Massachusetts 2014 Governors Race – Primary Challenge for GOP – Charlie Baker and Mark Fisher – Could a Republican retake the Governor’s office?

It goes without saying that Charlie Baker will be seeking the Governor’s office this year as Deval Patrick finally exits. He will, however, face a challenger, Auburn, MA businessman, Mark Fisher. Fisher, who is more Tea Party, offers a non-politically connected option to those Bay State primary voters – His website: www.markfisher2014.com offers an about Mark, as well as an issues page. Charlie Baker who ran in 2009 against then incumbent Deval Patrick, managed a loss of 1% based on a third party (Independent) candidate – or someone who was a Democrat conveniently turned Independent in time for an election. Baker’s website www.charliebaker2014.com offers issues and insight into the candidate as well.

In Massachusetts politics one is instantly inclined to ask – “why bother” when Republican’s run against what is the Democrat machine in the Bay State. However, Boston Magazine suggests that with the top Democrats vying for the Governor’s office, there is not a great deal of confidence.

It would be the same if all nine of the Congressional seats (mainly incumbent Democrats) were also facing challengers, there would and should be a lack of confidence. The reason is not that the Bay State has suddenly turned red – by no means. It is more the anti-incumbent and anti-political party – that should have anyone who paid the slightest attention to the statewide local elections nervous. There were good and not so hot, mayoral races (outside of Boston) that went either way – with incumbent Republicans and solid Democrat mayors finding themselves short on vote, being replaced when it was thought not quite possible.

Since Massachusetts has been cast in the roll of what to do to win national elections, one might want to take a hard look at who is the least “political party” candidate and factor that person as a possible contender for the win. Of course, that does not take into consideration the usual Massachusetts.

2014 Charlie Baker Will Run for Massachusetts’ Governor’s Office – Second Run Announced Via Social Media

NECN Reports that Republican, Charlie Baker, will make a second run at the MA Governor’s office. Baker made his announcement via social media rather than the expected Press Conference. Baker who ran against incumbent Democrat Governor, Duval Patrick in 2010, lost by a small margin of 6 points to Patrick – both faced former Democrat, Tim Cahill who garnered 8% of the vote, with the state split between Baker and Patrick by county. Head to Head, Baker won heavy population counties, Essex, Plymouth and Worcester by 4 or more points, Norfolk by .1 point, and Barnstable, a lower population county by 3 points. Patrick took Bristol and Middlesex by 5 plus margins, Suffolk (Boston) a smaller county by 20 points, lower population areas, Dukes and Nantucket by a larger margin, with the Western side of the state, Hampshire, Berkshire and Franklin County coming in by 20 plus points, and Hamden, the most populated county west of Worcester, by the lowest margin of 5 points. (New York Times)

Massachusetts, however, tends to turn red on occasion, and Baker has shown strength in the 3 way 2010 race. Moderate Democrats tended to lean towards Cahill, who swayed the race in Patrick’s direction. Without a stronger, high-profile Democrat turned Independent in the race, and a likely more Progressive Democrat running against Baker, all bets will be off until the dust settles.

Massachusetts, known as the “bluest state” is home to Cambridge and Amherst, Progressive conclaves that are locally given the moniker “the People’s Republic of…”, the balance of the state tends to be Independent, with 50% of total registered voters noting a status of “unenrolled” in either party.

MA Special Senate Election – Markey has nod from DNC, but Keep Eye on Lynch – MA GOP – Gomez Appears Capable, Sullivan Not Yet Announced – All Candidates Lack Name Recognition.

The MA Candidates (and potential candidates): Ed Markey(D), Stephen Lynch(D),Gabriel Gomez(R) and Michael Sullivan (R) - images: Markey and Lynch BostonGlobe, Gomez-Boston Herald and Sullivan, Patriot Ledger

The Massachusetts Special Election will take place on June 25th, with primaries held on the 30th of April, and a field that is generally unknown to the majority of Massachusetts voters. That may change, of course, depending on the following factors, Grassroots, airtime and the candidate’s ability to connect and generate turnout. The turnout is generally the big if in MA special elections - , and when a candidate does not, in a short time, connect with the electorate through grass roots organizing to pull ahead, the results of the race normally goes to the party machine that can pull together the votes, namely the Democrats in MA. Scott Brown in 2010 is the best example of a grass roots campaign that exploded and sent him to the Senate, despite the best efforts of the State DNC. The aforementioned tend to blame Martha Coakley, who ran as the opposition Democrat for the loss. However, although Coakley was not the most vibrant candidate, in Massachusetts, the D in front of one’s name in a low turnout election would seal the deal. Brown literally drove across the state and met with individuals, he connected at a time when disgust for Washington among the 50 plus percent of unenrolled Massachusetts voters was high.

In the bid to replace Kerry’s seat in Washington, a long-serving, but little known, Congressional Rep, may have a harder time against a non-politician, given the general distaste for the Congress, and Washington in General. The only candidate that has announced (pending 10,000 signatures due on the 27th of February – in order to qualify for the ballot – with an addition 5,000 for insurance should any of the signatures not meet requirements) that is not already serving in Congress or other official capacity is Gabriel Gomez. Gomez, a first generation Columbian American, is a former Navy Pilot and Navy Seal, who works for a Boston based investment firm and sounds more “unenrolled” than either Republican or Progressive or Democrat. That may be the ticket in getting those, generally uninterested, unenrolleds to vote in the primary and the special election.

Name recognition however, may be at issue. Although Gomez is garnering national and local media attention prior to the submission of required signatures, the only other candidates to do so are Ed Markey, and Stephen Lynch, two Democrats that have graced Congress for Decades, but known only in their own districts, one out of 9 left in the State of Massachusetts.

Former Republican Attorney General Michael Sullivan is also considering a run for the Senate, pending signatures, again, a candidate that has served at the State and Federal Level, but, not in Congress, which regardless of whether one is a Democrat or Republican in that body, generally not a peoples favorite at this point.

Gomez is garnering a considerable amount of media attention for two reasons, one he is a Hispanic running for Senate in Massachusetts, and second he is a Republican Hispanic running for Senate in Massachusetts.

Given the fact that the make-up of the Commonwealth, demographically, is, according to the U.S. Census below the national average when it comes to “minorities” – with 81% Caucasian, 7.8% African American’s and 9.9% Hispanic, with 7.7% of those surveyed in 2010-2011 considering themselves White/Hispanic. With Gomez already actively courting the Hispanic vote in the Bay State, he may have the edge, again, especially during low-turn-out.

On this bloggers preferences, Lynch on the Democrat side appears to be the one who at least bucks his party once in a blue-moon (See Voting Record at project votesmart.org). He has also spent less time in Congress, compared to his opposition, Ed Markey. Markey is a “rubber-stamp” party voter who has graced the Halls of Congress since 1976. (Project vote smart) – In other words, part of the problem in Washington is the deeply entrenched, long-serving politicians, who are more interested in the power of the position than in serving the public.

On the Republican side, Gomez is the most interesting of the candidates, no prior government experience, and someone who believes in the ability to change the government, making it part of the solution, not the problem.

All candidates will have the problem of getting their name out to those voters who are a) low-information (do not watch the news, read a paper, or otherwise care), and grab a piece of the pie that’s left. The Democrat who makes it through the primary will have the advantage of a higher Democrat identified voter count (approximately 36%); The Republican will have the 11% Republican identifiers, and will need to garner the balance from the unenrolleds, and Democrats who may not be enamored of the party candidate. It can be done, it’s been done before, by someone who quickly identified with the individual, criss-crossing the state, and making an impression that far outweighed the money spent on television advertising, which, one can be sure, is necessary in this electronic age. The media will, it is assumed pre-nominate the individual with the longest serving record in Washington due to “experience”.

The Romney’s and the MA Senate Special Election – The Romney Watch - Media continues to “float” names and sources – Tagg Romney now out, no word on Ann Romney –yet. Conan O’Brien? Now there’s a candidate

Why not Conan O'Brien for Senate? - image honolulunoets.com

To date, no one with any name recognition has stepped forward from the GOP to run for the special election to fill the vacant seat left by John Kerry’s appointment to Secretary of State. The media is spinning like a top. The bigger the name the better, and in MA GOP politics that name is “Romney”. There were rumors that the GOP was trying to convince Tagg Romney to run for the seat – however, he has (according to sources) declined. There is still no definitive no from Ann Romney, who, again, sources say, has been asked to the dance.

