Hey, there! Log in / Register
The two sides of Massachusetts
By adamg on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 1:04am
Look at the town-by-town results on boston.com and the results are pretty dramatic: Coakley basically won inside 128, the Rte. 2 corridor, the Berkshires western end of the state, Springfield and Worcester. Brown won pretty much everything else (but Flutie failed to carry Natick for Brown, so there is that). Suburbs basically beat the cities (except Lowell, which Brown took).
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Western Mass. is more than just the Berkshires
Coakley won pretty much all of the towns west from the Quabbin Reservoir to the NY state line.
The two sides of Massachusetts
The side Coakley is from, and
The side Capuano is from.
The rich and the poor went
The rich and the poor went Coakley
Working stiffs went Brown
So the suburbanites are
So the suburbanites are steering the wheel... Further reason dems in this state should be quite active restricting greenfield development and helping to save/start small farms in the urban periphery. Support your local farmer, or watch the houses grow.
As always, the places with
As always, the places with dense populations (and, ahem, universities) went Democratic. I'm always amazed that voting comes down to concrete thinking. Live in a city and see with your own eyes what is lacking (and, for instance, homeless people)? Vote Democrat. Live in a less densely populated area where everyone you see daily is just like you? Vote Republican. I've lived in both types of places, for what it's worth.
Too many exceptions to that rule
Lowell and Waltham, dense cities with universities, voted for Brown.
Lexington, Bedford, Acton, Lincoln, Concord, Sudbury, Wayland, Sharon -- all went for Coakley, and I wouldn't call any of them dense or urban. Not to mention all of those small blue towns west of I-91.
And Wellesley
Who would have ever thought Wellesley would become a blue town?
Maybe it was low blood sugar.
Maybe it was low blood sugar.
Quincy went for Brown, too
Seems like most of the blue-collar Catholic areas voted that way--classic "Reagan Democrat" cities.
with the GOP I think it's
with the GOP I think it's more. "I have mine, so Fuck you". problem is, they won't for long under those policies.
That said, I don't believe that was the motivating factor of this race. I know the hard core GOP was feverishly against Obama's agenda, but with the Indy's that gave brown the win, I don't think it's the case no matter how much the talking heads want to make it a referendum. They really didn't like Coakley, and they didn’t like being told who was to be anointed to teddys former seat.
Exactly
And people on the other side of the Berkshires who are blaming us for the failure of health-care reform can do just what I basically said Roger Ebert could do last night. We're a small state in a big country and Brown will be just one of 100 senators. Why are we suddenly more to blame than, say, Alabama and Mississippi?
Noticed Boston only had 43% of people voting.
Some towns had over 70%. If over 100K voted for Coakley at 43%, it makes you wonder what would happen if 70% of the people voted in Boston alone. Then add the other larger cities.
Yeah...
On another website, I begged at least 50% of the voters to come out yesterday...because if my candidate was going to lose (and she did...spectacularly), then I'd like to at least know that I was in the minority...and not the minority of the minority. :(
Exactly²
Adam,
You mean the same one's a week ago wee lamenting how conservative the bill was and were threatening to leave the party and vote against Obama? The same ones that now blame us for the senate bill's future being questioned and want it passed?
Yeah, Fuck them too.
They need to get their heads out of the sand and start working on governing and enacting policies incrementally and successfully. Taking grandiose positions is nice and fun when sitting around a table, but does little good when it appears Dems are sitting on their hands in Washington.
Anyways, if the Dem’s don’t have the cajones to govern with 60 votes, how is 59 any different? My only hope is they realize that 58 is the same damn number and they give Lieberman the bird.
with the GOP I think it's
Almost, In reality it's "I pay for mine. Why should I pay for yours? (Or, in your terms: I already pay my share so Fuck you)."
If it were
If it were, I'd consider voting for Republicans. But such simplicity is long gone.
In practice, the Republican ideology washes out more like "I can get mine on a sweetheart government contract while calling you a traitor for supporting accountability, so fuck you!"
Theory and reality rarely
Theory and reality rarely meet. Same is true for the dems.
I don't know anyone who get their insurance from sweetheart govt contracts. Dems are just as guilty as the Repubs when it comes to sweetheart backroom deals. Dems just call you an evil, homophobe, anti-woman, racist, murderer instead.
well,
if the shoe fits....
And btw, you forgot torturing, fundamental hypocrites.
So, we're to the point where
So, we're to the point where we should dissolve all government? Communities should be disbanded, because people can pay their way themselves?
Because, deducted from that, you support total anarchy. Of cource you over look the fact that your government, your community, is the backbone of what's let you be so prosperous.
