- Anthony DeGregorio on Sandy Hook Was Good for Business
- Maurice T. Cunningham on Sandy Hook Was Good for Business
- Philip F. Filosa on Sandy Hook Was Good for Business
- Nancy Frank on Ed and Cooter: Just a couple of “Good Ole Boys.”
- Headlines for Wednesday, May 15, 2013 » MASSterList on How will Obama’s “scandals” impact the MA Senate race?
Monthly Archives: July 2012
As I’ve said time and again a functioning democracy needs two competitive parties and we don’t have that here in our sort-of democratic Massachusetts. It is not the Democratic Party’s job to beat itself; that is the job of the Republican Party. But the GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot.
The latest poll in the Brown-Warren US Senate race shows very little movement in the race. While Warren’s favorability ratings rose more than Brown’s, there isn’t anything “game changing” about the numbers in this MassINC poll, which was taken between July 19th and 22nd.
In my last couple of posts I’ve been referencing political science research that discusses how campaigns matter in election outcomes and myths about campaign advertising. But it’s July, it’s hot, and it’s silly season in politics. I have two examples.
Here at MPP we try to entertain and inform while grounding our opinions on social science research. One example is my post Do Political Campaigns Matter? I asked the question in the context of the Brown-Warren and Tierney-Tisei races and linked to some good political science research discussed at the Washington Post and themonkeycage.org. So here is praise to those two outlets for more informative discussion, this time exposing Five Myths About Campaign Ads.
The Martin Institute at Stonehill will be hosting a two primary election forums for the candidates in the 4th congressional district.
The August 14 forum will begin at 6:00 with Democratic candidates Rachel Brown, Joe Kennedy, and Herb Robinson.
Members of the US Congress who come from states where the other party dominates have some clever ways of disguising their partisan voting records so as to preserve their ability to claim that they are “bipartisan problem solvers” or “independent minded” leaders.
Recently the Washington Post published an article that exposed one of the ugly truths of presidential campaign politics, at least for reporters and the political junkies who avidly follow each twist and turn (and spin). Campaigns don’t matter that much – not Etch-A-Sketch, and not the president’s birth certificate. Political scientists have shown that the fundamentals – the economy, partisanship, and incumbency – matter far more in determining the outcome of a presidential election. So will campaigning matter in Massachusetts, for Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, Richard Tisei and John Tierney?
My UMB colleague Tom Ferguson works on money in politics and he, Jie Chen (also of UMB) and Paul Jorgensen have found that the FEC has been purging so-called “dark money” records from its public access files for the 2007-2008 election cycle. Tom, Jie and Paul write:
As the campaigns of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney battle on about Romney’s participation or non-participation at Bain Capital it is interesting to reflect upon our national ambivalence about the role of business wealth in our politics. Is Romney a scrupulous businessman like Warren Buffett, or a dastardly scoundrel like J.R. Ewing?