Vote No on Question 1 in Mass.

This country's founding fathers set up a system of government that in some ways insulates the people from decision making. Done on purpose, our system ensures that the masses are represented, and not that the masses make decisions. The opposite approach, illustrated by the fabled New England Town Meeting, gives everyone a vote, and lets the population decide.

Growing up in a farm town in Connecticut, we had town meetings. Everyone would gather in the elementary school gym, and everyone would vote, up or down, on the budget. I was able to go to one such meeting before I moved to Boston to go to college. They are pretty neat.

Question 1 on this year's Massachusetts ballot demonstrates to me how our founding fathers were right, and how the masses can cause problems for our system. Question 1 eliminates the state income tax, stripping billions (with a b) of dollars out of the state budget. I am voting "no" on question 1, and I hope my neighbors across the state will do the same.

The fact that Question 1 is on the ballot is concerning. After all, to an average Joe-Six-Pack voter, of course you would vote to get rid of the income tax. It gives the people back a lot of money. It makes the politicians work to cut the budget to make the difference. With the broader economy uncertain, as an understatement, money in everyone's pocket is just what the doctor ordered.

Except were not talking about a modest cut here. We're talking about a question that would eliminate more than 12 billion dollars-- 40-percent-- of the state budget. The only way Massachusetts would make the difference is with significant cuts to cities and towns; and those cities and towns would have to raise their property taxes significantly.

Also, passing Question 1 is not a statement; if the question passed it would become binding. It would become the law of the state. The devastating affect on schools and our state's infrastructure is frankly unimaginable. In addition, passing the question would lead to job losses-- state workers who would be laid off.

In other posts on this blog, I have expressed disappointment with proposals by some of our state politicians on how to fix the budget problems in Massachusetts. Casinos, for example, are a band-aid approach. And while I do not have answers to the budget problems myself, stripping 40-percent of the state budget is not the answer either. It does not send a statement. Instead, it punishes everyone, including our children.

Question 1, in and of itself, is a reason to vote in November, even though the fate of the Presidential election here is not in doubt.

Last week, I volunteered to make some phone calls asking neighbors to vote NO on question 1. Thankfully, all those I spoke to understood that there is only one word that can characterize the question, and that word is "reckless."

If you live in Massachusetts, please vote NO on Question 1 this November.

Fact from Fiction in the 2nd Suffolk Primary

Congratulations go out today to Sonia Chang-Diaz, the one time schoolteacher from Jamaica Plain who defeated sitting Senator Dianne Wilkerson in the Mass. 2nd Suffolk Senate Democratic primary. When the vote is certified late Monday, Ms. Chang-Diaz will be the Democratic nominee on the ballot in November.

I have had the privilege of volunteering for Sonia and her team since late July, when I decided to vote for her. Given what I have seen, I have thoughts about recent developments in her race as well as strong opinions on why Sonia won.

The Race About Race

Unfortunately, the Mass. 2nd Suffolk District is racially divided. The base of Senator Wilkerson's support is in Roxbury and parts of Dorchester, areas with a high African-American population. The base of Sonia Chang-Diaz's support is in Jamaica Plain, where she lives, and areas between Jamaica Plain and Roxbury Crossing.

Sonia Chang-Diaz also saw significant support downtown, which is mainly white ("mainly" probably being an understatement). As one of my jobs as a volunteer was to help her downtown, I know that she won Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Bay Village and the South End by a margin of 62-35 percent. Chang-Diaz won more than 80-percent of the vote in the three 2nd Suffolk precincts in the Back Bay. [Chang-Diaz won my precinct, Ward 5, Precinct 4, by a margin of 67 percent to 24 percent.] It's also worth noting that most of the precincts downtown (Wards 4 and 5) were not a part of the recount that took place yesterday.

This past Tuesday, Senator Wilkerson said she would run in the November election as a write-in candidate. She said on primary night that her defeat "proves you can become a representative of this district without representing its core, and that makes me feel sick."

