Baker or Cahill?

[gf293313]

Throwing my 2 cents in, I'm for Baker. He's a pretty safe Republican to get behind. Personally, Cahill is only trying to distance himself from Patrick by going Independant. Cahill is more of the same spending, blah, blah, blah. I met Baker a couple months ago and really liked his message and the way he spoke to people one on one. He doesn't sound like a used car salesman when you actually meet him.

I encourage people to attend one of his many stops around the state to say hello to him.

 

[lupis42]

+1

A step, however small, in the right direction is better than standing in place with our arms folded, pouting over it and suffering through another term with Deval.

Yeah, but this isn't a step in the right direction. Baker (and Cahill) are 4 years of walking/jogging backwards. Deval is running backwards. Sure, jogging backwards is better than running, but you're still choosing to go backwards. When you vote for Baker, you are endorsing the direction.

Wishful thinking that makes about as much sense as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If Baker loses, the next Republican candidate will figure that Patrick's platform is closer to the populace and he will move leftward, not rightward.

The key (and the difficulty) is making it clear to the potential future candidate why you won't vote for Baker. We need a significant number of people to loudly and publicly draw a line in the sand. Every time you vote for a centrist compromise, you shift the debate more towards the other side.

That is the most illogical claptrap I've ever read on this site. Your choices are:

1) Deval, our sworn enemy, who will try to ram more gun control through.
2) Baker, who will likely ignore us, but who won't push for more gun control.
3) Cahill, who can't win and will take votes away from Baker, ensuring that Patrick will win.

They are fixated on the purity of their Libertarian ideals, and would rather have 4 more years of Patrick.

None of those three people deserves your endorsement. By choosing one of them anyway, by endorsing them, you encourage other candidates to become more like them. You also effectively consent to everything he said he was going to do.

All you get to really choose is how it smells. -Mike

You also get a choice between eating it of your own free will and having it rammed down your throat.

 

[not new guy]

Yeah, but this isn't a step in the right direction. Baker (and Cahill) are 4 years of walking/jogging backwards. Deval is running backwards. Sure, jogging backwards is better than running, but you're still choosing to go backwards. When you vote for Baker, you are endorsing the direction.

For better or worse, voting in the US has historically been a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Maybe it's the nature of the game, maybe it's the nature of its human participants. Regardless of the location of the problem, you need to ask yourself if you want to spend the next 4 years walking backwards, or if you want to spend all that time running in the wrong direction. It's a matter of practicality - nobody is going to look at the poll results and wonder where your vote was, let alone why it wasn't cast.

 

[M1911]

The key (and the difficulty) is making it clear to the potential future candidate why you won't vote for Baker. We need a significant number of people to loudly and publicly draw a line in the sand. Every time you vote for a centrist compromise, you shift the debate more towards the other side.

This is the delusion central to the Libertarian Party dogma. The Libertarian Party needs some sort of self-justification as to why voting for their candidates, who almost never have any chance, makes sense. It doesn't.

This doesn't work. It never has, and it never will.

You also get a choice between eating it of your own free will and having it rammed down your throat.

Oh, please. This is just so full of !@#!#@. You have your free will to vote for whomever you choose. But when you vote for Deval, don't kid yourself that you're doing anything other than that.

 

[gene]

None of them would be worse than Deval or do so much to bring down the economy and increase cost in this state. I would be choosing between Baker and Cahill myself if I thought Cahill had a chance in hell even though he is a hack. There is no way we can take 4 more years of empty eyes Deval Patrick.

 

[lupis42]

This is the delusion central to the Libertarian Party dogma. The Libertarian Party needs some sort of self-justification as to why voting for their candidates, who almost never have any chance, makes sense. It doesn't.

This doesn't work. It never has, and it never will.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting FOR evil.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Unfortunately, the Metrowest Daily News reports that all three candidates, including Cayhill, are opposed to the referendum question to repeal chapter 40B.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just another vote that the legistraitors can ignore if it doesn't suit their agenda.

Doesn't really matter what the gov/lt gov supports! It does matter what the legistraitors support however.