Hey, there! Log in / Register
Charlie Baker acting like a man trying to create a centrist third party
By adamg on Sun, 11/10/2019 - 1:39pm
As the Massachusetts Republican party accelerates into Trumpsylvania, Ed Lyons analyzes Charlie Baker's new super PAC, which put money into a variety of municipal campaigns in this month's election - including those of some Democrats:
By all appearances, Massachusetts Majority is the engine of a new statewide political party, targeting that sizeable majority of largely unenrolled voters who support Charlie Baker and his politics but are not being served by loud partisans to the left and right.
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
Id vote for Baker 2020
This country could use a moderate. A liberal Democrat like Warren will never win the EC. There’s more moderates out there than those stuck in bubbles like those locally.
Well said
A very accurate description.
Both of you
Please explain how a liberal "will never win" when Sanders and Warren are polling 40% combined in the Democratic primary races and nearly 50% of US voters support impeachment?
The "conventional wisdom" of 1996 went out the freaking door in 2016. How's President HR Clinton doing for ya? Fool me once shame on you, etc.
Take your time ... cite your sources ... etc.
Primary’s
Bring out the most partisan of voters.
Rather simply!
You are conflating primary support
With support in the general election. Using your numbers, Kerry should have rolled against Bush. But since you are a science person, what is 40% of 40%?
Democratic voters are more the 40% of the electorate
Fact.
You are conflating centrism with electability. How's that working out for your gal Hillary? or for Klobuchar?
Wrong
All voters are democratic. That is a tautology. That said, I believe you mean Democrat voters. Democratic is an adjective. A party is a noun. Democrat is a noun. Voters would be Democrats, not Democratics.
You are the first to ask for citations, but it is very easy to correct you in this case since there is no data for you to cite.
As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat. You would need to include Democrat leaning voters to get above 40%, but they are not reliably Democrat voters. Frequently they simply don't vote at all when the Democrat is not someone they support. Like when the candidate is too far left (in the case of a moderate Democrat leaner) or too moderate (for a Socialist or Green Party Democrat leaner).
Don't conflate Massachusetts voters with the rest of the country.
There is no such thing
As the "Democrat" party.
Learn English, history, or whatever you need to in order to understand that, please.
History
The party you refer to originated as the Democratic Republican party. Democratic was the adjective modifying the noun "Republican" in the name. When the noun was removed an English speaker needs to have a noun to have a thing.
That is both history and English.
Or, if you insist on your party name being an adjective, I guess in one way you are correct. They are a group of nonsense modifying no thing.
Or, you know, it could just
Or, you know, it could just be a concerted, decades-long effort to get under Democrats' skin: https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/gop-strategists-christen-dem...
It's trying to "Own the Libs" on the most transparently dumb level.
Interesting
I'm sure you won't believe me, but I had no idea of that context. I'm not a Republican and don't think in partisan ways like is described in that link. The funny part about Swrrls comment is that I was an English and History double major. I've always been annoyed at the improper use of grammar.
Still, if those voters are Democrats in plural, what are they in singular. Democrat, correct? Or do they somehow become a Democratic?
If this is really enough to trigger them like this, maybe they should become the Snowflake party. Seems more accurate.
Besides, we all know George Soros truly "Owns the Libs."
Ok boomer
n/t
Gen X
Or Latchkey Kid as we used to be known.
I prefer slacker...
Personally.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)#Grammar
quick edit: link break so you'll need to copy/paste the URL into a browser address bar.
I'm sure you won't believe me
Well, we can certainly agree on something.
Got it
Sure, you clued me in on something. Much appreciated.
That said, it is really idiotic that the oldest political party in the world is named grammatically incorrectly. Kind of reminds me of the line in the movie Johnny Dangerously:
"Did you know your last name is an adverb?"
A question
Why do statements like this always precede a recitation of Republican talking points?
Have you followed Presidential elections in the past 40 years?
Since 1976, only twice has the Democratic candidate for President gotten more than 50% of the vote, though admittedly on four more occasions (including the most recent) has the Democratic nominee got a plurality of the vote.
But as someone else note, those pesky polls exist as facts that no more than 40% of the electorate identifies as a Democrat, which makes the popularity of your Sanders/Warren hybrid candidate as statistically valid as Trump’s popularity in the GOP.
Waquoit being Waquoit again
Could that pretentious bit of cultural appropriation be a Wampanoag word for ... https://g.co/kgs/jXksYS
Well, let me be Swirly then
40% of the people who will probably never vote for Trump support either Warren or Sanders. However, since I have no understanding of how the scientific method works, I’m going to assume the sample of those who will vote in the Democratic Primaries represent the whole electorate.