More directly, this past Tuesday, activist Bob Marshall said: "This is much bigger than Dianne. This is about the community’s ability to choose who its leaders are. The district is split along race and class lines. Dianne won the majority of blacks, Latinos and Asians. Sonia won the wine-and-brie crowd."

Sonia Chang-Diaz's dad is from Costa Rica (he was America's first Latino astronaut). She speaks fluent Spanish. She drives a beat-up old Toyota. She took the T to the recount yesterday. She eats microwaved burritos in her campaign office for dinner.

Senator Wilkerson and her supporters are right: This election is about race. It's about electing someone who can represent the ENTIRE district, given the unique racial dynamics of its precincts.

Ironically enough, because Senator Wilkerson is pressing on, dividing the district by race and claiming the seat belongs to one part of the district, I am prevented from my next volunteer assignment: working for Senator Barack Obama.

Show Me The Money

On a few occasions, Senator Wilkerson has implied that Sonia Chang-Diaz bought this election.

As a volunteer for Chang-Diaz, this claim is laughable. Campaign finance reports show that Senator Wilkerson actually spent MORE during the campaign than Chang-Diaz.

I can also give you some first-hand examples. Sonia Chang-Diaz's campaign bought zero bumper stickers during the race, claiming they were "too expensive." Volunteers made their own buttons at the campaign office. The only new signs I saw were the fifty or so that arrived on election eve to display at polling stations. Even the Chang-Diaz website is based on a free application called Drupal. Her campaign did everything with efficiency and cost-effectiveness top-of-mind.

The Missing Discussion: Why She Won

Among all of the false claims, discussions of recounts, and "what-if" questions about who certain pols will endorse or work for next, what's missing is reason why Sonia Chang-Diaz won the primary.

To me, the answer is simple: The candidate herself. This campaign was all about the personal touch. Sonia Chang-Diaz first called me in my office at work back in late May (I was literally in the middle of a team meeting and had to call her back). Every time I saw her in the campaign office, she was writing thank-you notes to supporters, many of whom she had just met door-to-door in the district.

When I spoke to voters, many commented on how they "had met Sonia," or they would say that "Sonia has asked for my vote."

In the weekend leading into the election, Senator Wilkerson had several prominent politicians record phone calls for her. The Chang-Diaz campaign countered with calls from volunteers. My conversation that weekend would generally go like this [I have taken out spots where the call recipient would respond or gasp]:

"Hi, I'm Ross and I am volunteering for the Sonia Chang-Diaz campaign. You have no doubt gotten a lot of recorded calls from politicians, and I know these calls are annoying. Well... This is not a recorded call... and I am not a politician. I am just an average Joe like you. But I am voting for Sonia Chang-Diaz."

During the entire lead-up to the election, Sonia's campaign made personal connections. Each volunteer supported Sonia for different reasons, and those personal reasons were our most effective persuasion to the voters of the district.

Sonia's gotten this far based on that personal touch. And she will no-doubt win in November because of it as well.

Sonia Chang-Diaz on Beacon Hill

Sonia Chang-Diaz

Outside the Firehouse on Mt. Vernon Street

Beacon Hill, Boston

September 14, 2008

Sonia Chang-Diaz stopped by the annual Hill House breakfast today at the Firehouse on Mt. Vernon Street, Beacon Hill. It was great to see her there. One of the reasons I am supporting Chang-Diaz is the fact that Beacon Hill, and other downtown neighborhoods, need all the representation they can get inside the State House. With issues such as the rehabilitation of the Storrow Drive Tunnel and the Longfellow Bridge facing us, it will be great to have someone like Sonia lobbying on our behalf.

To anyone reading this who lives in Back Bay or Beacon Hill, I don't think this is the last time we will see Chang-Diaz if she wins Tuesday's primary and the election in November. I will be attending the Beacon Hill block party later today and will report back if her opponent arrives.

State Primary Tuesday: Sonia Chang-Diaz and John Kerry Among my Picks

The Massachusetts State Primary is this Tuesday, September 16, 2008. Since my state leans so heavily Democratic, the primary is really the only election that matters; who ever wins the Democratic primary in a given race is likely to win in the general election.