It may be Ann, or it may be someone whom we have no knowledge of yet – the criteria for a U.S. Senate Run in Massachusetts is that the individual be living in the state, during the election. Therefore, the GOP could field just about anyone and bring them in – if there was interest in doing so on a national level.

Massachusetts and the GOP.

Those who live in Massachusetts understand that for a high profile politico to step foot in the state, they are generally lost trying to find New Hampshire, or in Boston raising funds. Other than that, the last time, in recent memory, anyone of note that stopped in the Bay State, was Hillary Clinton in 2008 on the campaign trail during the 2008 DNC primaries. Those of us living in Massachusetts understand – we don’t count on the national state, however, there are more than a few instances where laws and statues and ideas gone wild have been nationalized, and they have come from – Massachustts – take health care for example.

In the case of general elections – most Bay State Resident feel they really don’t count, after all, what’s 9 or 10 electoral votes anyhow?- They are always going to be dubbed “likely Democrat” – because no one has ever tried to visit the flipping state! There was one exception in 2010, but silly people thought to reelect the most moderate voice in the senate, might have endangered their rights because he was a “Republican” – One has to ask – how much is that birth control going to cost you in the long run now? Is Wall Street humble? – Or is has the price of all goods and taxes surpassed the cost of 6 months worth of one’s favorite “pills”, and isn’t Wall Street making more money now than previously?

Is not the gap between the haves (those in DC’s Wealth Belt) and the have not’s – that’s the rest of us –widened considerably in the last 5 years?

Yes, some idiotic flash in the pan “celebrity” said to vote for…..and the Republican’s are going to take away your rights!! – and the sheep followed blindly.

Good grief, what if they wake up?!!

That’s not probable.

Therefore, until that time, those of us stuck in the State of Insanity (otherwise called Taxachusetts), will watch and wait for someone, anyone with some wherewithal, fire in the belly and a penchant to get beat up by the national and local media, come forward and run for the senate seat that – is not truly John Kerry’s, but the peoples...

Or, as the case may be, a lackluster candidate with less name recognition that Ed Markey or Stephen Lynch will run against the Democrat “machine” that is Massachusetts. This is normally the case, where no one challenges the incumbent Democrat and even makes them work for the seat! There is a reason why most Massachusetts House and Senate members list their occupation (i.e. Career) as Legislature!

Here‘s a list of former residents who would fit the “celebrity profile”: (Choice Pics from Celebrities Famous People Born In Massachusetts (and still breathing:)

Conan Obrien (Brookline)

Jay Leno (Worcester- or there about)

Matt Damon (Cambridge)

Steven Van Zandt (Boston)

Conan for Senate – that makes perfect sense – remember, the individual just needs to live In the state during the election – or for that matter – Jay Leno could run as well, talk about a matchup!

Seriously, if there is a candidate for the Senate run, an announcement will come, in due course, and likely be leaked by “credible” sources, followed by an announcement from the actual individual. Until then – it’s all speculation and fuel for non-news.

Lately the media has been sillier than those who believe that Republican’s are out to take away one’s birth control, run a “war on woman” or God forbid, push Granny over the Cliff. This gives credence to the theory that American schools have gone way over board on the dummying down process.

Conan: He fought NBC and is still standing, He’s got a sidekick, a sense of humor, and a Libertarian (rumored to be so) – perfect for the State of Massachustts!

Mass. GOP – First, Brown Drops out, then Tisei –Now, focus is on Ann Romney for possible Senate Run - Ann Romney would give MA Dem’s Pause.

Shortly before the 2012 Election - Ann Romney - Ohio - image from Daily Mail.com - "As Election Day Nears Romney Crowds Surging"

Prior to February 1st, every pundit following the special election to replace Senior U.S. Senator, John Kerry, (R-MA), (now Secretary of State) suggested, with some confidence that the GOP’s, Scott Brown would run for the vacant seat. On Friday, February 1st, 2013, Brown declined the option to run in that particular race. (New York Times) This “shocked” more than a few individuals, except that Brown gave no indication that he would run for the seat – rather he was vague in terms of what he would do as far as his political career was concerned. It was the “sources close to (plug in a name), that made Brown’s run “likely” (“true”). In the interim, in Massachusetts there was a special election to for the GOP Committee Chair. Certain individuals within and outside the MA State GOP, were also convinced that Brown would run, given the fact that he endorsed the candidate that won the chairKristen Hughes, a former Brown campaign staffer”(Degrees).

Next up, there was again, a source that suggested Richard Tisei, the Massachustts Senate Minority Leader, would run for the seat. Not so: in a statement released last night, Tisie released the following statement:

“Former State Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei has decided against running in the upcoming special election for the U.S. Senate seat just vacated by Senator John F. Kerry. Following is his statement:

"I've been humbled by so many people who've urged me to run for this seat, following Senator Scott Brown's decision not to run on Friday. I believe it's imperative that the Republican party put forward a strong candidate who can help bring much-needed change to Washington. Unfortunately, the timing is simply not right for me to do so - deeply as I feel about the need to strongly compete in this election. It was also my desire to make this decision as quickly as possible so that other potential candidates would be able to consider whether they should run.

We have many talented people from all walks of life who should get involved in the political system to bring about change. The political class ought not be a select few. That's part of the reason that we're in such a mess and that our political system has become dysfunctional. I urge principled, qualified men and women to stand up and be counted in the political arena. We have no right to complain if we're not willing to be constructively involved as we try to build a better future. I've met thousands and thousands of people who do care and have been involved and I urge them to stay involved and to continue to make a difference - especially in these difficult times.

I look forward to continuing my involvement and to supporting strong, principled, independent-minded candidates who may choose to run for this and other offices. All of us - Republicans, Independents, and Democrats - need to roll up our sleeves, pitch in, and bring about the reforms of our political system that are so desperately needed. Whether as a candidate or concerned citizen, I will continue to be involved with other men and women of integrity who share my desire for real reforms."

There are several names that are high on the list in the MA GOP when it comes to running for higher office: Brown, of course, (he’s out), Richard Tisei (he’s out), Charlie Baker (more likely a run for Governor), and Kerry Healey, former Lt. Govenor under Mitt Romney, come to mind. However, it is anyone’s guess as to who may run against Democrat Faithful, Ed Markey, and Moderate Democrat, Stephen Lynch, both MA Congressional representatives, who have publicly declared to the vacant Senate seat. To date, those are the two that will face a primary in April, 2013.

Yesterday, enter the latest “sources close to” potential candidate to run for the Senate special election: Ann Romney.(Daily Mail) In the article from the Daily Mail it is noted that “Republicans in Massachusetts are said to be encouraging Ann Romney to run for U.S. Senate.”. Said sources from the UK was followed by a similar article in the Boston Herald. Both papers stating that the MA GOP is desperately trying to find someone to run for the seat. Unless of course, there is someone who has already decided, and yet not one “source close to” has said “boo”.

Ann Romney as a candidate makes sense. There are those spouting “no political experience” – (Note: Ann Romney has personally given no indication that she will run for any office as of now- this is hypothetical based on “sources”.) However, given the fact that Massachusetts has recently elected, Elizabeth Warren, former part-time Harvard Professor, and one-time Obama appointee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”(Daily Beast) had little experience in politics, and Matriarch of the Democrat Congressional Caucus, Nancy Pelosi, was a full time wife and grandmother before running for Congress – a criteria for “experience” seems a tad misplaced. Never mind the fact that the whole point of Federal offices historically speaking, is that a “citizen” be elected.

So, what “dots” can the MSM connect, besides the usual “source”, that Ann Romney maybe considering a run for the U.S. Senate?

Perhaps it’s the fact that she declined an offer from ”Dancing with the Stars”(USA Today). Alternately, it could be the fact that she is considered a “star” by U.S. entertainment standards – which apparently is part of the criteria for elected officials (besides all that “experience”).

Unless and until, Ann Romney speaks, (or a representative for Ann Romney), no one has a clue.

