Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Baker is left of Reagan on social issues (particularly abortion and drug policy), as well as most fiscal issues. Gay marriage, Transgender Bathrooms, Sanctuary Cities... those things hadn't been invented in his day, but I can't imagine Reagan being for those.
Baker is a moderate 2018 republican in one of the most liberal areas of the country - it would be odd if he wasn't left of Reagan.
My point was not suggest Baker is right of Reagan, rather, to point out that the modern conservative lens is so far right, even GOP idols such as Reagan would risk being dismissed as Neo-con RINOs due to his stance on free trade and his role in NAFTA.
Those are standard positions of the Republican party (as well as "JFK" Democrats), always have been.
Baker is 100% pro-abortion, is for Transgender Bathrooms and the confiscation of previously legal firearms, and has turned a blind eye to sanctuary cities. Even most Democrats don't seem to be for most of the stuff, only the hardest core ones.
I definitely don't agree. Most Democrats are pro-choice, indifferent to support of transgender bathrooms, and for stricter gun control in MA. Baker's view fit well within the electorate. As recently as July 25th, Baker remains the most popular governor in the country.
I have yet to read/hear of any source describe Charlie Baker as left of Democrats in MA. I have no doubt that many socially conservative/fringe right Republicans are not happy with Baker, however they do not represent an electorate of consequence.
Not to get off on a tangent, however the last thing I want to see is the GOP further destroyed/dismantled by these reactionary elements. In California, the GOP has been decimated. The last Republican Governor was Schwarzenegger, who similarly derided as a RINO. Lively and others like him have no chance in winning because they are out of step with the majority of the residents of MA. Maybe his rhetoric/agenda/platform would do well in the bible belt or in smaller communities of the Midwest, however there is no way that he can do well in New England.
Not denying that. Once again, the main purpose of this discussion wasn't to necessarily win voters over to Lively. You are just an example of allowing one's personal bias take precedence over a demand for fairness and objectivity.
Great. I am glad that you accept the personal agenda. I have no connection to Baker or his campaign. As a Republican, I do have a bias and would like to see my preferred party in power.
As far as Lively is concerned, he may want to study how he can win on a local level, before trying for the Governorship. I was going to recommend that he study someone like Scott Walker who won (trending purple) Wisconsin while holding fairly conservative positions, however Lively is still too far right of Walker and Wisconsin is a great deal more R-leaning than Massachusetts.
I never said Baker is left of most Massachusetts Democrats (although there are certainly a few I could name), but on a national level. Take an average Democrat from Tennessee and they will CERTAINLY be more conservative than Baker on most things.
Sorry to get personal, but New Englander your location says Connecticut. Have you ever lived in Massachusetts? How well do you really know the history of its politics? Mass. is not Connecticut, and it certainly isn't California. Since the 1990s the Mass. GOP has drifted further and further to the left and that has resulted in lower and lower membership. That experiment is a mass failure. Scott Brown ran on a conservative platform in 2009 and WON over the favored Democrat. Once he got into office, all he did was drift to the left (going by the fallacious advice that he "had to" in order to "keep" Massachusetts). He later lost to Liz Warren (a true leftist). At the end of the day, people want to know who they are voting for. If they want a liberal, they will usually vote for the Democrat. I agree that Lively is too far right for Massachusetts, I think I said that right in the beginning.
Baker is a moderate 2018 republican in one of the most liberal areas of the country - it would be odd if he wasn't left of Reagan.
My point was not suggest Baker is right of Reagan, rather, to point out that the modern conservative lens is so far right, even GOP idols such as Reagan would risk being dismissed as Neo-con RINOs due to his stance on free trade and his role in NAFTA.
Maybe it was another poster saying that, I wasn't solely responding to you. But I don't think Mitt Romney was any left of Reagan, for that matter. Neither was Scott Brown (2009 version). Of course they both had weak challengers, but that does happen as well. Mass. voters will elect a Republican to statewide office under the right conditions, and seem to be more forgiving of an authentic conservative than a wishy washy "moderate".
I never said Baker is left of most Massachusetts Democrats (although there are certainly a few I could name), but on a national level. Take an average Democrat from Tennessee and they will CERTAINLY be more conservative than Baker on most things.
