MA Election Choices. Fret Not on 11/4.

Yes indeed we'll have two-page, double-sided ballots next week. Be aware most of that is the four ballot questions...and that this is a simpler set of choices than the recent Dem primary.

I happily play scout and point the trail. I read the literature, go to the stump speeches, watch the debates, and drill down into the campaign sites so others don't have to. People do ask and I do say.

Do all of us elections officials and your fellow voters a big favor. Show up knowing which ovals you'll smear. You can do the essential research in two minutes through the secretary of the commonwealth's site. Go here to view or print your precinct's ballot.

Count 'em 4 Questions

This includes the four ballot questions, with all of their explanatory text. Please come with your choices. We have to account for every page of every ballot all day long. If you don't vote on the front and back of the second page, the scanner will reject it and an official will have to trot over to manually override that.

I have strong thoughts on these four. If you don't or are undecided on any, feel free to use my brain. The short of it No on 1 and Yes on 2, 3, and 4. My reasoning is in my Left Ahead podcast, which you can access here.

Mostly Obvious Choices

Sometimes I mix it up, but this cycle, the picks are Dems, as in:

• US Sen. Re-elect Ed Markey over a weak GOP Brian Herr (no real vision or any other virtues)
• Gov./Lt. Gov. Martha Coakley/Steve Kerrigan over Charlie Baker/Karyn Polito. Reject the baseless, even puerile, fantasy that putting a Republican in the titular head office somehow balances anything. The nominally heavily Dem legislature is not very liberal putting a GOP Gov. in is silly. Baker has toxic history from his roles running HHS and the Big Dig finance, and in his inhumane approach to fixing Harvard Pilgrim. Don't trust him.
• AG. No contest between the brilliant and experiened Maura Healeyk and the ho-hum John Miller.
• Secretary of State. Bill Galvin is stagnant and is a Luddite whose technology foot-dragging makes it hard to access "his" data (it should be ours). Alas, neither D'Archangelo nor Factor has made a convincing argument to unseat him. Too bad. Last time, Jim Henderson did, but as an indy, he didn't have the recognition. Begrudgingly, Galvin yet again.
• Treasurer. Deb Goldberg is the one, over GOP Mike Heffernan and Indy Ian Jackson. She has the experience and smarts.
• Auditor. Re-elect Suzanne Bump over GOP Patricia Saint Aubin and Indy MK Merelice. In a fit on inexplicable asininity, The Globe endorsed Saint Aubin. who is an anti-gay, anti-marriage-equality bigot. Moreoer, she got a basic accounting degree 34 years ago and briefly practiced as an auditor; too little, too long ago to qualify her for anything. She is abrasive. Bump has found terrific waste in the system and saved us tons of money. Let her keep at it.
• Congress. Incumbents are OK and in the one meaningful race for an open slot, the Sixth US House District, go with Seth Moulton over Richard Tisei. I generally like Bay Windows picks, but they are wrong picking the latter. Sure, he's openly gay and wants to push ENDA, but he's a Republican first and not in a good way. He promises to be John Boehner's puppy. Tisei has been a MA state senator and there's nothing he knows that Moulton can't outdo in a few days of study and conversation. Moulton has better politics and planks.

More of my reasoning on most of these choices are in another Left Ahead show here.

So, if for some reason you don't totally agree with all my choices, still vote next Tuesday. For all of our sake, come prepared with your picks.

Baker's Free Ride or Free Fall

It wasn't a clean and definitive win for Charlie Baker. Yet as far as the MA GOP bigs are concerned, he cleared the field of his single primary opponent, Mark Fisher.

A few more days may pass until we're positive that, unlike the Dems, the GOP'ers will have an uncontested race at the very top of the ticket. The debate includes how real the 14.765% of yesterday's convention ballot was. Fisher needs 15% to get on the primary ballot.

Complicating it is that the rules say blank ballots don't count. The party tabulators did instead tally 64 blanks, knocking Fisher down below 15% (as in Baker at 2,095 to Fisher at 394 and Fisher at 15.829 without blanks).

Fisher and I had a good chat at Left Ahead last week. I'll stick in his half-hour show below. He also graciously called me before the convention to thank me for being reasonable and respectful to him, as he was to me despite our political disparities. I can't run a Baker show; neither his campaign manager nor his communications director has responded to numerous requests.

Today, Fisher's FB feed includes:

Dear Friends,Thank you for your support over the last 5 months. I am currently speaking with lawyers about being jobbed out by Kirsten Hughes at the Massachusetts Republican Party "Kangaroo Convention". There were improprieties in the counting of the 'blank' vote that occurred which were not allowed to be challenged and no re-count was allowed. I will let you know our plans in the coming days.

He certainly has every right to feel cheated and to fight.

I don't know anyone who thinks Fisher would win a primary election against Baker. Yet we simple folk who took civics classes cling stubbornly to rudimentary concepts of democracy and fairness.

Conventional wisdom on this is that an uncontested primary is far better for the candidate than spending money and energy before a general election, all the while getting prodded and exposed by another party member.

Today's Globe has a pretty good piece on the convention results. They include a contrarian of moment, former Gov. Bill Weld, among the several saying how great it will be for Baker if he goes unprimaried. Weld says a Fisher challenge would help Baker interest unenrolled voters. As we all note here in MA, with 53% of voters unenrolled, that is where elections are won.