This is fun, can I play
And since 1992, only once has the Republican candidate gotten more than 50% of the vote.
Well played
And since Trump is polling in the 80% range in the Republican primary polls, I guess we can make the same conclusion about the way America as a whole feels about things based on that, but much like Swirly's idea that 40% of 40% represents the direction of the America, looking at what 80% of 30% thinks would be crazy.
40% of 30%
How many Americans are enrolled dems?
Maybe 30%. So 40% of that is 12% of the country supports them. Then 90% of the 25% of the country enrolled as Republicans support the nutjob with about 23% support.
So Trump.has double the support of Sanders And Warren combined and that leaves the 65% of the country unrepresented with fascists to the right of us and socialists to the left.
No thanks. I'm guessing I'll have to vote 3rd party AGAIN!
You know
you don't have to work so hard to attain perpetual irrelevancy. It comes to you naturally.
Is that ur response
When ur brain is overwhelmed?
Oh. Ouch.
Please
You'll vote for Ron Paul as a write-in because he represents Ayn Rand the best.
Actually
Given the choice, my top choice if he runs is Michael Bloomberg.
What does that do for your Stevil is an Ayn Rand Acolyte meme?
Considering the soda ban
It blows it to smithereens.
And why does Ayn Rand come up every time someone espouses a Libertarian ideal around here? She's a frickin' book character. It's like Coming to America: "Rocky Marciano, that's their one, Rocky Marciano."
Should I start citing Robin Hood every time someone espouses an American Democratic Party idea? "The Cask of Amontillado" every time someone waves the pom-poms for Trump?
Book character?
I am trying to figure out what you mean, and I am not getting anywhere.
Is, for example, Abraham Lincoln a book character because there have been books written about him?
Dammit
Author. Completely spoils a good rant, too.
This is why
Warren/Sanders would turn us into East Germany, not Sweden. Only Bernie seems to believe that the Scandinavian countries are "Democratic Socialists." They don't seem to think so themselves. That said, here is where Warren/Bernie will lead us, and is why the swing voters in the 10 important swing states will vote for Trump:
(From The Wall Street Journal 11/11/2019)
That same year(1991), Richard Knox reported in the Boston Globe:
Inside the decrepit hospitals and clinics, medical technology is sparse and outmoded... Even East Germany’s showplace hospitals in Berlin labored under maddening shortages of disposable syringes, bed linens, bandages and other essentials. Needles were reused so much they became cruelly dull. Rubber gloves were washed and sterilized and repowdered by hand, since labor was cheaper than importing enough disposable gloves from the West.
An administrator of the imposing 2,100-bed Charite Hospital in East Berlin... tells of surgeons standing around outside operating rooms, waiting for surgical gloves to be fetched by ambulance from the only place that had a reliable supply, the hospital across town reserved for high Communist Party officials.
^ turtle bait
Be gone, troglodyte.
Socialized medicine...
...would help you bring that fever down, son.
"Moderates"
The country has shifted so far to the right that someone like Warren is being called liberal. 20-30 years ago her views would have been fairly moderate. After all, she previously considered herself a republican.
Far left "liberals" and socialists haven't been a political force in this country for almost 100 years. No one getting media attention is advocating a government take-over of major businesses or industries. No one is suggesting massive tax increases. If you want to see far left policies, look at some South American countries. Even UK's National Healthcare is more extreme than what Warren is proposing.
Warren IS a moderate. Baker is a conservative. Most of today's GOP subscribes to some toxic combination of libertarianism and fascism.
You've gotbto be kidding
Warren is far and away one of the most liberal candidates in history. Far left of even Obama.
She wants direct government control over about half the economy and heavy handed regulation of most of the rest.
Won't matter much. If the Dems are stupid enough to nominate her it makes 2 elections in a row they nominate about the only person in the race that could actually lose to Trump.
Health care is about 18% of
Health care is about 18% of the economy, and it's the only industry to which Warren is proposing any significant government involvement, so "half the economy" is absurd.
Also, Medicare for All is not "direct government control". Medicare does not employ doctors or run hospitals, it just negotiates and pays them for services rendered. As others have pointed out, the British NHS is much heavier than what anybody here is proposing.
Please calm down and exaggerate less.
Homework please
US govt is currently 22% of economy including medicare, VA and Medicaid.
State/local adds 15%.
Throw in Medicare for all, childcare, affordable housing, student laon forgiveness, public education and who knows what else and you are just over or under half the economy run directly by the government.
