Why can't the Bay State elect a Democratic governor?
In "Why can't the Bay State elect a Democratic governor?" Robert Keough asks why Mitt Romney has become Massachusetts's fourth consecutive Republican governor. Should Democratic candidates reach out to suburban voters by stressing fiscal responsibility? Should they champion the state's dispossessed?
Simply unbelievable, we have a state legislature dominated by Democrats, so much so that they can override any veto by the governor, a national electorate that doesn't have a single Republican and you ask why Massachusetts doesn't elect a Democrat governor. Maybe you should ask why we don't elect at least one Replublican so that we can have more access to Congressional leadership posts. As far the original question, well maybe it's because we believe in a little diversity.
As long as the Democratic-controlled legislature continues to be seen as a tax and spend body - the voters of this state are going to elect Rpublican Governors - to hold spending and taxes down because voters know the legislature is unable to do it on its own. The Democratic party - of which I am a member - needs to become MORE fiscally responsible, and continue it's liberal social policies (exluding those of House Speaker Finneran who basically is a Republican himself - albeit a conservative one!)
It is a simple truth - for all the debates, etc, the electin was decided news bites and campaign ads. Mitt Romney gave positions, etc. and O'Brien said "I'm not Mitt." That was the campaign, and it wasn't enouogh. The same thing is plauging the current Democratic presidential campaign. Kerry seems mostly to be on the "I'm not Bush" tactic, and I have no idea what he stands for. I"m 110% democrat, but I see where they lost it.
Anne, Cambridge, MA
The primary reason the voters will not elect a Democratic Governor sits in the Speaker's chair. The voting public will never allow Speaker Finneran to go unchecked for fear how much worse the state will get. Get rid of the Speaker and you might just have a chance.
Dan, Falls Church, VA
I do think that there is a body of thought out there that if we don't keep electing republican governors that the state will be completely handed over, lock stock and barrel, to the Finnerans, the public employee unions, all the interest groups that are sucking this state dry as best they can. This is really the last line of defense this state has before becoming as unstable financially as California. Right now there is one oasis of ethical and fiscal sanity in the state, and its name is Romney. If we lose this, it's the difference between having the tide crash against the seawall and having it come right through the front door. This won't easily be given up. By the way, have any of the dems admitted yet that Romney is a Massachusetts resident?
It is interesting that most answers here are premised on a falsehood - that we have a tax and spend legislature. We do not. Under Finneran's leadership, the legislature has been very fiscally responsible. What is also interesting is that voters don't seem to care that republican governors Weld and Cellucci deserted the state for greener pastures when the going got tough and Swift was forced out by her own party. Voters don't hold the party responsible. My prediction - Mitt will also leave for greener (national) pastures and Kerry-Healey will be forced out by the party in favor of another guy (because she can't win in her own right). Perhaps then voters will finally "get" it and vote for a democrat who is committed to the state -- not to improving his own pocketbook.
Kathy, Quincy, MA
The Democratic Party is still trying to be the party of the people. Its said to say that the almost 50% of voters (nationally) are so self centered and selfish they are unable to see that the republicans don't care in the least about anyone under a 6 figure income. Unless of course all the Bushies out there are making 6 figures. Everything else the Republicans address is just smoke, the real underlying agenda is to appeal the "where's mine" or the "I've got mine, the hell with you" part of the population.
The Democratic Party in Massachusetts is not particularly democratic but it is large and controlling. Consequently, it takes a lifetime of deal making WITHIN the party apparatus to get nominated BY the party apparatus. In contrast, the Republican Party is smaller, weaker and constantly looking for new faces. The result is that all too often the Republicans appear to be running the "new ideas person" against the Democrat's top machine politician. The voter's often think it wise to preserve some semblence of checks and balances and given the all too frequent behavior of the Democratic Party machine....all I can say is ..Thank God for the voters!
Arthur, former resident
Back when the Social Security tax was 1%, you could make the argument that the Democrats were for the downtrodden. Today it's 6 point something percent. I've seen people on Social Security Disability going to restaurants to spend $5 to $10 dollars on one meal. And I'm not so sure the person was really disabled since she was able to walk to the restaurant (sound body) and order her meal (sound mind)! So the Democrats now stand for mooching. Taxpayers have a heart, but we don't like mooching. Another welfare state horror story: it's legal for someone on Supplemental Security to have a trust fund, even a professionally managed one! Check out http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/spotlights/spot-trusts.htm. So why is Romney the only Republican in high office? Because you can't beat someone with no one. The Republicans need to start at the bottom and build up the party. The voters know a mooch when they see one, so that presents an opportunity for the Repubs.
Why?……..the answer is very simple, there has not been Democratic Governor in Massachusetts since Dukakis because the Democratically dominated house and senate are perceived as too powerful, self serving and corrupt. Massachusetts’ residents who are predominately Democrat are tired of being pushed around by the likes of Bulger and Finneran, we may not have away of getting rid of them but we can elect some form of opposition. I have not voted Republican any time in my life except in the Mass. Governor’s race. Romney was elected by many of the same people who voted for Tolman…people who wanted change.