For analysis of uncontested MA primaries, you can try your own tabulation. Instead, look at the stats compiled and analyzed over at the Mass. Numbers blog. Over there in Nov. 2012, Bret Benson admitted the samples are small and Dems rarely have top seats without primaries. However, he concludes that most times, it works solidly in the GOP's advantage to clear the field for governor.

I note and admire the relentless optimism of the MA GOP leaders. I've heard the shouts of the party chairs from the carousel that seems to spin them off so quickly. This election will be different, like Weld or Mitt Romney and such. This is the right candidate at the right time. Then again, they insisted that when Baker went against Deval Patrick.

They would be foolish to turn down real or perceived advantages. Moreover, we have a long if irrational history here of the unenrolled claiming that voting for Republican governors to keep a check on the monolithic Dems. The wide disparity from one Dem legislator to another is plenty of restraint, more than a single chief executive could impose.

So it comes down to Baker. He's trimmed down and comes across a lot more human than in his last run. It may be long enough from his slash-and-burn at Harvard Pilgrim and his Big Dig associations that he can run pretty clean.

We in MA also are quite forgiving and don't burn an L for loser in the foreheads of unsuccessful politicians. Two or three goes at a high office are OK around here. Baker too has the plus of two full terms of a Dem governor. Those many voters who like that fairy tale of the magic of balance only a GOP can bring will certainly want a change on that alone.

Instead, I like the agon, when a governorship or presidency is the prize. Surprisingly, I find myself on Weld's side here. Whoever ends up as the Dem candidate will emerge well defined and with clear positions and personality traits for voters to see. For the other side, wouldn't it be swell to have the same?

Monday Followup: The Globe reports that Fisher remains unhappy at the appearance of a fix being in on the count and rules. MA GOP bigs deny both. I call with Baker the sure winner of a primary, the party should have let Fisher have a go, pretended they were honest and honorable, and not alienated unenrolled and GOP voters.


Update: Autoplay on Blogger started this regardless of settings. That's annoying. I removed the embedded player. Instead, click here to listen.

Elephant Dump on Henriquez

Can it be a pig pile if Republicans are jumping on? They were quick to the task today after MA State Rep. Carlos Henriquez was convicted and immediately sentenced. He will go to jail for six months of a two and one-half year term for two counts of assault and battery on a woman.

The jury found him not guilty on another A&B, on witness intimidation and on larceny under $250. He may even have been fortunate that the original charges could have included kidnapping.

The judge though did not like his attitude, did not find him remorseful, and did not seem to approve of his slapping his erstwhile female companion around then driving her against her will until she was able to hop out and away. As the Globe quoted Judge Michele Hogan,"When a woman tells you she doesn’t want to have sex, she doesn’t want to have sex."

We chatted with him in late 2010 when he was running for the 5th Suffolk seat. You can hear his show on Left Ahead here.

MA politics don't offer too many chance for glee or schadenfreude. The Globe article linked above does list other state Dems who have been charged with crimes. Today's sentencing hearing seemed to release pent vulture behavior.

As the article puts it:

After Henriquez’s sentencing, Republican Representative Elizabeth Poirier and the state Republican party called for Henriquez to resign.

“Now that Representative Henriquez has had his day in court, it is time for him to leave this institution which should in no way condone violence against women,” Poirier, who represents North Attleborough, said in a statement.

MassGOP Chairman Kirsten Hughes also issued a statement.
“The MassGOP calls on the state’s leading Democrat, Governor Deval Patrick to immediately demand the resignation of Representative Carlos Henriquez,” the statement said. “If the resignation is not tendered right away, there may not be adequate time for a special election and thus robbing the good people of Dorchester representation on Beacon Hill.”

Not surprisingly, Dem legislators called for a little compassion and for the process of his removal from office to take its course. Sure, he's out of there, but kicking him and jumping up and down on the supine body doesn't seem very civil. The Dems figure they can wait a day or two.

Then again...Republicans.

PM Update: The responses were not as reflexive and visceral, but Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Roberty DeLeo and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh have also asked Henriquez to make this easy for everyone and resign. DeLeo said he'd act to expel Henriquez (supposedly through the House Ethics Committee) if he had to.

Baker Only Player on MA GOP Bench

Lord love a duck, was it only three years ago that Mass Republicans' great wide hope, Charlie Baker, went down grimacing to Gov. Deval Patrick? He's back and big and bland as ever.

You can see his ho-hum announcement on the front of his new campaign site. At there moment, there's no other content accessible, short of signing up for his mailing list or giving him money.

The key concept here is that his only real hope of winning the open office will be voter delusion. The MA electorate loves its fantasy that putting Republicans into that office somehow is the smart thing to do, avoiding one-party rule and such.  Those who vote that way often say something like, "It's only common sense." Yet, that invariably means, "I got nothing. I'll make wild assertions and I don't want to be challenged or prove anything."

In MA reality, over half the electorate is unenrolled. The other 48% divvy up 36%-plus for Dems and 11%-plus for Republicans. Within both the unenrolled and Dems are substantial numbers of socially and fiscally conservative voters. I have long contended that this shadow Republican party is the base that the opposition needs to rally, where they need to pluck and groom their candidates from. That would apparently take more smarts, guts and energy than the GOP has here.

