No Ogonowski

[Verily]

He officially failed to get enough signatures to qualify for the GOP primary ballot in MA. Jeff Beatty will be the Republican nominee.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/04/ogonowski_fails_to_qualify_for_gop_ballot/

[WalterMitty]

ogo should have run for the ma-05 seat again.

sure, he would lose worse than he did in 07.  but it would be cheaper than a race against kerry.  and he would have somewhat better odds of winning that race than the 0.000000000000001% chance he had at beating kerry.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So much for having a choice this cycle.  I guess I'll just write in Cahill's name or something.

[Dan the Roman]

ogo should have run for the ma-05 seat again.

sure, he would lose worse than he did in 07.  but it would be cheaper than a race against kerry.  and he would have somewhat better odds of winning that race than the 0.000000000000001% chance he had at beating kerry.

Most likely, but it needs to be recalled that Bush got 42% in MA-05 while winning 37% statwide. With McCain likely to clear 42 or 43% statewide it is far from impossible that he could come close or even win the district. It is far from Obama territory. While Obama will do well in the high-income suburbs that sank Ogonowski, the district also has Lowell, Dracut, and other working-class areas and is hardly Obama's territory. I fully expect Mccain to pull 47% there easily.

[Adlai Stevenson]

ogo should have run for the ma-05 seat again.

sure, he would lose worse than he did in 07.  but it would be cheaper than a race against kerry.  and he would have somewhat better odds of winning that race than the 0.000000000000001% chance he had at beating kerry.

Most likely, but it needs to be recalled that Bush got 42% in MA-05 while winning 37% statwide. With McCain likely to clear 42 or 43% statewide it is far from impossible that he could come close or even win the district. It is far from Obama territory. While Obama will do well in the high-income suburbs that sank Ogonowski, the district also has Lowell, Dracut, and other working-class areas and is hardly Obama's territory. I fully expect Mccain to pull 47% there easily.

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

MASSACHUSETTS 2008 -
59% (D) Obama
38% (R) McCain
  2% Others

[Meeker]

He could still run a write-in campaign in the primary, but I kind of doubt the Massachusetts GOP is going to want to spend the money to help him, or that his donors are going to want to help him out after this idiotic blunder.

[Brittain33]

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

Yes, I expect McCain will do better in Massachusetts than Bush relative to his national numbers, but his national numbers will be lower, so the effects conflict.

[Dan the Roman]

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

Yes, I expect McCain will do better in Massachusetts than Bush relative to his national numbers, but his national numbers will be lower, so the effects conflict.

McCain's likely loss in the state helps him because it mitigates against any rally around the nominee effect that might apply to hardcore Clinton supporters, and there are a lot in the MA Dem Party. Plus, whereas the primary will be behind the rest of the country, the enemies of the Clinton camp in MA(Kerry and Patrick, and to a lesser extent Kennedy) will still be around. I know my parents who have not voted GOP since 1972 will be voting McCain this year to embarrass Obama, and he will get no help, and a good deal of sabotage from elements of the party. For christ sakes they are going to put a nobody on the US senate primary ballot in an effort to punish Kerry for his Obama support.

So quite frankly 42-42% would be in the middle to low end of my prediction. If McCain wins nationally, I would expect a Dukakis 88 result(when all the same factors were in effect) such as 53-45.

[Smash255]

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

Yes, I expect McCain will do better in Massachusetts than Bush relative to his national numbers, but his national numbers will be lower, so the effects conflict.

Even if McCain performs 5 points better than Bush in MA compared to the national numbers, he would need to win nationally by 5-6  points to approach 43% in MA & that won't happen.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

Yes, I expect McCain will do better in Massachusetts than Bush relative to his national numbers, but his national numbers will be lower, so the effects conflict.

Even if McCain performs 5 points better than Bush in MA compared to the national numbers, he would need to win nationally by 5-6  points to approach 43% in MA & that won't happen.

I suppose most of us in Massachusetts expect McCain to do somewhat better than +5 on Bush's last go around.

[Verily]

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

Yes, I expect McCain will do better in Massachusetts than Bush relative to his national numbers, but his national numbers will be lower, so the effects conflict.

Even if McCain performs 5 points better than Bush in MA compared to the national numbers, he would need to win nationally by 5-6  points to approach 43% in MA & that won't happen.

I suppose most of us in Massachusetts expect McCain to do somewhat better than +5 on Bush's last go around.

I think you're overestimating the influence of the political elite of Massachusetts (the Martha Coakleys, not the Ted Kennedys) on the voters. Smash is right; McCain would need a truly extraordinary swing (both nationally and within the state) to get to 43%.

[Dan the Roman]

Do we really think McCain can get 42%-43% in Massachusetts this year?  Perhaps if you expect him to win but I don't.  I think McCain will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008.  My prediction:

Yes, I expect McCain will do better in Massachusetts than Bush relative to his national numbers, but his national numbers will be lower, so the effects conflict.

Even if McCain performs 5 points better than Bush in MA compared to the national numbers, he would need to win nationally by 5-6  points to approach 43% in MA & that won't happen.

I suppose most of us in Massachusetts expect McCain to do somewhat better than +5 on Bush's last go around.

I think you're overestimating the influence of the political elite of Massachusetts (the Martha Coakleys, not the Ted Kennedys) on the voters. Smash is right; McCain would need a truly extraordinary swing (both nationally and within the state) to get to 43%.

This is not really about swing per se. It is always interesting to look at a uniform swing and see what would happen if it occured - but it never occurs. Different candidates appeal to different groups of voters to different degrees. Massachusetts is the most uniformly democratic state in the country at the state level, but the same could be said for West Virginia and Arkansas. They just haven't had a democrat that appealed to them.

