Left In Lowell

So JC I who are the losers of this election?

13 Responses to “So JC I who are the losers of this election?”

1. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   November 5th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

   The biggest losers were the citizens of Lowell because the Sun, as the local fouth estate, failed in its responsibility to provide coverage of the election!

   No coverage, no turnout!

   Watch and see when the editorials begin slamming the voters for not turning out.

   Of course as the Sun pointed out in the past a majority of voters read the Sun!

   So how can they be soooo wrong?

2. K-R-S Says:
   November 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

   oh yeah..almost forgot about that li’l tidbit..not.

3. Fran McDougall Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am

   Eleanor, how different was the voter turnout in this election compared to past elections?

4. Paul@01852 Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 11:12 am

   According to the Sun the turnout was significantly higher, close to 30% of registered, which would put it around 17-18K

5. Lynne Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am

   ER: I have to dispute a little bit…I do think the Sun coverage was, honestly, about 1000% better than 2007! I remember that election season. It was horrible. There was absolutely NO context to the candidates running and why they were running - and it is my understanding that this was because Campanini wanted it that way (not the reporters).

   Now, is there room for improvement? Of course! And we’ll be here to point that out. But there is no comparison between the coverage then, and this year.

   However, voter turnout *was* the disappointing aspect (thought keep in mind there are more voters registered in Lowell now, which means that the same percentage turnout actually translates to more voters!). That is something that we all, as a city, have to work on.

6. Jack Mitchell Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 11:31 am

   Until we see the purged voter file, some questions will linger.

   I am wondering if “even year voters” actually did come out in numbers, but there is not a big/bigger bump because a chunk of “odd year voters” stayed home, depressed by the narrative of cronyism and corruption.

   The purged file MAY give us some insight, the raw totals will not.

7. Huh Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

   Have to agree with Lynne. I think the Sun did a very good job this year in coverage and editorial positions (probably over JC I’s objections so kudos to the reporters, other editors and the management) Good coverage of Kazanjian’s isues, the candidate forums and the profiles.( though they probably left some stuff out like the relationship of JC II’s Assistant and current DPW head TJ McCarthy to K-man. Have to see JC I’s hand in that one.)

   They also took positions on Sheehan, the Primary, Faticanti and Kazanjian that were supported by the vcoters. And they endorsed all but one of the winners. Missing Murphy. Of course they did get 10 picks. But overall they had a pretty good record. In that respect they were a winner this year by either getting the voter mood or influencing it.

   Of course I heard JC I on the radio on election night being critical of the papers coverage. So, he’d have to be put in the loser category.

8. nextyearishere Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

   The turnout was reported to be only several hundred higher than ‘07, the same percentage (26%), but with a larger registration. That was disappointing.

   Notwithstanding the relatively small increase, there was a substantial change in the results, so it is likely that the voters learned a lesson in the past two years. Maybe JC did too!

   In any case, it doesn’t pay to dwell on the divisions of the past, but rather for all councilors to recognize the will of the people and to act in the best interests of the city. Good debate and independent thinking should produce better results than picking sides and following someone else’s lead.

9. Lynne Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

   If Campanini hated his own paper’s coverage, that meant they were doing something very right.

10. Bob Forrant Says:
    November 7th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    For me the biggest loser is old style politics in Lowell and the long-held perception that blood was thicker than shaky deeds.

    Voters repudiated two individuals who has cast the city in a bad light, whether charges against them are ever proven in a court of law. Where there was so much smoke there is at the very least a littie fire and a majority of voters decided to stamp the kindling wood out before it was maybe too late.

    Bigger question is what does the election mean when established pols are knocked off on two school boards and the city council? We ought to be trying to figure out: 1) what messages appealed to voters, 2) what campaign activities worked, 3) whether and how various blogs contributed to the conversation, 4) how much or how little WCAP and the Sun influenced voters, 5) which issues mattered, and 6) how much help/harm the smiling heads of the state legislative delegation did to themselves and Mr. Kazanjian.

    At the very least the blogocracy ought to have another Elliot’s night or something like it and chew this stuff over - don’t you think??

11. Teddy P. Says:
    November 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    For the record Jim Campanini, along with Chris Scott and Kendall Wallace in subsequent interviews, defended his newspaper’s coverage during the radio interview in question.

12. joe from Lowell Says:
    November 7th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Let’s not get lost in the weeds: the important point here is HA HA, SUN, YOU SUCK! WHO’S YOUR MOMMA?!?

    I remember the national right wing media crowing in a similar fashion after the 2004 election.

    “Ha ha, all those lefty bloggers loooooved Howard Dean. Losers. Has anyone Daily Kos supported ever won anything?”

    Kos did his share of gloating in November 2006, and now it’s your turn, ladies. Le(f)t it all hang out.

13. Anonymous Says:
    November 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    Mimi, Lynne? (Dick, are you listening?) I think Bob F. has an excellent idea! An Eliot’s night (or something like it) would be extremely beneficial way to perform a post mortem on the election.

Leave a Reply