Amusingly, blogs around here, including the Red and the Blue Mass Groups, already carry Baker barkers claiming he will skunk Steve Grossman or whoever else wins the Dem primary. Some shills advance the very false idea that in the 2010 election, Baker would have beaten Patrick if Dem-turned-unenrolled Tim Cahill would not have run. That assumes Cahill's 8% of the vote would have gone entirely to Baker — a risible fantasy, when in fact Cahill bled Patrick votes from both Dem and unenrolled voters.

As outgoing MA Dem party chair John Walsh clears his desk, he also clears his throat and ridicules Baker's bluster. Moreover, sites like BigDigBaker.com and ProgressiveMass' list of 13 things Baker would like voters to forget they know about him are not being subtle about the candidates failures, shames and duplicity. If those seem like showing your hand and telling the opposition what's coming, it's no surprise to either side. Voters will have to delude themselves to smear the oval for Jolly Cholly.

Gov. is Baker's to Lose Again

Saddle up your swayback horses with cliché tack. The MA governor's race will be the wheezing GOP-for-balance one.

Lordy, that's tired and stupid!

Do-nothing state rep and senator, then fizzling firecracker fill-in US Senator Scott Brown said he would not run for MA governor next year. At least this time he seems to have finally learned not to jerk his party around until it was too late for other candidates to raise money.

That likely was a race he might have won. He hasn't failed at this race. His probable Dem opponent, Steve Grossman or a slimmer chance of Juliette Kayyem, face the dual disadvantages of that one-party paranoia and less celebrity glow.

The badly aging former teen model suffers from his own dual problems brought by ego and vanity. Someone he trusts needs to alert him to the reality that he is already making more money than he deserves to and that his occasional appearances on TV and in other media let him pretend to be wise and observant — traits he has never shown. He can play that online and on air without challenge.

Now the empty-bench MA GOP turns over in their political bed back to their old companion, Charles D. Baker Jr. Supposition, already in the Boston tabloid, is that the nomination for next year's race is his already.

 I have to agree that's almost certain.

Oddly, there may be other, better candidates, but they are hiding as Dems. The fairy tale here is that progressive, very left Dems dominate the politics, indeed the whole world of the Bay State.

If you are simpleminded and literal enough, sure, you can make that case. Both houses of the legislature are rife with Dems and have only a few Republicans. You can point to an over 3-to-1 party enrollment among voters as well.

Yet, numbers as well as even cursory analysis show a different reality. Consider that party registration is 35.7% Dem and 11.1% GOP, with a half percent Green-Rainbow and political designations (not officially parties but still a voter registration choice). Wait, you say, that's less than half. Sure enough, over half the MA voters do not choose a party — 52.6%.

The unenrolled as the official term has it regularly vote Democratic Party but have their pretense. They love literally to shout at polling places that they are "not unenrolled. I"m independent!" It's sort of silly but not too bad as adult foibles go. I've written on this before.

---

The One-Party Game

---

The game we play here is pin the governor on the statehouse. We've had up to 18 running years with Republican governors, while we vote solidly for Dem presidential candidates and keep that Dem balance on Beacon Hill otherwise.

The unproven, unprovable fantasy is that if we have a one-party system both legislative and executive branches, something terrible will happen. Specifically, voters across parties are wont to tell pollsters that Dems will ride the state with their spurs digging in, implementing all manner of extreme left-wing laws and expenditures. Voters are apt to chant, "It's only common sense."

That phrase is a verbal and political tic. Almost invariably that and "let's not reinvent the wheel" mean "I got nothing. I'm about to make wild, unsupported assertions and don't expect to have to justify them."

Back to reality, both major parties here are full of moderates and wishy-washy liberals. A few Republican legislators over the years have been nutty anti-choice types and such, but not many.Moreover, former Gov. Willard Mitt Romney constantly had to dance around his leadership in implementing universal health care for us while he was in office, arguably the most liberal act of any MA gov.

I contend that most Republican voters hide in the unenrolled ranks. Likewise, I contend that most Republican legislators hide as Democrats. There's general truth to the idea that except for governor or legislature from very conservative districts, you need a D next to your name for election.

That written, Left Ahead co-host Ryan Adams and I are among the legion lefties who want a more vibrant MA GOP. We end up speaking in political and economic code here instead of having substantial discourse and debate, both in campaigns and in the statehouse.

---

Guts, Anyone?

---

Lackaday, we seem to have a courage deficit here. Many Dem pols are willing to say they are fiscally or socially conservative but none switches to the GOP. For the Republicans, I can't even get a state party chair to chat it up with us on Left Ahead.

I had hopes for Jennifer Nassour. Three times when we met, she said how much she looked forward to coming on the show. Twice she asked for my card, took it and swore she'd make it happen. She never returned calls or email afterward.

Now I've tried the current one, Kristen Hughes. As close as I've gotten was to her scheduler guy. I called repeatedly to get him. I admit it was amusing when he heard the name of the show and asked whether we were left-wing. I told him both Ryan and I were progressive sorts, but that we let guests speak their piece without badgering them, pulling out surprise adversaries or using trick questions. He swore he'd get back with me but never has. No guts, those elephants.

