Election poll - Governor of Massachusetts

[ron_newman]

The primary election for Governor of Massachusetts, as well as other statewide and district offices, is only eight weeks away: Tuesday, September 9.

If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?

(Note: like our previous polls in DSLJ, this is not a secret ballot; individual votes are readable by all members of the community)

[Poll #1975440]

I have not listed independent candidates here because they will not be on the September 9 primary ballot, and we don't know who they all are yet (the filing deadline is July 29). But if you support one, tell us in the comments.

All discussion about the state election (for Governor or any other office) is welcome here. I'll probably post a second poll when we get closer to the primary and more folks are paying attention.

Comments

[ron_newman]

What do you think Massachusetts should do instead of what is proposed?

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

"What Massachusetts should do" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since "Massachusetts" isn't a singular entity that does things.

What gubernatorial candidates should do is focus on positions about what they will do for the state, rather than "feel good" but ineffectual positions about what might be good for the U.S. or the world as a whole.

If they want to do things for the U.S. as a whole, they should run for Senator instead. If they want to do things for the world as a whole, they should try to get appointed ambassador.

[ron_newman]

We're a coastal state. Failing to address climate change (either by reducing carbon output, or by building coastal defenses) will mean flooding of low-lying areas.

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

Reducing one state's carbon output will not change things noticeably.

Building coastal barriers might make sense, but that doesn't seem to be what they're campaigning on.

[secretlyironic.livejournal.com]

I'd love to have the EPA issue national regs but that's not happening. So, state-based change is where it's at. And state environmental regs can make a difference - look at California and car emission, which have led opinion and influenced manufacturers and eventually led to better fuel standards.

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

California regulations had to do with things that affected California much more strongly than other states or nations. The pollutants of the time tended not to make it out of California, especially if generated in the LA basin, for example. That's different from greenhouse gases, where emissions tend not to have much effect locally or regionally.

[ron_newman]

You don't think Massachusetts should try to set a good example for other states (or the federal government) to follow? We've done it before, for instance with 'Romneycare'.

[keithn.livejournal.com]

I don't think the two are remotely comparable. Romneycare was something that had a quick, direct, visible, and measurable impact on peoples' lives. The rest of the country could look at Massachusetts and see how low its uninsured rate was. With climate change initiatives, the rest of the country will look at Massachusetts and see higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, and higher costs all around due to increased costs to transport goods while climate change marches on. It's not going to look like an attractive course of action.

California could impact emissions on cars nationwide in the same way Texas influences school textbooks. They are such a large portion of the US population that when they change standards, it's easier for manufacturers to implement the change for everyone than to have different products for different states. Massachusetts doesn't have that kind of clout. If we had been the ones who raised emissions standards, we would have just have to pay a lot more money for special cars and aftermarket solutions.

While I don't like psychohist's style of argument I think they are essentially right. If you enact strict regulations in Massachusetts, it's going to make things expensive here while not even touching climate change since we are 0.09% of the world's population. It will lead to less residents and businesses wanting to reside in Massachusetts. Change has to come at the national and worldwide level. I'm optimistic that as the younger generations comes into power, it will.

If we're talking about preparing Massachusetts for the impact of climate change, then that's great. If we're talking about incentives to bring the companies building tomorrow's energy solutions, that's great, too. But I get the feeling that this candidate is mostly talking about reducing emissions, and it's a ploy to get votes from people who feel strongly about this issue (which I'm sure we all do here). There are a lot of issues impacting the state that the governor can actually impact, and I'm personally going to vote based on those.

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

Given how Obamacare ended up being a bloated travesty of Romneycare, I don't think that's a good argument.