U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2018, 11:44 AM
 
Location: East Boston, MA
9,729 posts, read 17,688,073 times
Reputation: 11403

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
A lot of contradictions in here. Going with the theory that lack of name recognition allowed him such a showing (despite having such a failed message), wouldn't that give him the advantage in the eastern part of the state away from his home base (because back in familiar territory they MUST know what a "deplorable" individual he is and how extreme his views are, etc.)? In Greater Boston, he would simply be a protest vote or dismissed due to what the Globe says about him being "extreme" and anti-gay and whatnot. And if his message truly was such a failure, then wouldn't those closest and most familiar with him be the first to see that?
Not a contradiction. The hometown "boost" applies regardless of the message. People will vote for local people because they're local, known, and familiar (especially in Western MA where the alternative is a Boston area "Elite"). It's the same reason that in local races (like small town selectman races), parties don't matter nearly as much - you view your neighbor as your neighbor rather than the "republican candidate with a bad message." He's known and familiar. That will always be a boost and he'll get much more benefit of the doubt at home. No matter how much he campaigns across the state, he'll never duplicate that elsewhere. That's why in other parts of Mass, not knowing more about his stances on a lot of the policies helps him. It's easy to go "Ok, farther to the right, he's an actual conservative - I'm voting for him." Start delving into his stances on social issues, and those waters get a bit muddier. Especially in MA.

Quote:
To say that Lively's performance was "embarrassing" is a little far fetched, considering no other Primary incumbent challenger has come that close since Ed King in 1978. Any incumbent should have a Primary race locked up, and historically has even if that incumbent doesn't exactly pander to his/her base ie. Bill Weld. That such a "poor candidate" like Lively can make that much of a dent, shows vulnerability. And yes, this thread is really more about Baker than it is about Lively. They still call him the most "popular governor in America".
I disagree completely. The guy raised $11k. There's zero explanation for raising that little money other than he's inept as a candidate. There are plenty of people both locally and nationally that don't like Baker a lot. He's not a friend of the president. Lively, if he had a message that resonated even slightly, could have tapped into the same sentiment that has gotten any number of "long shot" candidates elected recently. It's not 1978, and Baker is vulnerable because he is so centrist (many feel, as you do, that he's essentially a Dem), there's a wave of "unknowns" and "longshots" beating so-called favorites, and there's a motivated and active part of the Republican party that's bent on getting rid of "RINOs" - which is something Baker easily fits the definition of in many eyes. You're putting way too much stock in the "most popular governor in America" moniker since it's really irrelevant relative to the actual results. A better candidate than Lively could have not only done better - he/she could have beaten Baker. Lively was a hot mess from day one and stood zero chance.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2018, 11:48 AM
 
3,222 posts, read 1,893,102 times
Reputation: 2991
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
And so is the population, of course the numbers look low. Maybe the voter turnout was lower there as a percentage, I'm not sure. My guess is that Lively saw the smaller towns as being easier to conquer with his limited campaign resources and decided to keep his focus there.




In relation to what, the general election? Not sure the point here? I'm also not sure of the average age of the typical Lively vs. typical Baker voter. As for conservative and religious, yes there I would bet Lively's voters to trend more in that direction.





No I wouldn't expect Lively or any conservative to do well there, that is a given in any election.
My point is, he could only muster 36% within his most favorable voting block and the addition of Baker protest votes ... which speaks to how weak his campaign truly was.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 12:27 PM
 
13,482 posts, read 10,243,855 times
Reputation: 7481
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
Not a contradiction. The hometown "boost" applies regardless of the message. People will vote for local people because they're local, known, and familiar (especially in Western MA where the alternative is a Boston area "Elite"). It's the same reason that in local races (like small town selectman races), parties don't matter nearly as much - you view your neighbor as your neighbor rather than the "republican candidate with a bad message." He's known and familiar. That will always be a boost and he'll get much more benefit of the doubt at home. No matter how much he campaigns across the state, he'll never duplicate that elsewhere. That's why in other parts of Mass, not knowing more about his stances on a lot of the policies helps him. It's easy to go "Ok, farther to the right, he's an actual conservative - I'm voting for him." Start delving into his stances on social issues, and those waters get a bit muddier. Especially in MA.

