How I'm voting, for those what may care
Nov. 3rd, 2014 09:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yendiProbably not of interest to anyone outside of MA. Probably not even to folks inside of MA, but what the hell.
Governor: I'm about 95% sure I'm voting Falchuk here. Baker is mediocre, of course, and I get the argument (call it Nader 2: The Nadering) that the Dems are making, that voting third party will get him into office. But you know what? In terms of competence (as opposed to stances on issues), Coakley is worse. By far. And give our generally blue legislature, Baker's going to have to compromise; he's already on the Dem's side of the page on abortion, gay rights, and a bunch of other issues, and while I find him horrific on some other fronts (education for one), I don't expect him to be able to push things through there. Meanwhile, I'd expect a Coakley administration to be every bit as incompetent as her campaigns have been and her later run as DA has been (and, incidentally, hasn't anyone who's paid attention to NY over the last two decades realized that DAs are terrible in executive positions?). She's a prime example of the corruption, incompetence, and laziness of the Democratic machine in MA, and I refuse to let the consequences of their actions over the last few years guilt me into voting for someone as terrible as Coakley. If Baker wins by one vote in the state, feel free to yell at me; I'll still put the blame on Coakley and the Dems, where it belongs.
(An aside: Nader wouldn't have mattered in 2000 if Gore had run a half-decent campaign, and if shenanigans hadn't occurred elsewhere.)
As an aside, my disgust for the so-called "Progressive Watertown" group going all in on Coakley cannot be understated.
Senate: Markey. This is a pretty solid no-brainer. Herr is a Blue State Republican -- pro-marriage equality, pro-choice -- but I still find his stances on other issues (his weasel words on gun control, his anti-ACA rhetoric, etc) enough to not consider him. I'm also dubious about anyone wanting to transition from town selectman to US Senator.
Representative: Clark. She's got no competition, and I'm fine with her.
Attorney General: Healey. I supported her in the general election, and support her here.
Third District Councillor: Sheff. I will never vote for Devaney after her shenanigans in the past. It's a matter of trust and competence, not political stances, here.
All other local races: Democrats (in many of them, there aren't even independents, let alone Republicans, on the ballot).
Ballot initiatives: No on 1, Yes on the other three. I see any way to morally take any other stance. Voting "yes" on 1 means essentially letting our already-poor bridge and road infrastructure crumble even more. Having the gas tax align with inflation, which removes the need to re-vote on it constantly, is both a no-brainer and politically smart, removing it as a bullshit "new tax" issue that can be constantly brought. So that's an easy "no." For 2, having the bottle deposit law apply to bottled water -- one of the biggest environmental wastes out there -- is a slam dunk. On 3, I've come around over the last decade and changed how I feel about adding casinos to the state, and I do not want to see us going down that road. For 4, it's just basically humane to provide sick leave. Period.
I don't think there are any Watertown-specific initiatives on the ballot, but I've been wrong before.
Anyway, those are the tiny bubbles I'll be filling in tomorrow.
Governor: I'm about 95% sure I'm voting Falchuk here. Baker is mediocre, of course, and I get the argument (call it Nader 2: The Nadering) that the Dems are making, that voting third party will get him into office. But you know what? In terms of competence (as opposed to stances on issues), Coakley is worse. By far. And give our generally blue legislature, Baker's going to have to compromise; he's already on the Dem's side of the page on abortion, gay rights, and a bunch of other issues, and while I find him horrific on some other fronts (education for one), I don't expect him to be able to push things through there. Meanwhile, I'd expect a Coakley administration to be every bit as incompetent as her campaigns have been and her later run as DA has been (and, incidentally, hasn't anyone who's paid attention to NY over the last two decades realized that DAs are terrible in executive positions?). She's a prime example of the corruption, incompetence, and laziness of the Democratic machine in MA, and I refuse to let the consequences of their actions over the last few years guilt me into voting for someone as terrible as Coakley. If Baker wins by one vote in the state, feel free to yell at me; I'll still put the blame on Coakley and the Dems, where it belongs.
(An aside: Nader wouldn't have mattered in 2000 if Gore had run a half-decent campaign, and if shenanigans hadn't occurred elsewhere.)
As an aside, my disgust for the so-called "Progressive Watertown" group going all in on Coakley cannot be understated.
Senate: Markey. This is a pretty solid no-brainer. Herr is a Blue State Republican -- pro-marriage equality, pro-choice -- but I still find his stances on other issues (his weasel words on gun control, his anti-ACA rhetoric, etc) enough to not consider him. I'm also dubious about anyone wanting to transition from town selectman to US Senator.
Representative: Clark. She's got no competition, and I'm fine with her.
Attorney General: Healey. I supported her in the general election, and support her here.
Third District Councillor: Sheff. I will never vote for Devaney after her shenanigans in the past. It's a matter of trust and competence, not political stances, here.
All other local races: Democrats (in many of them, there aren't even independents, let alone Republicans, on the ballot).
Ballot initiatives: No on 1, Yes on the other three. I see any way to morally take any other stance. Voting "yes" on 1 means essentially letting our already-poor bridge and road infrastructure crumble even more. Having the gas tax align with inflation, which removes the need to re-vote on it constantly, is both a no-brainer and politically smart, removing it as a bullshit "new tax" issue that can be constantly brought. So that's an easy "no." For 2, having the bottle deposit law apply to bottled water -- one of the biggest environmental wastes out there -- is a slam dunk. On 3, I've come around over the last decade and changed how I feel about adding casinos to the state, and I do not want to see us going down that road. For 4, it's just basically humane to provide sick leave. Period.
I don't think there are any Watertown-specific initiatives on the ballot, but I've been wrong before.
Anyway, those are the tiny bubbles I'll be filling in tomorrow.