The Big But

If Ann Romney does decide to run, it would give fits to the Mass State DNC. They are most likely hoping that the only contest will be in a Dem Primary. Should a high-profile, Bay State Republican run, someone with a brand name, then that’s problematic. Special elections have notoriously low turnout, and the independent’s (51% of the Bay State’s electorate) have been known in the past go choose a Republican (more often the Governor’s office, but…) now and again. If she were to run, Ann Romney is likeable (unless one is a screaming and threatened progressive.); she would bring “brand” as well as “star-power” to the race. Pit Ann Romney against lackluster, Congressional Democrats such as Markey and Lynch, and one gets the picture. The discussion regarding a campaign war-chest would be a moot point, all things considered. It would not take much capital to outdo either Markey or Lynch, as they would have to push more advertising in a statewide race for minimal voters, against someone who really has little need for recognition.

How well does Ann Romney poll? –That’s the million dollar question, given the only poll found was a Washington Post/ABC Polls whichpolled Ann Romney and Michelle Obama Romney against their husbands. In that poll, both women held an advantage. However, in the notes, on nationwide approval, Ann Romney’s favorability rose from 43% to 56% once “voters became familiar with her”

Of course, that’s all there is, at the present time, speculation. What is known that should Ann Romney decide to run, she would be a tough candidate for the MA DNC to best – she was far better at connecting with voters than her husband, she’s go the same amount of experience as did Nancy Pelosi or more perhaps than Elizabeth Warren, she has “star-power” and she just came off a grueling national campaign – she knows the ropes.

In the event that there is no candidate, one might want to change one’s MA political affiliation t o Democrat, vote in the primary and vote for Stephen Lynch, as Lynch is the lesser of two evils.

If Ann Romney or Charlie Baker (who, again bet’s are on the Governor’s office), run, then, the choice is obvious – change party affixation to Republican or remain “unenrolled”, (again, in the event there is no opposition to the candidate in a primary, then one must declare a party) and vote for either Ann Romney or Charlie Baker, or someone who has Statewide Recognition, which is the quantifier in this race.

It is, in reality, still early – the filing date is set for February 27th, when the candidate must submit nomination papers and signatures to the Secretary of State, signatures required: a measley 10,000 for a Federal Senate office election(Massachusetts Secretary of Sate).

Is there another GOP candidate that must live in the State at the time of the election (see Lizzie Warren - Oklahoma) ?

Scott Brown Speculation runs Rampant on Senate Run for Kerry’s Seat – Ben Affleck may Run as well – Mind-boggling Bay State Politics.

Scott Brown, media speculates a run for Senate - image from Salon.com

First, Scott Brown, in this opinion, was the one U.S. Senator who made the most sense; most of the time – unlike his august counterparts, who are normally so partisan or who have been in office so long that it appears as if they are far apart from those who put them there if the first place. Brown’s victory in 2009 was seen as some sort of anomaly, and his defeat by Elizabeth Warren, was surprising to many who considered Brown’s seat safe – and therein lay the problem. Who would believe that a solid, bi-partisan, Independent leaning Scott Brown, would be defeated by a Harvard Professor, with little political pedigree, and a whole lot of baggage, that somehow got slipped under the rug. Elizabeth Warren will absolutely be a rubber stamp for the Democrat Leadership in the Senate – one can bet she does not break ranks from the party line – ever. There are those who sometimes stray, and those who stray more frequently –giving leadership on either side of the aisle hysterics (see Brown), but the Democrats have no worries with Warren, which, is what is so mind-boggling about Brown’s loss, given the independent streak that is Massachusetts.

There were factors that may have led to his defeat, but for the most part, those who voted for President Obama, the women overwhelmingly who supported him – did so, and this is not a specific study mind you, but Q&A’s, because of birth control – they were afraid that the election of Romney or Brown would end their access to birth control. It wasn’t because Scott Brown was a bad guy, or that even his policies were not approved by a majority of Massachusetts voters – the problem was one ad and one common them: If the people elected Brown, (went Warrens last ad), then he might vote with the Republicans. It was the death knell, when it came to the lunatics that make up the Massachusetts electorate and honestly thought “ok, that makes sense, he might do that, let’s vote for Warren!, We know she’s not going to take away our birth control, and she is going to raise taxes on the rich!!!

Wait until they open their paychecks to a huge shock the first week in January 2013.

One has to understand that the Democrats, progressives, believe in a field where all is equal, and, rhetoric and politics aside, the one determining factor in making everyone equal is to tax the daylights out of everyone, while supplying more “government services”, and those blinded by the fact that the “government is taking care of them”, miss the point that they are paying for this “care” in the first place.

Brown is not your average politician, but whatever may be his future plans, the pundits are fast at work trying to figure out what is the impossible. Brown has his own opinion.

Over at MSNBC, they had to find a nefarious reason as to why Brown would be the first GOP senator to back a federal assault weapons ban”. The article does mention the fact that Brown also supported the same ban in Massachusetts when he was a State Senator, but, Brown’s pattern of parting ways with the right when it doesn’t make sense appear lost on those who cannot step one tenth of an inch over their own party line. Therefore, they believe that it must be political positioning for John Kerry’s may be vacant seat! First, the Massachusetts Senior Senator must be asked to be the Secretary of State (possibly done), past the Senate Sniff Test for nomination (pretty much a shoe in) and then there will be a special election – on which, Brown has not said yeah or nay as to whether or not he’s seriously interested. But that’s the national media. Local media on the other hand, has seen more news on Brown since he lost to Warren, than during the campaign itself!

The local media, aside from the commenter’s on the far right and the far left under the articles, appear to miss Scott Brown.

Over at MassLive The Springfield Republican (Oxymoron) website; the article headlines; “Scott Brown in strong position to run for John Kerry's Senate seat, according to WBUR poll” with the end result, with Brown at such a high favorable rating, how did he lose? How can he lose another run at the Senate? Maybe he’ll run for the Governor’s office!!

Maybe they miss having an elected official with an (R) in front of his name to beat up on once a week or so.



Image of Ben Affleck, speculation run for Senate in MA - Image by, Salon.com - incidentally

Be that as it may, the outgoing Senator from the Bay State, may have some serious competition as the Democrats look at the odds and figure, we need someone who’s going to get inside those silly girl’s heads and trick them once again. Enter: Actor, Ben Affleck The Daily Beast – (go figure) is touting Affleck for the next Democrat from Massachusetts, and why not. He’s a Democrat; he’s from Cambridge (Good Lord) and from the article: “After I interviewed him,” Schieffer said, “every female who works at the CBS Washington Bureau was in the hallway as he was leaving. Funny how that happened. They were getting their pictures taken with him. He was very good-natured about it.” (Daily Beast)

As a feminist, it is hard to believe that those in the media, and well, anyone with half a brain would think women in general are that stupid. However, the last election has led this feminist to believe, maybe. Not just women, but people who buy – hook, line and sinker, the promises of a candidate and vote out of “fear” of losing something. When they should be voting on policy and any available records that individual provides. Had they done a comparison on Scott Brown’s voting record, versus the narrative coming from the Coakley campaign, and with a 60% approval rating, Brown would have been a shoe in. The fact that they did not know, did not care to know, just beloved what they were told, and went along with the party lines…leads one who is not, admittedly, an intellectual genius, to conclude there’s something seriously wrong with the educational system in this nation, or, the electorate is really – stupid.

So, we’ve got Ben Affleck, and Scott Brown and a whole slew of Democrat Congressional Reps, all being speculated upon and asked if they might be running for the Senate if Kerry is confirmed as the Secretary of State.

This feminist logic see’s a slightly different and better use of Brown’s tenacious spirit when it comes to doing what is right by the people, regardless of political cost. He should run for the Governor’s office, then he should run for the Presidency – in the true spirit of Massachusetts, as an “unenrolled”, no party affiliation what-so-ever –just on his true core beliefs and his record. Of course, that’s a fantasy to envision an independent running for and attaining an office in this nation if one is not attached to one of the two major political party’s – or is it?

Having watched Brown’s record in the State Senate, and keeping tabs on the man’s political bent for several years, (prior to the Miracle in Massachusetts), only one thought kept coming to mind: he’s the real deal. When he ran for the Senate Seat, this blogger knocked on doors, made phone calls, and left the comfort of the blog – there was a lot of company, from independents, Green Party Members, and yes, Democrats, Tea Party and those rank and file Republican’s that showed up for appearance sake. (That’s politics in Massachusetts). This last election, with the thought process that Brown was as safe in his seat as a babe in swaddling cloth, no one got up to the dance, or blogged a great deal, looking towards the national race or local races that were much more in need of assistance, and then realization struck, when in the waning hours of the campaign, the worst thing about Brown was that he was a Republican. Who knew?

