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.
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'.
Bernie was anti TPP.
Bill Clinton was pro free trade, and helped create NAFTA. I think Hillary kept changing her views, so i'm not sure with her.
Considering Baker had a budget of around $8m vs. Lively's paltry $11k (not to mention Baker had the entire support of the GOP and use of its infrastructure), I think it was pretty impressive that "fringe candidate" Lively was able to take 36% of the vote against the "most popular governor" in America. Some key things that stood out to me:
1. This was the closest Governor Primary Election of either party since 1982, to include this year's Democratic ticket (where the spread was 1% point higher).
2. This was the weakest showing for an incumbent governor since 1964 when Endicott Peabody was defeated by Francis Bellotti in the Democratic Primary. Again, consider that Baker is the "most popular governor in America".
3. In the Democratic Secretary of State Primary, incumbent Galvin handily defeated Zakim 68% to 32%. That race got FAR more media coverage than the Republican Governor's Primary, yet was less close. Hmmm....
4. Lively had a very strong showing in Western Mass. (his home turf), and won in many of the smaller towns there. My guess is that was where he was able to focus more of his very limited resources. Had he been given a fair shake and the ability to deploy a similar campaign army to the rest of the state, who knows what we would be looking at today? IMHO he would have had a very fair chance. He won the town of Fairhaven (a larger town in Eastern MA), it would be interesting to know what he did there. Even towns like Dedham were very close.
Love Lively or hate him, I think it can be acknowledged that something significant is going on that the media is not doing its job covering. While they continue to play up the "most popular governor in America", Baker appears far more vulnerable than they are letting on (and that these recent results are an embarrassment to him).
I think the best case scenario would be for Lively to run as an Independent, and become the "spoiler" in a 3 way race. The backstabbing phony Baker can then return home to Swampscott and stay out of public office for good. KARMA.
Last edited by massnative71; 09-06-2018 at 07:42 AM..
2. This was the weakest showing for an incumbent governor since 1964 when Endicott Peabody was defeated by Francis Bellotti in the Democratic Primary. Again, consider that Baker is the "most popular governor in America".
Nope, since 1978. Incumbent Dukakis beaten by Ed King in the Democratic primary.
3. In the Democratic Secretary of State Primary, incumbent Galvin handily defeated Zakim 68% to 32%. That race got FAR more media coverage by the media than the Republican Governor's Primary, yet was less close. Hmmm....
It did?
Quote:
4. Lively had a very strong showing in Western Mass. (his home turf), and won in many of the smaller towns there. My guess is that was where he was able to focus more of his very limited resources. Had he been given a fair shake and the ability to deploy a similar campaign army to the rest of the state, who knows what we would be looking at today? IMHO he would have had a very fair chance. He won the town of Fairhaven (a larger town in Eastern MA), it would be interesting to know what he did there. Even towns like Dedham were very close.
What prevented him from fundraising more than $11k? I see small town politicians and local reps with more of a budget than that.
I don't think he would have done much better with the same budget. Frankly, I think he's the type of guy that the deeper you dig, the more he turns people off. He benefited from being a relative unknown in this race. He also benefited from being the "outsider" vs. the mainstream candidate which is a pretty common trend nowadays. People who are motivated and inspired turn out in force to vote for change and it still wasn't close. The guy is an extremely moderate Republican and he still got about 2/3 of the republican vote. You could have put a literal elephant on the ballot and it would have done similarly as well as Lively did.
Quote:
Love Lively or hate him, I think it can be acknowledged that something significant is going on that the media is not doing its job covering. While they continue to play up the "most popular governor in America", Baker appears far more vulnerable than they are letting on (and that these recent results are an embarrassment to him). I think the best case scenario would be for Lively to run as an Independent, and become the "spoiler" in a 3 way race. The backstabbing phony Baker can then return home to Swampscott and stay out of public office for good. KARMA.
Baker had this race locked up from start to finish. Nobody ever felt there was a threat. A lot of his supporters stayed home on Tuesday. That 36% of the vote amounts to some 98,000 votes in a state with nearly 7 million people. Bob Massie, who got even less coverage than Lively (by a good margin), took home a similar share of the vote (35%) and from more than double the voters (191,000). Baker's a moderate Republican who many Republicans feel is almost a Dem and he still got nearly 2/3 of the vote in the Republican primary. What makes you think that Lively would fare any better in the general election in Massachusetts? He was blown out of the water in the primary, and he would be blown out of the water even further in the general election.
The media didn't cause Lively to lose or even hurt his chances. It's not a conspiracy. He is just not a candidate people are going to rally around in force and I think your bias against Baker is skewing the perspective here.
^ I agree with massnative71 here; although the race wasn't "close" I have to say, I was quite surprised how many votes Lively got.
Yes, I was too. Especially since Lively is a kook. A normal candidate might have beaten Baker.
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.
