11.09.2022/Election edition
A one party state now | Wacky end to crazy Diehl campaign | Lessons from elections past | Jane Swift to the rescue | Question 1 happy talk | About Contrarian Boston |
News tips? Story ideas? Email us at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com
Betting on the newly-minted millionaire’s tax to save the T’s shambolic finances? Think again.
That’s the verdict from Jim Aloisi, former state transportation chief and now a lecturer at MIT.
Supporters of Question 1, which will slap a 4 percent surcharge on earnings and income over $1 million, have pitched the new law as a way to save the MBTA.
“YES on Question 1 = A fairer tax system that can sustainably fund public transit so our trains and buses are safe,” tweets the Public Transit Public Good campaign.
However, only a fraction of the revenue raised by Question 1, which officially passed muster Wednesday afternoon after a closely fought ballot question campaign, would likely wind up going to the T, Aloisi tells Contrarian Boston.
Maybe 25 percent of the more than $1 billion in revenue raised by new surtax would go to support public transit. The T would then have to compete with a host of other local transit authorities and elected leaders pushing plans for grand new projects, like the East-West rail link, for a portion of that 25 percent.
Rather, Governor-elect Maura Healey should look at other ways of bolstering the T’s operating budget, which would enable the embattled transit authority to keep up with repairs and maintenance, Aloisi said.
That could mean state government taking over half of the payments on the T’s mountain of debt - which costs the transit agency a whopping $460 million a year - while also agreeing to pick up the tab for The Ride, a $140 million program which falls more under the category of social services.
“I don’t think it’s the game changer people suppose it’s going to be,” Aloisi said of Question 1. “By the time you get to the T, not much is going to be left.”
Mass delusions: Diehl supporters question election results
What’s left of the MassGOP is truly living in crazy town now.
Attorney General Maura Healey obliterated Geoff Diehl 63-35 percent in the governor’s race, becoming the first woman and first openly gay person to win the state’s top office.
Diehl did the right thing in the end, with the Republican candidate for governor calling late Tuesday evening to congratulate the governor-elect after her historic win.
But not before Rick Green, an auto-parts magnate and chief financier of Trump wing of the MassGOP, threatened to take things in a bizarre direction right after the race was called for Healey.
Green, who hired Diehl last year to be business developer director for his growing 1A Auto Parts empire, took the microphone and told attendees at Diehl’s election night party at the Boston Harbor Hotel to stay put, the Boston Herald reported.
“We have reason to believe that this may go down as a worse call than Arizona in 2020,” Green said. “We believe this is faulty information and we will have more time.”
An hour later, with not even a shade of doubt left about the race’s outcome, Amanda Orlando, Diehl’s campaign chief, doubled down on the Trump-style lunacy.
“In the last 45 minutes, we’ve seen red dots pop up on the electoral map as real results are coming in,” Orlando told the crowd.
Sounds like a certain someone needs to get her eyes checked.
Welcome to one party rule: Dems make big gains across the state
Led by Healey, Democrats made clean sweep on Tuesday of all statewide offices.
And given the party already controls the Legislature with veto-proof margins, the rout gives the Democrats complete control over all functions of state government.
Former Boston city councilor and one-time mayoral candidate Andrea Campbell became the first Black woman to win election as attorney general, trouncing Republican attorney Jay McMahon, 62.3-37.7 percent.
For his part, Secretary of State William Galvin easily brushed aside a challenge by Rayla Campbell, a Whitman Republican who inexplicably spent her time on the campaign trail railing about school libraries that carry LGBTQ-themed books, which she likened to “child pornography.”
Treasurer Deb Goldberg also cruised to victory, while Democratic challenger and Attleboro Mayor Paul Heroux unseated Bristol County’s long-time Republican sheriff, Tom Hodgson, who earned a reputation as a mini-Trump with his harsh rhetoric, grandstanding, and mismanaged jails.
A pair of party moderates fall victim to MassGOP incompetence, local blue wave
That would be state Rep. Shawn Dooley and Anthony Amore, director of security at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, who ran a spirited and ultimately unsuccessful campaign for state auditor.
Dooley, a Norfolk Republican, has led the opposition to Jim Lyons, the state Republican party’s Trumpie chair.
Dooley came up short Tuesday night in his bid to move up to the state Senate and oust uber progressive Democratic incumbent Becca Rausch, who had clashed with legislative leaders at the State House and was seen as vulnerable after changes were made to her district.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party spent tens of thousands on Rausch’s reelection campaign. By contrast, the MassGOP, with Lyons at the helm, gave Dooley not a dime, refusing even to list him on state party’s website.
Amore also got the same cold shoulder by Lyons, with the state party chair refusing even to run a photo of Amore with Gov. Charlie Baker on its website.
Too hot to handle? Here’s the campaign photo the Trumpie MassGOP refused to run on its website
However, the state auditor candidate did get a boost from the outgoing governor, who hit the campaign trial and also helped finance Amore’s cash-strapped campaign.
It wasn’t enough in the end. With strong backing from an array of labor unions, state Sen. Diana DiZoglio beat Amore, 55-38 percent.
So, will heads roll at the MassGOP?
We’ll see. Given the election night comments above by the leaders of the Trumpie cult that controls the state party, there’s reason to be skeptical.
That said, state Republican party moderates are already airing potential candidates to replace Lyons after Tuesday’s disastrous results, with former Acting Gov. Jane Swift among the names floated.
