PA primary, and a question for Bostonians

[cellio]

No surprises here -- with 99.3% counted Clinton won PA by 8.6% (54.3 - 45.7) (full results here), enough to continue an increasingly-ugly fight but not the clear win she needed in order to be viable. Obama isn't much affected; a win would have helped him but everyone expected him to lose, so a loss doesn't seem to hurt. Apparently she got the older rural white vote and he got the younger urban black vote, as everyone expected. I wonder if months of arguing about demographics will be better or worse than months of mud-slinging? Though I guess after the people are done voting, with no winner, things might change. I do wish that, in the absence of news in one area, the online media were more inclined to report actual news in other areas. (I'm glad my dead-tree newspaper still does a reasonable job of that.)

Some folks have been claiming that the media are biased against Clinton. I don't see it, really; there's plenty of bias against Obama too. Who actually believes that "the media" speak with one voice? It's important to use multiple news sources precisely because they don't. But for those who claim an anti-Clinton bias, what's with reporting this as a win by 10%? At best you can round (legitimately) to 9. (While I was writing this the site updated, now reporting 54.6 to 45.4. That's still not 10% unless you do your math by rounding one number and then substracting from 100 to get the other. I could see some sloppy reporters doing that, but those weren't the published numbers this morning when I saw 10% headlines.)

In unrelated news... friends in Boston, is this report accurate? (Link from Metahacker on LJ.) Legislation is pending to restrict public movement of people suspected of being gang members -- sponsored by Democrats? WTF? That seems really out of character for most Democrats at all, let alone New England Democrats. Or is this some sort of trick where you introduce a bill you know can't pass to get some of your constituents off your back, while hoping other people see what you're doing and don't hold it against you?

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

And yet, and yet....

If the story itself is accurate (and it seems to reflect a long line of stories about places like Charlestown, Dorchester, Brockton, Lowell - it is a matter of competing civil liberties.

If the gangs are, in essence, removing the civil liberties of the general population through violence and intimidation, then it would follow that the legislature is looking to take some form of action to amend that.

I do not have inside information, and am merely a speculator.

cellio, to answer your question above, basically the Democratic Party in MA has put forward two sorts of Democratic candidates for the Governorship - either rather weak people with poor resumes, or former prosecutors who were a bit too even handed, and therefore undersupported by people who might have been investigated or charged... Or whose constituents felt somewhat abused by legal process.

It is hard to be a legitimately strong public prosecutor, and have people love you.

[cellio]

If the gangs are, in essence, removing the civil liberties of the general population through violence and intimidation, then it would follow that the legislature is looking to take some form of action to amend that.

If they are being violent and intimidating, why not charge them with that? If they're not being disruptive, why charge them with anything?

It is hard to be a legitimately strong public prosecutor, and have people love you.

True.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Because - they are not stupid, but they are ruthless.

They do not commit crimes in front of the police.

They commit crimes that require witnesses. And no witnesses seem to be forthcoming, what with gangs being unafraid of witness intimidation.

I don't know if that's the case specifically in those towns, but it has been often reported as how these situations arise in gang-related environments.