I'd very much like to ask Hughes what chance she has of flipping conservative voters from unenrolled and conservative pols from Democratic.  I do see that as the positive future of the GOP here. Then again, that would require both insight and courage.

Wash, Reince, Repeat

Democrats are safe from RNC Chair Reince Preibus.

He released (or it escaped) the Growth & Opportunity Project report. The 100-pager is actually about 30 sheets of big, Mac-style sans serif type pages if you account for the repetition. It could accurately have the title Why We'll Never, Ever Fail Again or Click Your Heels Three Times.

I read the 100 pages, even the iterations and reiterations, verbatim, so you don't have to. Alas for bedraggled elephants, many sheets of, well, stuff don't make Priebus as smart, strategic or analytical as his predecessor Michael Steele. Facts include, Steele and his big candidates were winners, the GOP replaced him with loser Priebus, and the report G.O.P. or maybe GANDOP fails terribly at its two main purposes — 1) explicating how even in the worst of economic times with Republican Congressmen doing their damnedest to make sure our President could neither pass laws, nor appoint key officials, nor govern, the GOP lost the big race and seats in both houses, and 2) detailing corrections that will ensure big Republican wins in 2014 and the 2016 Presidential.

Instead GANDOP the gray:

• Does not deal with such core problems as voter disdain for GOP policies and distrust of arrogant candidates
• Pretends that changing voter demographics toward more people of color and a younger electorate are perfectly manageable if only they package their feces in a pretty box
• Uses a one-strategy-fits-all groups (except women) approach of puppet spokesmodels
• Deludes with gear-head fantasies such as if only they hire the right data collectors and analysts or the spiffiest new-media consultants they'll beat the Dems at their game

I can point to some telling pages in the report:

• P2: Contacts shown here and mentioned sporadically suggest hand-clasping, going to favorable or mildly critical, red-state folk and missing meaningful criticisms
• P4: "Republican governors are America's reformers in chief." if you equate regressive and reactionary policy with positive change. The question they should have asked is whether state-level regression contributed powerfully to the defeats in the last election.
• P5: "At our core, Republicans have comfortably remained the Party of Reagan.." Yet his policies differ dramatically from the current GOP platform and pols. 
• P5: However, this page has one of the keenest and most candid insights in the report — The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue. I suspect this key judgment will disappear in the morass of jive.
• P5: There is a voter perception that the GOP does care about people, while Dems "tend to talk about people. Republicans tend to talk about policy." The report fails to note that Dem policy also tends to act to the benefit of the voters instead of moneyed classes.
• P6: A key conceit is that Republican policies that favor the corporations and wealthy individuals creates a healthy, growing middle class. Very few are so delusional as to believe that. If the GOP wants the White House, it needs to drop this.
• P8: The only mention of gay rights is that younger people favor them. Yet the report only calls "to make sure young people do not thee the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view." It's surely not like the GOP is out of step with the nation, eh?
• P8: "If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans, we have to enrage them, and show our sincerity." Of course, every conclusion and recommendation in the report is insincere and manipulative. Saying sincere and being sincere are not the same.
• P12: The dark people are coming, Latinos, Asians and others. The report concludes repeatedly that the canned GOP program is the best for everyone. Yet Barack Obama and the Dems convinced voters that Republicans did not have their economic interests at heart. That wasn't a hard sell.
• P14: Iterates over many pages in recommendations. Just get coached surrogates who look like the target voter groups and the GOP wins. For one, "This new organization should design a surrogate program to train and prepare ethnic conservatives for media presentations nationally and locally. Surrogates would speak on behalf of the Republican Party on issues of the day." The report has similar findings for each major group Romney lost in the last election, except for women. The puppet strategy is simple-minded and insulting. You just train the various looks-like-you folk. 
• P15: "It is imperative that the RNC changes how it engages with Hispanic communities to welcome in new members of our Party." This also repeats for each group it lost. It avoids personal responsibility for clumsy, insulting, mean policies by suggesting that if you only phrase the message properly, voters will buy in.
• P16: For each lost group, starting with Latinos, key concepts are that you train the surrogates (puppets), hire a few, suddenly visible representative members as party functionaries, and repeat to them "The Republican Party is one of tolerance and respect..."
• P17: For Asians and Pacific Islanders, no more fly-over campaigning. There is no mention to what party shock will ensue if the GOP actually asks what the various groups want and sees that none of it aligns with party policy.
• P19-21: Women get a slightly different treatment from the cut-and-past recommendations for the ethnic groups. Here instead of policy changes, the report looks to theater, manipulation and tricks. It calls for framing the wooing and training of surrogates with "unique concerns that female voters may have..." and  using "language that addresses concerns that are on women's minds in order to let them know we are fighting for them." It's all fluff for women, fluff and messaging —"Women need to hear what our motive is — why it is that we want to create a better future for our families and how our policies will affect the lives of their loved ones." This is the most patronizing and insulting part of the report.
• P21-22: Youth harks back to the Vietnam Era Young Americans For Freedom glory days. Somehow the RNC thinks it can get eager campus and young professional voters spontaneously organizing for them, all without changing their policies to be more inclusive for real.
• P26: Many of us remember when Republican were first with the internet and savviest with emerging social media. They've lost hat Now they've become gear-heads, thinking if only they have better data collection, they'll best Dems at the game of voter connection. The report does not see that Dems have both delivery AND content.
• P29-30: Dreams of monopolizing early and absentee voter ballots overlook a huge problem. Through gerrymandering and redistricting, they also thought that they had the Electoral College in hand. They overreached with voter suppression in many states. For sure last year and likely going forward, the GOP created new groups of angry, dedicated voters who won't forget the treachery and anti-democracy.
• P31: "The RNC should recruit and hire a chief technology and digital officer for the RNC by May 1, 2013." More gear-head stuff does not admit the problem. It's like a teen thinking if only he had that glove and bat, he'd be a star or an adult fantasizing that his $5,000 bike would make him a champion cyclist.
• P33: Calls for "recruiting the highest-quality candidates with the greatest potential for leadership" ignores the history of primaries that yield extreme and ultimately unelectable entries, chosen by the wingers who vote in these contests. It also avoids consideration of whether the RNC will try (surely unsuccessfully and maybe illegally) to dictate state parties' operations.
• P52: "Our friends and allies (third party groups) should significantly invest in voter registration and grassroots efforts." This assumes a buy-in by voters that has not existed in a long time.
• P54: Relying on ambush videos by "Well-funded conservative groups" tracking Dem candidates is a tactic, but one that many voters find both despicable and boring.
• P54: "Our friends and allies must realize that the Party is at its best as the Party of ideas, and healthy debate of those ideas is fundamentally good for the Republican Party." This is the most unintentionally amusing recommendation in the report. Throughout, it is heavy-handedly paternalistic in not bringing up self-criticism, not admitting failures, and calling for RNC edicts to state parties and the puppets, a.k.a. surrogates.
• P57: The report envies Obama's grassroots support there and here, and notably in "low-dollar fundraising." This follows a passing mention of the rich folk who bankroll the party. It avoids the obvious, that grassroots are millions of voters and million of contributors. Dems win them by offering platform planks that help them. The clear recommendation should be, but is not, to evaluate the party policies to see whether they help the target voters.
• P65-67: Citizens United was not enough. The report wants a total freedom for the RNC and state campaign financial system to raise and spend as it sees fit. The report phrases such anarchy as "making political speech more robust at the state and local level."
• P71: Cut the number of Presidential-candidate debates in half, with the aim of helping the GOP pick a single candidate and getting a head start on the national campaign. Forget that talk about robust speech.

