Hey, there! Log in / Register
Election roundup: Charlie Baker 2.0
By adamg on Tue, 09/30/2014 - 9:52am
David Bernstein profiles the newest incarnation of Charlie Baker, which this time features grins and handshakes.
Coakley, Baker frustrate techpreneurs at Cambridge confab.
Notes on last night's gubernatorial debate in Springfield, which featured all five candidates on the ballot. More on the debate.
A poll shows close races for governor, casino question. Another poll shows a dead heat in governor's race.
Bottle-bill backers battle bottlers over ads.
Markey to cruise into office, this time for six years.
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
Martha Coakley is a nice enough person.
I truly don't feel she's the right one to lead our state. She lacks the experience to handle a situation such as the 2013 Boston Marathon incident. Juliette Kayyem is a better choice in dealing with crisis such as the one mentioned. Too bad her party killed all aspects of her winning. Way to stonewall dems.
Lively...go home.
A nice person doesn't
A nice person doesn't prosecute innocent people, help steal money from sick children, and look the other way as corrupt state officials steal from the public.
A nice person doesn't
A nice person doesn't complain about standing in the cold to shake voters' hands if she's running for office, FFS.
Well at least the Democratic
Well at least the Democratic party allowed multiple people to run. The repubes did all they could to anoint Charlie Brown the only candidate in the primary, and only relented in allowing democracy to move forward under threat of a lawsuit. Now, after failing once, Charlie is rebranding himself as less hateful, but its not fooling people. In the debate last night he said preschool wasn't proven to be beneficial, really? So he didnt send his kids to preschool? Or is it just that he thinks only people born into wealth like he and Romney's children should have preschool?
When was Charlie Baker ever
When was Charlie Baker ever hateful?
Hateful?
Charlie Baker is not "hateful". Good god y'all. Put this all in perspective.
"Lively...go home."
Seriously? Is this nut getting ANY news coverage at all?
Home to Springfield
He sets foot in Oregon, he'll be arrested for skipping out on court judgments - not that it would be a bad thing.
Then again, he's probably Massachusetts' just reward for exporting Sheriff Arpaio.
The last democratic women to
The last democratic women to lead the state was Evelyn Murphy , she was Dukakis's Lt. Governor.
I think Baker/Tisei will lead this State for the next eight years..
Baker/Tisei 2010
was 4 years ago.
Baker/Polito this time around
Tisei is running against Seth Moulton for the 6th congressional seat.
Markey who? That name sounds
Markey who? That name sounds vaguely familiar.
He's a Politician
from Chevy Chase, MD and is part of the 1%.
Oh, Okay
That must be why he picks up his monthly prescriptions in person in Medford. (seems to be temporally correlated with my husband)
He's the Senator
From somewhere in Maryland.
That must be his Hollywood body double
The one that keeps saying "hi" when I run in to him in Medford Square.
That would explain it! Yes LIBROOL HOLLYWOOD - get it! I made a FUNNY!!!
So he still
Lives in mom's basement. That makes sense, it must be where he invented the internet.
Right Wing Talking Points
Ah yes, never much interested in the factual record - you obviously have Markey and Al Gore confused.
Which is extremely bizarre, to say the least.
Then again, you probably had to restrain yourself from calling him Fauxcahontas or bringing up Swift Boats in your oxycontin-addled confusion.
I'm confused
Swirly, are you saying that he is not *from* Maryland? No one questioned where he resides now.
And once again, I love how you insert yourself into EVERY SINGLE comment. "I see him all the time. I say hello him. I I I I I.....zzzzzzz"
No one cares.
Perhaps not, but...
If no one cares, why are you commenting?
He's from Malden. Time to cut
He's from Malden. Time to cut the dose.
Why?
"Ah yes, never much interested in the factual record - you obviously have Markey and Al Gore confused.
Which is extremely bizarre, to say the least.
Then again, you probably had to restrain yourself from calling him Fauxcahontas or bringing up Swift Boats in your oxycontin-addled confusion.
"
Why would he bring up Swift Boats when talking about Al Gore? Seems you have some confusion of your own. Oxy? Or are you just not interested in the factual record?
Why would anon bring up "invented the internet"?
When talking about Ed Markey? Unless anon got all the fakey nonsense talking points jumbled.
That's why I'm surprised that anon didn't also roll in other phony talking points.
Well
If you're going to call someone out for not being factual, you should really be factual in your response.
You must be joking
Either that, or your snark filter needs to go back to the shop for recalibration.
Present!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/04/ed-markey-vote...
Debate winners
I listened to, and later watched, the debate. My impressions:
Both Coakley and Baker were emotionally stiff, over-rehearsed and intellectually unimpressive. They didn't say anything new, or even very specific. They seemed mostly concerned with not making a mistake.