Here’s a twitter post by TheRealMassGOP, which has provided an online rallying point for beleaguered party moderates and more traditional (as in not radical bonkers) conservatives. Lyons’ term comes to an end in January, when he will face reelection.
“Dear @massgop it's time to clean house & remove the @JimLyonsMA boys club! Here are some excellent options for Chairman, in any order: 1. @janemswift 2. @anthonymamore 3. @BethLindstrom 4. @Dooley4MAsenate 5. Anyone who is NOT employed by A1 Auto.”
The incredible shrinking MassGOP
By Harry Lynch
Until recently a lifelong Massachusetts voter and social studies teacher, I have wondered of late:
Is Massachusetts now permanently, in effect, a one party state? And if it is, is this desirable in a democracy? Seventy-plus years of statistics should be enough to document a clear pattern, so here’s the tale of the tape:
Year # Registered % Democrats % Republicans % Unenrolled
1948 2,484,938 25 25 50
1960 2,720,359 30 24 46
1970 2,628,581 43 20 36
1980 (Aug) 2,963,467 46 15 38
1990 (Aug) 3,088,848 43 13 44
2000 (Aug) 3,836,451 36 14 50
2010 (Aug) 4,151,075 37 11 51
2020 (Sept) 4,666,299 31 9.8 57
2021 (Feb) 4,731,940 31 9.7 57.4
Source: Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin’s website
The most obvious trend we can note in this table is the virtual collapse in the number of voters registering “Republican” over the years. Certainly there are extraneous factors that influence party registration in certain periods and voters may temporarily change their party affiliation in order to participate in primary elections. However while the number of registered voters increased by 2.2 million, the number of registered Republicans decreased by 150,000, falling to under 10 percent of the electorate in 2020. The February 2021 (primary election) statistics indicate that the trend is continuing. While it would be natural for the opposing Democratic party to find satisfaction (or a source of entertainment) in the collapse of the GOP, the statistics suggest there is cause for serving water and coffee at any celebration events! The party encompassed a full 46 per cent of the electorate in 1980, but has since slipped steadily downward to 31 per cent in 2021. Unenrolled (independent) voters represent fully 57.4 percent of the electorate, with approximately 1,250,000 more voters than the Democrats, and a whopping 750,000 more voters than both major parties combined.
Over my years of teaching American History I developed an appreciation for the strengths of the American two-party system. First of all, of course, there is no Constitutional foundation for our two party system. It has simply evolved and become embodied in law on the basis of acquired experience in the various states over our history. And amidst some heated discussion and acrimony we continue to allow the system to evolve.
One of the great advantages of the system we enjoy has been the ability of the two parties to conduct their contests for primacy from the middle of the spectrum of positions held by voters. While the philosophies and platforms of the parties have evolved, historically Democrats and Republicans have been successful in fashioning “big tent” coalitions are attractive to sufficiently broad sections of the electorate, dictating that the winning party ends up governing from a broad middle.
A non-partisan and wholly pragmatic advantage of the traditional two-party balance is the check on abuse of power produced by vigorous and vigilant opposition by the group that is “out.” Competition is good for athletic teams and for the soul! While party platforms are intended to convey both legislative agenda and a sense of the candidates’ philosophy toward governance, on a very pragmatic level elected officials have power over the public purse. The watchful eyes of opportunistic potential candidates for office can provide the electorate with effective checks on abuse of power.
American history provides examples of the changing winds of our politics reflected in the rise and fall, and evolving positions, of both the major and of many minor parties. The Federalists, the Democratic Republicans, the No-Nothings, the Whigs, and Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive “Bull Moose” Party have come and gone. Favored issues were addressed, or fell out of fashion. The Civil War and its aftermath, the pains of the Jim Crow system, the crisis presented by the Great Depression, and the challenge of the Civil Rights Movement all created stresses on the major parties and forced re-examination of the coalitions that supported both Democratic and Republican parties.
Charles Sumner: Whig before the Civil War, a Radical Republican during and after. Plus of course a Massachusetts man. His career embodies the idea that party positions with respect to critical issues shift with the times.
The current situation in Massachusetts presents challenges and opportunities for both parties. It would seem to be be advisable for the Republicans to study the unenrolled pool of voters with no party affiliation in an effort to widen their base of appeal. The GOP has, of late, been better at fighting itself than at competing with the Democrats. As the weaker competitor, they need a disciplined approach and a sound strategy, both in terms of messaging and of organization.
The Democrats might well be concerned about a continued collapse in the vitality of their opponents. The danger, it would seem, could well be complacency. Accustomed to facing ineffective challenges to their power, office-holders could be tempted to take their constituencies for granted or fail to execute their duties responsibly. One has the impression that generally the Democratic party is more disciplined than the Republicans. In the absence of meaningful challenges from the opposition, however, the party could lose public confidence.
Harry Lynch is a retired independent school administrator and instructor, living in central New Hampshire.
What is Contrarian Boston?
I have fielded emails over the past couple weeks asking what Contrarian Boston is about.
Here’s a link to our mission statement – you can find it in the “about” section.
For a more prosaic, nuts-and-bolts description, read on.
An online newsletter, Contrarian Boston publishes every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. In Contrarian Boston you’ll find analysis of the day’s news, and original reporting as well.
Our focus is:
· Politics and all levels of governance, good and bad, with an emphasis on state and local, with some national mixed in;
· Economic growth and business, especially real estate, housing and new development projects;
· The media and why it does what it does;
· Education, from school board spats to the doings of multibillion-dollar university endowments;
· And whatever else catches our fancy.