Sal DiDomenico wins Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex Senate Seat

April 13, 2010 in Flaherty DiDomenico by Massachusetts Election 2010 | View Comments

But Flaherty Charges ‘Voter Irregularities’ in Everett!

Sal Didomenico won the Middlesex Suffolk and Essex seat by 130 votes. The breakdown is roughly like this:

  • Sal DiDomenico 37.2%
  • Tim Flaherty 36.0%
  • Denise Simmons 10.1%
  • Mike Albano 8.4%
  • Dennis Benzan 6.6%
  • Dan Hill 1.5%

DiDomenico won 4,230 votes over Flaherty’s 4,096.

DiDomenico won big in Everett with about 70% of the total vote there, and won Somerville, Saugus and Chelsea and Revere. He lost Charlestown by a narrow margin, and won only 6% in Cambridge where Tim Flaherty and Denise Simmons are strong.

The vote is very close and Tim Flaherty is now charging ‘voting irregularities’:

The unofficial vote tally tonight shows a margin of just over 100 votes separating myself and Sal DiDomenico. This race is simply too close to call. The essence of democracy is that every vote must count. Throughout the day, we’ve seen evidence of voting irregularities in Everett. We are therefore calling for a recount and an investigation into these irregularities. This is a race about ideas—restoring respect for public service, standing up for progressive values, and restarting our economy. Because these issues are so critical, we must make sure the people’s voice is heard and that every vote is counted fairly.

If he’s going to call ‘irregularities’ he’d better have something behind that charge – or he’s just going to look like a sore loser. Flaherty has already announced that he intends to run for the seat in the November election.

Turnout was low everywhere and it really came down to who had the GOTV. Vote splitting in Cambridge between Flaherty and Simmons cost Flaherty the election. If he tries again and Simmons doesn’t run, his chances should be better. But by then DiDomenico will be an incumbent. Should be interesting.

Update: Here are some details on the vote breakdown in Everett:

  • DiDomenico: 2599
  • Flaherty: 681
  • Albano: 91
  • Benzan: 74
  • Simmons: 42
  • Hill:  13

As lopsided as this seems,  it actually shows poor turnout in Everett. DiDomenico’s strategy was to turnout 5000 votes in Everett, and get about 80% conversion for Sal, and having a 3500 vote lead in Everett. They put a huge effort into GOTV in Everett, knowing that any voter that came out in Everett was likely for Sal. Their GOTV effort was no where near as strong in Everett as they planned. Had they succeeded in this they would have put themselves out of reach in for a challenge in November. As it stands now Sal is an attractive target for November – especially if Flaherty runs and Simmons doesn’t.

DiDomenico is well advised to keep campaign headquarters open and work on improving the GOTV effort in Everett for November.

 
Share

Related Articles

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • http://electioninfo.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/results-on-april-13/ Results on April 13 « All Politics is Local

    [...] from Massachusetts Election 2010 – A great blog that I recommend everyone check [...]

  • http://www.somervilleirv.org/?p=115 Somerville for IRV » Blog Archive » State Senate Race Shows Need for IRV

    [...] The unofficial results put Sal DiDomenico about 135 votes above the runner-up, Tim Flaherty. The Massachusetts Election 2010 blog has the rough percentage [...]

  • http://www.somervillevoices.org/2010/04/18/uncategorized/state-senate-race-shows-need-for-irv/ Somerville Voices » Blog Archive » State Senate Race Shows Need for IRV

    [...] Unofficial results put Sal DiDomenico about 135 votes above the runner-up, Tim Flaherty. The Massachusetts Election 2010 blog has the rough percentage [...]

  • Wizzer8981

    Your election results are completely wrong. Tim crushed Sal in Chelsea and Charlestown and beat Sal by 100 votes in Revere. I can’t believe you are publishing a blog with such inaccurate results.

  • http://massachusetts-election-2010.com Massachusetts Election 2010

    These are the official results for that race. Do you have another source that says something different?

blog comments powered by Disqus