Evan Falchuk and Jeff McCormick were authentic, relatively passionate (although everyone was pretty polite to each other last night) and responded more often with specifics to the questions they were asked. Something I picked up on the second time I watched was that each of them used a lot less self-focussed language than the top two candidates. What I mean is that they often said things like "The governor should..." or "The Commonwealth needs..." whereas the two mainstream candidates made a lot more "As governor I will..." statements. This made me feel that the independents were more concerned with doing the job, and the two mainstream candidates were concerned with having the job.
Oh yeah, the fifth guy. Well, I'll give Scott Lively (aka Wacky McCrazyNutz) this - he's sincere. And he got the biggest laugh of the night when he prefaced a reply about marijuana dispenseries with "What I'm going to say will probably lose me the election..." and everyone one in the audience thought Brother, that train left the station a loooong time ago.
*****
My takeaway - I wish McCormick and Falchuk were on the same ticket, because they're sort of acting as spoilers for each other - Falchuk has the edge for me in terms of specific policies, but frankly, either of them would make a better governor than the stale Dem or GOP offerings.
I think that if the media as a whole was giving these independent candidates even half the attention the two 'main' candidates were getting, we would be looking at a very different election. Certainly one that more people would be interested in.
The laziness of the press when it comes to examining their own pre-determined narrative of 'election as two-horse race' is just depressing as heck.
I agree
However i don't believe Baker is interested in simply "having a job." If that where the case, im sure he would go back to the private sector. Martha on the other hand is running for a pay raise.
Baker is running for his ego
Baker is running for his ego like Mitt. He has been a failure in government and while I agree he has more money than he knows what to do with, he doesn't want to go down as another Mitt, handsome enough for republicans and independents in MA to swoon over, but too shallow to accomplish anything in government. He failed as a candidate last time, so he has rebranded himself as Charlie Brown, half Charlie Baker, half Scott Brown.
Ego?
I think you're getting Baker confused with Deval!
Boom
Exactly right. How else can one be interested in being a U.S. Senator...and then 3 years later Governor? Two completely different jobs.
granted
I'll grant you that. I slightly altered the text to reflect my actual intention (from "have a good job" to "having the job").
I think both Coakley and Baker are primarily motivated by a desire to be the person in charge. I think McCormick and Falchuk are motivated by a desire for the Commonwealth to be run better.
This a double standard.
This a double standard. Baker has run for governor now twice. This is Polito's second run for statewide office. But no one questions their motives. Whereas Coakley seeks to advance to the highest statewide office and it's assumed she just wants a pay raise? She could probably triple her salary at any huge law firm in Boston if she wanted to.
Yes, but
Has Baker run for Senator?
It's not exactly unheard of
It's not exactly unheard of for a politician to seek a higher office so I don't follow your logic. I don't think it has anything to do with a higher salary. Coakley could make far more money as a partner somewhere at a law firm than she could in any public office - Scott Brown did after his defeat and he's a far less accomplished lawyer than she is. Coakley could choose to not deal with another campaign and just cash out and fade off into a lucrative payday but she's not. I respect that, just as I respect Baker for seeking to enter public service even if I disagree with many of his positions.
True, that
Some very big contractors on the Big Dig and the liquor distributors really owe her big time for doing their bidding and running interference for them at the expense of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Yes!
Or I'm sure enough politicians owe her favors that she could have lucrative career as a lobbyist.
My point was, she ran for US Senate and said she really wanted to be a Senator. She lost. Now she's running for Governor and telling us she really wants to be Governor. Those are two VERY different positions. What's changed? Why should I believe she really wants to be Gov. and isn't just looking for a promotion.
As for Baker, I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of his either, but he ran for Governor, lost, got a job in the private sector, and is now running for Governor again. He really wanted to be Gov. in '10, and now still wants it. That says something to me.
Baker sees a chance
In 2010, he ran against an incumbent who, despite my list of his shortcomings, hadn't done anything to keep him from being reelected. In doing so, Baker got his name out and was the standard bearer for the party.
Now it is 2014, the corner office is open, so he sees the chance.
Lot's of people have done the same. The rumor was that Gary Hart ran for President in 1984 to be ready for 1988.
Of course, on the flipside of the standard, what is wrong with someone going for a promotion? Lots of AGs have run for Governor, even outside of Massachusetts. You'd have to go back to Elliot Richardson for the last AG not to try for the corner office.
yup ... this is what misogyny
yup ... this is what misogyny looks like.
you mean
Using the law to brutalize and railroad child care providers is feminist?
You can tell Coakley is toast
You can tell Coakley is toast if even Swirly doesn't like her.
What stinks to me is that as
What stinks to me is that as AG , Martha chose to prosecute Cahill, who was an elected Democratic State Treasurer running as an Independent candidate for Governor, regarding the Lottery commercials. This seemed to me to be punishing him for going Independent , and at the same time eliminating him as a competitor in the future.
