Ron Paul continues to be a true American hero.

Related Articles

• Congressman Olver Endorses Rep. Candidate Paul Mark
• State Rep Hopeful Paul Mark Proposes Innovative Constituent Initiatives
• Rep Candidate Paul Mark Earns Labor Coalition Endorsement

I’ve said from day one that Scott Brown’s victory was nothing but a perfect storm… but who ever listens? The RINO-led brain trust at the MAGOP thought they were just going to cruise to statewide and otherwise victory. The MAGOP intended to be carried aloft by a farrow of flying pigs; much to their chagrin.

There will be those who’ll see this commentary for something other than what it is: a reflection on the 2010 Massachusetts elections. But that’s their problem, not mine.

Now that the election is over, I’d like to tell the readers that I ran as a Non-Party candidate in Weymouth for state representative, which might seem an odd identity, but that was one of the three choices available in the Secretary of State’s Handbook for candidates to claim. It signifies that a person is free of the two major political parties.

Though there’s an Independent political designation, there’s no such Party in Massachusetts. Numerous candidates called themselves Independents, but I stuck with Non-Party candidate because I no longer want to be associated with some group-think political affiliation – major or otherwise. The Party system has failed the People here and throughout America. Political Party gridlock is akin to trying to go north (or south) on 3A when the rickety erector-set Fore River Bridge is up to let a cargo ship through to spew its contents during rush hour.

Whoever thought of that setup was really brilliant…

Back to my reflecting: In my particular race, the incumbent copped a 62% vote count and the guy the MAGOP sent here from Medfield 18 months ago to take on me and the born-and-raised-here lad picked up 32%. I wound up with 6%.

I was a registered Republican for 46 years – an Eisenhower Republican – but I left last year because the MAGOP sent Primary opponents to try to take me out three times running. That stemmed from a meeting I had with GOP mucky-mucks in 2006 where I said that if I were elected, I would represent the People of Weymouth before I would represent the GOP. Well, that went over like a fart in a spacesuit didn’t it? There is also that the RINO-run MAGOP has lost its bearings (and may soon lose its RINO chairwoman).

The newbie, with no political experience, no real knowledge of Weymouth, and no participation in anything associated with Weymouth, got his votes the old fashioned way – with an (R) after his name. The voters were so hungry for change – unlike NObama’s change – that they grasped at a political designation to represent them. Well that went over like a fart in a spacesuit as well, didn’t it? The upside is that, combined, the new guy and I garnered 38% of the vote and the incumbent dropped from his two 70-72% wins over me – a 10 percentage point loss. Perhaps there’s a chink in his armor…

Kerry Healey was part of the brain trust behind Baker and Tisei’s run. Her first bout with DeFault Patrick went over real big too, didn’t it? The statewide-office (and Congressional) Republicans got their clocks cleaned and oiled on Election Day. While the MAGOP picked up a couple of House seats, they lost one in the Senate (now holding a totally outstanding 15% of the Legislature) when Tisei gave up his seat to try to be our first out-gay lieutenant governor. Tisei had promised he would push the GLBT agenda from his bully pulpit when elected. How special is that – NOT?

To be honest, I don’t really care what people do in the privacy of their homes and/or bedrooms, but I do object to some who feel that society needs to respect their lifestyle to the point where they want to indoctrinate young, impressionable children to be more receptive to said lifestyle – and then involve themselves in outlandish public displays.

At the same time, no one is allowed to push programming for what some consider the long-established “traditional” way of life. That to me is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I’ll not go into the details now.

In my quixotic campaign, I went door-to-door to meet thousands of voters (or to leave a palm card for those not at home).  I think the newbie did too; but only to the (R)s. I also heard he had some MAGOP help. Some (R)s I spoke to flat out told me they were going to vote for the (R) candidate, even though they knew nothing about him or had never heard of him before.

The incumbent, as usual, sent out one of his last minute slick mailings to extol all that he alleges he has done and will do for the town (he’s promising a walking trail in North Weymouth — one that he has been working toward for at least seven years. That should kick-start the local economy… people will soon be able to walk to work when they can’t afford gasoline any longer).

I saw one of his slicks in a mailbox, but it’s illegal to touch someone’s mail; so I didn’t. I did see where the mayor and the lieutenant governor allowed some puffery above their names but I wasn’t really interested in what they or he had to say. One has to remember that they are all in the same big-pig Party boat together. One need only look at all the misery Weymouth (and the state) is in right now and it’s easy to figure out who’s responsible for it: certainly not George W. Bush as the teleprompter-in-chief might be wont to claim.

Anyway, the only doors the incumbent personally went to were the ones where he could pick up a donation; sometimes twice according to his OCPF reports. He leaned pretty hard on a number of seniors and they bought into his failed shtick. He was spotted at the polls wearing an oh-so-chic Scally cap, chatting with some of his sign holders. Other than that, his father’s minions did all the heavy lifting – maybe even picked up the checks for him as well.

The Weymouth League of Women Voters did a bang-up job this year by NOT having any debates for the House candidates. I wonder if that’s because the incumbent’s immediate family and good friends are all in the “non-partisan” organization (Oops, did I let out a secret? My bad!).

Perhaps they were troubled four years ago when I ate their boy’s lunch at a televised debate and handed him the empty bag when I was done – and so they decided to spare him further embarrassment. There was no LWV debate two years ago either. I’m shocked – shocked! How could that possibly be?

You probably noticed that Independent or Non-Party candidates got little to no attention in the LameStream Media during the campaign season; especially the Ledger. And when they did mention “Independents”, they “somehow” got their names or affiliations wrong (like mine for example) or belittled them in some fashion. A case in point is Gary Lowell, a 22 year-old college senior who had the major chutzpah to take on the worthless, balding, el Cheapo 18-year incumbent in the Third Norfolk District. Let’s call him Ron Mariano for short; the guy who rakes in $80K a year in campaign cash and gives up NADA for his constituents at the Food Pantry. But mention a North End gala and he’ll drop anywhere from $5 to $15K at one sitting to entertain his compares. It’s all in his OCPF reports folks: I didn’t make any of this up.

Mariano spent close to $8K to challenge Lowell’s signatures, only to drop the challenge after the lad put out a press release naming the names of the hit men Mariano sent to try to derail Lowell’s candidacy. The Ledger followed up with a pretty disparaging piece where they claimed that Lowell wasn’t a serious candidate because he “hadn’t raised any money”. The “reporter” was sure to extol all that Mariano is at the State House; how self-important he is.

The “reporter” never looked any further than his keyboard to find anything about Lowell – for one that he survived major brain cancer surgery and a nasty recurrence at age 13; that he finished high school with excellent grades and is now a BSU senior studying political science. He’s an exceptional researcher and writer and was summarily dismissed in a cheap-shot, piece-of-crap screed. Here’s hoping the Ledger’s editorial staff is happy with their “reporter’s” POS political hack job.