Whatever that Scott Brown decides to do, be it a run for public office, or a private sector career, those who brought Warren to the Dance and those who didn’t may be missing Brown a lot more once the new Congress takes to the nations woe’s in January of 2013. Even one sane voice in the playground that is Washington DC will be missed by those who are in the middle, not to the far right, not to the far left, but squarely in the middle.

John Kerry (D-MA) – To be Secretary of State – Safe Senate Replacement - Dem’s to Possibly Choose Dukakis

John Kerry pictured with Michael Dukakis - from the blog beldar.blogs.com

The replacement for Hillary Clinton, who will be leaving her post as Secretary of State has boiled down to the man who brought Barack Obama to the forefront the Senator from Massachusetts, John Forbes Kerry(Boston Herald) Kerry, who has served as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be an easy nomination for the President. Kerry and Republican Senator, John McCain, both having run for the office Of the President, have worked together over the years; in the “club” that is the Senate. For all the bluff and bluster that comes with general elections, (the media recounts of what was said, so viciously, the name calling that takes place, when partisanship trumps the congenial worth done in that august body over an election), it appears that Kerry would sail through a nomination with ease.

Massachusetts will need to replace Kerry, that task falls to the Governor, Duval Patrick – who is required to name a replacement until a special election can be held. The Hill is reporting that the most likely possibility for Kerry’s replacement is the 79 year old, Michael Dukakis, former Governor of Massachusetts and also a Presidential candidate” Dukakis would be a reliable Democrat vote in the Senate, and had recently helped in the campaign for Senator Elect, Elizabeth Warren. Also said to be lobbying for the seat are several of the Congressional Democrats from the state, Capuano, Lynch and Markey. Republican’s who might run for the open seat are Weld, Baker and Brown. (The Hill) The later three are considered “Moderate Republicans” by most standards – with experience with Brown showing a more Independent streak from the party in his voting pattern in the Senate. That said a moderate Republican from Massachusetts is more likely to focus on the vote on hand than be more like a rubber stamp as the case with Dukakis.

Duval Patrick has also noted he will not run for reelection – several of the above referenced on both sides have indicated an interest in running for Govenor. Republican’s, although in short supply, have historically had success at running and winning the Governor’s office in the Bay State. Brown made history in 2009 when he won the special election to the U.S. Senate replacing Ted Kennedy. There are few Republicans that have managed to obtain a Congressional or Senate seat in the “Bluest State”, which begs the question: If a Republican can be handily elected to the Governor’s office, why the difficulty in procuring a Senate or Congressional Seat? – One would think, that with 51% of the States electorate opting for non-party status as “unenrolled”, the option for choosing an alternative to the “status quo’ would be welcome - that said, ground troops, something that is necessary in winning the City Council seat, is lacking on the Republican side in Massachusetts. How then, did the Republican’s ascend to the Governor’s office, or Brown the Senate – general disgust by the people of policies in place that directly affected them at that given time. With Patrick, pro-tax, that may be an easier route for the aforementioned Republican’s to take. That said, in Massachusetts, nothing is impossible, if the ground game, and grassroots are in place for whoever the GOP candidate may be.

2012 Election – What about Voter Fraud? – Did the Democrat Party Steal the Election? Some Conservatives Display Denial in the face of Reality. Op-ed

Yes, Virginia,Voter Fraud Exists but...the Ground Game Trumps - image from motherjones.com

The election is over and President Obama is about to begin his second term, yet there are those that remain unconvinced that GOP Candidate Mitt Romney was defeated fair and square, but that there was some shenanigans afoot. That there is cheating via ballot stuffing, double voting (or triple voting), the Bridgeport, CT voting method of throwing ballots into the bay, busing out of state voters to the polls, and more tricks than a pony can come up with – all verified by 8 X 10 color glossies and hastily buried news reports during the election. That said, in order for the Democrats to have handily defeated Mitt Romney they would have had to come up with at least 5% of the vote total, if the polls were right. Understanding that this was to be a “close election” the fact that the Democrats needing to cheat up to 5% of the total vote makes no sense at all, however, all polls were weighted to the voter totals of the previous election or plus 8 for the Democrats. If one assumes the margin of error at plus or minus three, deducts that from the GOP candidate, then adjusts 8 points for the Democrats, one has a need to “catch up “by 5 points in order to push the Democrat candidate over the top. It would have to be “that” close. Cheating up to 5% is really pushing the envelope – yet, that’s what the Washington Post suggests, the founder of “unskewedpolls.com” believes. So much so that he began a new website regarding voter fraud. The site Barackofraudo.com looks at the swing states where the ballot returns appear to be out of sync. Welcome to Massachusetts.
However, in reality, what is more than likely the case is that the GOP failed to deliver the bodies to the polls. The election is like a chess game, where both parties need to push X amount of voters to the polls, and they need an infrastructure in place in order to do that. The Democrats have this down to a science, and it is on display in Massachusetts, add a little bit of obvious cheating (say 30,000 votes), and there is a one-party lock on the Commonwealth. In order for Republican’s or Libertarians or Tea Party (More on that) to win, they have to change the way in which they deliver voters to the polls.
The theme this year, and in past years, is simply the base is energized, so they’ll get out and vote, yet, and yet, the estimated landslide of evangelical and conservative voters never materialized. It was not as if they weren’t “out there”, they were, in droves, but they never made it to the polls. It is the organization that has been in place by Democrats, and is continually checked and doubled checked, right down to the precinct level, getting people to the polls. Poll watchers check to find out who hasn’t shown up, and has the ability to make a call and someone goes and picks up that extra vote, or extra 10,000 votes. Republican’s, don’t appear to have voting down to a science. Perhaps it’s the emphasis on individual freedoms versus the collective political ideology that appears to get them into trouble, or relying on what appears to be common sense (that’s something that no longer exits). The reason that the President won reelection by, what most would consider, a slim margin, was simply that his party was able to combine cheating and getting out the vote, better than the other party.
There are Democrats who have been totally turned off by the Progressive Socialists who now run my father’s party, and one would think they would be natural Republican’s, but the two-party system, for some people, is so broken beyond compare, that they have gravitated to that all maligned, Tea Party. Go figure. However, that said, some of these individuals one finds, and it’s shocking to say the least, also know how to get out the vote – the problem is, there appears to be a lack of enthusiasm when it comes to actually getting out the vote and working in the precincts. So much better for those Republican's to throw an annual cocktail party –than get in the trenches and troll for likely voters and new party members. It is frustrating, and must be for both sides to work so hard, and come up with nothing, or just above nothing in the vote totals. That frustration aside, (and there is much to be frustrated about in Massachusetts, if one is awake, looks at the legislation pending, follows the Governor ‘s doings, and basically - takes a valium in the hopes of waking up in a more “balanced state. Therefore, unless and until the Republican’s start to act more like Democrats, in the manner of getting out the vote, and getting the grassroots on board. Including those whom the media brands “rightwing”, and is generally dropped out of the GOP program so that the moderate candidate can appear to have distanced themselves from the people who are most likely to get out the vote in the first place.
So, the Democrats did not cheat any more or any less than they have in the past (See my father’s party , which gives insight into how that particular party has worked elections), they just are better organized on the ground. Therefore, if Republican’s want to win a general election – they need to include all voters on their radar, and actively court them, they need to put people in every single precinct, working in the same blocks and neighborhoods as their counterparts. Once that somewhat utopian ground game is in force, then the playing field will be level. It may take years, but, no time like the present to quit your bitching and do something about it. Checkmate.

Top Slots Open in January Obama Administration – Massachusetts two Candidates – Deval Patrick and John F. Kerry - Open’s Speculation as to Special Elections

Senator John Kerry & Governor Deval Patrick - Potential spots open in Obama Administration Photo: democratic underground.

