Posted on 09/09/2014 6:09:18 PM PDT by Steven Scharf
The closest race at the moment is the one no one has been talking about.
Allan Fung and Ken Block are locked in a dead heat. 2 vote diff with 6% reporting.
Allan Fung (Declared) - Mayor of Cranston Ken Block (Declared) - Founder and former head of the Rhode Island Moderate Party
Gina Raimondo (Declared) - State Treasurer appears to be winning the dem nomination.
In NH, Scott Brown has been declared the winner with 23% reporting against 9 other candidates. Bob Smith is coming in THIRD.
Frank Guinta and Melinda Garcia are taking the republican house nominations.
Big upset in Massachusetts, Seth Moulton has taken out sitting congressman James Tiernery in the dem primary for house district 6. He will now face Richard Tisei.
S. Moulton 49.6% 5,886 J. Tierney (i) 41.4% 4,914 M. DeFranco 6.1% 724 J. Devine 2.2% 259 J. Gutta 0.8% 93
Mass Dem Gov. 21% reporting M. Coakley 40.4% 47,719 S. Grossman 36.7% 43,307 D. Berwick 23.0% 27,125
Mass Rep Gov. 16% reporting C. Baker 75.9% 21,155 M. Fisher 24.1% 6,723
Not looking to start a fight, and I am no “PC” freak.
But if the best you can come up with as a descriptor is that she has a nice rack (my words, not yours) then either she is a lousy candidate or the voters are pretty shallow.
We need to hold our candidates to a higher standard.
And...if the best NH can do is re-tread Scott Brown, there must be a real dearth of talent up there.
Oh dear. And despite it’s Republican Senator, district 60 was won by Obama by a wide 56%-42% margin, so it’s hardly unwinnable by the rats anyway. It might be the least Republican district held by a Republican.
This fusion crap is causing us problems lately, having it combined with the NY’s restriction on candidates being able to withdraw is horrendous.
In CD 21, IP nominee Matt Doheny, who lost the GOP primary back in June, dropped out and endorsed GOP/CON nominee Elise Stefanik, but his name is still on the ballot.
An aside, there was very light turnout in this primary, low enough for Zephyr Teachout to win many counties over Cuomo. NY election law is just bizarre.
Oh she’s an excellent candidate LT, don’t read too much into my choice to describe her last night as a “hottie” rather than “a conservative state legislator endorsed by Ted Cruz and the Club for Growth, who happens to be a hottie”. I was directing my post to the people I pinged, who I assume were acquainted with this race since we’ve been discussing it for months.
“And...if the best NH can do is re-tread Scott Brown, there must be a real dearth of talent up there.”
There is, the state GOP begged Brown to run after Sununu Jr. passed on a rematch. Hopefully the next generation of NH Republicans comes of age quickly. I sure there are other impressive young conservatives in the massive State House besides Ms. Garcia, but they are unknowns.
Fair ‘nuff.
Here in WMass we do not get much info on NH.
I have seen Scott Brown on Fox more now than I did when he was an analyst for them, and —and this is scary—more than I did when he was MY Senator.
I used to live in NH and back in the days of Nackey (sic?) and the Manchester Union Leader their conservatism shocked me after living in Mass for the first 24 years of my life. I became accustomed to it over my time there. Now, I long for it.
Sorry to sound like I was scolding. That was not my intent. Good luck with the General Election. Scott Brown is better than the alternative. I just wish “we” could do better.
No problem LT.
I initially misunderstood what you were driving at.
“I hope MA Freepers will support independent Scott Lively”
I AM voting for Lively. I WILL NOT vote for Baker. I blanked my ballot for years ago and he has not improved. He learned absolutely nothing from his loss. He’s like Tom Dewey, he thinks he’s just going to be put into office because the other guy is just so bad. But it doesn’t work that way, and like Tom Dewey, he’s going to lose twice.
I apologize too for calling our beloved candidate a “little honey”. “Sweetie pie” would have been a better choice of words.
“and like Tom Dewey, he’s going to lose twice”
I understand that Baker is no better than a 50% conservative. But he’s the nominee of a major party, has fundraising ability and fairly good name ID, has a record he can point to, and has a genuine chance of winning the election: maybe it’s 40%, maybe it’s 20%, but it’s an actual chance. Lively has none of those things, and his odds of winning are nil. And while Baker may be a 50% liberal, Coakley is a 99% liberal. Four years of Coakley will only send Massachusetts deeper into the hole of perversion and financial irresponsibility, so how would it help achieve any of Lively’s goals to throw away one’s vote by helping him get 5% or 10% (instead of 0%) and result in Coakley getting elected?