So much for the LameStream GateHouse Media franchise in Quincy. What a bunch of losers they’ve become — just like their sister publication, the Weymouth NewsRag. Barney Frank and Jim Ready would probably deem them irrelevant at this juncture; showering them with spittle in the process.

Perhaps I’ll renew my Ledger subscription when I hear that they issued a too-little, too-late apology to Lowell. The race might be over; but not before Lowell scared the crap out of el Cheapo and his UGLY signs with a 36% showing – on NO money. Suffice to say that Lowell, in my opinion, has more guts in his pinky finger than the “ace reporter” who covered his race.

Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Goodnight all. You too, Mrs. Calabash… wherever you are.

***

By the way: Through some unrelated research, I found another Medal of Honor level military hero for Weymouth, a still-living Merchant Marine who should be honored this coming Veterans’ Day. However, the Ledger editor I’m friendly with posted the story online only under the Enterprise’s banner with my byline. The story, so far, has not seen the dark of ink in its print version for either the Ledger or the Enterprise. You can find the story at this link: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1404219915/Another-military-hero-for-Weymouth

Related Articles

• Montgomery Thomas Seeks Fourth Norfolk State Representative Seat
• Brad Marston: Are you serious about the 2010 elections?
• Robert Montgomery Thomas Running against Rep. James Murphy of Weymouth

Scott Brown

Could any Dems topple #41 in six weeks?

Now that the 2010 election is behind us, we can begin to focus on the truly important task of governing. Just kidding. We’re just going to focus on the 2012 election.

The speculation about which Democrat could beat Scott Brown officially began on January 20, but it has already ramped up in the 36 hours or so since all of #41′s endorsees got trounced at the polls. In the Globe today, Alan Wirzbicki tossed out names like Congressman Mike Capuano and Alan Khazei (both of whom fell to Coakley in last year’s primary), Congressman Stephen Lynch, Newton Mayor Setti Warren, and even financial executive and social security wiz Bob Pozen.

No matter who Democrats settle on in September 2012, the eventual candidate is likely to face an enormous uphill battle. It’s certainly possible that Brown could see his popularity wane over the next 24 months, but at the moment he remains the darling politician of Massachusetts, and enjoys name recognition that can probably only be rivaled by Deval Patrick, Barack Obama, or Tom Brady. He also has $6.7 million in the bank as of September 30, and raised more than $17 million over the past year. By the summer of 2012, he could be sitting on a $12-$15 million warchest.

By comparison, whichever Democrat survives a potentially bruising primary will likely be low on cash (barring a victory by a self-funded candidate like Pozen or Steve Pagliuca), damaged by months of debating and opposition research (remember that last year’s primary season was incredibly brief and virtually ignored), and pressed for time (just six weeks between the primary and general) to make their case that they will be better for Massachusetts than Scott Brown. So even if Brown is less popular in the fall of 2012 than he is now, the Democratic nominee will face an enormous uphill battle.

But maybe there is a way for the folks up on Beacon Hill to even the playing field.

As it stands now, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls three times in 2012. In February or March we will cast ballots in the Presidential primary. In September we will vote in primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress, State Senate, State Rep, and various county offices. Then in November we will vote on whether to re-elect Barack Obama, Scott Brown, and any number of other office-holders.

So why not move the Senate primary to the winter to coincide with the Presidential primary?

On the surface, I think it makes a ton of sense.

1) It would give Democrats in Massachusetts a reason to go to the polls on primary day.

2) For certain candidates (i.e. members of the Congressional delegation), this could be ideal. If the primary were held in February, it would allow losers to run again for their current seats.

3) If this decision were made early in 2011, candidates would still have a year to raise money and campaign.

4) Most importantly for Democrats, it would allow their nominee time to build name recognition, raise money, and challenge Scott Brown head to head throughout the spring, summer, and fall.

Could it happen? I don’t see why not. I haven’t consulted with the Secretary State’s office or any election lawyers to find out if it’s possible, but I am pretty sure each state sets it’s own rules for electing Senators. Plus, the legislature had no problem changing the rules for appointing a Senator in the fall of 2009, so I don’t think there would be much resistance in this case either.

Will it happen? I doubt it. Right now, Democrats are riding a well-deserved high after decimating state-wide Republicans. Already they are pointing to Brown’s election as an aberration that they will easily wipe away in 2012. When did I hear that before? Oh right, it was about this time last year.

Related Articles

• Rally for Sean Bielat and Charlie Baker, featuring Scott Brown and Mary Z. Connaughton
• Martha Coakley’s Public Financing Miscalculation Puts Her at Severe Funding Disadvantage Against Jim McKenna
• Senator Scott Brown to campaign for Brad Marston

There are many good post election analysis articles out on the web worth looking at. I don’t have every good article out there – but I’ve got examples of all the major themes going around and who is pushing them.

Democratic Spin: “Republican Failure”

The Boston Globe says Democratic success was due largely to a well organized “get out the vote” effort, principally engineered in Massachusetts’ urban centers and manned by union volunteers:

Shortly after Bill Keating’s victory over Jeff Perry, retiring Rep. Bill Delahunt commented that the Democratic sweep was the “end of the Scott Brown Effect”. This theme has been picked up in analysis in a bunch of places. Here is a typical example in the Patriot Ledger:

“Democrats quickly labeled their win in the 10th Congressional District a return to Massachusetts’ blue-state roots and a repudiation of the anti-Washington wave that U.S. Sen. Scott Brown rode to victory less than a year ago.

What you see here today is an end of the so-called Scott Brown effect,” retiring U.S. Rep. William Delahunt said before Democrat William Keating’s victory speech Tuesday night.

“It was an oft-repeated phrase as Democrats delighted in Keating’s win over Republican state Rep. Jeffrey Perry of Sandwich.”

There is now talk that Scott Brown is more vulnerable. The argument goes that Brown has voted too moderately to satisfy “Tea Party conservatives”, and that his support of the entire slate of Massachusetts Republican candidates may have turned left-leaning independents against him. Political strategists who thought Brown might have signaled a turning to the right, among the Massachusetts electorate, are now considering that Scott Brown may have been “a fluke”.  The Globe has an article today typical of the kind:

“Ten months after Scott Brown’s surprise victory in a Senate special election, the lackluster showing of Republicans across the state Tuesday is raising Democrats’ hopes of defeating Brown in two years.”

There is speculation on who would do that: Boston Mayor Tom Menino ( because of his GOTV chops), Newton Mayor Setti Warren, and of course Mike Capuano and Alan Khazei.

I don’t doubt some will try. But I doubt Brown is really that vulnerable. All polls show that Scott Brown is still, by far, the most popular politician in Massachusetts. Besides he has $6.7 million in campaign cash – a lot more than he had when he won the seat.

