I don't quite get it: Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Tom Reilly picked a black female liberal as his running mate* in a clear effort to pander to the left, urban side of the party - to "New Boston." But his whole appeal is being a moderate Democrat in the first place. Of course, a Democrat is a Democrat to a large extent, so I may be confused about nothing, but if I were running as a Democrat in a state that has a decades-long history of Republican governors, I'd want not only to be a moderate but also to appear moderate.
Perhaps I'll take a look at Deval Patrick after all.
*The Lieutenant Governor is independently elected, and voters can split the ticket if they want in the general election. I don't know how the primary works.
UPDATE: a helpful commenter tells me I got it exactly wrong. You can mix and match in the primary. But in the general election you can vote only for a single ticket. No voting for the D. for governor and the R. for Lt. Governor. I have long had the impression that the two officers were elected separately, but the 2002 returns seem to show that I'm wrong, as does this section of Mass. Law. Thanks for the help, and sorry for the error.
Gov and LG are NOT separately elected in the General election.
They ARE separately elected in the primary.
I.e.: if it's Patrick/Silbert vs. Healey/Brown, you could NOT end up with Patrick/Brown being elected.
However, Reilly is not assured that if he wins, St. Fleur will win too. If he wins and Silbert wins in the primary, then it's Reilly Silbert vs. Healey/Brown.
Posted by: da clerk | January 31, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Am I reading you right?
are you saying that a black woman running mate is not a choice a moderate candiate makes?
Posted by: Dan Zarrella | January 31, 2006 at 11:04 AM
No. I mean that this particular woman's attributes were picked -I suspect- very cynically to appeal to certain groups, all on the left wing of the party: blacks, city-dwellers, liberals. Her gender isn't relevant anymore, I think.
I gave the wrong impression, perhaps, by leaving her name out of the post, leaving it to the linked article. But I was trying to draw attention to the attributes for which I think he picked her.
Posted by: carpundit | January 31, 2006 at 11:49 AM
but blacks, city-dwellers are by definition in the "left wing of the party"?
Posted by: Dan Zarrella | January 31, 2006 at 01:53 PM
yeah, pretty much.
Posted by: carpundit | January 31, 2006 at 04:23 PM
and you live where?
Posted by: Dan Zarrella | January 31, 2006 at 04:52 PM
Clearly, I don't mean that EVERY black is a lefty, or that EVERY city-dweller is a lefty, or even that EVERY black city-dweller is a lefty.
Many blacks are. Many city dwellers are. Where those groups intersect, most are.
I wasn't being literal; I was generalizing. Accurately.
Posted by: carpundit | January 31, 2006 at 04:56 PM
"I was generalizing. Accurately."
doesn't that sound like a traditional racist thing to say?
I mean sterotyping based on source-less empirical data...
Posted by: Dan Zarrella | January 31, 2006 at 05:11 PM
Oh, that's where you're going. I'm a racist.
OK, that settles that. Thanks.
Posted by: carpundit | January 31, 2006 at 05:27 PM