Aw, poor Holly Robichaud

Yeah, losing hurts and sometimes all you can do is lash out at the people around you. Adults can make a learning experience of it, though, Holly.



Free tagging: 


Adults can make a learning experience?

Where are said adults? They sure as (expletive) don't reside in this state. You think adults here "learn?" Holly said it herself...when they raise your taxes, the voters have themselves to blame.

Will and Holly are of the same mind on this

Will and Holly are of the same mind on this, which isn't entirely surprising.

So I'll direct my question to another audience. If you were conservative, and you thought an unmitigated disaster of an election meant a course correction, what course would you chart?

Of course the adult thing to

Of course the adult thing to do is to examine how your very popular candidate who has been winning state legislature and senate races since 98 got lost to a first time candidate.

IMO, Brown supporters were too quick to attribute his victory against Martha Coakley as a significant change the Massachusetts electorate rather than a weak, complacent opponent.

Brown shrank national fame, as the republican who won Ted Kennedy's seat and would leverage his unique spot to a level of tired truck and barn jacket references.

When it came time to run against an opponent who brought more to the contest than a pulse he couldn't resist cheap invective (always referring to his opponent as "Professor")and massaging stories such as Warren's consultative role in the Asbestos case.

I suspect that much of the state GOP is built on resentment such as Robichaud expresses, instead of reason. We'll have to see what Brown does if the Kerry seat opens up?



By on

It's nice to live in a state where that doesn't work as an insult.



By on

He lost because he has an R after his name which means he couldn't get urban voters if he held a torch to their derriere while voting. Just split that vote instead of getting beaten 2-1 in 10 large urban areas (half of which is Boston even though we are only 10% of the electorate) and he wins.


Well I don't know about you,

By on

Well I don't know about you, but I think I would be less likely to vote for someone if they were holding a torch to my ass. I'm very opposed to ass-torching; it's unamerican

"He lost because he has an R after his name" NO.

Brown held on to the voters he won in 2010. He failed to win new voters.

He had every chance to keep the labor endorsement he had in 2008 by voting for Labor in DC. Instead, he voted against Obama's nominee for NLRB and he joined Republicans to use the 9/11 Zadroga bill as a bargaining chip for an amendment that benefited wealthy people. 1st responders were outraged.

He had every chance to vote for Fair Pay instead he took the lobbyist cash and voted no.

He had every chance to vote Yes for Kagan. Moderate independent Sens. Collins and Snowe did but Brown joined conservative Republicans to oppose her.

There is plenty in his record that sets him apart from the state he was elected to represent.

He didn't lose because he's a member of the Republican party, he lost because he voted like it.

She won a lot of new voters and worked hard doing it. She beat a popular sitting senator. Her accomplishment is actually quite amazing.

I don't think that is exactly true.

When Brown beat Coakley, 2.2 million voters came out and voted D or R in the Senate Race. Over 3 million voters came out this time around to vote D or R. Brown can blame (Romney or Obama) and Warren can thank (Romney or Obama) for part of their fates.



By on

She won almost all of the Coakley voters (over 90% I believe) and the minorities and others who came out to vote because it was a presidential election. Brown lost by 230,000 votes - 120,000 in Boston alone and 110,000 across nine other large cities in the state. It came down to city voters sided with Warren and that was the ENTIRE difference in the race. He won the rest of the state - our moonbat neighbors in Cambridge, Brookline and Newton notwithstanding.

Interesting divide in Western/Central MA

Is there some sort of difference between the rural Worcester County towns who vote Republican and the rurual Berkshire/Franklin County towns who vote Democratic?

I find that interesting.


Never been the Valley then?

If you've spend any time in the Amherst/Northampton area, I think you'd know there is a large difference. The Valley has the five colleges and a lot of the population is associated with that between teachers and students as well as people who went to college out there and never left. Central MA... not so much.

WPI, Clark, UMass Med,

By on

WPI, Clark, UMass Med, Assumption, Holy Cross, Anna Maria, Becker, UMass Worcester (nee Worcester State), UMass Fitchburg, Nichols, Quinsig, Mt. Wachusett CC...

MA renamed everything ending

By on

MA renamed everything ending with "State College" to end with "State University" - Worcester, Westfield, Fitchburg, Framingham, etc. UMass is a different beast.

I went to school in the Happy Valley

By on

UMass/Amherst to be exact and it's much, much more than the existence of colleges and universities that makes the Valley special.