Republican Spin: “We made good progress”

Scott Brown’s victory has been a mixed blessing for the Massachusetts GOP. It got their base excited. It helped them recruit good candidates. But it also gave them a case of “magical thinking.” Instead of fielding strong candidates for state legislature – an unrealistic number of candidates ran for congress. Many districts saw 4 or more Republicans in the primary. Many of these were the types of candidates who could have done well running for State Rep, or State Senator. Instead they were wasted fighting each other in Republican primaries.

Even though they didn’t win any of the races at the top of the ballot, the GOP put more pressure on the Democratic party than they have in many decades. All 5 major constitutional offices had viable challengers, and 8 of 10 congressional races were contested and even though Republicans didn’t win any – 5 races came within uncomfortably narrow margins in a state where Democrats are used to running for Congress uncontested.

And there was a silver lining: the MassGOP picked up 17 seats in the House – more than doubling their representation in the Legislature. Not enough to make much of a practical difference in how our Legislature runs – but a major step toward changing the Democrats’ long time legislative monopoly.

Jennifer Nassour, Chairman of the MassGOP, laid out that case in a letter to GOP State Committee Members:

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear State Committee Members:

No one ever said the battle to elect more Republicans in Massachusetts would be easy. Yesterday proved that, but there are a few observations I wanted to share with you:

- Our party gained 17 seats in the House of Representatives for a total of 32 – more than a 100% increase. In comparison, Massachusetts Republicans gained six House seats and eight Senate seats in the 1990 election. (Please see a full list of the 2010 legislative winners below.)

- Every incumbent Republican won. Importantly, we protected those five open House seats held by departing Republicans, including the vacancy created by Richard Ross’ state Senate victory earlier this year. We ended a 20-year slide by more than doubling membership.

- The gains in the House will give us energy and local leadership we need to continue to grow our grassroots. It will build our farm team as we prepare for future races, including state Senate contests. We already added 100 new city and town committees prior to Tuesday, and we’ve laid the ground work to organize more.

- Many, many of our statewide and congressional candidates performed well and emerged from yesterday’s election as respected, viable contenders for future elections.

- Worcester County proved to be a stronghold for us. We congratulate Rep. Lew Evangelidis who won his race for Worcester County Sheriff, and Jennifer Cassie for being elected to the Governor’s Council. Republicans will represent us in eight Worcester County House Districts: 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, and 18th.

- While we don’t have final numbers yet, it is clear that our strong congressional challenges forced national Democrats to pour resources into Massachusetts, diverting them from races in other parts of the country. We played a role in the national wave

As a party, we have reason to be proud of the effort and the gains made on Tuesday because we will hold more seats come January, and we have stronger and broader grassroots. We provided our legislative candidates with the knowledge and tools to run great races, and they succeeded. Our work is far from complete, but we are heading in the right direction.

I would be remiss if I did not thank each and every one of our Republican candidates, from the statewide contenders all the way down the ballot. They put their lives on hold for a year or more to run for public office and everyone of them can walk away with their heads held high.

In the coming days and weeks, we will be analyzing the election results and will provide you with more information as we better understand Tuesday’s outcome and plan for future party building. I thank each of you for your continued support of both the party and our candidates.

Republican Rep. Paul Frost makes a similar case:

“21(pending on a few recounts) new GOP State Representatives were elected on November 2. Despite the other losses in the state, the GOP in the Mass House still gained significantly.  House Republican Leader Brad Jones and his leadership team and the Mass GOP House PAC deserve a lot of credit along, of course, with the hard work of our great candidates this year.  We also had all three incumbent Republican State Representatives re-elected.  Unprecedented efforts this round lead to unprecedented results since two decades ago, despite what happened elsewhere on the ballot. There was no wave ridden this time.”

Tea Party Spin: “Republicans were not conservative enough”

There is a theme going around that Republicans tried to lean too far to the left to pick up centrist independent voters and lost the support of conservative and “family values” voters. Mass Resistance has been promoting this idea:

“In an election where Republicans were conquering the country, Massachusetts is probably the only state in America where the Republicans were completely blanked out in all statewide offices and all Congressional districts. Is that just coincidence, or were the Republicans here possibly doing something wrong?

The forced big-tent approach to morality has become the Party’s official position. The pro-gay, pro-abortion Baker/Tisei team reflected it completely. And if a Republican candidate was personally pro-life or pro-traditional marriage, the apparent strategy was either to never mention it or obfuscate when asked about it.

It didn’t work. It confused people. And it alienated a fairly significant part of the Republican Party base — the part that does a lot of the actual work. At a certain point it started to look pretty ridiculous.

As columnist Jeff Jacoby once observed (regarding Mitt Romney’s 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy), if people are given the choice of a watered-down liberal and a real liberal, they will choose the real thing every time. What he might have added is that when the Republican Party caves in to more and more liberal mush, its rank and file starts to lose their zeal and enthusiasm, and it affects campaigns.”

This kind of “moderate” thinking also led to other sources of Republican Party failure:

“The Party avoided running against Barack Obama and his policies. After all, in a “big tent” you don’t want to alienate Obama supporters. But back in January, Scott Brown won his US Senate seat running primarily as the 41st vote against Barack Obama’s agenda. The “new” Republican Party hardly mentioned Obama at all. Did you see any anti-Obama ads — reminding voters how the incumbents force-fed us Obamacare, cap and trade, takeover of the economy? Neither did we. And when Congressional candidate Bill Hudak bashed Obama, he was thrown under the bus by the Republican bigwigs. However, around the country that was the main reason for booting incumbents.

Party leaders adopted other traditionally liberal issues. For example, early on Charlie Baker announced his support for the Quinn Bill. The Quinn Bill is a program where state money pays for permanent police salary increases if they take some college courses. It was originally a gift to the policeman’s union, has become very expensive, and is widely considered a boondoggle — so much so that Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick cut much of it from the budget. So Baker was in the interesting position of being more fiscally liberal then his Democrat opponent. Not exactly a Tea Party approach to government.”

All this should send a message to someone. But we’re not holding our breath for this bunch to “get it” anytime soon.

They have a point. Bill Hudak, derided by many as “too conservative” and a “birther”, and who got very little support from Republicans nationally and barely any from the MassGOP did way better than anyone expected. Most Republican candidates – like Baker – did their best to distance themselves from Hudak.

The House seats picked up in Worcester county were to a large extent “pro-family” Republicans.

Mike Rosettie on RedMassGroup makes the case that the leaders of the Massachusetts Republican party have been drawn from a relatively small number of more “liberal” north eastern Massachusetts Districts, and that it is time for the leaders to be drawn from the more conservative Republican base, Worcester county:

“State House News has reported that both Bruce Tarr and Bob Hedlund are interested in leading the MassGOP Senate Caucus.

