How Bad Does A Democrat Have To Be To Lose In Massachusetts?

elizabeth warren headshotsuzanne bump

Looks like Scott Brown may hit some “Bumps” in the road

Very, very bad.

Today’s Boston Globe-Democrat reports the latest poll showing Elizabeth Warren with a lead. The number isn’t particularly impressive—43 to 38 percent, with 18 percent still undecided. But here’s the depressing part:

Brown’s hurdle is that even as voters from both parties say they like him personally, regard him as bipartisan, and give him high marks on his job performance, many also say they plan to stick with their political party. And in a presidential year, with high turnout expected, that bodes especially well for Democrats on the ballot in Massa­chusetts. The party holds a 3-to-1 registration advantage over Republicans in the state. [emphasis added]

I moved to Massachusetts in 2005. And after looking at voter records, watching voter behavior and listening to the political conversation, I told anyone who would listen “Massachusetts voters don’t ‘vote.’ They ‘pull the D.’ Republicans can’t win here because there aren’t enough voters who actually consider the candidates. They just vote their party, period.”

I was told hundreds of times I was wrong, look at the governor’s races in the past, etc.  Sorry, I replied, but other than the fluke of Mitt Romney (who was lucky the vote was held during the only 10 day period he was leading in the race), the state has been, since 2000, mindlessly Democrat.

That doesn’t mean the voters are stupid or all of the candidates are awful. What it does mean is that there are so many unthinkingly Democrat votes that it’s all but impossible for a statewide Republican to get into an actual race. If 50 percent of the vote isn’t a “vote” but just a “partisan roll call,” it’s not really an election in any meaningful sense.

After the “perfect storm” of Scott Brown (special election, awful opponent, ObamaCare reax, under the Democrats’ radar), the 2010 election proved me right yet again. Two words:

Suzanne Bump. The 2010 candidate for state auditor had hired a murderer for her staff, she got caught cheating on her taxes, she was so unqualified even the Boston Globe-Democrat endorsed her GOP opponent (an actual AUDITOR)—all this with the backdrop of corrupt Democrats taking bras full of cash—and she still won.

Here’s the point: First, the lefty nonsense about “smart” Massachusetts liberal voters is utter nonsense. Knee-jerk party voting is what you get in immature democracies like Iraq. 

Second, if the reality is that great candidates can’t win in Massachusetts, even against awful opponents, do even Globe-Democrat liberals truly believe that’s a good thing? One-party rule leads to open corruption and widespread cynicism. Congrats, Massachusetts—you’ve got BOTH!

Concerned, good-government NPR-types usually decry such things. But the Natural Truth in Massachusetts is that liberals here would rather have corrupt Democrats in power than competitive elections and a two-party democracy.

Michael Graham
Radio talk show host, columnist for the Boston Herald, stand-up comic and former GOP political consultant. Learn more about Michael here.

Natural Truth of the Day

For several months now, whenever the topic of enrollment in the Affordable Care Act came up, I've been saying that it was too soon to tell its ultimate effects. We don't know how many people have paid for their new insurance policies, or how many of those who bought policies were previously uninsured. For that, I said, we will have to wait for Census Bureau data, which offer the best assessment of the insurance status of the whole population... I stand corrected: These data won't be available at all. Ever.-- Megan McArdle, Bloomberg View.