I will bet 5 stix that our worthless Obamawannabe gubner is tossed out by the Tea Party next Nov.

Any takers?

c'mon, CBC, where are you?

That's because Massachusetts has always been a moderate state...

^1

What do you mean "by the Tea Party?" If you're saying the TP will register and field a candidate, then go on to win the general election then I'll take the bet.

If you're saying Patrick loses in November, it's a bit early to bet - you don't have a full field yet.

^tail - wanna tell me how the polls are breaking down on MA gubernatorial race, as recent as two weeks ago (in the middle of the Coakley/Brown race)? I'll spare you the trouble - roughly 1/4 each Patrick, Cahill, Mihos, and undecided. Patrick wins by 2 points or so in general, but that is not an impressive showing for an incumbent D governor at all. Hell, anything less than 40% is a terrible poll for an incumbent. But yeah, MA is soooo solidly liberal and Democrat. [rolls eyes]

^^ The Tea Party refers to a loose coalition of independent minded voters, not a particular organized political party.

^ So your bet is basically "Patrick will lose," correct?

that is correct.

Too early for me to take it, but as it stands now that is a distinct possibility.

Chilly,

I'm excited about the recent shift, and I hope it sticks, but I won't hold my breath.

In my lifetime it's never been this balanced.

In your spare time, you should feret out the information regarding the congressional breakdown in Massachusetts.

You'll see what I'm talking about.

To say this state is heavily weighed toward the democrats is a vast understatement. But I like the new direction. It's about time.

9 - I know tail, like I said RI is practically a mirror image. But just because they have a D next to their name does not mean they are liberal, or that they didn't have a close election.

And if you do look at your past election cycle for legislative seats, the vastly overwhelming majority of the seats were uncontested elections. You can't be shocked that D's win when nobody runs, though a few R's ran uncontested too. Plus, you had a few R's win over D's. But by and large, you have D's in your legislature BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE RAN.

You can say it is liberal dominated and whatever you like, and I do not disagree that a candidate has an edge being a lib/Dem in MA, but it is nowhere near as pervasively liberal or Democrat (philosophically) as you think. But yeah, there are a lot of D next to the winning names on the ballots.

"9 - I know tail, like I said RI is practically a mirror image. But just because they have a D next to their name does not mean they are liberal, or that they didn’t have a close election. "

dang right about that! That's why I call them ILLIBERAL LEFTIES.

chilly,

Don't let the facts confuse you.

Ask yourself this: Why did so many democrats run unopposed?

Is it:

1. nobody wants the job (in this job market??)

2. the incumbent is SOOOOO awesome that they deserve to remain.

3. Job duties may interfere with the new season of 24.

4. It's not even worth it to run against an incumbent democrat in most areas of this fine Commonwealth.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe Massachusetts is a moderate state that doesn't lean either way.

And maybe the vast majority of the nations political pundits have mistaken MA for a liberal state for no reason whatsoever.

Presidential candidates don't even stump here anymore. But they will now.

Here's info from a quick google search (first link I opened under "Massachusetts voting history")

______________

Massachusetts, one of the original 13 colonies, joined the Union in February 1788, and has participated in all 56 presidential elections. The state has been reliably Democratic since 1928, but has voted Republican four times since then – twice each for Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Massachusetts was the only state to vote for George McGovern in his huge 1972 electoral loss to Richard Nixon.

_______________________

It also breaks down the dem v rep balance as follows:

in 2004 it was 62% D and 37% R

in 2008 it was 62% D abd 36% R

As you can see, the "independent" vote consistently swings left.

Hopefully, this last election will bring it back towards center.

^

Not sure what you googled, but if you check your secretary of state you'll see that your registration has unaffiliated as a majority and most of your elections being decided in the 55/45 range.

Presidential elections can be a bit of an anomaly, whole different dynamic than a state election because you have to pick and choose which electoral votes are worth the effort and why they are worth it. If you want to cite to those, you guys voted Reagan in 80 while RI, HI, GA, WV, MN, and MD went for Carter. Does that still make you guys liberal? (I realize it is one election, but this is back to my point about a singular election representing any type of trend).

Now drop the presidential races and look at your state elections, since there are more and more often. Close races (single digit spreads) between D and R abound. You've got 52/48 splits like crazy. It is impossible to get those if your unaffiliateds are always voting D. Period. You can cite to two election spreads, but it doesn't show you much about MA. Heck you can look at Weld, Celluci, Romney and it makes MA look like Louisiana. But the fact remains, MA elections are not locks for Dems. You've got close races and you've got R victories. And when it comes to statewide, the Rs have done well (considering their registration is like 15% of the voting population).

Does MA lean D? Absolutely. I said I wasn't debating the lean. All I'm saying is I think you drastically overestimate how far that lean goes.

"It also breaks down the dem v rep balance as follows:

in 2004 it was 62% D and 37% R

in 2008 it was 62% D abd 36% R

As you can see, the "independent" vote consistently swings left. "

I don't "see" anything. What is that "breakdown" supposed to be? Registered voters? Statewide seats? Total government seats/positions? What?

And again, if it so entrenched as a liberal state, it is difficult to explain your gubernatorial elections. Especially Romney.

Like I said before, give the Rs a decent candidate and they can win in MA. Your state's problem is the same as mine, perception that libs run everything. But it is pretty easy to take a moderate, or even a conservative, slap a D label on him/her and win. The label of D in no way represents a dominance of liberal philosophies. MA and RI both regularly elect conservative/moderate Democrats to office. People just like voting for the D, but that doesn't mean they are liberal. And when you get a decent candidate under the R label, that becomes abundantly clear.

"The Tea Party refers to a loose coalition of independent minded voters"

Since when??

^ Since forever . . . get back to reality son.

14.

I was laughing at that quote too.

15: Whatever it is, it's not reality, dad.

Gaiter, Stink & Chilly - you guys duking it out at the herf tomorrow? May the best vitola win!