It's one of the most liberal areas in the country. It's Berkeley liberal. When I was in school there in the mid-80s I used to frequent a Communist bookstore in Amherst Center to could get my pro-Sandinista bumper stickers.

Central MA might have a lot of colleges and universities but it's more pragmatic (i.e. moderate).


Your Point?

Shouldn't the votes of people who live in cities count as much as those in suburboville or massalachia?

Doesn't matter whether your neighbors are EVILE MOONBATS!OMGWTF!!! or "scary urban types of minority groups" or "normal truck driving chawspittin peeples" or whatever you consider "human" and "worthy": we ALL get to vote and ALL our votes count equally.



My point is

By on

That there is a large demographic in this state, that when they make it to the polls, simply votes based on the letter after the name, not an analysis of the issues or the person. When 67-90% of a specific demographic votes the same way - there is little thought going on and a whole lotta reflex.

Scott Brown could have changed his 3 votes on the issues Lizzy harped on (which several Democrats also voted against which is why they didn't pass), voted for Kagan and sung her praises from the top of the Hancock Tower in the middle of a nor'easter and STILL wouldn't have gotten those votes.

There will eventually be a price to pay for this state - and it will not be light. Romneycare bucks? Grants to our local colleges for research? Miltary bases or industrial complex? Who knows - at some point we get a body blow and there won't be a thing our onesided delegation will be able to do about it.

why didnt the sky fall on

By on

why didnt the sky fall on Massachusetts between 1994 (Republican Revolution) and 2007?

And I for one pulled the D lever on this race not so much because of Senator Brown's voting record but for his ridiculous and relentless use of the Native American thing in this race, which I found to be insulting to my intelligence. Nevermind his oft-cited attempts to make a pejorative out of "professor" to the most educated citizenry in the county. He really missed on what the voters of this state were concerned about and beat that horse too long for me.

Play the Rove games somewhere else, if you are running in Massachusetts you better have something to say.

Good Question

By on

My guess would be the following:


I thought the Indian thing was a non-starter myself - but I think it was part of a "she's not who she says she is" strategy that they carried too long. Found it interesting that her quote in the Herald was that now she wants to reach across party lines. She still hasn't told us who she thinks she can reach out to. And what Republican would reach back? Fortunately she doesn't have to worry about her Senate colleagues at least for the next two years. Not sure if the House will touch anything that bears her name - granted - not much is ever expected of Freshman senators and if you do absolutely nothing, you might get elected president!

Those governors weren't part

By on

Those governors weren't part of "the delegation" though.... if your argument is about how ideological difference between the majority leadership and our congresspersons will somehow bury massachusetts I don't see how the governor 600 miles away can change that much. I mean, did you cut Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer any breaks because of Arnold Schwarzenegger?

As far as Senator-elect Warren's ability to reach across the aisle, your concerns are legit and you are right, that is a two way street. Many among the GOP have already tweeting reactionary and childish messages to block anything that Obama wants to work on. If Warren reaches across the aisle and has her hand slapped back, that's not on her.

And by the way your posts are too well informed and considered to be calling her "Lizzy". That's good for cheap laughs at the Herald but if you are trying to have an honest conversation with people who voted differently than you, you may want to consider a more respectful tone.

You're right

By on

The governors aren't part of the delegation - but they can and do reach out regularly to their party in Washington. I don't see a Republican in Washington, even if from another state, turning down a reasonable request from a Republican governor if he can lend that hand - same would go for a Democratic governor reaching out to Democrats in Washington. This wouldn't be the first time I believe. I think Nixon used Mass as bit of a whipping post in the 70's when they were the only state not to vote for him. Granted, Mass was right and got the last laugh.

I honestly can't address your last comment other than to say I have my reasons for this lack of respect and dislike for this woman, something I don't extend to any other politician no matter how much I disagree with their policies. I'll tone it down for those out here - not for her.

Have you looked at a map

By on

Have you looked at a map lately? Brown did awful in most of Western MA. Oh that's right, folks like you in Eastern MA tend to forget that Massachusetts extends beyond the Connecticut River.


Kathy Griffin was RIGHT !

The reason he lost is because people do not like him or the things he stands for. That's it. Considering the number of republican governors Massachusetts has suffered over the past 20 years your silly republican excuse doesn't hold water.

"Brown supporters were too

By on

"Brown supporters were too quick to attribute his victory against Martha Coakley as a significant change the Massachusetts electorate rather than a weak, complacent opponent."