Immediately following the election several key officials in the Obama administration have decided to call it quits. This is not unusual in the grander scheme of things, as administrations go into a second term, there are usually those who give one term and go back to the private sector or, head to Iowa. In this case there are several openings that suggest certain Massachusetts Politico’s may be ripe for the positions. The number one slot leaving is Hillary Clinton, the Sectary of State - this was first announced through the Weekly Standard, and the suggestion is that MA. Senator John F. Kerry would be a candidate for the slot. It is no secret in Massachusetts that Kerry has wanted the slot since 2008 –and, as a surrogate for the President throughout the reelection process, he may have an in (if they can forgive the performance in Denver, with Kerry as coach). On Clinton herself, the New York Times is now setting the stage for a 2016 run in what can only be called a fluff piece. Clinton would make a fine choice, all the way around, however, one speculates that she may be too tired at that point. In addition she would have to run against a yet again, energized Conservative base, and depending upon the candidate (say a Marco Rubio – who has already set foot in Iowa), it may be a tough road.

Another leaving the administration is Eric Holder, and although Janet Napolitano’s “name” is being floated, it may be the Governor of the State of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, who get’s that job. Patrick who is a long-time associate of the President and was mentored by chief strategist, David Axelrod, would be a find fit for the position.

Others that are leaving, so far, according to the Washington Post, Defense, Secretary Leon Panetta and White House Senor Advisor David Plouffe

The first two mentioned are of great interest for several reassign. John Kerry has wanted the job, and is just as qualified as anyone else in the Obama administration. This would leave a seat open in the Senate for a multitude of individuals in the Bay State that may aptly fill the bill (more on that).

The second is the office of Attorney General, again, the nations “top cop” would be a great fit for the Governor of Massachusetts. He’s weighed in on many a case and has a mind-set similar to the President. This would set up a second special election in MA to fill the Governors seat.

There are several names being floated as replacements in Massachusetts should this occur, the first that comes to mind is former Senator Scott Brown who was narrowly defeated by Elizabeth Warren – Brown, the most bipartisan senator of the past two years (given his short term) would counteract that very partisan Warren, and at least bring some sense of sanity to the process. As to the Governor’s office: Bill Weld has reportedly moved back to the state, and Charles Baker who had run a tight campaign against the Patrick, who won by one point, with the help of Democrat turned conveniently independent, Tim Cahill , would also fit that bill.

Of course, if the above mentioned are seriously considering running for either of these “projected” vacant seats”, then one might also anticipate, especially in Weld and Brown’s case, sudden invitations by the White house to be Ambassadors of Name a Country out of the way. Of course, that job has a short life expectancy these days. It’s always fun to speculate, but the thoughts that Massachusetts would find some of its key politico’s either in an administration or back in the saddle campaigning for a top slot representing the Bay State, does bring out what all political judies relish: another election!

Politico: Obama’s Performance Sinking Dem House Races – Warren (D-MA) Candidate – Fewer Ads In MA – Latest Warning Brown Might Turn Senate!

Final Polling before the election 1980 - note: polls were weighted for the 1976 election image GuardianUK

From Politico: headlines: “Obama's bad October hurts House Dems” suggests that the President is having a George W. Bush effect on his party’s incumbents – apparently there is a loss of confidence in Democrats in general by the public. It is entirely possible, as those casting votes (both early voting and through the election cycle) may choose not only to choose Presidential Candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, over Obama, but will also take a chance on voting against any Democrat on the ticket – similar to what happened in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If history repeats itself, and one takes a look at the 2010 election with a projection of more than less identifying themselves as either Republican or Independent leaning Republican, one can suggest that the 2012 general will look quite a bit like the house trumping of 2010 in a broader sense.

What of the polls? One has to take a strong look at any polling data at this point and basically throw the baby out with the bath water – for example, in 1981, after the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan over former President Jimmy Carter, the head of Gallup explained what had happened and why poll models showed a tight race up to the bitter end. It is suggested that the polling organizations had based their models on the last General election, which had shown an increase in those voting Democrat. That increase percentage was added to the 1980 polls, which gave several points to James Carter that simply did not exist. What was missing from the models, as it was explained by Gallup, the fact that the voter identification had taken a turn to the Republican Party in the two years prior to the 1980 General election. Thus rendering models basically useless. Understanding that models today, for the Presidency, as well as those House and Senate races, are using the 2008 statistics to project winners and losers in the 2012 General. All polls are weighted by a minimum of eight points or more in some cases.

Of course turnout will also have an effect, one cannot dispute simple math. Those identifying themselves as Republican or leaning Republican are significantly more enthusiastic about voting, and there are simply more of them. That said more individuals vote in a General election than a Mid-term, which, using the 2010 model would then skew the poll without compensating for population. The only way, at this point, would be to project using as current as possible voter identification models from each of the fifty states to get a more accurate projection. The fact that Gallup has gone to a “likely voter” model suggests that the polling firm is concerned about using the “weighted” method, as it has, along with the rest of the polling firms, been burnt before (1980 for example).

It is, however, more probable that the 2012 midterm election pattern will be more likely pattern to follow, in part, when one looks at the swing states, or any state to get at least an idea of what might be occurring on a national basis. Although one might find the media “hyping” a certain state, while others have automatically been dubbed “safe Democrat” or “safe Republican” one might want to take a look at what happened in that state during the period of 2009-2010.

Looking at Massachusetts for a moment, one finds that in 2009 special election, the polls and pundits, suggested that then candidate Martha Coakley would best Republican Scott Brown by up to 15 points. The fact that Brown won with 5 points (and the dead and missing voting), suggests that Massachusetts voters changed preference for that election. Going into the 2010 election, all house seats in Massachusetts with one exception saw Republican challengers, the general consensus from the Pundits, was an automatic “safe Democrat” with wide margins of wins projected at 75% of the vote. That was not the case how-ever, as those Democrats, many for the first time, were facing challengers who appeared to have a wind at their backs. In other words, they had to stay home, fight and use their war chests – which kept that extra cash in MA, while it was badly needed for Democrats elsewhere. The final results, although the Democrats held their seats, Massachusetts voters sent a message, as the spread was not a 75% margin, but a 2% to 10% margin.

Therefore it is not without some wonderment, that while Elizabeth Warren the Democrat now running against incumbent Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, is polling a 5 points – looking at the marginals of some polls taken in the Bay State, the most interesting aspect is the geography – pollsters are using a sample of voters from very low population and very Democrat – Left Ideology, while the sample dismisses (10-25%) the larger populated and more right leaning Worcester County. This also artificially gives Warren a non-existent boost. The Warren Campaign has been running back to back advertisements up until last week, when those ads began to thin out a bit, while Brown’s hammering the airwaves. More over the latest ad is a “hoot” to say the least. In menacing terms, the ad suggests that should Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, he might vote with the Republican Party, and in addition, he might be the one who gives the Republicans a majority in the Senate!

Therefore, what Warren ad is saying, there is nothing essentially wrong with Scott Brown now, except he might be the Republican that takes the Senate away from the Democrats! It smacks of desperation.

The video clip of the ad appears below.

If a Democrat is having problems, regardless of inflated polls, in Massachusetts, where it is suggested that he state is hopeless for Republican’s, what one might suggest is that MA may not be automatically “Safe Democrat” for the General election. It was a state that was certainly a surprise in 1980 to both former President Carter, and President Elect Ronald Reagan.

To further add to the debate: Take Wisconsin’s, where the recent recall of Governor Scott Walker, was a blowout for the incumbent and a resounding defeat of his Democrat Challenger. It is why, at this point, the State of Wisconsin appears “up for grabs” even using the automatic 8 points for Democrats.

In Ohio, the same sample is used, as it is nationwide, therefore, the current tie in Ohio, complete with a new Republican State House and Republican Governor courtesy of the Mid-Terms, may not be an actual battleground – the actual battleground may be elsewhere, in states that are not even under consideration, and holding combined electoral votes to rival Ohio.

Of most interest is the Real Clear Politics electoral college map – take into account this is based on polling data, some overly generous toward the incumbent (specifically those university polls that over-sample low population, heavy Democrat areas, while under sampling, high population, more Republican areas, and then weight an additional 8 points on top. What one finds in the individual polls I that there has been a definitive shift in the voter preferences over that time, and even adding those polls into a combined poll method that Real Clear Politics uses, shows a growing trend towards candidate Mitt Romney. (See Map here at realclearpolticis.com - it is an interactive map, which shows the two candidates with states granted by virtue of having been heavily Democrat or Republican in 2008 – those states are automatically added (MA in the mix), then states considered solid in the polls for either candidate, those leaning towards a candidate and those listed as “toss ups”. (Using polling data, both weighted and over an extended period of time.)