Now you're cherry picking Democrats, which is not a like-kind comparison. We're talking about Massachusetts here and Baker is certainly not left of MA Democrats. If he is left of some Tennessee Democrat, then so what? Baker will never have to run against that Democrat. Who knows, Lively might even have a better shot in TN?
Sorry to get personal, but New Englander your location says Connecticut. Have you ever lived in Massachusetts? How well do you really know the history of its politics? Mass. is not Connecticut, and it certainly isn't California.
Massachusetts born and raised with the exception of literally 2017-18 where I lived in CT, I have been in Boston-Cambridge area all my life, own multiple properties in the Commonwealth, lifelong Republican, permanent domicile (even voted) in MA. Now that we're getting personal..
Where are YOU from? The South somewhere? Like Alabama or Mississippi, Evangelical Christian? You don't need to answer me, nor does it matter as I wanted to highlight how ludicrous it is to question someones background/draw inferences based on the location listed in their profile. Really, it doesn't matter to me.
Since the 1990s the Mass. GOP has drifted further and further to the left and that has resulted in lower and lower membership. That experiment is a mass failure. Scott Brown ran on a conservative platform in 2009 and WON over the favored Democrat. Once he got into office, all he did was drift to the left (going by the fallacious advice that he "had to" in order to "keep" Massachusetts). He later lost to Liz Warren (a true leftist). At the end of the day, people want to know who they are voting for. If they want a liberal, they will usually vote for the Democrat. I agree that Lively is too far right for Massachusetts, I think I said that right in the beginning.
I think you have it backwards. The national GOP has shifted rightward, leading many Massachusetts Republicans to switch to unaffiliated or towards the Democratic. The Republican tradition in Massachusetts has been moderate, whether we classify it as Rockefeller Republican, New England or Northeastern, the label does not matter. While you may see the Mass GOP shift further to the left, I see a state party staying true to it's moderate roots -- the same party that has held the Governorship from Bill Weld to Charlie Baker (with Deval Patrick as the Democrat sandwiched in between), which is pretty darn good considering how toxic the national GOP brand has been, lately.
Scott Brown's example is fallacious as he represented a mere blip in the long term Kennedy (Democrat) control of the senate seat. Scott was a result of a confluence of factors: Martha Coakley's weak candidacy, calling the senate seat "Kennedy's Seat" and Scott Brown's intense campaigning (that pick up truck).
Baker is a moderate 2018 republican in one of the most liberal areas of the country - it would be odd if he wasn't left of Reagan.
My point was not suggest Baker is right of Reagan, rather, to point out that the modern conservative lens is so far right, even GOP idols such as Reagan would risk being dismissed as Neo-con RINOs due to his stance on free trade and his role in NAFTA.
Free trade really isin't a red/blue issue. The preventage for and against is pretty evenly split amoung party lines. I think the anti trade idea is sort of a populist message, while the pro free trade is more popular with intellectuals and idealists.
Maybe it was another poster saying that, I wasn't solely responding to you. But I don't think Mitt Romney was any left of Reagan, for that matter. Neither was Scott Brown (2009 version). Of course they both had weak challengers, but that does happen as well. Mass. voters will elect a Republican to statewide office under the right conditions, and seem to be more forgiving of an authentic conservative than a wishy washy "moderate".
I'd argue 'Romneycare' alone would push him left of Reagan as Reagan was staunch supporter of private healthcare and, in conservative circles, a tax increase. Additionally, during Romney's '94 run he more or less ran a Weld-style moderate campaign and wrote this in a Bay Windows (of all places): "I think Bill Weld's fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to."
Romney isn't a conservative idealogue like Reagan. He's a fiscal conservative as public servant, and a social conservative as a citizen; but he's far too pragmatic (or perhaps empathetic?) to sideline on civil rights issues like Reagan did throughout his political career. Drug policy and the arts aside, he's left of Reagan on nearly every social issue.
Free trade really isin't a red/blue issue. The preventage for and against is pretty evenly split amoung party lines. I think the anti trade idea is sort of a populist message, while the pro free trade is more popular with intellectuals and idealists.