Social issues seldom decide elections, at least in Mass. As opportunistic political genius Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy stupid". But the idea that Lively has such extreme views stem mostly from what the Boston Globe tells people, while one more familiar with him would realize that he really just abides by the party platform with most of that stuff. I think a debate or two would have helped him, and given him a chance to articulate and clarify on his views while at the same time forcing Baker to defend his own record. Baker knew this, which is why he declined even after Lively offered to drop his lawsuit in return.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I disagree completely. The guy raised $11k. There's zero explanation for raising that little money other than he's inept as a candidate. There are plenty of people both locally and nationally that don't like Baker a lot. He's not a friend of the president. Lively, if he had a message that resonated even slightly, could have tapped into the same sentiment that has gotten any number of "long shot" candidates elected recently. It's not 1978, and Baker is vulnerable because he is so centrist (many feel, as you do, that he's essentially a Dem), there's a wave of "unknowns" and "longshots" beating so-called favorites, and there's a motivated and active part of the Republican party that's bent on getting rid of "RINOs" - which is something Baker easily fits the definition of in many eyes. You're putting way too much stock in the "most popular governor in America" moniker since it's really irrelevant relative to the actual results. A better candidate than Lively could have not only done better - he/she could have beaten Baker. Lively was a hot mess from day one and stood zero chance.

I agree that Lively is inept on the business side of things, he should have found a tested advisor/campaign manager. He did seem to reach a lot of people on the grassroots level. That is important, but by itself does have its limits on effectiveness. But if he had been given fair access to state GOP party infrastructure, part of that might have been solved. If he was such a poor candidate, I don't see why Baker and the GOP was so afraid of him. Why did they go to such extreme measures to silence and muzzle him if he is so self destructive anyway?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 12:32 PM
 
13,482 posts, read 10,243,855 times
Reputation: 7481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried View Post
My point is, he could only muster 36% within his most favorable voting block and the addition of Baker protest votes ... which speaks to how weak his campaign truly was.
Can't that be said about any Primary loser (Bernie Sanders hello), especially the MANY in the past who did not do as well as Lively?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 01:01 PM
 
Location: East Boston, MA
9,729 posts, read 17,688,073 times
Reputation: 11403
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
Social issues seldom decide elections, at least in Mass. As opportunistic political genius Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy stupid". But the idea that Lively has such extreme views stem mostly from what the Boston Globe tells people, while one more familiar with him would realize that he really just abides by the party platform with most of that stuff. I think a debate or two would have helped him, and given him a chance to articulate and clarify on his views while at the same time forcing Baker to defend his own record. Baker knew this, which is why he declined even after Lively offered to drop his lawsuit in return.
I agree that they don't win elections, but I think if they're extreme enough, they can cost you pretty heavily. We've been over this - I've read Lively's stuff on his own website, and his own summaries of his own books. They Globe certainly played into it a bit, but there's enough there in his own words that makes him look nutty.

I don't think he'd look good in a debate. He's not great speaking publicly (often trips over his own words), and Baker could have crucified him because Baker is excellent off the cuff. Frankly, I think it was more a brush off than a cover up. It's just not worth Baker's time. Between the press and his own materials online, Lively got the word out. As you said, he could have done more with a good marketing team, but he didn't and that's squarely on him. Baker spurning him for a debate fueled the fire for people who already criticized Baker, but I don't think anyone else really took Lively seriously from the start. They still don't. There's not much Lively could have done in a debate that would have converted anyone that wasn't already converted.

