, see’s those who don’t agree with the style of editorialized news from traditional media, shopping elsewhere for news that is not “slanted” one way or the other (an impossible task.) – However, those that continue to read, or listen/watch these types of media, might be surprised at the Worcester Telegram Gazette, who heartily but with, what appears to be much thought, endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

The headline “Romney for president” with a subtitle “The experience and leadership America needs” released in the Sunday paper, reads as follows:

Four years ago, Americans placed the nation’s highest office in the hands of a largely untested senator from Illinois, granting him both the awesome responsibilities and the tremendous opportunities that come with the presidency of these United States. There can be no doubt that the economic challenges faced by this nation and the world during the recent recession were more severe than many realized. But the prescriptions offered over the last four years — on both the domestic and foreign fronts — have fallen disappointingly short of what is needed to restore America’s economy at home and rebuild our standing overseas.

The decision to turn an incumbent president out of office is never one to be undertaken lightly by voters. But good intentions, repeated promises and lofty rhetoric are no substitute for sound economics and a foreign policy grounded in realism and strength. It is time once again for change in Washington, and we strongly believe that Mitt Romney offers the right combination of experience, vision, leadership and moral grounding to reinvigorate the nation’s economy, bring a measure of control to the ocean of debt threatening to engulf us, and lay out a foreign policy that has the clarity and force needed to deter aggression while promoting international stability.

In sharp contrast to his opponent, Mr. Romney’s bid for the presidency carries the weight of a lifetime of repeated and proven success in business, as a management consultant, cofounder of the successful Bain Capital equity investment firm, and head of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

As governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney balanced the state budget through a combination of closing tax loopholes, raising fees and cutting state spending. Critics are right when they charge that some of his actions as governor shifted the financial burden onto cities and towns, but the fact remains that Mr. Romney was willing and able to use his political capital to make hard choices in a state dominated by Democrats. Similarly difficult choices will face whoever occupies the White House next. We believe Mr. Romney is far more likely to make those choices.

President Barack Obama has had ample time to transform the “hope and change” of the 2008 campaign into positive results. The results have been deeply disappointing, and the tenor of his re-election campaign gives us no cause to hope a second term would offer anything better.

Many Republican and independent voters concur that former President George W. Bush made a series of costly blunders in his second term, spending far too much and doing too little to curb the excesses in the banking and housing industries that contributed so much to a deep recession.

But Americans are weary of hearing this president blame his predecessor. The trillions spent in bailouts, stimulus plans and subsidies have served mainly to deepen our debts. Meanwhile, the nation’s unemployment rate, while finally below what it was when Mr. Obama took office, understates the weakness of the job market. Fewer Americans are working, and too many have settled for part-time jobs or lower wages.

On energy, Mr. Obama’s anti-growth policies have sought cover behind increased private-sector production.

By contrast, Mr. Romney, while retaining federal investments and regulations, would place private-sector capitalism ahead of a government-first approach.

On tax policy, the president has waged a relentless campaign against wealthy Americans — one that will punish small businesses and the middle class.

But Mr. Romney understands that the path to higher revenues lies not in choking our key economic engines, but in expanding opportunity for all.

And no issue better illustrates the contrasts between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney than health care.

Unlike Mr. Romney, who brought universal health care to Massachusetts by working with the other party, Mr. Obama spent a year to win razor-thin passage of a divisive law that has spawned fights over expensive mandates, new taxes and infringement of religious liberties.

Even on foreign policy, Mr. Obama has turned positives — an early appeal for understanding with the Muslim world, and the killing of Osama bin Laden — into negatives, with a policy unraveling through artificial deadlines in Afghanistan, dangerous naivete with regard to Iran, and a failure to protect American lives in Libya.

The decision before voters on Nov. 6 is critical and clear. Mitt Romney has earned the opportunity to lead America for the next four years.

One must understand, that Worcester County is, by far, the most “conservative” of the Bay State sectors, yet, the endorsement by a major Massachusetts paper is non-the-less stunning. The Globe had endorsed President Obama, and the Herald, Mitt Romney. The Springfield Republican’s endorsement is, at this time unknown. In 2008, Western Massachusetts’ largest newspaper endorsed then candidate, John McCain at the last moment. This gives an overview of political differences in the press, let alone within the general electorate.

One might conclude therefore, that the state is not necessarily as blue as one might think (not to mention one Senator Scott Brown, seen by the national press as an anomaly, but in the Bay State, regardless of the over-hyped and downright nasty 2012 contest between Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren and similar polls to the national polls above), and it may, in the end, and once again, surprise a nation and a candidate for the Presidency.