Below is a review of the ballot and how I plan to vote, for what it's worth. For the two contested races in this election, my picks are no surprise, since I have already provided an "endorsement" for each.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
STATE PRIMARY
DEMOCRATIC
BOSTON
Ward 5, Precinct 4

SENATOR IN CONGRESS

My PICK: John F. Kerry, 19 Louisburg Sq., Boston

Senator Kerry's challenger, Ed O'Reilly, tried hard to be heard. Last week he actually encouraged his supporters to NOT attend a rally outside the only candidates' debate in the race (as kind of like a protest). I hate to break it to him, but I am not really sure how many people would have shown up anyway. O'Reilly is running on frustrations, first and foremost about John Kerry's original support for the Iraq War. That vote was like decades ago. Senator Kerry deserves to go back to Washington and keep the leadership positions he has earned for Massachusetts.

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
Ninth District

MY PICK: Stephen F. Lynch, 55 G Street, Boston

Congressman Lynch is running unopposed. I have never met him and don't know too much about him, but a friend of mine who I respect is on his staff. Even though he doesn't need my vote, he will receive it.

SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
Second Suffolk District

MY PICK: Sonia Rosa Chang-Diaz, 18 Saint Rose St., Boston

The big one-- This is by far the biggest race on my ballot. I have received six mailings and at least as many phone calls from the two candidates in this race. I am supporting the challenger, Sonia Chang-Diaz, because I have met her several times and think she has the best priorities for the district, namely education, which will help keep young professionals in Boston. Just this week she picked up endorsements from The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald, as well as Bay Windows and the South End News.

REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
Eighth Suffolk District

MY PICK: Martha Marty Waltz

I never really knew Representative Waltz before she became my state representative, and that changed in a hurry. I rarely go to a public meeting now where I don't see her or her aide, Laura Sargent (if you study this blog, you will see a photo of me sitting next to Laura at the state Democratic convention in Lowell). No one can question Marty's passion, and that alone earns my vote (she's also running unopposed).

Endorsement: Senator John Kerry

A week from today I head to Lowell for the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention, where I will represent the second Suffolk district as a delegate.

At the convention, delegates will be asked to nominate a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Senator John Kerry, whose term expires in early 2009. I will vote to nominate Senator Kerry.

While this may not be a surprise to many who are not even sure there's a choice this year, it comes after a week of research that included conversations with both Senator Kerry and his Democratic opponent, Ed O'Reilly. My reasons for supporting Senator Kerry are as follows:

1) Cape Wind. Ed O'Reilly does not support it. Senator Kerry is still undecided, depending on the outcome of a study into the environmental impact of the project. I support Cape Wind, and believe it should have been approved long ago. The opposition to the project is based on the legitimate claims of many who live near the proposed off-shore wind farm or will be affected by it. However, their claims are significantly overridden by the potential benefits of the project. A wind farm, whether privately operated or not, is the type of alternative energy project that the United States should be investing in and promoting. While I wish Senator Kerry would support the project, at least he doesn't oppose it.

2) I am fine with Senator Kerry's position on the Iraq war. Ed O'Reilly sees this as a wedge issue; in particular, Senator Kerry's vote in favor of the resolution that ultimately (but not explicitly) led to the war. In reality, Senator Kerry was one of the first Senators to vote on a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal. He made a commitment at a meeting with convention delegates today to continue to oppose funding for a long-term presence in Iraq. I actually am not completely in favor of a deadline for withdrawal, and I think the larger issue in play is the U.S. relationship with the world, and the fact that we need to change the way the world looks at us (John Edwards words, not mine). Regardless, I trust Senator Kerry on this issue and am not swayed by Mr. O'Reilly's points.

3) Senator Kerry is not complacent. I am not a fan of Democratic convention delegates picking nominees. While I am proud to be a convention delegate, true democracy demands that all Democrats have a say in who the party nominee is. This naturally means I would support Ed O'Reilly. If he receives 15 or more percent of the delegates at the convention, then party rules dictate there will be a primary. And with a primary all Democrats have a chance to vote to pick the nominee.