Although a fan of historical data, one must consider in projections that it is best to consider historical trends as well. Understanding that there may be some explaining to do by pollsters on the Wed. following the 2012 elections.

Elizabeth Warren Ad re: Brown Vote may Give Republican's the Senate

2012 Update: Mass 6th Hampden District Debate, Lincoln Blackie (I-MA) versus Mike Finn (Incumbent-D) – Blackie Hammers Finn On Record and Issues

Lincoln Blackie – Independent Candidate for MA 6th Hampden District - Image: Lincolnblackie.com

The Massachusetts State House and Senate, is, for the most part, controlled by the Democrat Party with a stunning majority, although the Commonwealth ‘s party affiliation if made up of over 51% unenrolled, or “Independents”, a fact that is often overlooked or downplayed. The two-party system that exists in most states does not give an Independent a great deal of encouragement to run for public office, however, in Massachustts that may not be the case. Lincoln Blackie, , an independent, and first time candidate, is running for the Massachusetts House, 6th District seat, against incumbent, Michael Finn (Mike Finn) a party line Democrat.

The debate, sponsored by the West of The River Chamber of Commerce, was characterized as a bit contentious by the Springfield Republican (MasssLive)which headlined the debate as follows: “State Rep. Michael Finn, challenger Lincoln Blackie trade knocks in 6th Hampden District debate”. The Blackie campaign issued a press release on the candidates’ positions and issues addressed during the debate -issues facing the 6th Hampden District and the Commonwealth as a whole (excerpts follow):

“Blackie pressed Rep. Finn on jobs, taxes, education, local aid and wasteful spending

Blackie supports cutting taxes, reducing regulations and providing incentives to make Massachusetts more attractive and for businesses to grow and create jobs.

Asked about the impact of a gaming casino on area communities, Finn said voted for it because it would create jobs, and referred to various reports on the impact to crime, demands on infrastructure, services and housing.

Blackie who has a degree in public administration and another in regional planning, cited a case study he did at Westfield University stating, “casinos are not a job creator.” Most of the good jobs are a one-time shot and the jobs created are not middle class jobs. The effect of a casino on area small businesses and jobs over time has a negative impact.

Blackie asked Finn about the unemployment rates in West Springfield, Chicopee and Springfield. Mr. Finn said he did not know. Mr. Blackie told the audience the rate for West Side was 7.1 percent, Chicopee 7.8 percent and Springfield was over 11 percent and that the area had lost 3000 jobs in August. Blackie also cited a local businessman who told him he only needed one license twenty years ago when he started his business, but today needs ten licenses and ten licenses for each of his employees, which is a hurdle to hiring people.

Blackie asked Mr. Finn why he had not filed any legislation after voters in the district overwhelmingly voted for a 2010 ballot question supporting lowering the sales tax to 5%.

On the question of education, Blackie who attended West Side public schools says he supports teachers using their judgment and creativity to adjust to their students and not be forced into a box teaching to a test. Blackie asked Finn why he voted to cut education funding by $70 million while in state tuition rose by $400 a year. Finn stated he did not know where those numbers were coming from. Blackie referred to the state budget.

Blackie also questioned Finn on accepting donations from lobbyists. Finn responded by saying you need money to get your message out to voters and dismissing the notion donations from lobbyists and special interests would affect his voting.

Blackie pressed Finn on the issue of real cuts to education, local aid and claiming to balance the budget after taking into account spending money coming from one-time stimulus funds and withdrawing four hundred million dollars from the stabilization fund.

Blackie questioned the focus of legislators in Boston when spending on transportation and economic development tends to be on projects east of Route 495 including a $49 million bailout of the MBTA. Finn said he was against the bailout before he voted for the final package. Blackie criticized the wasteful spending and abuse of the Authority and said every dollar wasted could have gone to real improvements.”

Lincoln Blackie’s question of Mike Finn on the filing of Legislation in support of the referendum to cut the sales tax, that was widely supported in “Taxachusettts”, was of note – The official Massachusetts Legislature Page for Mike Finn depicts a State Legislator who is not quick to sponsor bills, having sponsored (written) two – the two bills, Finn has written as well as those he has supported (co-sponsored) are available here at www.masslegislature.gov.

In addition to Blackie’s questioning of Finn’s knowledge and vote on the FY2013 Budget, (as well as the tendency for State Rep. Finn, to vote the party line – Finn was involved with the budget process throughout, and the roll call (here in PDF) supports Lincoln Blackie’s assertion.

Those who are living in Massachusetts understand the chance is, at times, rare to be able to vote for a non-Democrat, an Independent is more of a rarity, as those Libertarian and Independents tend to run as either Republicans or Democrats in order to take advantage of the party identification. Lincoln Blackie, as an independent, would bring a sense of balance to the Massachusetts State House.

For more information on Lincoln Blackie’s campaign for the Massachusetts Legislature, Hampden 6th District, visit: < a href="http://lincolnblackie.com/">http://lincolnblackie.com

Mass. Democrats – Back-up Plan for U.S. Senate Run Against Scott Brown(R) – Insure DeFranco Get’s Delegates to Force Warren into Primary Fight

From: New England Cable News: Meet Marisa DeFranco, the Immigration Attorney who is seeking 15% of the delegates at the Mass Democrat Convention on June 2nd in Springfield, MA – that would insure DeFranco would be able to challenge Elizabeth Warren in a primary.

Warren, who has gained nationwide notoriety for her ability to exaggerate her ancestry, (Washington Post) while dodging questions regarding a plaguerized cookbook based on the aforementioned, (Politico)she appears to be doing well in the polls so far, against incumbent Republican Scott Brown. That’s Massachusetts polls, the same polls that showed Martha Coakley with a 15 point lead over Scott Brown just days before the final election – the outcome was not quite what was expected.

Both Coakley and Warren have certain things in common – they are flawed, and they tied themselves to the Obama administration – which, on the surface, one might think that’s a bonus in Massachusetts or any heavy Democrat state, however, it is simply not the case. (Ask Martha Coakley, or more recently, in a “stunner” as the Houston Chronicle dubs it, long time Texas Congressman, Reyes, was ousted yesterday by a newcomer – who did not have the President stumping for him.(Houston Chronicle). 2010 and 2012 may be similar in that the Tea Party is still alive and kicking and the angst within both major political parties is glaringly apparent – as incumbents lose on the left and on the right – the people have had it – again.

(Of course, there is a little talked about priority of Tea Party activists to get elected by running as either a Democrat or Republican – once elected, there’s a different agenda, and the elections include races from the Party Representation Level to the Congress. Since most Tea Party members are unaffiliated, or former Republicans or Democrats (no kidding – despite the media drumbeat that they are Republicans), this ruse is a no-brainer. Think of them as guerilla politicos.)

What appears to be shaping up here according to the Boston Herald, is a Democrat Mutiny to Sink Warren, where the Herald suggests that Warren is more flawed than Coakley. That said, there is some history in Massachusetts, within the Democrat Party that holds a bit of “Hatfield and McCoy” flavor – the 2008 Convention fight, where Hillary Clinton clearly swept Massachusetts, making Clinton Democrats furious when “Party Leaders” such as the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, et al, put forth Obama instead. The divide continues to exist as does the rancor.

Therefore, it is no stretch of the imagination to suggest that DeFranco will get her 15% (or plus) and push Warren into a primary and debate, possibly upsetting her in the primary, or at the very least, forcing her into positions and comments that will be of us to the Brown Campaign.

Last thought on Elizabeth Warren, although one has not seen her debate, anyone watching the Coakley-Brown debates understood that Coakley was outclassed – if Warren, as suggested by the Herald, might not be the best debate performer – the very popular Senator Scott Brown, should repeat his performance of 2009 – (that includes dead voters, missing voters, Disney character voters, all plugging for Warren, if she wins the primary.)

What boggles the mind, with all the very competent Democrat women who could make themselves available (Marisa DeFranco for example), why does the State DNC continue to put forth candidates that are so obviously flawed?


