Changing my mind: Capuano

[in_parentheses]

You know what? I'm changing my mind. When I get home tonight, I'm voting for Capuano. I thought more about experience vs. ideals, and proven record vs. nebulous "hope." Some of my friends made good points -- like martini_corona's that Khazei should start smaller if he really wants to get into elected office.

And then I read this story, which sealed the deal

Comments

[ruthling]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who goes back and forth on this.

edit: the main reason I didn't want to vote for Capuano is the expense of yet another special election, which won't affect me as directly.

Re: May not be necessary

[cos]

a) We don't know that yet. It seems more likely than not, but it's definitely not definite.

b) Even if it happens, it would happen *after* we get the results of the 2010 census and *then* do our redistricting for the 2012 election, whereas the new Senator we're electing now will take office at the beginning of 2010, so if Capuano had won there would still have been a vacancy and we'd still have held a special election to fill it.

c) However, Martha Coakley also holds public office - Attorney General - so we're going to have a special election anyway.

[cos]

Not that I think that's a good reason to sway a vote, but if I did... you had it backwards.

When Coakley becomes Senator, we'll need a special election to replace her as Attorney General. That's a statewide special election, so it's a higher expense than having one in just one congressional district (1/10th of the state).

Edit: I was mistaken. It turns out to be close enough to the next election for statewide offices, that the legislature will make an interim appointment until we elect a new AG in November of 2010.

[cos]

Also read this story.

(I found this LJ post through a retweet from the Capuano campaign)

[in_parentheses]

That is a great story (in a website that broke my browser); thank you.

...Wait, the Capuano campaign retweeted my post? Neat!

[dpg178]

I got on the train this morning with the idea of voting for Khazei gradually solidifying in my mind. In the seats across the aisle from me, two people were talking about the election -- one indicated that he couldn't really tell the difference but would probably vote for Coakley because that's who his wife was supporting. The other indicated that he was leaning toward Capuano because that's who his wife was for... They then discussed the various candidates, including "that guy who started the charity or something." It quickly became clear to me that if this is what the average voter is like, Khazei has no chance. And I would much prefer Capuano to Coakley

[dpg178]

good story. dpg. I guess I'll go vote for Capuano this afternoon. Khazei seems nice but I don't think he has much chance of winning.

[in_parentheses]

Oh, I'm well aware that Khazei has no chance. But sometimes it's worth voting for the guy with no chance so that he'll get 25% of the vote instead of 10% (or whatever) and people will hear his points.

This notion that one should only vote for the horse out front really, really bothers me. (Not that that's what you were saying, but the commenter below seems to be.) Voting shouldn't be about guessing the winner so you can say your vote "counted."

Good sweet lord, do we need to get instant-runoff voting or something similar in this country already.

[dpg178]

Don't get me started on IRV... Or actually, do get me started, but in person sometime, not with a keyboard. What bothers me the most on that are the people who say it's too complicated for people to understand. It's used by illiterate tribes in Papua New Guinea, for god's sake! But the poor American voter can't handle rank order?

Anyway, if I didn't care very much between Capuano and Coakley, I would vote for Khazei. But I do, so Capuano it is.

[beah]

I haven't verified this yet, but drwex responded to that story by saying that Capuano supports the health care bill with the Stupak amendment. That pretty much kills my vote, right there. I'm leaning towards Khazei.

[in_parentheses]

Stupak pisses me off, no doubt. But this is an interesting take on Coakley's vs. Capuano's positions, and is the take I'm leaning towards.

I'm confused.

[beah]

This shows that Capuano voted against Stupak, if I'm reading it right. But this shows that he voted for it. Which vote is the one I actually want to be looking at?

Re: I'm confused.

[in_parentheses]

The NYTimes is for Roll Call 884, and the House.gov is for Roll Call 887. My guess is that the former was just for the Stupak Amendment and the latter was for the bill as a whole?

[dougo]

I drove to Billerica to vote for Capuano (I forgot to register in Somerville by the deadline). Coakley really rubs me the wrong way, and Khazei seems good but I don't think he'd be effective enough in the Senate.