|
|
Post by Admin Twaddleford on Apr 18, 2020 10:55:32 GMT
11 electoral college votes
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jul 23, 2020 14:55:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jul 24, 2020 11:22:10 GMT
Very much a safe Democratic state now, and has been in the Democratic column for most of the last century, with only a handful presidential election wins by the Republicans in the last 70 years (1952, 1956, 1980, 1984). It was the only state in 1972 (apart from DC) to vote Democrat during Nixonโs election landslide.
The Democrats have consistently won this state at presidential level since 1988, and have won every county in the state since 1992. The election victories for Democrats are also reflected in other statewide races. Apart from the unexpected special election victory of 2010, the last senate election win for the Republicans was in 1972. The last time the Republicans won any House of Representatives election here was in 1994, and a significant number of Districts are regularly uncontested at elections.
The only exception to this Democratic dominance of Massachusetts elections is at Gubernatorial elections, where the Democrats have only won 2 of the 8 Gubernatorial elections held since 1990. Two Governors (William Weld in 1994 and Charlie Baker in 2018) have had elections where they won the state in a landslide.
Whilst there is an openness to voting for Republicans at Gubernatorial level, this level of support does not appears to transfer to other statewide races. Polling suggests that Charlie Baker, the current popular governor, would not win a Senate election if he contested it (although he would be a lot closer than other GOP candidates).
This is likely to remain in the Democratic column at Presidential level for a long time to come, and even in a scenario of a landslide Republican victory of 400+ electoral college votes in a future election it would be likely that this state is one of those that would remain in the Democratic column.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 24, 2020 13:03:30 GMT
Very much a safe Democratic state now, and has been in the Democratic column for most of the last century, with only a handful presidential election wins by the Republicans in the last 70 years (1952, 1956, 1980, 1984). It was the only state in 1972 (apart from DC) to vote Democrat during Nixonโs election landslide. The Democrats have consistently won this state at presidential level since 1988, and have won every county in the state since 1992. The election victories for Democrats are also reflected in other statewide races. Apart from the unexpected special election victory of 2010, the last senate election win for the Republicans was in 1972. The last time the Republicans won any House of Representatives election here was in 1994, and a significant number of Districts are regularly uncontested at elections. The only exception to this Democratic dominance of Massachusetts elections is at Gubernatorial elections, where the Democrats have only won 2 of the 8 Gubernatorial elections held since 1990. Two Governors (William Weld in 1994 and Charlie Baker in 2018) have had elections where they won the state in a landslide. Much of this is down to the incompetence and disorganisation of the local Republican Party, which often does not stand candidates in very winnable races. It is safe D in this election, but see below re: Baker. Operatives like him and perhaps Karyn Polito have a future statewide. I'd actually argue this is in a different category from the rock-solid-for-a-generation Democratic states like California, Hawaii and Vermont for now. The pollling we've had for a hypothetical Charlie Baker 2020 run is from 2019 by Change Research and it showed him losing to Kennedy 41-49, beating Markey 45-44 and beating lesser-known candidates Liss-Riordan and Pemberton 56-35 and 56-31 respectively. Even taking a Change Research poll at face value, polarisation would probably put the average Democrat well ahead by election day, but I think Baker could still win an uphill climb in a bad Democratic midterm (that is, I wouldn't rate the race safe D if and when he entered). Scott Morrison put in a respectable performance even when he lost to Warren despite not being an especially moderate Republican. That wasn't a result of Warren being too progressive, of course: he'd previously beaten the more moderate Martha Coakley after she failed to turn out enough Democratic voters. Baker wouldn't need a Roy Moore-tier opponent to win, just a crap one like the aforementioned Coakley. The challenge for MAGOP is getting a serious candidate, getting organisation behin that candidate and getting them nominated. The last part is tricky because if and when the elected statewide bench disappears, moderate Republicans will have trouble winning the nomination: Baker has a better approval rating among Democrats than Republicans locally and only gets the nod because they already know he can win. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jul 24, 2020 13:14:48 GMT
Whilst agreeing that Charlie Baker could not be ruled out completely in a statewide Senate Election race, there is a noticeable difference in how the same Republicans would perform when comparing Gubernatorial and other Statewide races (such as Senate) in some of the more liberal North-East states.