The last third of the report cuts and pastes each section's already iterative recommendations. I suggest not just starting on page 74 for these. You'd miss the shameful and illogical rationalizations.

This report is a marvel of effete delusion. Academics will enjoy this for decades. Given the chance and lots of resources and what passes for brain power in the GOP, Priebus' pals could well have dealt with real causes and real solutions. Instead, it's the fantasy world again.

Yeah, the Dems did this or that better than us. All we need to do is buy the right staff and train some spokesmodels. All will be swell.

It is to laugh.

Reverse Engineering Dem Machinery

Those who enjoy the good fight in politics dismayed at GOP Chair Reince Priebus' recovery-by-committee announcement this week. Rather than taking the route of personal responsibility, he and what passes for party leaders kept up their delusions.

Forget the many tea-party types who claim that Mitt Romney would have won if only he had been more brutally right wing, a.k.a. more like what actually cost them the election, including Senate and House seats. The alleged brains of the GOP are the back end of the elephant.

Priebus inexplicably to those who live in the real world looks to retain his job after his abject failures. Now he claims that all the party has to do under his pathfinding leadership is copy what the Dems did right this time. All will be well.

I snort in his direction.

His newly acronym-ed GOP (Growth and Opportunity Project) applies RNC members plus Jeb Bush and Ari Fleischer. Let's call them the usual suspects, á la Casablanca. Their eight mission-impossibles are campaign finance issues, demographic changes, fund-raising, geting out the vote, messaging, outside groups, and presidential primaries — buzz words each and all. 

Together this abrogation of duty must also cause considerable amusement among Dems. The task before the GOP's alleged leadership is not to pretend they can emulate and maybe improve on lefty tactics and strategies. In fact, instead of thinking that adding more high-tech aids and PR ploys will reverse their fortunes, they should look beyond messaging and into message. 

(Click below to hear Dem campaign god Howard Dean on MSNBC giving real advice to the dumb.)

For the GOP to get its act together, it has to admit its essential platform and policy blew the election. They simultaneously managed to offend and turn off large portions of the middle class, women, Latinos, African Americans and far more. 

Priebus hinted at that to the WaPo, while making it plain he would not push for policy revisions. He told Jennifer Rubin, "I can’t tell you what policy recommendations, if any, will be made, but when you are doing a deep dive like this it is hard not to look at the message. Policy bleeds into a lot of things." Yet reading all of his recent statements, I figure it's plain he will get this little traveling circus to study everything and then try to nudge it to recommend (never demand) comprehensive immigration reform and similar planks that will bring in the millions disgusted with the GOP now.

In other words, as I and many could tell him right now, Dems won in a terrible economy because their message was superior, rational, compassionate, and little d democratic, a.k.a. American. Republicans don't need new tricks and toys. They need new hearts and minds.