I say Hedlund.

We need a change in our Republican leadership.  Our Republican leadership has been concentrated among a few liberal North Shore Republicans.  Meanwhile, most Republicans exists in central Mass, the South Shore and Cape Code.  This is true for both our elected officials and the rank and file.  Bruce Tarr and Brad Jones even have overlapping districts.  This does not represent the party in either geography nor ideology.”

Juicy Insights from David Bernstein

David Bernstein has two really interesting blog posts after the election. The first is that the Massachusetts House is now only barely pro-choice:

“The Massachusetts House of Representatives came within a hair’s-breadth of losing its pro-choice majority as a result of Tuesday’s elections, but will squeak through with a bare edge of 81 of 160 members.

Take these numbers with grain of salt. This is NARAL’s accounting of who is “pro-choice”. For them legislators only count as “pro-choice” if they hew to a fanatical opposition to any regulation of abortion.

Long term, abortion rights is a losing issue. The country is slowly turning against it as 3D ultrasound imaging gives families a clearer picture of what the unborn look like. I’m sure that it is surprising for many that in Massachusetts our State House is now almost evenly divided.

The other insight is that of the Democratic legislators who lost, the majority were not DeLeo allies:

Related Articles

• State Election Primary Overview and Predictions
• MA-01 Race Analysis: Bill Gunn challenging Rep. John Olver for the 1st Congressional District
• Peter Smulowitz vs. Richard Ross Election Update

Frank calls out his opponents including the Herald, by name – and the Herald has a reaction:

Newspapers live for moments like the one Barney Frank gave us on election night. To be called out – by name – by a 30-year incumbent. It doesn’t get any better than that.

Now you’d think that a guy enjoying his hard-fought election victory – his first hard-fought contest in just about forever – would savor the moment. Perhaps say a few gracious things about his smart and respectful young opponent. …

So in a speech that lacked any hint of graciousness, Frank thanked his 4th District voters for turning back the “unreasoning anger, vituperation [and] anonymous smears.”

In fact, he insisted, “This was a victory for a concept of government which eschews the anger and the vitriol . . .”

Unless, of course, it’s anger and vitriol coming from Mr. Congeniality himself.

That’s when he launched his anti-Herald screed.

“With the re-election of the Massachusetts delegation and Gov. Deval Patrick, we can acknowledge tonight that Massachusetts has reaffirmed the complete political irrelevance of the Boston Herald. There is no limit to the bias and vitriol [there goes that word again] they unleashed.”

Related Articles

• Video: Charlie Baker’s Concession Speech
• Sean Bielat’s “Barney Frank Shuffle” Ad
• Sean Bielat Crushes Barney Frank in Debate on WGBH’s Greater Boston

Related Articles

• Investing in our Future: Solar Energy and Massachusetts
• Dan Winslow Disagrees with Stanley Nacewicz’ Call for Tax Hike
• Dan Winslow Raises over $42,000 for State Representative Campaign

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related Articles

• Video: Barney Frank’s Graceless Victory Speech
• Rally for Sean Bielat and Charlie Baker, featuring Scott Brown and Mary Z. Connaughton
• New Ad from Charlie Baker attacking Deval Patrick’s Record on Tax Hikes and Jobs

Joe Van Nes

I congratulate Bill Keating on his win. This letter is not aimed at him, just the system in general in which we all live. I hope Mr. Keating has the ability to stand up to special interests and keep the people in mind when he is tempted with money and power. I would also like to encourage him to look outside the box in his search for solutions and not be restricted by the status quo. I’m sure I speak for the entire district when I wish him the best of luck.

Moving on…

You know it’s election season when only “noncombat” troops remain in Iraq and “terrorists” start sending their last minute bombs in the mail from Yemen. Just like they assured us before the primaries, our army was leaving Iraq, the media spent the last days of the election talking about explosives which did not explode. Keep the fear alive, but at controllable levels and you can get the “sheeple” to vote for the “lesser of two evils” every time. I wonder what’s going to almost happen right before the next election.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is impossible when both parties take money from (and owe loyalty to) the same boss. Until we stand up for ourselves by voting with our hearts and minds, don’t expect our representatives to stand up for us. Garbage in, garbage out. Anyone who contributes a little piece of garbage to the pile has to take responsibility for the mess. We have to spread the word to not blame the garbage on the garbage itself. It only takes one smart person to realize that voters will follow the polls, (as opposed to the other way around) before the entire system becomes manipulated.

With that said…
As the only candidate to receive more votes than money I’m happy with the way things turned out. Over 3000 votes is huge when you consider the following: I have never done this before. I ran the entire campaign myself. I didn’t have any money to spend on advertising. The independent vote was split 3 ways.
While I am happy with the results, I can’t help but imagine what we could do with more help, money and experience. This campaign goes to show that we can replace our government of corporate employees with people who care about common interest more than special interest. We just have to take it up a couple of notches.

I’d like to thank my campaign contributors. Without their help I would not have been able to cover the travel expenses and other necessities of the campaign trail. I am also grateful to the people who donated their time. Don’t get discouraged, we have just taken a big step in the right direction. I want to encourage everyone to build on what we have accomplished.

Joe

Check out www.congressjoe.com for solutions. Or send me an email

Related Articles

• Joe Van Nes: It’s Time We Got Tough On Politicians

Name Votes Vote % Yes 1,107,141 52% No 1,029,925 48%

Name Votes Vote % No 1,212,121 58% Yes 860,661 42%

Name Votes Vote % No 1,234,697 57% Yes 931,081 43%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts 2010 Legislative Race Results ( State Senate and State House )
• Massachusetts 2010 Statewide Election Results: Coakley, Grossman, Galvin, Bump

Town/City	Precincts	J. Olver (i) (Dem)	B. Gunn (GOP)	M. Engel (Ind)
Total	253/255	127,474 60%	73,952 35%	10,841 5%

U.S. House – District 2 – General- (Town by Town)