Whereas Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan and Phil Scott won the most recent Gubernatorial races in Massachusetts, Maryland and Vermont respectively (and all of them comfortably), they would all find it considerably tougher to win a Senate race in the same states with the same electorate.
Maybe it's because Gubernatorial elections don't have that presidential link, and have no effect on national policies of the president so some people feel more comfortable voting Republican at Gubernatorial elections. Same in reverse with Democrats in states like Kansas.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 24, 2020 22:49:17 GMT
Whilst agreeing that Charlie Baker could not be ruled out completely in a statewide Senate Election race, there is a noticeable difference in how the same Republicans would perform when comparing Gubernatorial and other Statewide races (such as Senate) in some of the more liberal North-East states. Whereas Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan and Phil Scott won the most recent Gubernatorial races in Massachusetts, Maryland and Vermont respectively (and all of them comfortably), they would all find it considerably tougher to win a Senate race in the same states with the same electorate. Maybe it's because Gubernatorial elections don't have that presidential link, and have no effect on national policies of the president so some people feel more comfortable voting Republican at Gubernatorial elections. Same in reverse with Democrats in states like Kansas. This is part of the heightened federal partisanship, but another is the increasingly prominent fixation on how a Senator would vote in Supreme Court nominations. I think Hogan and Scott have no realistic path to the Senate because of this and give Baker the benefit of the doubt because his state's lean is not normally as heavily Democratic as Vermont's and because MA's electorate is probably a bit more elastic than MD's. In their gubernatorial reelection bids, Hogan won by about 12% and Scott by 15% (the latter against a rather weak candidate within a VT bench that is otherwise very strong); Baker led by 34 points. |
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Jul 25, 2020 6:06:49 GMT
The competitive races here are often primaries, like the defeat of 10-term incumbent Mike Capuano in 2018 by Ayanna Pressley. This year, there's a competitive House primary (Neal vs Morse) and the Senate primary is close.
I doubt Charlie Baker could win a Senate election - despite getting over 70% of the vote in 1994, then Governor Bill Weld lost heavily to John Kerry in the 1996 Senate race.
While there are Congressional Districts in Connecticut that Republicans could win in future, the trouble in Massachusetts is the district that can be in play is educated and suburban - the kind of place where Republicans have been routed nationally since Trump took office.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacShimidh on Jul 31, 2020 20:57:28 GMT
JMC Analytics: Markey 40%, Kennedy 36%, Undecided 24% Markey's not quite finished yet, but I would be very surprised if he managed to pull off a win. The prospect of another "Senator Kennedy" is a very romantic notion for many Bay Staters.
|
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Aug 1, 2020 6:29:02 GMT
JMC Analytics: Markey 40%, Kennedy 36%, Undecided 24% Markey's not quite finished yet, but I would be very surprised if he managed to pull off a win. The prospect of another "Senator Kennedy" is a very romantic notion for many Bay Staters. Looking at the 2016 primary between Sanders and Clinton, a knife-edge result like that on September 1st wouldn't surprise me. Those numbers aren't bad for Markey. |
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Aug 12, 2020 16:42:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ on Aug 12, 2020 20:49:40 GMT
Last won by a Republican in 1984. Last won by a losing Republican in 1916.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Aug 12, 2020 23:41:32 GMT
Last won by a Republican in 1984. Last won by a losing Republican in 1916. Even if HW Bush had faced a much closer election at the national level, they would have gotten it in 1988 but for the Democratic nominee being the (locally popular) Democratic governor. |
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Aug 13, 2020 6:04:43 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 1,957
|
Post by YL on Aug 13, 2020 6:45:39 GMT
Last won by a Republican in 1984. Last won by a losing Republican in 1916. Even if HW Bush had faced a much closer election at the national level, they would have gotten it in 1988 but for the Democratic nominee being the (locally popular) Democratic governor. Really? It was close in 1984 (Mondale's best state other than Minnesota) and in fact the Dem swing in 1988 seems slightly underwhelming compared with neighbouring states. |