Yep. But it's cool for Bill
Yep. But it's cool for Bill Galvin to put his face on everything because he's a Democrat.
Indeed , and he hasn't seemed
Indeed , and he hasn't seemed to have gotten the memo about it.Perhaps this double standard could be the basis of some sort of discrimination lawsuit maybe a RICO conspiracy to harass , ect ect.
Numbers not lying
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/little-change-in-the-senate-and-a-sen...
538.com took a look at the latest polling and puts a bit of context on it. Coakley should have a 90% likelihood to win based on her poll numbers a while back...now it's pretty much even money. She's collapsed quite a bit...familiar? Sadly, yes.
A Berwick-Baker election would have been a much more interesting contest with substantial comments having to come from both sides about what the future of the state will be.
I think people see Coakley-Baker as a toss-up in their own minds (sadly, neither one deserves to be Governor) and that's allowed the hardcore "vote for anything with a D/R after their name" voters determine this one...and they're probably just about even even since most D's in MA want to vote for some ONE not some PARTY.
Baker is a Republican?
Funny how he never seems to mention that - and it doesn't appear on his advertizements, either.
I don't see it anywhere on his campaign homepage, either: https://charliebaker2014.com/new-idea-approach
Or this ad to the right of this text box:
Baker would be a Democrat in
Baker would be a Democrat in almost any other state in the union.
And
Martha would still be unelectable in almost any other state in the union.
Which
Which says more about the current state of the Democrats as a party in the rest of the country, sadly.
Which Charlie Baker?
Which Charlie Baker?
2010 Charlie 1.0 was a red-meat throwing conservative who didn't believe in human-caused climate change and ranted about illegal immigrants.
2014 Charlies 2.0 is just a nice guy from your local Boys and Girls Club who loves Cape Wind and welcomes refugees to Massachusetts.
Baker has flip-flopped on a host of issues in a few short years but for some reason isn't called out for the opportunism that most other politicians would get rightfully hammered on.
flip-flopping
yet when a democrat changes his or her opinion on an issue, their position has "evolved". At least that's what Barak Obama called it.
Big deal
So he's not one that needs to be lock-step with the rest of his party and flaunt is party affiliation. Who cares? I'd prefer is more candidates ran on their own and not as party members, especially for State-level positions.
So ...
You don't find it at all intriguing that the party nominee is not mentioning his party at all, anywhere?
I think it is worth at least some discussion about why somebody might do that. He could have run as an independent, but didn't. So why is he affiliating at all?
Actually, he is the one who
Actually, he is the one who has to be lock-step with his party. The GOP has become intolerant of "independent" members. And I suspect that if Baker gets the corner office, he's going to have ambitions in DC. So we get yet another GOP "I'm and independent" campaigner who promptly moves right once he's in office. To the dismay of pro-choice women, the LGBTQ community, anyone interested in voter rights...
What exactly do you picture
What exactly do you picture Baker doing as governor to ruin the lives of the LGBTQ community, women, and people interested in "voter rights?"
Well, he does have a Tea Party sidekick...
... only of symbolic importance -- unless he bails out to a "higher position" before the end of his term (if he is elected).
The Sarah
Palin of Massachusetts.
And I suspect that if Baker
Because if there's one thing we've learned over the last 24 years, it's that the Massachusetts governorship is a one-way ticket to the upper echelons of the GOP elite.
I think the exact opposite.
I think the exact opposite. Any democrat that goes against the very strong MA Dem party is going no where, same on the national level.
One example; I remember the bs Steve Lynch received when he mentioned he could not vote for a law he hadn't gotten the chance to read - the ACA. He lost the primary to warren after that. How many reps in our state vote as DeLeo expects? I'd say most.
No, you've got it backwards
Steve Lynch got lots of things wrong
And he didn't handle constituent communications very well. Lots of reasons he lost the primary, besides his witless handling of healthcare issues.
Error on you and Patricia
Lynch lost to Markey, not Warren. If he lost to Warren, he would be former Congressman Lynch.
Anyway, Lynch went up against another Congressman, who had the support of the party apparatus. Lynch did well in places one would think he would do well (South Shore, Worcester County, Lowell) but got taken out in the more "progressive" areas.
Honestly, I think he got it right on ACA. I'm not against the theory, but Lynch did point out (in a mailing to his constituents) that he found the whole thing a giveaway to the medical industry as there were no provisions that would have dealt with the underlying issue of spiraling medical costs. The U.S. spends by far the most in terms of GDP on medical care, but is the average citizen provided with that much better medical care?
In the end, Lynch is not in lockstep, and while this is not a knock at the junior Senator, Markey is in lockstep, so he had the resources to prevail.
What about candidates that
What about candidates that blatantly switch positions on as many issues as Baker has between his two runs now? How do you even know which are his real views?
Actually, that was a response
Actually, that was a response to bosguy above. But yes, you're right.