Town/City Precincts R. Neal (i) (Dem) T. Wesley (GOP) Total 203/223 109,535 58% 79,277 42%   U.S. House – District 3 – General- (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts J. McGovern (i) (Dem) M. Lamb (GOP) P. Barron (Ind) Total 190/190 122,357 56% 84,972 39% 9,304 4%   U.S. House – District 4 – General – (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts B. Frank (i) (Dem) S. Bielat (GOP) S. Allen (Oth) D. Jordan (Oth) Total 208/208 125,823 54% 101,315 43% 3,430 1% 2,871 1%   U.S. House – District 5 – General – (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts N. Tsongas (i) (Dem) J. Golnik (GOP) D. Brown (Oth) B. Clark (Oth) Total 195/196 121,204 55% 93,323 42% 4,364 2% 1,977 1%   U.S. House – District 6 – General – (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts J. Tierney (i) (Dem) B. Hudak (GOP) Total 195/204 135,981 57% 101,189 43%   U.S. House – District 7 – General – (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts E. Markey (i) (Dem) G. Dembrowski (GOP) Total 224/224 141,364 66% 73,006 34%   U.S. House – District 9 – General – (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts S. Lynch (i) (Dem) V. Harrison (GOP) P. Dunkelbarger (Ind) Total 210/225 143,811 69% 53,960 26% 11,761 6%   U.S. House – District 10 – General – (Town by Town) Town/City Precincts B. Keating (Dem) J. Perry (GOP) M. Lewis (Ind) J. Sheets (Ind) J. van Nes (Oth) Total 199/199 132,582 47% 119,820 42% 16,673 6% 10,438 4% 3,075 1%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 7 Election Results (Town by Town): Markey Wins

U.S. House – District 10 – General

Town/City Precincts B. Keating (Dem) J. Perry (GOP) M. Lewis (Ind) J. Sheets (Ind) J. van Nes (Oth) Total 199/199 132,582 47% 119,820 42% 16,673 6% 10,438 4% 3,075 1% Abington 4/4 2,805 46% 2,458 40% 462 8% 324 5% 91 1% Aquinnah 1/1 157 73% 26 12% 6 3% 1 0% 25 12% Barnstable 13/13 8,298 42% 10,402 52% 829 4% 193 1% 162 1% Bourne 6/6 3,124 39% 4,286 54% 365 5% 98 1% 81 1% Brewster 3/3 2,622 50% 2,286 44% 193 4% 46 1% 47 1% Carver 3/3 1,759 40% 2,078 47% 378 9% 138 3% 59 1% Chatham 2/2 1,740 45% 1,887 49% 141 4% 39 1% 32 1% Chilmark 1/1 386 69% 121 21% 10 2% 3 1% 43 8% Cohasset 2/2 1,691 46% 1,609 43% 310 8% 79 2% 27 1% Dennis 5/5 3,491 46% 3,638 48% 282 4% 98 1% 57 1% Duxbury 6/6 3,070 41% 3,662 49% 575 8% 119 2% 49 1% Eastham 1/1 1,679 55% 1,234 40% 106 3% 32 1% 28 1% Edgartown 1/1 1,032 54% 697 37% 57 3% 19 1% 103 5% Falmouth 9/9 8,044 52% 6,575 42% 682 4% 144 1% 168 1% Gosnold 1/1 30 44% 28 41% 5 7% 1 1% 4 6% Hanover 4/4 2,546 40% 3,014 47% 483 8% 290 5% 57 1% Hanson 1/1 609 44% 627 45% 89 6% 56 4% 12 1% Harwich 4/4 2,990 46% 3,046 47% 283 4% 74 1% 60 1% Hingham 7/7 5,123 47% 4,598 42% 817 7% 322 3% 81 1% Hull 3/3 2,531 56% 1,405 31% 407 9% 162 4% 51 1% Kingston 4/4 2,235 42% 2,426 46% 416 8% 166 3% 51 1% Marshfield 7/7 4,858 43% 4,950 43% 1,175 10% 370 3% 72 1% Mashpee 5/5 2,634 41% 3,368 53% 261 4% 55 1% 42 1% Nantucket 1/1 2,494 54% 1,781 39% 194 4% 58 1% 79 2% Norwell 3/3 2,059 40% 2,413 47% 483 9% 138 3% 19 0% Oak Bluffs 1/1 1,205 58% 626 30% 72 3% 16 1% 143 7% Orleans 2/2 1,881 50% 1,690 45% 106 3% 29 1% 22 1% Pembroke 5/5 3,109 43% 3,216 44% 581 8% 330 5% 70 1% Plymouth 14/14 9,659 44% 9,822 45% 1,408 6% 608 3% 280 1% Plympton 1/1 563 41% 640 47% 112 8% 37 3% 18 1% Provincetown 1/1 1,505 85% 193 11% 51 3% 12 1% 16 1% Quincy 30/30 16,646 55% 8,465 28% 974 3% 4,018 13% 243 1% Rockland 6/6 3,052 47% 2,463 38% 509 8% 369 6% 77 1% Sandwich 7/7 3,527 35% 6,122 61% 268 3% 66 1% 64 1% Scituate 6/6 3,774 42% 3,393 38% 1,498 17% 169 2% 47 1% Tisbury 1/1 1,184 61% 512 26% 78 4% 9 0% 154 8% Truro 1/1 787 65% 348 29% 46 4% 12 1% 13 1% Wellfleet 1/1 1,172 66% 508 28% 72 4% 13 1% 22 1% West Tisbury 1/1 1,022 68% 304 20% 47 3% 2 0% 135 9% Weymouth 18/18 10,510 49% 7,570 36% 1,389 7% 1,613 8% 188 1% Yarmouth 7/7 4,979 45% 5,333 49% 453 4% 110 1% 83 1%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 7 Election Results (Town by Town): Markey Wins

U.S. House – District 9 – General

Town/City Precincts S. Lynch (i) (Dem) V. Harrison (GOP) P. Dunkelbarger (Ind) Total 210/225 143,811 69% 53,960 26% 11,761 6% Avon 1/1 1,149 65% 552 31% 67 4% Boston 80/80 44,769 80% 8,351 15% 2,961 5% Braintree 12/12 9,773 66% 4,540 31% 425 3% Bridgewater 7/7 4,984 57% 3,341 38% 372 4% Brockton 28/28 15,497 73% 4,807 23% 878 4% Canton 6/6 5,852 64% 2,753 30% 487 5% Dedham 7/7 6,610 67% 2,470 25% 809 8% East Bridgewater 4/4 2,789 54% 2,160 42% 199 4% Easton 0/6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hanson 2/2 1,555 55% 1,172 41% 107 4% Holbrook 4/4 1,929 49% 1,539 39% 451 12% Medfield 4/4 3,075 55% 2,151 38% 377 7% Milton 11/11 8,891 73% 2,478 20% 741 6% Needham 10/10 8,342 63% 3,981 30% 926 7% Norwood 0/9 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Randolph 8/8 7,540 78% 1,758 18% 368 4% Stoughton 8/8 6,483 66% 2,924 30% 470 5% Walpole 8/8 6,289 60% 3,478 33% 668 6% West Bridgewater 2/2 1,494 51% 1,303 45% 109 4% Westwood 4/4 3,687 53% 2,192 31% 1,124 16% Whitman 4/4 3,103 58% 2,010 38% 222 4%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 7 Election Results (Town by Town): Markey Wins

