Crunching Numbers: Just How Blue Are We?
- Nov 3, 2010, 2:01 PM
- 12 Comments
Despite strong GOP challenges in some districts, Massachusetts’ U.S. congressional delegation remains all blue. Democrats won all statewide races and maintained wide majorities in the state Legislature.
Where, if anywhere, did Republicans make gains?
The GOP picked up 16 seats in the House, doubling their ranks, to 32, but continue to represent a small minority in the 160-member body. The GOP lost a seat in the state Senate, down to 4 of 40 seats.
What about all races — county sheriffs, governor’s councillors, state senators — all of ‘em?
Of the 447 races in Massachusetts, 338 were contested. (In the remaining 109, the winning candidate was unopposed.)
Of those 338 contests, just 18 winners were Republicans. That number could jump to 23, because Republicans are leading in five races that have not yet been called.
But you get the idea. A red tide swept over the nation last night — a tide arguably set in motion in January with the Senate election of Wrentham Republican Scott Brown. But GOP victories in Massachusetts represented a statistically insignificant 0.05 percent of the state’s total.
How blue were we on Election Day? Really blue. Midnight blue. Even the pundits didn’t see it coming.
Note: The Associated Press provided this data.
Previously On ElectionWire…
« News Roundup: The Afternoon After
Complete coverage of Election 2010 in Massachusetts. Edited by Benjamin Swasey.
Election 2010:
» Results: Your Election Night Winners
» Live Blog Transcript: Mass. Election 2010
Actually, Ben, if you really want to get serious about solving our problems, we need to deal with the fundamental unsustainability of our economic system. The key problem, which no politician dares to question, is the idea of growth, which simply cannot continue forever on a finite planet. For an excellent primer on this, google “The Crash Course” by Chris Martenson. He has made a 3 hour presentation available for free on line. He is a very thoughtful, methodical thinker who presents some very important things that we best learn about – and quickly!
Do you realize how foolish it is to say that because you watch more news you are more informed? The news sets the agenda, and the news is controlled by the globalists. They set up the left/right paradigm via Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and yes, even NPR (which I have found to be as heavily slanted to the left as Fox is to the right these days). Both sides are being fed misinformation in attempt to cloud us all from the real truth.
Our leaders are puppets for the global banking cartel which has imploded our economy by design. Quantitative easing 2.0? Why are we allowing the Federal Reserve to intentionally cause inflation? This was done allowed by Bush and now Obama. Can someone explain how these two are different? They aren’t! Stop believing the lies you get from the “news” and wake up, America.
Next, you’ll be telling me that 3 buildings in NYC collapsed 9 years ago from fire. A variety of media outlets report it that way, so it must be true, right?
Massachusetts is one of the few places where Fox News does not have as deep penetration. We are better educated and pay attention to a wider range of news sources than in many parts of the heartland.
Fox News has no solutions to our economic problems — their remedies to give tax breaks for the rich, facilitate the shipping of American jobs to China, and de-regulate the financial system have led us to economic ruin. The fundamental problem is that the right is not committed to truth in any form — if it gets in the way of rewarding the wealthy, they simply change the subject and resume insisting on pursuing their failed economic policies.
How unfortunate! That’s Massachusetts for you. It has been a 1 party state! We seem to be like
Ben,
A few points:
Society, not individuals, create wealth.
An unregulated “free market” results in widespread human misery. We’ve seen it before in the USA and we don’t want to return to the days of Upton Sinclair’s Jungle.
Also, what the Tea Party was intended to be or was at one time is not relevant today. We know what it is today, the defender of corporate power at the cost of human rights.
If you want to start quoting our founding fathers, you may want to research your own rhetoric as well. For that matter, you may want to tell the “Tea Party” that a more appropriate name for their movement would be the “Whiskey Rebellion” -as the Tea Party was a revolt against taxation without representation and the Whiskey Rebellion was the revolt against federal taxes to pay off government’s debt from high spending. And how did our founders react to the Whiskey Rebellion? Washington and Hamilton mounted an army to suppress it. Fact is that our founders were never in complete agreement and they shared a diverse view of things, just as we do today. So referencing their voice as proof of ones purity and validity is rather disingenuous.
Finally, if we need to re-write the constitution, we are within in our rights to do so. It’s all explained in Article V of the Constitution of the United State of America. Seems that even our founders knew that the constitution was not perfect and would need to be rewritten at times.
Ethan,
Please see that I’m not defending either party here. I applaud your courage in recognizing the broken 2 party system. They are both bought and paid for, as you mentioned. You must realize that Obama has only furthered the agenda Bush set into motion. He has driven us further into debt, continued the wars, and extended the Patriot act. 2 sides of the same coin, brought to you by the globalists. Globalists love “liberals” because they allow them to further the world government agenda. It’s no wonder Massachusetts has been spared so far.
John,
I don’t completely align myself with the Tea Party since it has been hijacked by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, but the original principles it was founded on by Ron Paul were those of our founding fathers. How are these ideas draconian? Are you saying we should rewrite the constitution because it’s old-fashioned? You said government for the people and by the people, a tea-party ideal, yet this is not the welfare state Massachusetts has become. I urge you to research your rhetoric.
In the days leading up to the election of Senator Brown, there was not much enthusiasm on the part of Democrats. It was a “given” that Martha Coakley would win, so why bother to get out the vote?
The morning after changed all that. The Democrat voters of Massachusetts realized that they needed to actively participate in elections and that’s what we saw this time.
The radical and draconian views of the Tea Party were previously dismissed by many Massachusetts residents with the idea that “it can’t happen here”, and then it did.
Now Massachusetts voters are returning to their progressive roots and serving as a firewall of protection from the abuses of corporate power. We were the first state to enact a Child Labor in 1852 and we are continuing our belief that a government of the people and for the people is a good thing.
personally I am embarrassed to live in Mass. I am tired of a one party state.A Gerrymandered , corrupt State legislature and little chance for change.
I find most Democrats are not democrats.
Ben,
Is your memory that short? It’s only been two years since Obama was put into office, and he got there because of the failings of George W. and the GOP. Maybe the reason that Massachusetts hasn’t been hit as hard as some states by the recession is because we have strong and relatively liberal leadership that actually tries to do what’s right for the middle and lower classes. I won’t deny that I do have some respect for Scott Brown, only because he doesn’t toe the party line like so many Republicans these days. That being said fiscal responsibility doesn’t mean mortgaging our future by cutting taxes and then borrowing money to fund the programs we can’t or are unwilling to go without.
Ultimately “revolution” and “change” aren’t going to take place with our broken two party system, that is largely influenced and funded by corporate lobbying. But given current hot button issues it’ll be a while before campaign reform comes back to the forefront.
The state (being any body of government) is never responsible for economic success, be it Republican or Democrat. It is the ingenuity of the people and the true free market that creates jobs and business, not regulations and tax + spend.
Our money is the same as every other states, in that it is borrowed from a private bank through a fractional reserve system. It will eventually catch up with Massachusetts and will be devastating, especially as that private bank continues to print more money, making existing currency more and more worthless.
Maybe Massachusetts hasn’t seen the most devastating effects of the depression precisely because of our Democratic leaders who have pushed back against the flawed Republican economic theories that got the nation into this disaster in the first place.
With the election of Mr. Brown, I was hoping to see Massachusetts, once again, carry the torch of revolution for the rest of the nation. Unfortunately, I believe that since our state has not seen the most devastating effects of the depression, thus far, the people did not realize how important it is to remove the incumbents from office and demand reform. I hope that it will not take austerity measures, sharp rises in commodities, and record unemployment before the people of the commonwealth wake up and cry for tangible change.