This, exactly. Coakley was a poor candidate who ran a phenomenally bad campaign because she expected certain victory as a result of being a Democrat running for Kennedy's seat.

Southern Democrats and Northeast Republicans

By on

The model is there - conservative southern democrats were the rule for decades. I'd form a "wing" of the Republican party that is much more socially liberal - but fiscally conservative.

Pro-gay marriage
Pro-gun control
Pro-women's rights (although can someone tell me, other than perhaps a few rogue Walmart locations - where are women not getting paid the same as men these days?)
Stronger on education esp job training for minorities/women

But -

The federal government's budget needs to get below 20% of the economy except in times of war and emergency. (for those advocating tax increases - keep in mind that the federal budget historically represents about 18% of the economy +/-. The federal government is currently COLLECTING revenues equal to 18% of the economy but unfortunately is now SPENDING 25% of the economy).

And -

You need to get some decent candidates. McCain was probably their best candidate since Reagan but he could have guaranteed rainbows and sunny days forever and still would have lost because of what was going on. Fortunately they have a deep bench coming up - Rubio, Christie, Ryan and more could all potentially be great candidates - and I don't see that on the Democratic side - Clinton and Biden - both too old and I'm not hearing about any dynamic Democratic governors or Senators.

Nationally the election was FAR from an unmitigated disaster - the country is still decidedly center right - roughly 60% of governors and the House are still Republican. The Republicans don't lose the country as a whole - but curiously for the party of state's rights, they lose on the election system designed to protect state's rights - the senate and electoral college because they are weak in many small states - especially New England.

They need to figure out how to get urban minorities and women to at least split their vote and they would relegate the Democrats to an afterthought. without liberalizing in the northeast - they are toast.

PS - you also need to lose the Akins, Mourdacks, O-Fish-Ls and La Tulippes. i.e. - you need more Stevils and Scott Browns



And if we ever get any serious Republican candidates who really want to tackle the debt problem, they'll stand a good chance of winning.

Candidates who go up on the stump and say 'we're going to to return to the policies of Reagan and Bush and reduce the debt" just don't pass the laugh test. We should name the national debt the "Reagan-Bush National Debt," because it is their policies that have, by and large, created it. The only two Presidents who have reduced the deficit in recent years are Clinton and Obama. That's just reality, and to the extent Republican candidates are not willing to face it, they're off in la-la land and thank goodness our electorate is sufficiently educated not to buy their crap every time.

I'd love to see Republicans come back to the reality-based community and look at why we actually have huge debts and deficits (two big sources: corrupt and foolish wars and tax-cut parties on the national credit card) and think about actual plans to reduce these deficits and debts by doing something different than that. They could look back for the roots of conservatism in lack of foreign entanglement, competent management, and humility, and implement something serious as a platform. If they start saying, with regard to fiscal responsibility, "We're going to do what Clinton and Obama did, but more so" instead of "we're going to do what Reagan and Bush did," then I will start taking them seriously.

Romney never once put forth any serious proposal - his campaign boiled down to "vote for me because businessmen are magic." No specifics, no proposals, no plans, just "I've got magic businessman voodoo and when it sees me the debt will just run off and disappear while the economy has an orgasm." This nonsense just wasn't enough to get him elected.

I would start having a hard time at the election booth

...if the GOP were serious about fielding candidates who were consistent in their anti-government stance. I can't believe there isn't more cognitive dissonance over their arguments that government should get out of your life, EXCEPT when it comes to your bedroom or your marriage or your uterus, or your religious preference (including lack of one)... How can they honestly say that government is the problem, and then advocate for government to legislate some of the most personal decisions a person can have in their life?

If the GOP started moving more to the Libertarian side, they might start winning again. Unfortunately, they have signed a deal with the devil (pun intended) with the far Christian right, a Gordian Knot that will be hard to undo.

Paul, et al

By on

We'll see, next time around, whether Paul's semi-strong showing, or Gary Johnson's decent Libertarian turnout, have any real effect on the R's. I would like to think so, but I have a nagging suspicion that they will try to make that element of the party go away rather than embracing some needed change.


Women's Rights

By on

(although can someone tell me, other than perhaps a few rogue Walmart locations - where are women not getting paid the same as men these days?)

Excuse me? In almost every industry, every job, every region of the country women get paid less then men FOR THE SAME JOB with the same qualifications.


Mass GOP

By on

I don't agree with the idea that urban people just vote for the person with the D after their name -- which sounds alot like "dem Darkies know who butters their bread." Could be that you might have reservations voting for a party that incorporates race-baiting, xenophobia and sexism as pillars to their party platform, but whatever. And so the 495 dwelling gun rack people vote for 'R' because of heart-felt convictions and well thought out positions, not just identity politics..?