Debate between 2012 Democrat Candidates for Senate - DeFranco versus Coakely

Obama Fund-Raising Down in Massachusetts – Boston Globe cites Enthusiasm, Warren Campaign and Three Dem’s Fighting Hard for Seats

Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren - Warren Contributions taking away from Obama in MA according to the Globe< - image: familysecuritymatters.org

The Boston Globe Headline: “Obama donors lagging in Mass. (sub) Far fewer give maximum as enthusiasm wanes”speaks to the woes of the Obama Campaign in Massachusetts, and how this Democrat “Cash Cow” state, has seen numbers dwindle since 2008. It appears there are several factors at play, according to the article, chief among them are House and Senate races, specifically the race for Scott Brown’s Seat, challenged by Elizabeth Warren, whose claim of Cherokee Heritage has everyone talking, and three hotly contested Democrat Congressional Seats: Tsongas, Tierney and Keating.

There is also a Kennedy who is running for the 4th Congressional District Seat vacated by Barney Frank, much gerrymandered to be more Conservative (yes in Massachusetts) and possibly unwinnable by even a Kennedy – given the new make-up and the competition, the fact that with a heavily Democrat favored district in 2010, Frank barely held on by Massachusetts standards, winning by 10 points, instead of 50 (as is the norm). The same was true for the aforementioned three in need of funds.

Giving money to Warren’s campaign, is akin to spitting into the wind at this point, although she is seen holding on in polls, or close to leading, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) holds his own and then some with the largest voting bloc in the state, Unenrolleds, who make up over 50% of the electorate. Warren can count on the 35 to 36% of basic Democrat votes, (those who pull the lever, no matter who is running), and possibly 5 points in Unenrolled, dead voters, and those multiple voters, however, it is shaping up to be more of a Coakley-Brown Repeat, with Coakley merely stumbling and having no baggage.

Quotes from the Globe re: the aforementioned:

“Elizabeth Warren has sucked a lot of air out of the room,’’ said a 2008 Obama fund-raiser who asked not to be identified out of deference to the campaign. “She has supplanted Barack Obama as this year’s phenom. So with Obama without a primary opponent, it’s like, what’s the sense of urgency?’’

Many Bay State Democratic fund-raisers have also been energized by Joseph Kennedy’s congressional campaign, and some incumbent House Democrats, such as William Keating, Niki Tsongas, and John Tierney, are also fighting to hang on to their seats.

What is not discussed in depth, rather in passing is the economy. Massachusetts, although touted as improved, has its cash and unemployment woes, rising costs at the grocery store and the pump, just like the other 49 states – People simply do not have the money to donate to political campaigns in 2011 - 2012 that they had in 2007 – 2008. Not mentioned: the fact that there is a challenger (Mitt Romney) raising money in the same Commonwealth) – those donors may run in different circles, with the exception of the died in the wool Dem’s and Republican’s in the state, it’s the Independents again, that will pay the cash and the vote in MA.

A national snapshot follows via the FEC: From 2011-2012 – Individual donors nationwide have contributed $169,058,434, to President Obama’s campaign, with $98,170,540 Contributed to Romney’s campaign. In addition, Romney’s campaign has $0 debt, while Obama has debts owed of $1,200(FEC) Understanding that this does not include “bundlers”, or funds coming from political parties and/or Super Pac’s – those can be found here - where currently one can see the disparity for the President as to the PAC’s and national parties, special interest groups and PAC's against Obama outweigh those for Obama (both in number and in cash).

Although in almost every contest, one is told the Cash value of a candidate weighs in on his/or her future as an incumbent, however, in this race, at this time, it may be more of a clash of the Titans, (as far as cash is concerned, and an army of those who have had enough heading to the polls.

If any one indicator stands out on enthusiasm, it is the numbers coming in for the President in the Democrat Primaries:
In Massachusetts for Example: Obama received 89% of the primary votes with 11% showing no preference: total votes: 127,264 Obama, 16,239 No Preference. When compared to the Republican Party Primary: Romney received 79%, with Santorum 12%, Paul 10% and Gingrich 5%. In addition on the ballot were Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry and yes, No Preference. (Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman had pulled out of the race earlier). Total votes cast for Romney: 265,110, total votes cast in the Republican Primary: 340,264. No Preference: 1,860 votes cast.

What makes this interesting is that the Democrat Party in Massachusetts had a concerted “get out the vote” effort to show party superiority in that Primary, lest the Republican’s show more enthusiasm (obviously did not work) – in Primaries, the diehards vote, (i.e. political junkies), and those that have enthusiasm for a candidate. It could be argued that Romney did better than Obama purely because there was more hoopla about the Republican contest, however, again, this is Massachusetts.

Therefore, although shown as “Safe Democrat” again, and again, and again, ad naseum (including the Scott Brown special election of 2009), this time Massachusetts may, yet again, re-elect a Republican Governor, as President. There is clearly a lack of enthusiasm among the rank and file, both in opening their wallets and the party leadership getting their people to the polls.

Breaking GOP 2012 Update -State of Maine Recount! Counties Missing from Official Tally – Romney May Loose Maine – Paul a First State Win- Analysis

Who Won Maine - That's the Question! 184 Vote Romney Margin May Disappear in Recount - image Washington Times

Fromthe Portland Press Herald – the Main GOP is recounting the caucus votes due to pressure from Maine State Republican Committee Members

1. Romney won by 194 votes out of 5585 total, those votes did not include Washington County

2. Clerical and Commuter errors, in much of Waldo County were left votes off the table, and other community vote totals were erroneously entered (Press Herald)

In light of the Press Heralds information – a slim margin of 194 votes, with large (for Maine) blocs of votes either missing or entered incorrectly, could change the schematic of the race towards Paul, and/or give Romney a larger edge – but, with the focus on the Establishment GOP and its role in the Romney campaign, one would be under the impression that Paul, not Romney would have something to gain if the votes are recounted, and corrected.

The large state, (historically the former upper end of Massachusetts, made a singular state in the Missouri Compromise), is one of the larger states in the Union with areas such as Washington County, where the vote was delayed due to snow, slowing the process, especially as the primary is in the format of a caucus. The fact that a winner was declare with 20% (approximately) of the vote totaled, with known errors, is at best incompetent.
The Maine Caucus is similar to that of the Missouri Caucus both being non-binding where no delegates are awarded until later in the process (In Maine’s’ case May, Missouri releases their delegates in March).

If Maine goes to Paul, the current state win count would be:
Gingrich: SC
Paul: Maine
Romney: NH, NV, FL
Santorum, IA, CO, MO, MN

The next primary contests are on the 28th of February in Michigan and Arizona, a debate is scheduled for the 22nd on CNN at 8 PM EST, both the March 1st Debate and the March 5th Debates have been cancelled, those debates prior to Super Tuesday – therefore the performance of the February 22nd Debate per candidate will not only be of import in Michigan and AZ, but will play to the voters in the Super Tuesday States: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia – of those states, Alaska is one that may move towards Romney, Massachusetts, the Santorum Campaign has Grassroots in place on the ground, no other campaigns are active. In Virginia, there are two names on the ballot, Paul and Romney – where in 2008 Paul bested Romney in the state primary. It is difficult to tell at this stage, but one might not want to count out a Paul in Virginia, where it comes down to a choice between two candidates (See Missouri).

In the case of Santorum - given his popularity with manufacturing states, (or former manufacturing states) and the middle and western states, may see Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee go his way. Massachusetts and Vermont could prove to be upsets with Massachusetts going to Santorum, or Paule (Santorum again, has boots on the ground), and Vermont leans Libertarian, therefore, that is as difficult call. Those two states (although not on anyone's radar) will depend on candidates grassroots strength and or the presence of a candidate on the ground. The later is unlikely given the nature of both states (Liberal leaning). That said, with no-one watching: Mitt Romney, although popular with the establishment GOP in Massachusetts, he has an uphill battle with the State’s unenrolled and rank and file Republicans.

Speculation: If Romney should lose Michigan, it would be a, as pundits note, a blow, simply because he spent his early childhood there, however, if Romney were to loose Massachusetts, it would send a strong message of rejection across the board, as the state is used as a testing ground for moderate/liberals nationwide. With Super Tuesday and the schematics of all states combined, watch for a downplay of importance from the Romney campaign on the role Super Tuesday plays in the nominating process (similar to the reaction to CO, MO, and MN.)