Quote:
I agree that Lively is inept on the business side of things, he should have found a tested advisor/campaign manager. He did seem to reach a lot of people on the grassroots level. That is important, but by itself does have its limits on effectiveness. But if he had been given fair access to state GOP party infrastructure, part of that might have been solved. If he was such a poor candidate, I don't see why Baker and the GOP was so afraid of him. Why did they go to such extreme measures to silence and muzzle him if he is so self destructive anyway?
I don't really fault the GOP - Lively didn't need them to show up better if he wanted to. I also don't think Baker was "afraid" of him, nor did he go to extreme measures to silence him. Lively had access to the same media and marketing resources as anyone else. I just don't think they took him seriously. It's easy to see why not - he didn't make a lot of noise. 36% of the primary vote amounts to 98,000 votes. It speaks a lot more about general apathy in the primaries than it does about any alleged "movement" against Baker.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Pawtucket, RI
2,210 posts, read 1,291,220 times
Reputation: 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
He won the town of Fairhaven (a larger town in Eastern MA), it would be interesting to know what he did there.
He won Fairhaven by 17 votes. Turnout was 831 in a town of 16,000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
His strong showing in many small Western Mass. towns suggests otherwise.
You need to look at actual numbers instead of percentages. He may have gotten 56 percent in Peru, for instance, but it was 23 votes to Baker's 18.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 01:45 PM
 
Location: East Boston, MA
9,729 posts, read 17,688,073 times
Reputation: 11403
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp775 View Post
He won Fairhaven by 17 votes. Turnout was 831 in a town of 16,000.



You need to look at actual numbers instead of percentages. He may have gotten 56 percent in Peru, for instance, but it was 23 votes to Baker's 18.
Exactly. Turnout was extremely low. The only takeaway is that nobody was motivated enough to go vote. If Lively "inspired" and the results are indicative of some sort of movement against Baker the way we're being lead to believe, turnout would have been much higher.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 01:50 PM
 
3,222 posts, read 1,893,102 times
Reputation: 2991
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
Can't that be said about any Primary loser (Bernie Sanders hello), especially the MANY in the past who did not do as well as Lively?
No. Unlike Lively, Bernie Sanders garnered 48.7% to Hillary's 50.1% with significantly higher primary turnout and an electorate that was diverse and without an incumbent.

My point stands - Lively had a dismal showing despite extremely low turnout and unfavorable incumbent among the conservative/GOP electorate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 07:50 PM
 
13,482 posts, read 10,243,855 times
Reputation: 7481
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I agree that they don't win elections, but I think if they're extreme enough, they can cost you pretty heavily. We've been over this - I've read Lively's stuff on his own website, and his own summaries of his own books. They Globe certainly played into it a bit, but there's enough there in his own words that makes him look nutty.

He has been a little "fixated" (to say the least) on certain issues, but how those views would likely dictate his policy I don't really see any significant effect on he day to day business of state government. At most, I think he would put the brakes on future radical legislation (a welcome for a large swath of the electorate). Bottom line is he wouldn't govern much differently than a "typical Republican" when it comes to social issues. He HAS, however, broadened his agenda. He has quite a bit to say on fighting the opiate crisis, repairing roads and bridges, and some quite interesting things on lifting people from poverty (that unlike your typical Republican talk could actually resonate with inner city voters).





Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I don't really fault the GOP - Lively didn't need them to show up better if he wanted to. I also don't think Baker was "afraid" of him, nor did he go to extreme measures to silence him. Lively had access to the same media and marketing resources as anyone else. I just don't think they took him seriously. It's easy to see why not - he didn't make a lot of noise. 36% of the primary vote amounts to 98,000 votes. It speaks a lot more about general apathy in the primaries than it does about any alleged "movement" against Baker.

I think it's important to note that more people voted in the Republican Primary this year than in 2014 which was an open seat. Baker actually did not get a whole lot more votes then than Lively did this time around, and Lively performed considerably better than Fisher did in 2014.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 07:11 AM
 
13,482 posts, read 10,243,855 times
Reputation: 7481
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp775 View Post
He won Fairhaven by 17 votes. Turnout was 831 in a town of 16,000.



You need to look at actual numbers instead of percentages. He may have gotten 56 percent in Peru, for instance, but it was 23 votes to Baker's 18.
Those don't look out of the ordinary for an off year Republican Primary. Peru only has around 800 people.




Some in the press are actually picking up on Baker's vulnerability.


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/col...ing_less_solid

Last edited by massnative71; 09-07-2018 at 07:42 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top