Town/City	Precincts	E. Markey (i) (Dem)	G. Dembrowski (GOP)
Total	224/224	141,364 66%	73,006 34%
Arlington	21/21	14,738 75%	4,952 25%
Belmont	8/8	7,379 69%	3,364 31%
Everett	18/18	6,202 72%	2,377 28%
Framingham	18/18	12,691 66%	6,666 34%
Lexington	9/9	10,159 72%	3,932 28%
Lincoln	3/3	1,115 77%	329 23%
Malden	16/16	9,809 73%	3,576 27%
Medford	16/16	13,592 70%	5,716 30%
Melrose	14/14	7,544 64%	4,301 36%
Natick	10/10	8,490 63%	4,893 37%
Revere	21/21	7,362 67%	3,684 33%
Stoneham	7/7	5,192 58%	3,821 42%
Waltham	18/18	10,767 65%	5,818 35%
Watertown	12/12	8,298 72%	3,252 28%
Wayland	1/1	971 64%	536 36%
Weston	4/4	134 5%	2,719 95%
Winchester	8/8	5,520 57%	4,227 43%
Winthrop	6/6	4,133 64%	2,314 36%
Woburn	14/14	7,268 53%	6,529 47%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 6 Election Results (Town by Town): Tierney Wins

U.S. House – District 6 – General

Town/City Precincts J. Tierney (i) (Dem) B. Hudak (GOP) Total 195/204 135,981 57% 101,189 43% Amesbury 6/6 3,354 56% 2,663 44% Bedford 4/4 3,404 60% 2,285 40% Beverly 12/12 8,968 59% 6,166 41% Boxford 0/3 0 0% 0 0% Burlington 6/6 4,895 54% 4,194 46% Danvers 8/8 5,488 53% 4,865 47% Essex 1/1 895 53% 796 47% Georgetown 2/2 1,714 48% 1,872 52% Gloucester 10/10 6,734 62% 4,170 38% Groveland 1/1 1,347 45% 1,617 55% Hamilton 3/3 1,746 50% 1,749 50% Ipswich 4/4 3,379 55% 2,796 45% Lynn 28/28 14,652 72% 5,818 28% Lynnfield 4/4 2,336 43% 3,072 57% Manchester 1/1 1,429 54% 1,229 46% Marblehead 7/7 5,660 58% 4,133 42% Merrimac 1/1 1,330 51% 1,269 49% Middleton 2/2 1,531 45% 1,845 55% Nahant 1/1 1,157 64% 653 36% Newbury 2/2 1,847 54% 1,580 46% Newburyport 7/7 5,161 62% 3,192 38% North Andover 8/8 4,880 45% 5,959 55% North Reading 4/4 3,176 50% 3,189 50% Peabody 19/19 11,441 58% 8,133 42% Reading 8/8 6,008 57% 4,536 43% Rockport 3/3 2,255 64% 1,289 36% Rowley 1/1 1,229 47% 1,402 53% Salem 14/14 9,135 69% 4,028 31% Salisbury 2/2 1,667 54% 1,400 46% Saugus 10/10 5,514 55% 4,517 45% Swampscott 6/6 4,100 63% 2,445 37% Topsfield 1/1 1,484 48% 1,623 52% Wakefield 7/7 6,105 56% 4,706 44% Wenham 1/1 846 47% 957 53% West Newbury 1/1 1,114 52% 1,041 48% Wilmington 0/6 0 0% 0 0%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 7 Election Results (Town by Town): Markey Wins

U.S. House – District 5 – General

Town/City Precincts N. Tsongas (i) (Dem) J. Golnik (GOP) D. Brown (Oth) B. Clark (Oth) Total 195/196 121,204 55% 93,323 42% 4,364 2% 1,977 1% Acton 6/6 5,902 65% 3,052 33% 97 1% 70 1% Andover 9/9 7,086 51% 6,704 48% 138 1% 53 0% Ayer 2/2 1,335 53% 1,098 43% 71 3% 22 1% Berlin 1/1 657 47% 607 44% 13 1% 115 8% Billerica 11/11 7,326 50% 6,766 46% 404 3% 119 1% Bolton 1/1 1,119 48% 1,123 48% 21 1% 58 2% Boxborough 1/1 1,323 59% 895 40% 26 1% 17 1% Carlisle 0/1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Chelmsford 9/9 7,016 47% 7,253 49% 574 4% 65 0% Concord 5/5 5,747 67% 2,767 32% 65 1% 38 0% Dracut 10/10 5,107 47% 5,441 50% 300 3% 71 1% Dunstable 1/1 620 44% 757 54% 24 2% 3 0% Groton 3/3 2,447 52% 2,162 46% 72 2% 31 1% Harvard 1/1 1,669 59% 1,082 39% 30 1% 27 1% Haverhill 22/22 9,980 52% 8,589 45% 403 2% 195 1% Hudson 7/7 4,071 55% 3,046 41% 106 1% 217 3% Lancaster 2/2 1,331 47% 1,401 49% 55 2% 65 2% Lawrence 24/24 9,570 76% 2,670 21% 264 2% 145 1% Littleton 3/3 2,243 54% 1,789 43% 65 2% 34 1% Lowell 33/33 13,694 63% 7,397 34% 468 2% 175 1% Maynard 4/4 2,761 62% 1,551 35% 76 2% 48 1% Methuen 12/12 7,342 49% 7,154 48% 322 2% 117 1% Shirley 1/1 1,121 47% 1,122 47% 89 4% 47 2% Stow 1/1 1,873 57% 1,368 41% 37 1% 36 1% Sudbury 5/5 4,635 58% 3,277 41% 71 1% 42 1% Tewksbury 8/8 5,599 49% 5,433 48% 256 2% 80 1% Tyngsborough 4/4 1,997 44% 2,426 53% 120 3% 27 1% Wayland 3/3 2,908 62% 1,727 37% 43 1% 13 0% Westford 6/6 4,725 49% 4,666 49% 154 2% 47 0%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins

U.S. House – District 4 – General

Town/City Precincts B. Frank (i) (Dem) S. Bielat (GOP) S. Allen (Oth) D. Jordan (Oth) Total 208/208 125,823 54% 101,315 43% 3,430 1% 2,871 1% Acushnet 3/3 2,017 51% 1,796 45% 85 2% 81 2% Berkley 1/1 855 36% 1,443 60% 59 2% 45 2% Brookline 16/16 15,039 75% 4,752 24% 263 1% 68 0% Dartmouth 10/10 6,476 55% 5,046 43% 167 1% 156 1% Dighton 1/1 985 36% 1,632 60% 56 2% 46 2% Dover 1/1 1,004 35% 1,843 64% 18 1% 9 0% Fairhaven 6/6 3,533 56% 2,511 40% 100 2% 125 2% Fall River 13/13 5,654 60% 3,408 36% 198 2% 183 2% Foxborough 5/5 2,784 39% 4,229 59% 100 1% 56 1% Freetown 3/3 1,425 41% 1,968 56% 56 2% 47 1% Halifax 2/2 1,143 37% 1,805 58% 64 2% 74 2% Lakeville 3/3 1,500 33% 2,942 64% 59 1% 69 2% Mansfield 6/6 3,396 39% 5,174 59% 124 1% 85 1% Marion 1/1 1,163 47% 1,258 51% 32 1% 27 1% Mattapoisett 2/2 1,499 47% 1,613 51% 40 1% 42 1% Middleborough 6/6 3,159 36% 5,362 61% 150 2% 175 2% Millis 3/3 1,503 41% 2,057 56% 56 2% 42 1% New Bedford 42/42 14,916 68% 6,244 28% 457 2% 448 2% Newton 31/31 24,133 69% 10,368 30% 281 1% 157 0% Norfolk 4/4 1,446 33% 2,899 65% 52 1% 44 1% Norton 5/5 2,482 37% 3,979 60% 103 2% 84 1% Raynham 3/3 2,042 38% 3,154 59% 94 2% 85 2% Rochester 1/1 895 37% 1,479 61% 26 1% 30 1% Sharon 5/5 4,657 60% 2,974 38% 88 1% 52 1% Sherborn 1/1 1,064 47% 1,188 52% 14 1% 7 0% Taunton 16/16 8,115 49% 7,773 47% 349 2% 294 2% Wareham 6/6 3,736 47% 3,907 49% 133 2% 194 2% Wellesley 7/7 5,910 51% 5,536 48% 94 1% 29 0% Westport 5/5 3,292 51% 2,975 46% 112 2% 117 2%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins

U.S. House – District 3 – General

Town/City Precincts J. McGovern (i) (Dem) M. Lamb (GOP) P. Barron (Ind) Total 190/190 122,357 56% 84,972 39% 9,304 4% Ashland 4/4 3,423 54% 2,674 42% 211 3% Attleboro 12/12 6,577 51% 5,596 43% 747 6% Auburn 5/5 3,781 58% 2,443 37% 342 5% Boylston 1/1 1,102 53% 967 47% 0 0% Clinton 4/4 2,757 60% 1,647 36% 222 5% Fall River 17/17 7,154 72% 2,156 22% 678 7% Franklin 8/8 6,204 50% 5,721 46% 478 4% Holden 5/5 4,462 53% 3,714 44% 252 3% Holliston 4/4 3,354 52% 2,933 45% 174 3% Hopkinton 4/4 2,985 48% 3,050 49% 217 3% Marlborough 14/14 6,570 55% 4,923 41% 523 4% Medway 4/4 2,624 49% 2,547 47% 196 4% North Attleborough 9/9 4,308 44% 4,991 51% 440 5% Northborough 4/4 3,448 53% 2,750 43% 248 4% Paxton 1/1 1,067 54% 843 42% 74 4% Plainville 2/2 1,370 44% 1,604 51% 146 5% Princeton 1/1 930 51% 851 46% 59 3% Rehoboth 3/3 1,890 43% 2,205 50% 276 6% Rutland 2/2 1,703 50% 1,546 46% 137 4% Seekonk 4/4 2,500 49% 2,293 45% 312 6% Shrewsbury 9/9 7,634 56% 5,448 40% 558 4% Somerset 5/5 4,516 63% 2,326 32% 371 5% Southborough 3/3 2,206 50% 2,090 47% 111 3% Swansea 5/5 3,198 56% 2,200 38% 340 6% West Boylston 2/2 1,720 54% 1,341 42% 119 4% Westborough 5/5 3,644 55% 2,807 42% 204 3% Worcester 50/50 29,364 70% 10,864 26% 1,656 4% Wrentham 3/3 1,866 41% 2,442 54% 213 5%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins

Town/City	Precincts	R. Neal (i) (Dem)	T. Wesley (GOP)
Total	203/223	109,535 58%	79,277 42%
Agawam	8/8	6,192 58%	4,402 42%
Bellingham	5/5	2,859 46%	3,293 54%
Blackstone	3/3	1,518 48%	1,677 52%
Brimfield	1/1	670 43%	902 57%
Brookfield	1/1	599 47%	664 53%
Charlton	3/3	1,928 41%	2,743 59%
Chicopee	26/26	10,670 67%	5,375 33%
Douglas	2/2	1,091 34%	2,140 66%
Dudley	4/4	1,625 45%	2,011 55%
East Brookfield	1/1	379 42%	515 58%
East Longmeadow	4/4	3,313 54%	2,877 46%
Grafton	4/4	2,899 45%	3,520 55%
Hadley	1/1	1,614 74%	581 26%
Hampden	1/1	1,142 51%	1,085 49%
Holland	1/1	428 46%	505 54%
Hopedale	1/1	1,014 40%	1,498 60%
Leicester	4/4	1,879 46%	2,203 54%
Longmeadow	0/5	0 0%	0 0%
Ludlow	6/6	4,072 60%	2,758 40%
Mendon	1/1	949 39%	1,509 61%
Milford	0/7	0 0%	0 0%
Millbury	4/4	2,277 47%	2,607 53%
Millville	1/1	438 40%	663 60%
Monson	3/3	1,702 54%	1,447 46%
North Brookfield	1/1	864 47%	967 53%
Northampton	14/14	9,921 86%	1,659 14%
Northbridge	4/4	2,060 39%	3,280 61%
Oxford	4/4	2,135 46%	2,549 54%
Palmer	4/4	2,364 56%	1,852 44%
South Hadley	5/5	4,136 65%	2,216 35%
Southbridge	5/5	2,682 63%	1,599 37%
Spencer	4/4	1,917 48%	2,110 52%
Springfield	64/64	24,423 78%	6,972 22%
Sturbridge	2/2	1,805 47%	1,997 53%
Sutton	0/3	0 0%	0 0%
Upton	1/1	1,248 40%	1,876 60%
Uxbridge	4/4	2,211 42%	3,023 58%
Wales	1/1	325 46%	375 54%
Warren	1/1	892 55%	744 45%
Webster	0/5	0 0%	0 0%
Wilbraham	4/4	3,294 52%	3,083 48%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 7 Election Results (Town by Town): Markey Wins