Joseph P Kennedy Considers Run In Barney Frank’s 4th - District gerrymandered to oust Barney Frank – Worth Watching: Sean Bielat, Tom Wesley

From the Huffington Post: “Joseph Kennedy III Takes Steps Toward A Run For Congress” - the grandson of Robert Kennedy is considering a run at the newly re-districted 4th Congressional District that literally forced Barney Frank into retirement. The district, which was heavily gerrymandered in the past to aid the retiring Frank, with the urban areas of New Bedford and Fall River, has seen those lines redrawn – gone are the urban areas, and in are the small, very conservative, one might say Republican strongholds in the central area of the state, Worcester County.

Apparently, running a “brand name” is the Democrats strategy as far as an attempt to win a seat that, for all intents and purposes was a difficult win before the State Legislature chock full of Democrats, re-drew the lines – in 2010 Barney Frank faced opponent Sean Bielat, who was able to defy the beltway pundits and come within points of Frank (who needed help from everyone imaginable, including Bill Clinton.) Now, with the way the district has been withdrawn, it is conceivable that a primary may take place in the Republican Party – one which would also include Tom Wesley, of Hopedale, which is now part of the 4th. Wesley did to Richard Neal (D-MA2 now MA1) what Beilat did to Frank. There has been no formal or informal announcement from either Beilat (who notes an announcement pending in Janaury on his campaign website) or Wesley who contiues to maintain his website, yet there are no mentions as to any Congressioanl races) as to their intent for 2012; however, it would be a natural course, to mount a challenge, especially given the redistricting favoring conservatives.

The two Republican’s, who ran campaigns, with minimal to no help from the Mass GOP may find less now, as the new Chairman apparently was reaching across the aisle to donate to both the Deval Patrick (D) campingas well as other prominent progressives such as New York’s Chuck Schumer. One has to say it, only in Massachusetts can one find a Republican Party so moderate that the State Chair is actively aiding the opposing team! It would continue not to matter – as the state of the nation favors those who appear less affiliated with a party over one that is a “party brand” – especially if that Party in 2012 is Democrat – and that extends to Massachusetts.

This race may be overshadowed by the larger national general election; however, one has to keep an eye on the 4th, another opportunity to add balance to the powers in the State of Massachusetts.

2012 Update – Mass. Democrats Begin Campaign Against Scott Brown (R-MA) Use Cut, Cap, Balance “Vote” To “Vote” on the Budget Plan – No One Has a Plan!

Brown known to cross Party Lines: See Boston Globe:Kerry Brown image Boston.com

From the Attleboro Sun Chronicle: Massachusetts Democrats are digging deep and getting a little help from their “fact-checking” friends: (Reporting on the Democrats :)

Democrats are waging a two-front war against U.S. Sen. Scott Brown over the debt ceiling issue.

On one front, they are knocking Brown, R-Mass., for voting for a Republican plan called Cut, Cap and Balance that Democrats claim would devastate Medicare and Social Security.

The Problem is that Brown never voted for a “Plan” he voted to against Sen. Majority Leader, Harry Reid’s Plan to “table” the House Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan See ABC News blog: www.blogsabcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/timing-is-everything-reid-forces-early-vote). Reid had decided on early the week the House voted to pass the bill, that it would not gain support in the Senate from Democrats.

The problem with the bill from the Democrat’s perspective was the fact that it a) allowed the President to raise the debt ceiling, b) called for budget cuts that to Congressional Discretionary Funding, one which would be spread over ten years, and c) included a Balanced Budget Amendment with riders in place to override a Balanced budget should a national security crisis arise.

Senate Democrats are against a balanced budget bill, a bill which, if passed in the Senate, would then go to all fifty of these United States for individual State Votes, there would need to be two-thirds (a majority) of the State’s voting to accent a federal balanced budget before it could become law and an actual amendment to the Constitution. This process can take decades.

Which when one understands that Democrats controlled both the House and Senate from 2006 to 2010, and maintained control of the Senate only in 2010 forward, cutting back on spending was not the rule, rather, spend with abandon is the Party mantra. It is not only the Democrats in Congress from that period forward that are to blame, Republican’s before them similarly spent the taxpayers’ dollars with abandon, however, the level of abandon was ramped up a bit (that’s sarcasm) once the Democrats took over both houses. When Obama was elected as our President, with a like minded Senate and Congress, it was debit “party time”.

Brown, who is known to take his time before making known is stand on a position, which anyone with an once of brains understands that Brown is studying the particular bill, looking at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts first and assessing the benefits for the people, not the Republican Party or the Democrat Party. He has voted for and with Democrat plans, and for Republican Plans since entering the Senate – which frankly drives everyone a bit batty (the media, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and especially the Democrats!). Brown has an independent streak and thinks for himself.

Back to that “vote”: Reid forced the Senate to vote early on allowing the Cut, Cap and Balance to even go to the Senate floor and be “debated”, it was not an actual vote on the bill itself - it was a bill to allow debate on the plan. The Democrats, to date, have not put a budget together for the past years, (that’s right, years), rather continue to run our country on a procedure that pushes a budget down the “road” and then allows continued spending. They have no plan on the so called “Debt Ceiling’ other than to raise it and make a few billion dollars in cuts. In fact, Cut, Cap and Balance was criticized by hard-line conservatives for not going far enough!

To get the story straight and recap:

Brown voted to allow debate on a bill, he did not get a chance to actually vote for or against the bill called Cut Cap and Balance.

The Bill did not take away anyone’s entitlements (Medicare or Social Security not in danger, never were), other that Congress, allowed the debt ceiling to rise for the President (that’s called a compromise), asked for cuts that would be spread over ten years (compared to the immediate rise in the debt ceiling), and to the shock and horror of the Democrats led by Harry Reid and the President, asked that a Balanced Budget Amendment with safeguards in place, be allowed to be voted on, voted on, not passed. The Balanced Budget Amendment would then, again, take possibly decades to become law because it would have to go to each state to be voted on, would require a two-thirds majority of states voting in favor of a Balanced Budget, before it could become law.

The sad part about today’s political rhetoric is that those members of political parties that are “entrenched” (meaning one cannot pry them out of their taxpayer funded jobs even with dynamite), use flat out “lies” to slam opponents. This appears to be particularly one-sided and one can take a stab at guessing which party is guilty most of the time. (Allowing for the fact that there may be a Republican out there that acts like a Democrat – or worse, Republicans and Democrats (most often those darn “Blue Dog” Democrats (not Progressives), who cross the aisle on occasion when one party or the other has a good idea. This is, of course, infrequent.

The Cut, Cap and Balance bill was a good idea, but was killed by a straight Party Line vote in the Senate by Democrats. The Cut Cap and Balance Bill was also very popular with the American People, one can take a look at a less than Republican friendly U.S. News report “opinion” blog, on a CNN (another non-conservative news outlet) poll:

A CNN poll released Thursday shows that nearly two thirds of the American people support the "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan that passed the House of Representatives Tuesday, throwing a monkey wrench into President Barack Obama’s plan for a deal of grand design.

Therefore, Brown looked at a House Bill, that was supported by a clear majority (this is a CNN poll mind you), and voted only to allow debate in the Senate on Cut Cap and Balance - which may be why Brown continues to be popular in the state with the state’s majority of voters – unenrolled, or independents! Democrats control the majority of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, all ten Congressional Seats (which will soon be all nine due to redistricting and people fleeing the State to get away from the usual high taxes and uncontrolled spending that residents are over familiar with and that has been exported nationally), and the State House, Senate and Governorship. Massachusetts has a lot of deadwood on the voters rolls (literally dead and moved individuals) which the Democrat Secretary of State refuses to remove. One can imagine why these dead and moved voters might come in handy – see 2010 election and several districts that were won by Democrats, in the waning hours with an enormous “get out the vote” effort.

In other words, they’ve (The Massachusetts Democrats) got nothing on Brown and so, they have to manufacture something!! If they have to run against his actual record, the majority who already support the Senator would be increased. The simpatico press, is going to run articles without correcting factual errors, either because a) they are clueless of the actual procedures (which is entirely possible), or b) they all happen to be Progressive Democrats. Both may be possible, which is why the Gallup Trust in Institutions poll suggests that the majority of Americans (close to 75%) do not trust what is written or broadcast.

The old adage "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" is apropro in regards to the current Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Senate of the United States of America.

Trust in Institutions - See where Media stands with Americans from Gallup Polling: image Gallup.com