And "it just negotiates" and pays doctors/hospitals but doesn't control them is about the dumbest statement possible. It's like saying uber doesn't control their drivers, They just set rates and pays them.
Then add in regulations on finance, environment, technology and more from a person that never ran a business in her life and you are talking a bureaucratic nightmare.
Reasonable regulation is fine, and Trump is often too lax, but Warren is a one woman walking bureaucracy manufacturer.
The 18% of the economy that's
The 18% of the economy that's health care includes the federal, state, local, and private pieces. You can't just tack on more numbers 'cuz you feel like it. It's still 18%.
The 22% of the economy that's federal spending (actually, it was 20% in 2018) is also partly wrapped up in the 18%, so you can't just add those two numbers, either; 26% of federal spending was on health care last year, leaving something closer to 15% of GDP as non-health care federal spending. Add the two, and we get 33% of the economy is either health care, federal spending, or both.
Medicare negotiating and paying is not analogous to Uber, any more than the current mish-mash of a small number of private options is analogous to Uber+Lyft. You will remain free to, for example, find any therapist you like and pay cash, just like most people do for mental health services right now. Providers would simply not be under direct government control, any more than providers today that serve primarily Medicaid patients are under direct government control: they aren't.
Regulating "childcare, affordable housing, student laon forgiveness, public education and who knows what else", which the government already regulates and has for many years, is simply not direct control. Arguing that anything the government so much as sniffs at is somehow "run directly by the government" is an insane libertarian fundamentalist viewpoint. I know elsewhere you claim not to be Randian, but saying stuff like this is why some of us are skeptical.
Look, I understand that you're scared, but presenting your irrational fears as facts is dishonest.
I can't even begin
To unravel your mess of apples and oranges.
for starters - Government expenditures are a stanalone item and INCLUDE health care - (about 12 of that 18% you cite). Currently government is 33- 35% of the economy thanks to El Trumpos profligate spending- but it's tough as matching fiscal years and calendar years gets complicated. I'm using $20 trillion as a big round number - but it may be closer to $21 trillion now. A portion of that government spending is Medicare, VA and Medicaid. Medicare for all (even under Warren's numbers) adds about 10% to that number. the rest is probably 3-7% of the economy - but y'know - what's a few hundred billion here and a few hundred billion there. Let's not mince words over "it's 45%, not 50%". Close enough for government work as they say.
As for the rest - google "slippery slope" - the income tax was initially sold as a tax on the 1%. Did YOU pay federal income tax last year?
When you straighten out your numbers and logic, check back in.
My numbers and logic are fine
My numbers and logic are fine, thank you. The difference between my number (33%) and yours (45-50%) is that you keep using 33-35% as the government portion of the American economy. That number includes federal, state, and local spending. I'm talking about just federal spending, because Warren is running to be president of the federal government, and her Medicare plans would impact federal spending. That number is 20%. From what I can tell, her plans would have no meaningful impact on how much of the economy is state and local government spending, though to the extent that federal money replaces state subsidies for health care, there could actually be some offset there.
I said government
Not federal government
I’ll give you the best Warren historical comparison
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And do study some of his New Deal programs. It was more than Social Security.
FDR was elected in 1928
When the country had only 120 million people. Getting a population of that size to agree on social programs is far easier than getting 327 million people to do that.
Facebook
It was a lot easier to get people to agree on things when there wasn't social media and TV networks devoted to telling lies and attempting to get people to vilify those with opposing policy views.
There was yellow journalism in FDR's day but it pales in comparison to what's found on talk radio, Fox News, and a good chuck of social media.
Like I always say
Every candidate has a website, and they all outline their beliefs on them. That should really be the foundation for any voting decision.
FDR was elected in 1928?
Will, you need to check your facts. 1928 was Democrat Al Smith, loosing to Republican Herbert Hoover. FDR did not run until 1932.
Quick Google hit at 8:45 AM which I misread
You got me. UH should have a Breathalyzer, but for caffeine instead of alcohol.
An empty suit walking a tightrope
"unenrolled voters who support Charlie Baker"
is....is that even a thing?!?
Baker got 67%
Of the vote last election. So clearly it is a thing, as are Democrats who voted for a Republican gov.
Most people aren’t as partisan as you appear.
"So clearly it is a thing."
I know youre trying to be cute but I'm not sure how 67% of the vote has any bearing on "unenrolled voters".
If someone is unenrolled how exactly is their support of Baker in any way meaningful?
It's like saying "74% of housecats support Baker."
Who cares?
Umm...
Unenrolled voters vote. House cats do not. What is your point here?
my point? its a dumb one..
my fault, im misreading the entire thing
(facepalmssssss)
I think so?
