2009-12-08 08:23 pm (UTC)
That's actually a pretty compelling argument since I think our overall approach of using the criminal justice solution as a way to solve all of our problems ....can be blamed for many of our problems.
Good thing I already voted for Capuano ;-)
I'm only sorry that this post wasn't made *yesterday* so I could have consciously acted on (and shared!) it, instead of gone with my gut (for Capuano).
2009-12-08 08:30 pm (UTC)
He's one of the most pro-choice members of Congress, and works closely with the leaders of the House pro-choice caucus. He's not just pro-choice, he makes a real effort to do something about it.
Not only is he pro-choice, he pulled a 0% from the Christian Coalition. A more sterling recommendation I cannot conceive.
Capuano was endorsed by the Herald AND the Phoenix. What the hell?
It may have been a tactical decision on the part of The Herald, in that... although I do not think Capuano will defeat Coakley, he seems the most likely among the candidates to be able to do so. I'm a little surprised that The Herald didn't endorse Pagliuca, though.
It's not that surprising; even they've had enough of Mitt.
Of course, if one is looking for a real change from what we've dealt with for the last 40 years, there is Scott Brown on the other side. It's worth noting that there are, in fact, alternatives to the Democratic candidates running for this seat.
There are, in fact, actually two Republican candidates - Brown and Jack E. Robinson - although I do favor Brown. I am an unenrolled (that is to say registered but without party affiliation) voter and I intend to vote the Democratic ballot today so that I can vote against Coakley, who I think there is very good reason to oppose. That said, I will be voting Republican in the general election.
I personally like to pretend that Jack E. Robinson doesn't exist.
I did consider voting for Capuano as a spoiler, but turnout is so ridiculously low today that I figured a statement vote was more important.
Are you kidding? Robinson's great. He's walking political comedy. If I didn't actually value my vote I'd have switched registrations just to vote for the guy. Imagine if he pulls it off. Yes, he's insane, but watching both Daily Kos and RedState both shit their transmissions trying to reconcile his views with theirs would be brilliant.
I'm unenrolled so I could have voted on the Republican side, but I didn't think they had a silly enough spoiler to vote for.
2009-12-09 12:00 am (UTC)
That's counter-logical. When turnout is really low, you have a higher chance of being able to affect the outcome, so it's not reason to decide that voting to alter the outcome to be what you want is *less* valuable.
I don't agree in this case. If I felt it were a given that one of the Democrats would win - hardly so in the current climate - you might have a point, but Brown needs press.
2009-12-09 04:03 pm (UTC)
You're still not making sense. I'm not saying you made the wrong choice, because I don't know what your competing goals were that you were trying to balance; I'm saying the reason you gave above is wrong/illogical. Your followup just makes it more confusing. In what way would you have acted differently if turnout were higher? How did the low turnout make you change your action?
Brown needs press. The bigger numbers he gets, the better his press would be. If we were in a situation where the Republican would get any sort of legitimate press...
2009-12-10 05:08 am (UTC)
Sure, but how does that explain what you said about low turnout affecting your decision not to vote in the Democratic primary? Again, I'm not asking "why do you think voting for Brown would be a good thing". But you suggested might have voted in the Dem primary as a "spoiler" if turnout were higher, but low turnout made you decide that wasn't as important. That sounds exactly the opposite of logical to me, and you haven't tried to explain it further. Whatever your ultimate decision, if you were considering voting in the Democratic primary for that reason, low turnout should've made you *more* motivated to do so, not *less*. I don't know how to make this clearer: I'm not asking why you wanted to vote for Brown, I'm asking why you thought low turnout made it *less* useful to vote in the Democratic primary than it would've been if turnout were higher. Because that's the part that (as I said) didn't seem to make sense.
motherfucker had a BAGPIPER at north station today.
Even if Jack E. Robinson gets the nod?
I mean, I LOVE Jack E. Robinson, but that's 'cause I'm a liberal, and I find him one of the funniest people in politics today.
Well... that's a tough one. I rather doubt that Robinson will win... but... I guess... if, in the general election, it's Brown vs. anyone, I'm voting Republican. If it's Robinson vs. someone other than Coakley, I'm voting Democrat. If it's Robinson vs. Coakley I'm going to declare shenanigans and go home and get my broom. Ok, no, but I'll probably abstain and bemoan the fact that there's no "conscientious objector" slot to fill in on the ballot.
2009-12-09 09:10 pm (UTC)
You could write in "conscientious objector".
If an election comes up where you want to do that, and you post about it beforehand and get enough people to do it, it might even be reported. Except in the city of Boston, where they don't seem to have figured out how to count write-in votes :/
Fortunately for you, you got the sane Republican. Now I need to figure out how I'm going to vote. I haven't looked at Brown yet, since I was just focused on the Dems.
Just looked at his website -- he seems generally sane and decent, and I agree with him on a bunch of issues, but I fundamentally disagree with him on enough dealbreaker issues to hold my nose and vote Coakley. Oh, well.
2009-12-10 03:36 am (UTC)
BTW, I highly doubt "a real change" is what most Massachusetts voters want in this election. Someone just like Ted Kennedy would probably be most voters' preference.
It is unfortunate that you're telling the truth here.
Don't blame me, I voted for Khazei. (too soon?)