Here in MA, we can recall when the Dems lost the U.S. Senate seat in the special election following Ted Kennedy's death...to a do-nothing state senator, Scott Brown. The extremely capable state party chair, John Walsh, did not play Let's Form a Committee. He first admitted the obvious failings of both their candidate and the campaign. He considered it a personal failure, the worst of his life. He dug right into the issues, after first setting them out for all in and beyond the party to see.

That's what having personal responsibility, courage and insight can do.

---

Whiners and Winners

The counterpoint to winger excuses for massive GOP loses this election has been a surprising, to me at least, self-control by Dems. I have read on winger blogs and heard on Fox carefully picked and over-expanded examples proving, absolutely, unequivocally, so-there proof, poof, proof, that Democrat are vindictive and vicious winners.

I honestly don't see and hear that. For every smirking Dem, there must be a dozen or more relieved ones. Most of us accepted that the slow economic recovery make seem swell in contrast to the larger world's, but still sucks for us. Plus state-level Republican gerrymandered districts gave terrific advantage to them. This was certainly the GOP's year to pluck the Presidency without even reaching.

Moreover, as recently as 2010 when Scott Brown took the special election for U.S. Senator from MA and again later in the year when Republicans took control of the U.S. House, the crowing and cackling were deafening. Spiking the football was far too mild a metaphor. I suspect with the Bush years in mind and emotion, they were like Bostonians used to championships and feeling entitled.

My own delusion was that a substantial number of Romney/Ryan supporters would play nice, mildly praise the winning side and say they'll make sure it doesn't happen next time. Very little of that has been evident.

A lucid example was over at the often doctrinaire redstate.com, there featured writer Erick Erickson was fair and smart. He admitted defeat without whining and delusional or paranoid self-lies. He specified what the GOP had to fix.

On a personal level, I thought perhaps Brown and Romney supporters might show a bit of grace and even good humor. Not yet. Even among school classmates on Facebook, those with the most extreme slurs against Barrack Obama and Elizabeth Warren have simply ignored the election. Their feeds have regressed to light news and noise, none of it political.

Sure it would be satisfying if wingers showed some social skills and even went the personal responsibility route. Their party likes to claim they are for personal responsibility and accountability after all — but apparently only if those inconvenience or embarrass Dems.

I've given up looking for hints of conciliation. That may only come when GOP Congressional leaders show it is acceptable to do some things for the good of the nation. That's bound to happen, but why do they make it so hard and so temporally distant?

Instead, unlike the Gingrich/Koch/Rove types that want and foresaw a regime of Republican dominance crushing all opponents, Dems in the main would like a working two-party system. They say as much and do more than their part to act on it. When Republicans claim that bipartisanship can mean only do exactly what they want, they make a zero-sum game.

For that two-party thingummy to work, Republicans have to have a big rethink again. Everyone's numbers show they have alienated women, that majority of voters, in large numbers. Quite justifiably, Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other groups don't trust Republicans. They still hold sway among older, white men, the party's dwindling party.

What could be plainer than:

• Admitting Dems' policies and positions worked better even in what should have been a gimme election for the GOP
• Considering all the groups where Romney, Brown, Akins and so many other lost, and mapping those races to Republican policies and positions
• Rethinking what they really want — self-righteousness or political power

There is still a big GOP subset, led by the House Tea Party folk, who say and seem to believe that they can sway a majority of Americans by being more extreme, more xenophobic, more government intrusive into personal decisions, more restrictive in voting rights and on and on. Those folk don't have any extra brain cells to rub together to keep their skulls warm in the winter.

Here's hoping Mitch McConnell and John Boehner do enough deal cutting and cooperation in the lame-duck Congress and early into 2013. Beyond being better immediately for us all, that would provide license for GOP voters to come to terms with the election results and for the GOP itself to accept that they have to alter strategy and platform to ascend to power again.

I can guarantee that Obama would be happy to share credit or let GOP leaders take credit. When they try at all, he has. He prefers to think of his role as enabling reasonable people to act together. There's another lesson Republican leaders get for free.

I can't say that I'm eager for the next Republican President, but like most lefties, I like a vibrant political discussion leading to laws we can all live with and benefit from. And like most lefties, I like a good election battle that brings lots of voters to the polls to have their say. Smearing the ovals and other voter tricks gives us ownership of the results.

Honorary Girl? Sure

Honorary girl, eh? I've been called that and don't mind at all.

Over at little-brain sites, like the Boston Herald and RedMassGroup, they're trying to inflate MA Dem party chair John Walsh's jibe at Scott Brown. Then again, that is what they do most often, attach a winger pump to even the tiniest lefty balloon. (You might also look for Howie Carr's puerile go at this, but it's just one cheap-shot fat joke.)

Walsh is as funny as he is smart. Sometimes he brings Joe Biden to mind as he free associates comments for effect. Sure, he was ridiculing Brown's cynical effort to appeal to women voters by showing himself folding laundry. Brown is a shameless panderer, so he was an easy target again.

Sure, Walsh should have called on his brain's executive function here to wonder how such a comment might play. After all GOP sorts and their allies even here do have those trackers and hunt relentlessly for anything they can twist. This didn't require much effort on their part and with that John handed them an ephemeral political toy. He let cleverness get ahead of craft.

This brings to mind though times when I've been named an honorary girl. In particular when I chaired the board of a large downtown church, the woman who was senior minister called me that more than once by way of pointing out that my policies and proposals under discussion were female inclusive and aware. I grew up in an equality minded family...and this was a UU church, after all.