Where you have a case to be made is the Tierney-Tisei race. I don't think Tierney is a bad guy and I don't particularly like Tisei but honestly, I could totally understand why people would vote for Tisei. If I were still living in Essex county I probably would have not voted for that seat. Tierney has not done a whole helluva lot over the years and he stepped in it up to his crotch with this bs with his idiot brother-in-(out)laws.

Tisei, is actually closer to what the GOP should really be doing. Hewing closer to the personal freedoms kind of thing while still being handmaiden to corporate interests and selling the fantasy that rich people will give you some crumbs once they get all your money. (Yeah, I'm not actually sold on that theory, really.) But rejecting the southern strategy of "real" Americans, is going to be the only way to line up the GOP with the demographic realities heading their way. Tisei coming out with a strong pro-immigrant position I would think would make him unbeatable - but even without that, just being an example of what Brown was supposed to be -- a moderate Republican that MA residents could live with, I expected to make him unbeatable in the face of Tierney's failings.

Only explanation is voting for the 'D'.

I'll skip over the appalling part of your comment

By on

And stick to the point - OK based on your own comments they voted for the person that wasn't R. Please - Scott Brown doesn't REMOTELY resemble the national party you describe and you basically make my point for me. They didn't vote D. They voted not R - even though R happened to be one of the most reasonable and hardworking legislators in the entire city of Washington.

Instead they voted for a person who said she can't think of a single person she could work with on the other side of the aisle. The race should have been over right there. The thing we need the most she had NONE of and this is who the cities vote for by a 2-1 or 3-1 margin? I don't care if you agree with her politics, she wasn't right for the job unless somebody different shows up in DC - basically somebody who is Scott Brown or marginally left of him - and that's not even close to the person that won the race.

Brown the Party Animal

Scott Brown doesn't REMOTELY resemble the national party you describe

Maybe he personally doesn't ... I know I'd like to believe that. He certainly was fairly reasonable as a state level rep. However, he bent over backwards and did back handsprings to keep the GOP handlers happy and fall in line when they offered him the carrot of money for reelection if he marched in their extremist parade, while threatening to marginalize him if he didn't follow their playbook.

Had he remained TRULY independent and had he represented MA, he'd still be in office. I suppose you don't travel to other states where there were fundraising pleas to support Brown because he was a good little extremist, too. I'm willing to believe that the only reason Tisei lost by 1% was because he was promising to continue what he had been doing - just like Scott Brown did - when it is clear that he would also be bullied into lockstep by the GOP just like Brown was.

Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


By on

My assumption is that Tisei went down to defeat because the Libertarian in the race pulled more votes from him than from Tierney. Tisei lost by 1%. The Libertarian pulled 4.5%. The difference would have easily been made up or surpassed in a two-way race.



I've got a bridge for sale

By on

More independent? If he were more independent he'd be a Democrat.

There is no way he turns even a FRACTION of the 230,000 urban voters that voted against him by being "more independent". That's not even politics - that's arithmetic. Bottom line - we took one of the most moderate politicians in the country and tossed him out of office and replaced him with one of the most stridently partisan at a time when our country desperately needs more moderation.

It's like fielding a baseball team with 25 outfielders. You are guaranteed to lose, even if you have the 25 best outfielders the country on the team. We have 11 outfielders in Washington and they are all playing somewhere in left field and they are not even the 11 best in the country. That team comes in last in every league.

GOP Waterboy

Look at how he voted.

Unless your idea of a democrat is Paul Donoto or Lynchie or some other DINO, Scott Brown was the Centerfold for the GOP Ticket this year.

His voting record is a matter of public record. Look it up. MA representatives don't vote for the Catholic Church or any other employer to control personal medical and family planning decision.s Look it up.

Every picture tells a story, don't it

By on

Thanks Rhonin - very interesting graphic - only Republicans to his left are Snowe (retiring) and Collins. He places left of Lugar, cited by Warren as the one person she could work with.

You've piqued my curiosity - what kind of crackdown on Wall Street are you looking for (I'd like the same thing - but I have a feeling we are talking about two separate crackdowns - I'm looking for regulatory change that reduces what I see as predatory pricing and practices throughout the retail industry for advisors and brokers-but sadly not holding my breath. You?)