Except I don't see a reason for a primary this year, because Senator Kerry is as engaged as he always has been in the causes of Massachusetts. Having already established that, on the issues, I think he's the better candidate, I don't see a reason to extend this process any further. To go further, as Senator Kerry noted today, Democrats have a huge chance to make gains in the Senate and House, and he can help in that effort. I see no reason to deter from that effort by forcing a primary. While I would never, ever call a primary a distraction, the choice for Massachusetts Democrats this year is just too overwhelmingly clear to delay the selection of our pick.

I enjoyed meeting Ed O'Reilly this week and appreciated his hospitality. I trust he is a great man and a fantastic attorney. But I see no reason this year to take the junior Senator seat away from John Kerry.

Absolutely No Momentum

There's no difference between no momentum and "absolutely" no momentum. The term "absolutely" is a useless word, prime to be struck by my editing pen. But I mention it here for emphasis: The 2008 Democratic Primary campaign has shown absolutely no momentum for either candidate.

Obama voters have voted for Obama. Since Super Tuesday, this category includes African Americans, younger voters, and those who make more money and have completed college. Clinton voters have voted for Clinton. Since Super Tuesday, the Clinton voter is typically blue-collar and/or older. Clinton has also done well among women, unless they are African American, and her support in this category wanes among younger women and among women who've completed college (since that would overlap with a demographic favorable to Obama).

In contest after contest since early February, the make up of either candidate's support has not changed. Each primary is a census on a given state's make up against those demographics. We now know that the younger or college-educated Democratic audience in Indiana is almost the same size as the blue collar or older one.

I admire the fact that Democrats across the country have stuck to their hunches. They have not been swayed by talk of momentum (proof there hasn't been any). From a broader perspective, the way the media has covered this race is humorous. Under the no-momentum theory, a casual observer could have predicted a Clinton victory by ten points in Pennsylvania back in February. It's just the way the demographics in Pennsylvania fall, and the way the "Democratic census" in that state would work out. Yet the morning after, we heard pundit after pundit saying that Hillary had momentum. We heard it for a week.

Truth be told, the media are dieing to say that someone, anyone, has momentum. Because a horse race with no race is boring. After Pennsylvania, many reporters couldn't wait any longer, and proclaimed that Clinton had finally received the big "mo."

Except they were wrong. The results in North Carolina and Indiana are exactly as one would have predicted back on Super Tuesday, looking and the Democratic make-up in each state. At that time, you could have called North Carolina for Obama by a dozen and said Clinton would win Indiana by a couple.

But while the results showed no momentum, the media said the opposite: That Obama had momentum and the race was over. We heard Tim Russert say early Wednesday morning that we now know who the Democratic nominee will be.

While Obama might readily win the nomination, he has not picked up any momentum from Tuesday's victories. New polls today from West Virginia show Clinton extending her lead there. Using the theory of no momentum, let's make some predictions on how the remaining contests will unfold. To do this, I will look at the demographics of each state versus the results on Super Tuesday (yes-- results from early February). Here goes:

1) Clinton wins West Virginia by 24.
2) Clinton wins Kentucky by more than 20. Could even be 30.
3) Obama wins Oregon by 7.
4) Obama wins Montana by 9.
5) Clinton wins Puerto Rico by 12.
6) Obama wins South Dakota by 6.

Let's see if I am right.

It's important to call each primary what it is. They are not snap-shot polls of the electorate. They are reflections of the unique demographic mixes of each state. When Clinton wins West Virginia on Tuesday, it will not be because she has momentum and has won over voters, it will be because the group of voters that she appeals to will be much larger. We shouldn't read more into it than that.

The Road to Denver

I have never been to Denver. Well, I have been to the airport, but not to the city. This August is looking like a great time to go.

Yesterday, a large group of my Democratic neighbors in the Massachusetts 8th Congressional District elected my good friend Nikko Mendoza to be a delegate to the Democratic Convention, which is in Denver this year in late August.