It was a Republican/libertarian policy for much of my existence and most of my moderate Republican peers would suggest it still is (or should be, despite Trumps current behavior and isolationist rhetoric).
I do agree that anti-trade is a populist message though. How else would you explain the conflation of Bernie and Trump among independent voters? I'm not convinced it was purely a 'Hillary issue'.
Now you're cherry picking Democrats, which is not a like-kind comparison. We're talking about Massachusetts here and Baker is certainly not left of MA Democrats. If he is left of some Tennessee Democrat, then so what? Baker will never have to run against that Democrat. Who knows, Lively might even have a better shot in TN?
I made a statement and I stand by it. I said "Democrats" not "Massachusetts Democrats". You are being petty, and it's totally irrelevant to anything in the conversation. STOP IT PLEASE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Englander
Massachusetts born and raised with the exception of literally 2017-18 where I lived in CT, I have been in Boston-Cambridge area all my life, own multiple properties in the Commonwealth, lifelong Republican, permanent domicile (even voted) in MA. Now that we're getting personal..
I never said you had to answer that (obviously), but your seemingly lack of understanding of the complex political landscape in Mass. would leave one to wonder. Thread titles such as this attract trolls from all around. I haven't noticed you much on the Mass. Forum, so excuse me for going a little on the defensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Englander
I think you have it backwards. The national GOP has shifted rightward, leading many Massachusetts Republicans to switch to unaffiliated or towards the Democratic. The Republican tradition in Massachusetts has been moderate, whether we classify it as Rockefeller Republican, New England or Northeastern, the label does not matter. While you may see the Mass GOP shift further to the left, I see a state party staying true to it's moderate roots -- the same party that has held the Governorship from Bill Weld to Charlie Baker (with Deval Patrick as the Democrat sandwiched in between), which is pretty darn good considering how toxic the national GOP brand has been, lately.
Scott Brown's example is fallacious as he represented a mere blip in the long term Kennedy (Democrat) control of the senate seat. Scott was a result of a confluence of factors: Martha Coakley's weak candidacy, calling the senate seat "Kennedy's Seat" and Scott Brown's intense campaigning (that pick up truck).
See, you are wrong. The Rockefeller Republicans you speak of are rapidly dying off and going extinct, they are not a significant player anymore outside maybe a few smaller communities. Republican voters (in MA) today range from Reagan Conservatives (most were prior or descended from prior Democrats after that party veered to far to the left for them) and more recent Tea Party types (and a a few who have the "Trump fever", but I wouldn't call "Republican"). The fact that few and fewer are registering, is that people like myself see no purpose in registering for a political party that doesn't seem to stand for anything anymore. They are almost as corrupted as the Democrats now.
GOP toxic??? The last 3 House Speakers were indicted, last I checked they were all Democrats. But Mass voters don't place a high priority on that stuff, so...
I'd argue 'Romneycare' alone would push him left of Reagan as Reagan was staunch supporter of private healthcare and, in conservative circles, a tax increase. Additionally, during Romney's '94 run he more or less ran a Weld-style moderate campaign and wrote this in a Bay Windows (of all places): "I think Bill Weld's fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to."
Romney isn't a conservative idealogue like Reagan. He's a fiscal conservative as public servant, and a social conservative as a citizen; but he's far too pragmatic (or perhaps empathetic?) to sideline on civil rights issues like Reagan did throughout his political career. Drug policy and the arts aside, he's left of Reagan on nearly every social issue.
Romney drifted more towards the right during his 2002 run for Governor. But he was no fiscal conservative, if he were he would have halted the robbing of the highway fund as a coverup for Big Dig cost overruns. Romneycare was also the antithesis of fiscal conservative, but many liberals complained that it was nothing but a giveaway to private health insurers (so go figure).
But he was to the right of Baker, no question (especially on social issues).
Maybe I spoke a little too soon. Not much about Lively per se, but some acknowledgement that this Primary is real and Baker still has to earn the vote of conservatives.
Either way, good to see him running a little scared...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but your seemingly lack of understanding of the complex political landscape in Mass. would leave one to wonder. Thread titles such as this attract trolls from all around. I haven't noticed you much on the Mass. Forum, so excuse me for going a little on the defensive. 