Town/City	Precincts	J. Olver (i) (Dem)	B. Gunn (GOP)	M. Engel (Ind)
Total	253/255	127,474 60%	73,952 35%	10,841 5%
Adams	5/5	1,636 71%	548 24%	127 5%
Alford	1/1	164 75%	45 21%	10 5%
Amherst	10/10	6,639 86%	763 10%	324 4%
Ashburnham	1/1	1,143 47%	1,171 48%	136 6%
Ashby	1/1	616 45%	695 51%	63 5%
Ashfield	1/1	681 79%	138 16%	42 5%
Athol	3/3	1,620 48%	1,602 48%	149 4%
Barre	2/2	917 47%	954 49%	92 5%
Becket	0/1	0 0%	0 0%	0 0%
Belchertown	4/4	3,105 58%	2,039 38%	166 3%
Bernardston	1/1	555 64%	258 30%	48 6%
Blandford	1/1	240 46%	249 48%	30 6%
Buckland	1/1	568 72%	172 22%	46 6%
Charlemont	1/1	314 68%	120 26%	27 6%
Cheshire	1/1	735 66%	318 28%	65 6%
Chester	1/1	251 51%	195 40%	44 9%
Chesterfield	1/1	306 58%	178 34%	44 8%
Clarksburg	1/1	347 64%	158 29%	33 6%
Colrain	1/1	421 67%	176 28%	35 6%
Conway	1/1	721 74%	200 21%	50 5%
Cummington	1/1	293 71%	96 23%	25 6%
Dalton	2/2	1,612 70%	611 26%	85 4%
Deerfield	1/1	1,543 70%	549 25%	98 4%
Easthampton	5/5	4,073 66%	1,545 25%	569 9%
Egremont	1/1	437 73%	132 22%	31 5%
Erving	1/1	331 67%	142 29%	24 5%
Fitchburg	12/12	5,341 55%	3,969 41%	448 5%
Florida	1/1	131 53%	99 40%	18 7%
Gardner	11/11	3,339 56%	2,324 39%	345 6%
Gill	1/1	445 71%	151 24%	34 5%
Goshen	1/1	296 64%	126 27%	42 9%
Granby	1/1	1,680 57%	1,126 38%	155 5%
Granville	1/1	270 39%	386 56%	30 4%
Great Barrington	4/4	1,998 80%	395 16%	105 4%
Greenfield	9/9	4,296 73%	1,378 23%	234 4%
Hancock	1/1	171 60%	102 36%	11 4%
Hardwick	1/1	476 48%	477 48%	39 4%
Hatfield	1/1	1,033 68%	376 25%	104 7%
Hawley	1/1	73 54%	54 40%	7 5%
Heath	1/1	207 65%	98 31%	14 4%
Hinsdale	1/1	439 62%	225 32%	40 6%
Holyoke	14/14	7,125 71%	2,427 24%	464 5%
Hubbardston	1/1	786 40%	1,096 55%	105 5%
Huntington	1/1	446 54%	328 40%	55 7%
Lanesborough	1/1	696 68%	280 27%	51 5%
Lee	6/6	1,355 70%	486 25%	98 5%
Lenox	1/1	1,661 75%	460 21%	88 4%
Leominster	15/15	6,355 49%	5,967 46%	596 5%
Leverett	1/1	841 85%	120 12%	24 2%
Leyden	1/1	247 71%	85 24%	18 5%
Lunenburg	4/4	1,928 44%	2,239 51%	204 5%
Middlefield	1/1	149 64%	68 29%	15 6%
Monroe	1/1	22 54%	18 44%	1 2%
Montague	6/6	2,235 75%	615 21%	130 4%
Monterey	1/1	298 77%	74 19%	16 4%
Montgomery	1/1	166 42%	184 47%	43 11%
Mount Washington	1/1	55 71%	19 25%	3 4%
New Ashford	1/1	78 71%	27 25%	5 5%
New Braintree	1/1	204 48%	204 48%	21 5%
New Marlborough	1/1	375 64%	189 32%	18 3%
New Salem	1/1	291 63%	153 33%	18 4%
North Adams	5/5	2,609 75%	648 19%	202 6%
Northfield	1/1	807 66%	373 30%	50 4%
Oakham	1/1	345 50%	307 44%	40 6%
Orange	1/2	1,319 52%	1,113 44%	103 4%
Otis	1/1	311 55%	214 38%	44 8%
Pelham	1/1	590 83%	89 13%	30 4%
Pepperell	3/3	1,837 39%	2,561 55%	260 6%
Peru	1/1	185 64%	87 30%	17 6%
Petersham	1/1	349 51%	318 47%	16 2%
Phillipston	1/1	322 46%	342 49%	33 5%
Pittsfield	14/14	9,354 75%	2,568 20%	622 5%
Plainfield	1/1	205 69%	77 26%	15 5%
Richmond	1/1	552 75%	155 21%	29 4%
Rowe	1/1	97 55%	66 38%	12 7%
Royalston	2/2	270 53%	223 44%	17 3%
Russell	1/1	264 46%	264 46%	43 8%
Sandisfield	1/1	192 61%	106 34%	16 5%
Savoy	1/1	144 65%	61 27%	17 8%
Sheffield	1/1	838 70%	329 27%	37 3%
Shelburne	1/1	608 74%	181 22%	37 4%
Shutesbury	1/1	771 85%	103 11%	31 3%
Southampton	1/1	1,266 49%	1,032 40%	275 11%
Southwick	3/3	1,461 43%	1,775 52%	199 6%
Sterling	2/2	1,372 38%	2,048 56%	205 6%
Stockbridge	1/1	667 76%	179 20%	30 3%
Sunderland	1/1	972 75%	261 20%	62 5%
Templeton	2/2	1,343 48%	1,311 47%	138 5%
Tolland	1/1	77 37%	120 58%	10 5%
Townsend	3/3	1,309 38%	2,023 58%	157 4%
Tyringham	1/1	145 68%	66 31%	2 1%
Ware	3/3	1,543 49%	1,491 48%	90 3%
Warwick	1/1	240 70%	90 26%	12 4%
Washington	1/1	174 67%	74 29%	10 4%
Wendell	1/1	354 84%	52 12%	17 4%
West Brookfield	1/1	705 48%	699 47%	78 5%
West Springfield	8/8	4,818 56%	3,362 39%	398 5%
West Stockbridge	1/1	484 78%	118 19%	21 3%
Westfield	12/12	6,350 51%	5,181 42%	834 7%
Westhampton	1/1	488 58%	284 34%	65 8%
Westminster	2/2	1,398 43%	1,673 52%	164 5%
Whately	1/1	527 69%	195 25%	44 6%
Williamsburg	1/1	908 74%	245 20%	75 6%
Williamstown	3/3	2,093 78%	488 18%	99 4%
Winchendon	3/3	1,421 48%	1,362 46%	157 5%
Windsor	1/1	245 67%	97 26%	26 7%
Worthington	1/1	369 65%	162 28%	40 7%

Related Articles

• Massachusetts 2010 Congressional Results (Town By Town)
• Massachusetts Congressional District 10 Election Results (Town by Town): Keating Wins
• Massachusetts Congressional District 9 Election Results (Town by Town): Lynch Wins