The board and staff were almost entirely women then as well, with a few guys in charge of building and grounds and such.

The senior minister was a partnered lesbian, who adopted the first of their two infant girls then and generally brought the baby to board meetings. As an involved dad, I was at ease with little ones and could keep them amused or jiggle them to sleep with the best of them. I often held her.

I noticed that many babies do like a dad's hands and shoulder. I suspect that they feel secure in large, strong hands. Men are likely to have such, as did my maternal grandmother who was a great baby comforter.

This little one also liked my silk ties. She'd nestle in the crook of an elbow and rub the tie on her face or feel it. My youngest son was similar, liking my ties almost as much as the satin binding on his blankie.

There was a magic state when the minister's daughter was happy in my arms and a bit more magic when she fell asleep. The room was largely populated with women, who seemed charmed and to identify with this honorary girl holding real thing. I am positive it made my job running the board easier. They denied me nothing at such moments.

November Dangers

The first Tuesday of November is laden with political risks this year. Despite GOP Congressional types doing their utmost to stifle economic recovery for the sake of winning the Presidency, and looking to a pair of dishonest, dishonorable fantasy mongers for their top ticket, Obama's re-election is iffy.

November 6th this year is election day but doesn't have the pithy Shakespearean warning, "beware the Ides of March." Rather it would be a warning for ante diem VIII Idus November, eight days before the Ides.

I have a standard rant here and at Left Ahead on this election being about reality v. fantasy. Amazingly, it could go either way and I'm sure at least 40% of voters will go for fantasy despite history and mounds of evidence.

Consider the biggest perils to Obama/Dems:

1. Passivity. Polls are plain. Obama/Biden would do great with those who do not intend to vote. If the Dems can motivate unlikely voters to get to the polls, that would translate into a landslide.
2. Youth Apathy. Unlike four years ago, first-time and second-time young voters do not feel ownership and excitement this time. The viral joy in the Patrick and Obama campaigning with new media/social media is largely absent. That two-year window of magic closed. Social media are less political, more dispersed, and have more of an emphasis on social this go-round. Obama's crew has not made much of an effort to recruit and leverage the declining political-blogger world and doesn't have time now even if they wanted.
3. The Disinterested Self-interested. Key constituents may still make the difference for Obama, but the campaign has to get its act together. Women, Latinos, middle and lower class voters are among the many groups the GOP in general and Romney/Ryan in particular have insulted and whom they would actively harm. The votes are there for the taking, but Dems seem to be relying on voters to pay a modicum of attention to the bad guys' messages — never a wise strategy.
4. Fnord. In addition to Romney and Ryan, their surrogates and PACs openly, baldly, illogically lie, ascribing all manner of positions and acts to Obama. Those who want to find an excuse disguised as a reason to vote Republican cling to the misinformation and disinformation, no matter how often and in how many sources they are discredited. The Dems have to get real about ridiculing and puncturing the GOP balloons of deceit.
5. Purchased Democracy. In the first major election after Citizens United, SuperPACs decidedly will be factors. Fortunately for Dems, few people get their news and opinion from TV and radio only; the dispersion of info flow will dilute some of the impact of lies and smears. Unfortunately for Dems, we don't know yet whether Americans who do vote will be angrier about floods of ads trying to buy the election or will be susceptible to their messages.
6. Stolen Democracy. In numerous states, what can only be accurately described as a GOP conspiracy, the tactics of voter suppression will decidedly reduce turnout and eligible voters. This will hurt Dems the most by disenfranchising the poor, rural elderly and communities of color. Judges seem laissez-faire when asked to stop these shameless ploys. The U.S. DOJ has done little and only a whiplash of voters will counter the effects of this.

National Fantasy

Ladies and Gentlemen, come November Sixth, the bifurcation to end all forks in all roads confronts all voters. Surely at least 40% of them will head toward a fantasy land. Here's hoping with all my being that they don't take us with them.

I'm old enough, well read enough, and observant enough to draw some lessons an inferences from past elections. This looming one is huge, at least as big as the last Presidential. In 2008, Obama promised a clean break with the failed winger economic legacy of Reagan and the Bushes, as well as with their suicidal, economy-destroying wars. He only kind of delivered, hampered mostly by GOP total disregard for the nation and his own temerity.

Despite Republican efforts to keep millions jobless and our taxes going for military over-spending and benefits to the wealthiest only, we have slowly mirrored the rest of the world in recovering from the Great Recession caused by the parody of capitalism so beloved by wingers. Yet, this election may hinge in large part on the impatience and irrationality of the voters. Even with the GOP House and filibuster wielding Senate preventing big recovery efforts, the electorate tends to look to the President for magic.

Setting aside the reason, the Obama administration has been on duty while we only slowly recover. Many will look to the any replacement as the fantasy miracle he did not deliver.

You'd think that voters would go for the rational response — dump every Republican House member up for election and increase the Dem majority in the Senate. Let's pass the necessary legislation to get the nation moving!

Alas, that would require awareness of reality. Isn't the fantasy more seductive?

We'll be kicking this around tomorrow on Left Ahead. Our version of Ryan, as in Ryan Adams, my co-host, will discuss the election with the Paul Ryan pick. If you can catch us live at 2:30 PM Eastern Tuesday 8/14, do that here. Afterward, it will be available for a listen or download there, on Left Ahead or at our iTunes page.