I might be missing something from your post, sarcasm or something else, but I would be one of those people. I don't know how many there are but of course there are more unenrolleds in Massachusetts than Democrats and Republicans combined so someone voted for him in 2013 and 2017.
Current break-down per Wikipedia:
Massachusetts Registered Voter Enrollment: August 2018
Party Number of Voters
Democratic 1,492,399
Republican 465,952
Libertarian 14,271
Unaffiliated/ Unenrolled 2,474,535
Political Designations 45,850
Total 4,493,007
Finally
Good for Charlie Baker. Politics in 2019 are polarized, and both sides feed off each other. Most people want nothing to do with the loony left or the hard right. It's time the parties served those of us in the middle.
Why is bipartisanship bad?
We need to be extreme right or extreme left? And why would Massachusetts benefit from being an exclusively one party state? Our neighbors in NY certainly aren't benefitting from being a one party state NY state is a political and economic shit storm. C ost of living is very high. Residents are fleeing for other states. Incoming residents are disproportionately needy and 'poor'. Poverty is still high along with extreme socioeconomic stratification in NYC.Taxes are outrageous.Similar in another one party 'progressive' state, California.
The part that's wrong...
...is using terms like "extreme right" and "extreme left" without examining, in the privacy of your own mind, what you think they mean -- and then checking to see how that jibes with reality and with how they are used by others.
Baker's PAC proves there's no difference between incumbent elite
Looking at some of the names leading the PAC, Baker should tread very carefully, especially with US Attorney Lelling around for another 1-5 years or until he wants a judgeship. The PAC itself is further proof of the shared goals of entrenched incumbents of both parties. There's not a dimes worth of difference. When Baker and DeLeo both favor ranked choice voting and the coming MA gas tax increase without a vote, the PAC is little more than an incumbent protection program with a side of "everyday is Christmas" for the sleazy businessmen involved. What could go wrong?
Baker is an embarrassment and
Baker is an embarrassment and disgrace to the Republican party.
1) He's added a payroll tax to everyone's paycheck to pay for the Family Leave Act, even tho lots of people will never use it.
2) He is likely to sign a climate pack deal which will cause taxes on gasoline to skyrocket.
3) He dislikes our president, Donald Trump.
He is the biggest fake Republican going in the entire country who is not a leader, but a follower with Democratic policies written all over him!!
Awwwwww
Nothing like a corporate shill for promoting "Democratic policies"!
(hope the fever comes down soon)
Charlie Baker. He made the trains ...
uh, never mind.
Ah yes
The "you can't vape and only three entities get to have casinos" guy. Moderate my (expletive). Go sit in the corner with Bloomberg. Why can't rich people just shut the (expletive) up and leave everyone else alone? Why didn't Trump just pursue a life of kicking a ball around with Barron?
Maybe Barron won't go near him.
Well, would you if you were a normal kid?
Hmmm
Maybe he should have started young with his son. I'd resent the Cheeto if I were a teen.
The casino system is entirely the creation of Deval Patrick.
It's unclear why you can't remember this simple fact from a few years ago. It was in the papers and everything.
Personally I like the idea that IF we are going to have casinos we should have a few, good ones, as opposed to limitless crappy ones. Are you angry because you imagine you could open your own?
Succession
Deval was Governor before Charlie Baker was. Charlie could come out and say "What he did was a joke, and a slap to free market beliefs which fly against Republican policies."
Of course, that does not allow for graft, thus, no change.
I would have been fine with (preferred, actually) a series of small card rooms instead of this criminal magnet with $25 blackjack minimums that got built in Everett. I haven't been yet. I'll maybe go when sports betting and/or a racebook comes. I'll leave trying to beat the machine programmed to beat you to everyone else.
Maybe Baker was just as
Maybe Baker was just as skeptical of the business proposition of casino gambling in Massachusetts as most of the rest of us, saw the likelihood that the demand simply wouldn't be there, and would've preferred zero casinos.
Absurd
Baker and Romney are cut from the same weak cloth: businessmen who think they know how to run things. Their grasp on public policy is rudimentary at best.
My god I'm sick of rich people who stand up and expect everyone to applaud.
Right?
Baker ran Harvard Pilgrim, which sells health insurance. If health insurance is such a great product, why did the industry have to petition government to force people to buy it?
All this acrimony, missing the real target
Weasley POS Ed Lyons, who runs to any open mic to claim to represent a silent majority when his party rapidly rolls over for the Russians IRL. Another of the seemingly endless supply of local talking heads who don't live in Boston but have lots of ideas on how we should run the city of course, although in this case that doesn't apply.