I suppose you believe the Boston tea Party was about taxes. Sorry to say, you’re wrong.
That's one way to see
That's one way to see things.
Or, Live in a city where it is a net receiver of govt funded programs: Vote Democrat
Live in the suburbs where it is a net payer of govt funded programs: Vote Republican
Any facts to support that?
Do you have any facts to support that?
On a federal level, the converse is well documented:
-Live in a state that is a net payer of government funded programs, vote Democrat
-Live in a state that is a net receiver of government funded programs, vote Republican
According to the Tax Foundation, of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Seventeen of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough.
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
I, for one, am sick of paying welfare for these lazy Republicans.
we get almost 80 cents on the dollar back?
That doesn't sound too bad actually. I'd figure it would be more like 20 cents.
Perfect example
I'm going to put this as delcately as possible.
This is perfect example of why a lot of people got pissed off at dems - arrogance. "I live in the city and am smarter than you, therefore I know what's right". It doesn't work that way. Plus, it's incredibly ironic that arrogance, something repubs are renowned for, contributed to Coakley's loss.
Don't give up the ship, a lot of good can still happen. You don't need a filibuster-proof senate to get things done. In fact, that's the easy way, and again - arrogant. We'll get this health care thing done, and hopefully without special clauses for Nebraska.
arrogance
Arrogance is Mitt Romney throwing the state of Massachusetts under the bus while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination. Instead of doing his job as Governor, he verbally bitch-slapped the very people who voted him into office!! In Massachusetts, voting Republican is like shooting yourself in the foot... unless you're incredibly wealthy, then of course it's a nice tax break. Maybe Coakley isn't as sexy as Sarah Palin or six-pack abs Scott Brown, but I'll take substance, competency and sincerity any day over flash, style and ignorance.
Good luck to us all in the state of Massachusetts!
Arrogance is
-buying off senators to get your votes
-compromising your principles to get your votes
-promising transparency then meeting in the wee hours of the night behind closed doors to get your votes
-playing with the numbers and lying about the costs to get your votes
-buying off pharma to get your votes
-exempting unions from a 40% tax to get your votes
-hiring community organizers to commit voting fraud to get your votes
Any q's?
q's?
One "q". Do you actually believe all those things happened the way you wrote them? Then you really need to stop listening to Liembaugh.
Sorry, Ms. Palin, but...
exactly when do you think dinosaurs roamed the earth...?
I agree that there's plenty
I agree that there's plenty of arrogant Dem's, but the thing is the Divas have been marginalized from the party control. I don’t see that divide with the GOP, where the Divas are slowly taking it over.
I also like to point out, it seems that “Hostility” is taking on a new meaning.
I ask questions. I ask for well thought out, rational answers. I like to engage in policy and philosophical debate, and also what simply works and doesn’t. I’ve conceded many points to true conservatives, and support some of their initiatives. I believe there’s much middle ground and room for compromise for a path treading the political divide that both sides can be content with if they’d get over their immovable demands.
But more than enough I’ve tried to engage my GOP friends in debate and discussion, only to find them offering talking points and platitudes.
I then question them politely, trying to get deeper into what they’re talking about; only to have them get frustrated, irate, and just clam up all together. I’m now attacking them simple for asking them their opinion and the details of it!
Is that Hostile to have an adult conversation about the issues, what they mean and their ramifications and possible outcomes? Because more and more when I try to engage most conservatives, that’s what it breaks down into. When talking about the conservative values I lean toward, I get the same damn thing.
They don’t want to talk about it, stop being so hostile!
I’m sorry, but trying to engage you on your opinions isn’t hostility. Expecting you to know what you’re voting for and be able to tell me why above a 5th graders understanding of politics and policy isn’t hostility. If you don’t have a strong opinion, either way just say so and stay in the engagement and work through it. It’s not condescending to work your way through two different opinions and find middle ground.
Personally, I think this is the poison 24 news, punditry and talk radio has befallen on our citizenry. Right from the bat while trying to engage, it’s seen as an “attack”. The other side is the “Enemy”. The “weapons” are the party talking points. All you need to do to join the group is to pick a side. That works for politics, but it’s horrible governance.
Boy you guys don't get it.
Boy you guys don't get it. Concrete thinking lol. Why would you call them that, because there's a lot of sidewalks (that's a joke)? Working stiffs went for Brown the beautiful people and people on the teat, Coakley. It's simple, people that earn a living strangely want to decide how to spend it themselves, the BP want to spend it for them and the dependents don't know any other way.