It was a long but exciting day, and another lesson for me in democracy. A few general observations:

-- The Bunker Hill Community College has a grilled cheese sandwich vending machine. The caucus I attended last night was in a BHCC auditorium. In the main lobby, where I was greeting caucus-goers with other Nikko supporters, a hot food vending machine offered the cheesy treats along with french fries and pizza. Curiosity overtook me. I tried a grilled cheese. Not horrible, but I am not about to buy one of the machines for my apartment.

-- We Democrats know how to demonstrate the chaotic side of the process. I remember watching some of the Iowa caucuses on TV. The Republican caucuses seemed neat and orderly, with people sitting in chairs and casting votes by dropping a paper in ballot box slots. Pretty uneventful TV. The Democratic caucuses were kind of like a cross between an organizational PTA meeting and a baseball game. Organized chaos, perhaps. The caucus yesterday at the BHCC was organized chaos. Matt O'Mally, one caucus organizer and recognized party member, wasn't even listed on the voter registration lists. Despite this, I was disappointed that many attendees got upset. As Democrats, we should know by now that we excel at organized chaos (See: Texas prima-caucus [Prima-Caucus is a new word for me!]).

-- I really like the community side of politics. It was truly great to see local Charlestown neighbors coming out to support John "Jack" Kelly, who was running on the same slate as Nikko. (Jack grew up in Charlestown). The community feel of the event was overwhelming, and great to see. I have often said that Boston is a city of neighborhoods, and it was great to spend a day in an adjacent neighborhood to where I live.

After the caucus, I went to the Mission on Mission Hill, where I ran into some Obama supporters just exiting their 8th Congressional Caucus. Unlike the Hillary caucus, which ended on one ballot, the Obama caucus went on forever.

I am also very proud of Nikko. She really deserves to be a delegate, as I have written earlier, and it's great to see her recognized for her efforts.

P.S. For anyone who really is interested, Nikko won with 85-percent of the votes cast. As I screamed after the results were announced "LANDSLIDE."

P.P.S. It's great to see extensive coverage of the caucuses yesterday in today's issue of Boston's hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe, given that the events were the big political news in the city of the last month. (For those who can't read my tone, the Globe didn't cover them at all.)

Sec. Galvin Should Have Stuck to His Hunches

In May 2007, Massachusetts was set to hold its primary on March 4, 2008. Mass. Secretary of State William Galvin admonished his counterparts at certain states, such as Florida, since they were moving up their primary dates (as Massachusetts ultimately did). This is what he told the New York Times:

Though Florida meant to pump up its importance in the primaries, it might have done better sticking to March, said William Galvin, the secretary of state in Massachusetts and leader of a National Association of Secretaries of State committee that opposes the movement toward earlier primaries. If no candidates emerge as clear front-runners after the ''super-duper'' primary on Feb. 5, Mr. Galvin said, states that vote later could prove pivotal.

''This is kind of like the track touts trying to figure out what's going to happen at the Kentucky Derby,'' he said.

Here we are in February 2008, and Galvin was right on the money. As much as I liked to vote on Super Tuesday, how neat is it for voters in Texas and Ohio, who could possibly participate on the last primary day that means something this election season?

EDITORS NOTE: Text pulled from: New York Times, "Seeking an Edge, Florida Changes Its Primary Date," May 4, 2007

Thoughts from the Beacon Hill and National Trails

I was in Austin, Texas this week for a few days for some work meetings. Along the way, I mentally put together a post that updates everyone on what I have been working on as well as gives my current thinking on this amazing election we're in the middle of.

Before I talk about the national campaign, I want to note for a second a debate that is raging in my neighborhood of Beacon Hill in Boston.

It's about Suffolk University. A week ago, the Beacon Hill Civic Association, of which I am a board member, passed a policy that notes specific concerns regarding Suffolk's proposed expansion in downtown Boston. I supported the policy, and I am happy the board passed it, since things could have been far worse. A bit of background:

-- Suffolk is in downtown Boston, and it is trying to grow. A few of the University's buildings are located in Beacon Hill. The neighbors on Beacon Hill are wary of Suffolk's plans to expand, given the stressed nature of "town-and-gown" relationships in other Boston neighborhoods. It follows that every loud party on Beacon Hill over the past few years has been blamed on Suffolk.

