New article: Do contested primaries help or hurt candidates for governor in Massachusetts?

I used to say no to contested primaries.... (5.00 / 1)

but not anymore. In 2010, I felt that a Baker-Mihos primary would have kept Baker in the news during the summer months and would have put him in a better position to beat Patrick. But, the party bigwigs were determined to clear the field for Baker and we saw what happened.  

---

by: TauntonRed @ Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 19:01:47 PM UTC

Mihos? (5.00 / 1)

Are you serious?

I agree that a contested race with a viable challenger would have kept Charlie in the news and forced him to focus on the issues rather than the attacks on Baker he chose to pursue.

But Mihos would have been a major distraction and would have not helped Charlie.  Have you seen the ads he ran the previous cycle?  Have you seen the issues he has had with paid escorts?  Did you not witness the issues he had paying bills on time, if at all, including the payment to be at the Convention?  Do you think that all this negative information coming out against Mihos and the potential for a meltdown type response and attacks against Charlie as a result would have helped?

So yes, let's have contested primaries with good candidates, but we shouldn't strive to have contested primaries just for the sake of having contested primaries.

p.s.  This is all with the proviso that we should not have two good candidates in one race and none in another if we can help it.  Would much rather have 2 good candidates with a chance of winning than one.

---

by: ConsEph @ Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 20:35:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I only used the Mihos example... (0.00 / 0)

because he was the only other candidate running in 2010, nothing more, nothing less. I agree that all these issues that have come out with Mihos since then do disqualify him from being seriously considered as a candidate in the future.

---

by: TauntonRed @ Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 13:42:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't say (5.00 / 1)

that I'm a big fan of annointing candidates....that's how the Mullahs in Iran choose the candidates the People then get to vote on.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 20:04:30 PM UTC

Contests are a means only, not an end (5.00 / 1)

Normally, I think competition creates better quality. And there are many ways that people can compete for the nomination. The question is whether a contested, traditional primary is a good idea for us now.

The Republican party is now a small minority of the state. So if one guy represents the moderate Republicans (say 75% of the 11%) and another is from the socially conservative wing (say 25% of the 11%) who is served by that fight? That fight will probably drag the moderate guy toward the right and get lots of bruises. To what end?

(Take the Mihos suggestion. I have met him twice and seen him in action many times. He is a clown. What the hell would Baker get from arguing with a man like that? Nothing.)

No, unless someone can convince me that we gain something from a contested primary, I don't want one. The Democrats decided to nix Elizabeth Warren's challengers behind the scenes before the primary and also Ms. DeFranco at their convention. Even they saw no value in it. (But I thought DeFranco got the shaft. She really earned a shot.)

Don't get me wrong - if someone can explain to me how it would help us, then let's have a contest. But until I hear that - we can't afford it.

---

by: edfactor @ Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 23:37:07 PM UTC

Without a Connaughto-Jain Primary (0.00 / 0)

   There was no reason to vote in the 2010 Repulican primary. Partially because of this contest, 36,000 voters got to vote for Jim McKenna (27,711) or Guy Carbone (9,000 plus).
  Yes, it would be nice if the democratic Secretary of State ensured that ALL the votes were counted. But hey! I can dream. Or have they taxed that too?

---

by: billxi @ Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 21:55:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]