I have no reason to doubt Lively’s good intentions, but if he truly wants to move the MA GOP towards nominating conservatives (which is his purported aspiration), he should have run in the GOP primary.
I have no idea why Lively didn’t run in the republican primary. I think he’s a libertarian. That may be why.
I don’t vote for liberals so I’m not voting for Baker. I can either blank my ballot or vote for somebody else. I may actually write in Mark Fisher, the conservative who I voted for yesterday in the primary. I met him at the anti-illegal immigration rally last month. Charlie Baker refused to show up at the rally and actually agreed with our leftist governor that we should house all these illegal children. I will not vote for such a man, no matter what party he claims to belong to. Baker is a completely worthless dullard.
Lively is by no means a libertarian (much less a Libertarian). Here’s his platform, which is very socially conservative (his bio describes him as a “full-time missionary pastor,” so that shouldn’t surprise us): http://www.livelyforgovernor.com/
And his campaign website asks visitors to sign a petition to the MA GOP that it run conservatives instead of RINOs:
“Petition to:
Massachusetts Republican Party
No More RINOs!
Run a True Conservative for Governor”
He links to the petition: http://www.citizengo.org/en/signit/608/view
So it seems as if Lively is a Republican who chose to run as an independent because he wants to make noise, not elect someone more conservative.
As for your decision not to “vote for liberals,” that’s your right. But Coakley would do far more damage than would Baker, which is something that you should keep in mind. A few years ago, Father Frank Pavone (longtime head of Priests for Life) wrote about what a voter should do when faced with two imperfect candidates. While he was writing specifically about the abortion issue, his teaching on what we should do when faced with the reality of an imperfect world is a sound lesson for all contexts:
“I’m often asked what a voter can morally do if two opposing candidates both support abortion. I recommend asking a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You can have a clear conscience in this instance, because you know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is justified, you don’t agree. Moreover, you are doing the most you can to advance the protection of life.
By your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But it is morally permissible.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
What if there’s a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position? Of course, we should work like crazy to build up that person’s base of support to make him or her electable. But that is not done on Election Day. That takes years of work, which should start now.
Meanwhile, remember that your vote is not a vote for canonization. It is a transfer of power. We can vote for a less than perfect candidate because we aren’t using our vote to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.”
http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-10-23choosingevil.htm
Blah blah blah. I’ve heard all those arguments before. I keep a clear conscience by not voting for liberals. I will not help them in any way to win and am not responsible for any of their actions. Liberal republicans “need” our conservative votes but then work to make sure we are NEVER actually represented in any office. I’m done playing their cute little game.
If Baker is 50% Conservative, I’m Dr. Frank-N-Furter. This cretin is in Lincoln Chafee territory.
Elise Stefanik’s Dem opponent, Woolf, has ran a pro-abortion political ad many times on tv. Sick.
I hope Elise wins!
Siena college poll
Stefanik (R) 46%, Woolf (D) 33%, and a meaty 10% for the Green.
Also
RINO Chris Gibson (R) 57%, Wealthy homosexual Sean Eldridge (D) 33%.
Doug Hoffman lives ... no reason conservatives could not have won that seat when it was of national urgency, before the Pelosi vote on ObamaCare overhaul.
After the fact: reactionary.
I am glad for Elise. Better person than Doheny.
the whole thing is silly. An absurd coalition of NARAL-GOP-prolifers and a LT GOV who used to oppose gay marriage.
It does not work, but becomes a comedy routine.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/lieutenant_governor_candidate_1.html
In a high profile race, they will inevitably snub the 2% of the electorate that are serious about being social conservatives. The Baker pro-choice ads on NESN are a joke.
The solution? I am for Dan Allie for state rep, Westfield.
https://www.facebook.com/dan.allie.14
Thanx. So glad Stefanik is doing so well against the two liberals!
More NY House Polls from Siena
CD-18 Maloney (D inc) 50%, Hayworth (R) 42%
CD-4 Open rat seat, Kathleen Rice (D) 55%, Bruce Blakeman (R) 37%. Doesn’t look good
Another poll in NH from “Vox Populi” has Scott Brown up 47%-43%
They also have the rat leading the Governor’s race by that same margin. Other polls have showed a bigger lead for rat Governor Hassan.
Another NY, CD 24
Dan Maffei (D inc) 50%, John Katko (R) 42%
Not a strong lead for Maffei, who has a big financial advantage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.