-- Suffolk is in the middle of laying out for Boston its plans for the next several years, in a document called an Institutional Master Plan. The process has been rocky, primarily because no one on the Beacon Hill Civic Assocation belives Suffolk and vice versa. I have been trying to formulate my own opinion, and I have found that means listening to the civic association, and listening to Suffolk, and then shooting for the middle of both arguments.

-- Many in the neighborhood simply want Suffolk to leave. Literally, they want Suffolk to sell their properties here and move to some other part of Boston. I saw a draft policy that discussed this last week. Umm. This is a tad scary. What would be next? My neighbors decide that they also want renters like myself to move on, preserving the neighborhood for property owners?

All this being said, here's what I think: Suffolk is an asset to Beacon Hill in many ways. I want the institution to grow and continue to contribute here. That means Suffolk must detail in a very comprehensive way how its expansion will impact the neighborhood. Which means Suffolk needs to admit there will be an impact. Suffolk must use additional drafts of its new master plan to lay out specifics. And I am happy to help them in this process. Finally, I don't think it's a good idea for Suffolk to just leave the Hill. I for one would miss the institution.

Well there you have it. Now I move on to my points about the national Presidential race:

1) You know everyone is engaged this election season when my football-watching former roommate, Blake, called me on Super Tuesday evening and asked to come over to watch election returns, as if we were watching the Super Bowl. A native of Texas, Blake is always a good one to speak to for a level-set on the election, since he has perspective from outside of the liberal bastion of Boston.

2) The campaign has clearly moved to Texas. There were many ads on TV for both Obama and Clinton that I saw while in the hotel room in Austin. Also, a few people spoke of the debate this week on the University of Texas campus and how there are only 100 tickets. (But there is a debate watching party for all candidates at the Hyatt hotel.)

3) I met with a work-related friend for coffee, and she told me that on Super Tuesday evening, she and her husband went to a wine bar to watch returns. The atmosphere seemed more like a big college football game; when the announcers called a state for a given candidate, cheers would erupt, as if Obama or Clinton were scoring touchdowns.

4) I was up in Vermont this weekend, and at my ski house, debate inevitably moved to the campaign. I have spoken with quite a few women who are not fans of Hillary, which leads me to my next point, a crititque of the media:

5) I think Hillary has gotten a bad rap from the press (and I say this as someone who is supporting Obama). I have heard repeatedly that Obama "has the momentum." In reality, what has happened over the past few weeks is exactly what everyone was expecting. It just so happens that Obama has benefitted from a few states that have his "type" of voters. So he has been victorious. But momentum? Have the pundits seen the latest polls out of the states voting on March 4? Hillary is ahead. If those polls do change, it will only, in my opinion, be because of the so-called momentum they are placing behind Obama.

At the same time, I don't think the media's favoring of Obama is because Hillary is a female. I think it's because she is the "establishment" candidate. How amazing is it that even though she is a woman, Hillary is often picked by those who make up their minds in the voting booth? The reason? As David Plotz noted in last week's Slate political gabfest, it's because Hillary is the "safe" pick. She's the establishment candidate. Unfortunately for her, the media like underdogs or "mavericks." In addition, voters tend to be romantic. They like fresh faces and discussions of hope and change. I have a general theory that voters will pick hope and change over practicality every time. It's a core Amercian fundamental. But that's the topic of another blog post.

Finally, what the heck is wrong with Bill Clinton? Yesterday, I heard that he blamed the recent losses by his wife on well-off voters participating in caucuses who "don't really need a President," but rather have bought into needing change or hope. Is that how he classifies me, an Obama voter here in Massachusetts? I don't understand what is wrong with him, but I am kind of embarrassed.

Kudos to everyone who is acknowledging that today is in fact my 32nd birthday. It's raining here in Boston. Is that a sign? : )