Shout It, Dems!

Even hanging on an odd hook on the side of the judicial closet, today's SCOTUS affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, is beautiful to behold. This first go at universal health care was many decades in the troubled making.

Now Democrats, including that President Obama one, need to focus and shout.

Even those who claim not to like the health-care reform really do. They want to keep nearly every provision of it. If they don't already benefit, their parents and others they know do.

For God's sake, Dems, don't play Blanche Dubois, depending on the intelligence of voters! Tell them, tell them clearly and repeatedly what they keep and what they stand to lose, depending on who's in the White House and Congress. Don't figure if you say it once on national TV that everyone understands.

For some unfathomable reason, Democratic pols and party officials have not been making their case strongly and plainly. This November election is no time for whispering and implying.

I'll read the big, honking decision a time or two, and wait a few days for the wingers to circle around their bonfire of lies and camp of hyperbole.

My dual takeaways today are:

1. This is a brief breather. There's more to be done, from reelecting Obama, to keeping control of the Senate, to shaming those obstructionists in Congress into meaningful jobs-bills support. Speaker Boehner claimed smugly before the ruling the GOP would not spike the football. I don't care if Dems do, but that should not distract them for more than a moment from the big tasks ahead.
2. We have only a few months to make our case. American voter too often have chosen the fantasy (think guns and butter, or trickle-down-economics [still in play]) over reality. Dems have to, absolutely have to, make it plain that we can recover economically quickly, if the Republicans stop the crap. We have to make as plain that taking a huge, blind leap on a fantasy this time is madness. Even with the GOP fighting all the way, the Administration has improved our lot substantially. It is essential for Obama and Dems to leave no doubt where the path is to a good future. 

We can let the Republican pols and funders sit in their corners muttering and cursing, speaking of how they had a better plan. They should just stay out of the way of those who mean to repair and advance the nation.

PM Update: On the way home from a broken-bone followup, I listened to NPR in the car. It was easy to believe that the news voices kicked around the meaning for the POTUS election. It was nearly impossible to hear one say that the victory today put a huge target on Obama for Romney. What century and continent did Mara Liasson recently emerge from? The winger elephants have been trying and trying to depict this stumbling start at universal health care as something terrible, while nearly all Americans love some or most of its features. Now that the SCOTUS has OK'ed it constitutionally, how can that mean anything other than much more widespread acceptance? Romney is erring in continuing to call the ACA Obamacare, adding the only way to get rid of it is to replace Obama with him. The only worthwhile accomplish of MA Gov. Romney was the nascent version of health-care reform that became the model for the ACA. Tell me how he's going to target this successful program that already benefits millions of us without shooting himself with every arrow at Obama. Lackaday, Mitt, Obamacare is not the pejorative you imagine.

Big Honking Government

The unnoticed yet powerful undercurrent moving voters along in November will be intrusive government. As many libertarians often point out with amusement or bitterness, Republicans are the supporters of Big Brother, big government, and tightly controlled liberties.

The words we hear from the GOP spokes-folk are often the opposite. Citing strong support for the likes of handgun laxness, they are wont to say, "See...Second Amendments...personal rights...freedom!" Yet in Congress, the Presidency, governorships and state legislatures, they have been all about having government direct our personal lives, tell us what to do, spy on us, and in general be paternalistic.

Obama and other Dems could benefit powerfully if voters take that difference to the polls come November. Y'all want Homeland Security/TSA in your bra and briefs? Go Republican! How about spending obscene tax dollars defending against the Soviet Union and other non-existent past threats with a bloated military budget? Go Republican! How about a national law forbidding federal benefits to gay couples? Oh, Republicans with Pres. Clinton's help already did that. How about plebiscites on civil rights of various minorities? Go Republican!

It goes on and on. Matched with the 5-4 archly conservative-to-reactionary SCOTUS, the only national safeguards for our established liberties are a Dem-controlled White House and Senate.

The GOP philosophic underpinning fascinates. A Daddy or Big Brother figure needs to be in charge. No freedom to marry for homosexual couples is obvious there. Ceding freedom to travel under the fantasy that millions of daily searches and pat downs will keep us safe has appalling widespread acceptance. Letting domestic spooks monitor our calls, emails, sites visited and more is the sort of unreasonable search-and-seizures that fomented the revolution in Colonial America, but the GOP'er blindly approve.

Come November, Americans are in for another great choice. We blundered nearly everywhere in 2010 in the midterms. The severely mistaken hope, the fantasy really, that Republicans had a better national view ruled that election.

Of course, as we have seen since at least Reagan's time, their solution is borrow and spend. Their policies cause ever-increasing income disparity. They want big government to control our personal lives, while all the while claiming they'd shrink expenditures and employees. In fact, they provably do the opposite at every chance, and a terrifying amount of their outlays enable laws and agencies to strip us of liberties.

Voters went with the fantasy of having guns and butter with several Republican administrations. Many will never learn the futility of such delusional votes. Now we have seen GOP Presidents and Congresses and a winger high court tell us whom we can marry, tell us whether we can board airplanes, and spy on us freely. Surely a majority of us can see that and are sick of it.