Replies

“and like Tom Dewey, he’s going to lose twice”

Of course he will, if conservatives vote for someone *in the general* who has a 0.01% chance of winning (I’m being generous). There was a freaking Republican primary—why didn’t that conservative run in it? Maybe Lively’s odds of beating Baker in the primary weren’t very high, but they’re exponentially higher than his odds of beating Coakley and Baker in the general.

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.