Handy technique

By on

I'll ignore the appalling part of your argument, so I don't have to address it and just state things like Brown was "one of the most reasonable and hardworking legislators in the entire city of Washington" which is hardly a fact. whatever.

A politician's voting record is half the story. The context of those votes give the full picture. If you're voting for something that your generally more progressive constituency wants, but know that the thing has no chance of passing, that is not a gold star for you. When push comes to shove Brown might have surprised us by showing himself to really be more of a Snowe/Collins independent R, but my opinion is that he is not. I don't think he is as radically rightwing (I can't being myself to sully the term 'conservative' with today's GOP) as his party is. Basically, he's a snotty, self-centered jock. He was in Wakefield. Most of those folks become local cops; he somehow made it to the Senate.

And condemning Warren because she couldn't think of anyone on the other side to work with, after 4 years of a racist, misogynistic obstructionist party obstinately blocking as much as they possibly could in order to deny the President any wins, is just lame.

again, whatever.

By on

Great analysis on the part of the guy who did this. And as he says:

The process doesn’t look at the content of the bills or the party affiliation or anything else about the Members of Congress, but it is able to infer underlying behavioral patterns, some of which correspond to real-world concepts like left-right ideology.

Nor does it provide context to the votes that were taken. Principal Component Analysis is just maximizing variance on a large set of correlated variables and then transforming them to a new set of references that no longer correspond to anything definable. Can be quite handy for compressing data sets, does nothing for providing the qualitative context of the votes, which was my original point.

At the end of the day you can declare Scott Brown to be the second coming of the "bipartisan" Christ, but he ain't our Senator.


Big Myth that jocks become cops.

Basically, he's a snotty, self-centered jock. He was in Wakefield. Most of those folks become local cops; he somehow made it to the Senate

Most cops never played sports in high school (or weren't that good at them) but wanted to from my experience. Wannabe jocks I would call them.

But while we are at it John W, what do most people from Dorchester or Brookline become when they are older? You seem to do a good job picking people out from where they are from and predicting what they will do when they grow up.

don't know

By on

No idea. Didn't grow up in Dorchester or Brookline. (Red-headed comedians?) And actually you're somewhat right -- in Saugus the cops were the lower level jocks -- wannabes and benchwarmers, which might explain their bad attitudes. As far as the hair loss, I don't know what explains that. The cops I know of in Wakefield, only a couple were jocks. There is one former Saugus cop who is now on the Board of Selectmen, pursuing further political positions who really seems similar to a Brown-type. A jock in terms of competitiveness, not necessarily the skills or love of/dedication to the game.


I know somebody who hasn't

By on

I know somebody who hasn't been paying attention to tax policy!

What if?

What if I'm ok with not getting a tax break and I voted to reflect that? Some people don't mind paying into the system to help others.

Yeah, well...

By on

Forgotten in all the media hoopla is the hero of the entire election: the unknown patriot who shot the 47% video.

That was me!

By on

That was me!

Never mind Holly Robichaud, listen to WRKO today

By on

they're already starting with the conspiracy theories and not too subtle racist comments on the disgusting bigot Jeff Kuhner's show.

It would be funny if these people weren't completely serious.

Can't wait to hear Rush and Howie today! I might even call Howie and laugh in his doughboy face.

As is my way, I turn on

As is my way, I turn on right-wing talk radio after things don't quite pan out the way that they had hoped.

Jeff Kuhner is one of those entrepreneurial conservative pundits who preaches an apocalyptic message. I only listened for about 20 minutes.

Two callers that stood out were a businessman who was going to close his business, sell his properties and move to New Zealand (the host sadly agreed with him) and the self-described housewife whose children were so distraught that she told them they couldn't go to school like that and that their physician father would have to work much harder because of Romney's loss.

I'll be listening to Howie this afternoon, hope to hear you dvd.


New Zealand


No, seriously? I'd think India or China would be a far more receptive to right wingers paradise.



By on

Maybe he's got a thing for sheep.

I couldn't do it...

By on

As much as I loathe Howie Carr, he had the sound of someone who just watched their dog get run over. He sounded so defeated and of course the listeners were quick to give their well intentioned predictions about the coming apocalypse.

Rush, on the other hand just blamed it on the blacks. Of course he didn't say that directly, but he made damn sure you knew what he meant.

This is a great day for America. Scott Brown, Allen West, Joe Walsh, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock and of course, Mitt Romney, all delegated to the loser column.

WEEI, too

By on

I should have known better than to listen to Callahan during a political season. Ugh.