Ditto for MA. Look at 1988. Dukakis as Governor only won 53-46. Thats because Bush senior was a good match for the state, and Dukakis had enemies among working-class white democrats.

Massachusetts' recent history has to be understood in light of the fact that the Clinton's were fanatically popular in the state, and that the post-1994 Gingrich Republicans were near universally loathed. That produced Clinton's 34 point win in 1996, and Clinton's legacy combined with the fact that George W. Bush was a really bad candidate for the state produced  Gore's 60-33 margin in 2000. John Kerry, despite being Massachusetts's Senator was worse candidate for Massachusetts hence why there was a 4 point swing to Bush in 2004, yet Bush still was a bad match.

Here's the problem this year. McCain is a great candidate for Massachusetts and the best the GOP could realistically have fielded this year(far better than Romney. Obama is by far the worst candidate the Democrats could have fielded in Massachusetts, and the weakest since 1988. If it was not for the national environment and the Iraq war, I would argue that McCain could beat Obama. He won't because he has the unpopularity of the GOP around his neck, but Obama will not run away from it because people are not voting for him. He has zero appeal to working-class democratic voters, and his suburban appeal is undermined by Patrick fatigue and anger from Clinton supporters. Since no one expects McCain to actually win, he can't even argue that people should vote for him to block McCain.

If it were Clinton this year there would undoubtedly be a massive democratic swing and I would expect McCain to do worse than Bush, but against Obama its not happening.

State's are unique. Edwards v. Romney would create a very different election in Oklahoma than Obama v. McCain will be, irregardless of "swing". Same thing in Mass.

[Verily]

Certainly I agree that states do not, largely, follow swing. However, I think you are severely overestimating the degree to which they do not, which is an error not often seen. Massachusetts is still very tribally Democratic, and relatively few people are concerned with much beyond party in their voting. There certainly will be those who switch to McCain out of spite, but that number is not larger among the general population of Clinton supporters in Massachusetts than elsewhere--except among the political elite. Who do not, as we saw in the Massachusetts primary itself, command the voters.

Dukakis is a special case because he lost dramatically nationally anyway. Unless that happens to Obama, which is highly unlikely, such a result in Massachusetts should not be expected.

[Dan the Roman]

Certainly I agree that states do not, largely, follow swing. However, I think you are severely overestimating the degree to which they do not, which is an error not often seen. Massachusetts is still very tribally Democratic, and relatively few people are concerned with much beyond party in their voting. There certainly will be those who switch to McCain out of spite, but that number is not larger among the general population of Clinton supporters in Massachusetts than elsewhere--except among the political elite. Who do not, as we saw in the Massachusetts primary itself, command the voters.

Dukakis is a special case because he lost dramatically nationally anyway. Unless that happens to Obama, which is highly unlikely, such a result in Massachusetts should not be expected.

Dukakis only lost by 6 nationally and won MA by the same margin. Thats twelve points off. For comparison, Al Gore won nationally by .5 but won MA by 34, a 34.5 difference. If Obama wins nationally by 3(about what I expect), and wins MA by 15 or so, its the exact same swing vis-e-vis the national result in 1988. Which is basically what I am arguing, not that Obama will do as badly as Dukakis did, but he will do as badly as Dukakis did compared to his national performance, and Obama's national performance will likely be much better.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think my prediction is something of a compromise, with Obama under 60%, and McCain under 60% but improving Bush's 2004 performance:

MASSACHUSETTS PRESIDENT -
59% (D) Obama
38% (R) McCain

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Massachusetts is still very tribally Democratic, and relatively few people are concerned with much beyond party in their voting.

I actually disagree with that, to a degree.  When it comes to stuff on top of the ballot, people in Massachusetts are quite thoughtful and vote based more on ideology and character than party.

[Verily]

Massachusetts is still very tribally Democratic, and relatively few people are concerned with much beyond party in their voting.

I actually disagree with that, to a degree.  When it comes to stuff on top of the ballot, people in Massachusetts are quite thoughtful and vote based more on ideology and character than party.

The two statement are sort of separate. "Relatively few people" in general nationwide, not in Massachusetts specifically (although it certainly applies as strongly to MA as to elsewhere). When Massachusettsians do break party ranks to vote for Republicans, it is because the Democrats have done something truly egregious, which is what brought Weld and his successors to office. I don't see that with Obama; rather the reverse in terms of national Republicans (although the influence on MA specifically is likely minimal).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Massachusetts is still very tribally Democratic, and relatively few people are concerned with much beyond party in their voting.

I actually disagree with that, to a degree.  When it comes to stuff on top of the ballot, people in Massachusetts are quite thoughtful and vote based more on ideology and character than party.

The two statement are sort of separate. "Relatively few people" in general nationwide, not in Massachusetts specifically (although it certainly applies as strongly to MA as to elsewhere). When Massachusettsians do break party ranks to vote for Republicans, it is because the Democrats have done something truly egregious, which is what brought Weld and his successors to office. I don't see that with Obama; rather the reverse in terms of national Republicans (although the influence on MA specifically is likely minimal).

Shannon O'Brien was not an especially good candidate, but I am not sure she was egregiously bad.  Same goes for Harshbarger.  And Obama in a way—inevitable comparisons between him and the unpopular Patrick will be made in the minds of the voters here.  And Democrats won't go through the effort of throwing together a serious, coordinated effort to help Obama win a state he can't possibly lose anyway, so McCain can really move the needle if he runs a strong campaign.

For major races, I think voters are willing to give both candidates a chance.  They are certainly far more likely to prefer the Democrat, but I think the sheer number of voters who could potentially swing between voting for an R and voting for a D is much larger than most would want to admit.