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Aug 13, 2020 10:36:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Aug 13, 2020 16:21:45 GMT
The Intercept can be a bit trashy and they've fully acknowledged they're not publishing all the logs they saw, but the ones there look pretty bad for the College Dems. I'll admit my characterisation of Morse's behaviour as unethical (though never illegal and rightly so) was too quick and mboy had it right in one of the other threads on this; I had presumed the uni was a lot smaller and that he'd coerced students (including 18 y/os) he was either teaching or had some official power over. Amherst not rehiring him was never particularly suspect because he teaches part-time anyway, but - at first - the allegation that Neal had coaxed this out of the College Dems was not particularly shocking as that's a standard opposition research tactic and not exculpatory regarding any dirt found. The story has shifted from sleazy guy to sensitive students to possibly non-existent students "speaking out" through two College Presidents who were driven to set up an apparent hit job by political bias. Perhaps Morse did do wrong, but the College Presidents' actions now means any of his victims must use alternative, credible channels (probably waiving their anonymity) to speak out as the letter is compromised.ย ย As it stands, I suspect Morse will still suffer an electoral penalty because of this which makes his loss almost certain; mud tends to stick for some time to those not immediately and completely exonerated in sex scandals and a significant proportion of progressive-leaning organisations wavered when the news first broke (before I get called a hypocrite on here for my earlier stance, I would have done the research in their place which I have not as a mildly interested Brit on the internet). That said, Timothy Ennis is probably not going to get his internship with Neal now, so he's (failed to) prostitute himself with no reward other than further discrediting of alleged victims in political sex scandals. Safe Neal -> Likely bordering on safe Neal. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Aug 13, 2020 18:44:11 GMT
A MoE of 7% and a sample size of 362 likely primary voters is one I wouldnโt be too confident about, but with a margin like that and considering the other recent poll, Iโd say this race tilts in Markeyโs favour for the first time since Kennedyโs entrance into the race. The pollโs wordclouds for what people thought of their candidacies were interesting and perhaps give some insight into the state of the race. Panetta has a bit more on the Morse story: |
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Aug 13, 2020 19:03:53 GMT
A MoE of 7% and a sample size of 362 likely primary voters is one I wouldnโt be too confident about, but with a margin like that and considering the other recent poll, Iโd say this race tilts in Markeyโs favour for the first time since Kennedyโs entrance into the race. The pollโs wordclouds for what people thought of their candidacies were interesting and perhaps give some insight into the state of the race. Panetta has a bit more on the Morse story: Markey has racked up the endorsements and is handily winning the money primary. I would say he is favoured. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Aug 13, 2020 19:20:35 GMT
A MoE of 7% and a sample size of 362 likely primary voters is one I wouldnโt be too confident about, but with a margin like that and considering the other recent poll, Iโd say this race tilts in Markeyโs favour for the first time since Kennedyโs entrance into the race. The pollโs wordclouds for what people thought of their candidacies were interesting and perhaps give some insight into the state of the race. Panetta has a bit more on the Morse story: Markey has racked up the endorsements and is handily winning the money primary. I would say he is favoured. Heโs had the most endorsements for a long while and it didnโt appear to stop the polls being in Kennedyโs favour earlier (moderately popular MA politicians could only influence so much compared to being the last heir of Camelot, it seemed). Money is weakly but still positively correlated, but I think it has more to do with Kennedy struggling to articulate a case for his candidacy on the campaign trail (heโs following in his youngest uncleโs footsteps in that respect) and that might in turn be an effect of the pandemic limiting both sidesโ ability to actually campaign (I would expect this to create pro-incumbency advantages around the country, but there've been more unseatings than usual so my intuition could be wrong). |
|
mboy
Lib Dem leaning
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 18,698
|
Post by mboy on Aug 13, 2020 19:25:25 GMT
I think this is called โdoubling downโ
|
|
