The Tea Party Dad Video Gave Carl Sciortino a Boost

Two women candidates are out front in the race to succeed Ed Markey, according to a new poll.

By | Boston Daily |

After several days of enormous attention thanks to the quickly infamous “Tea Party Dad” video, state representative Carl Sciortino of Medford seems to have gained ground on the rest of the field in the special congressional primary coming in three weeks.

That’s according to a poll done for a rival campaign over the past three days. Conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for state senator Karen Spilka of Ashland, the poll shows Sciortino tied for fourth at 11 percent—a significant bump from previous polls, which have shown him far behind in fifth, with about half that support.

The video debuted on September 17, and the poll was conducted the evenings of September 22-24.

The poll shows Spilka statistically tied for the lead with state senator Katherine Clark of Melrose, with Clark at 19 percent and Spilka at 18 percent. Middlesex County Sheriff Peter Koutoujian has 15 percent and Belmont state senator Will Brownsberger is tied with Sciortino with 11 percent.

The IVR poll of 400 likely voters has a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent.

The poll also showed Sciortino even with Brownsberger with 39 percent name identification, behind Clark with 55 percent, Spilka 50 percent, and Koutoujian 48 percent.

Those figures suggest the difficulty facing the campaigns with three weeks until the primary as the race to succeed Ed Markey has been overshadowed by the Boston mayoral race.

Koutoujian has the best net favorable/unfavorable rating, at 35/13. Clark is 36/18; Spilka 32/17; Sciortino 27/12; and Brownsberger 24/16.

  • JohnHoward

    When Sciortino says he’s for equal rights for everybody, does he mean everyone should have an equal right to marry and procreate offspring with their own unmodified gametes (therefore, with someone of the other sex), or does he mean no one should have a right to procreate offspring with their own unmodified gametes (which same-sex couples do not have), and everyone should instead have the equal right to use lab-created stem-cell derived genomically modified gametes that same-sex couples or transgendered people would have to use?

    • GerardColby

      I think he’s saying that people should be able to get married irrespective of their ability or desire to procreate. In other words, marriage rights apply to straight couples who want to have biological kids, gay couples who want to procreate through surrogacy, straight and gay couples who want to adopt, infertile couples, couples who don’t want kids, and so forth.

      Also, his position on marriage rights is identical to each of the other four Democrats in the race.

      • JohnHoward

        Ah, but what about siblings and other relationships that would be unethical or bad public policy to allow to procreate? That’s who shouldn’t be able to get married, because marriage should always convey society’s approval of procreating together, even if they don’t want to or cannot.

        • GerardColby

          We don’t allow siblings to procreate because genetically it leads to all sorts of physical and mental disabilities. Find some science supporting your theory that the children of gay couples are disadvantaged; otherwise you’re just blowing hot air. And no, Pat Robertson and his ilk don’t qualify as scientists. The consensus among psychologists and child-development experts is that the gender of children’s parents is irrelevant. What matters is that there are two of them, they’re both present, and they’re both attentive.

          I didn’t realize “society’s approval” was the standard for determining who gets rights and who doesn’t. I guess by that logic, segregation was acceptable because society at that time didn’t approve of extending equal rights to black people.

          • JohnHoward

            I’m not talking about raising kids, which lots of single people are able to do better than many married couples. Raising kids is unrelated to marriage. I’m talking about same-sex couples trying to create genetically related offspring together, probably using stem cells. It would be more risky than incest, and cost billions of dollars too. It should be banned for many reasons, and there is no right to do it or need to do it that justifies attempting it.

            Society doesn’t have to approve of every relationship that wants to marry. There has to be a supportable basis for prohibiting it, and it has to be the type of relationship that is prohibited, not the individuals or individual couple. The rule has to apply to everyone equally, based on public information about them like who their parents and siblings are, their age, their marital status, and their sex.

          • GerardColby

            Right, but you haven’t outlined a supportable basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage. You’ve perhaps outlined a supportable basis for prohibiting same-sex couples from using genetically modified gametes to procreate, should such a procedure ever become possible. But can’t you just prohibit that while permitting same-sex couples to marry and to have kids through adoption and surrogacy?

          • JohnHoward

            Well, if they don’t use genetically modified gametes, it’s even more dangerous than if they do, because they’d both provide the same imprinting and so lots of genes would be on or off twice, instead of on once. The only ethical way to reproduce is as your birth sex, with someone of the other sex. Reproducing with the same sex is unethical and should be ruled out, prohibited.

            “But can’t you just prohibit that while permitting same-sex couples to marry and to have kids through adoption and surrogacy?”

            No because marriage should always mean the couple has a right to procreate together. Not a right to adopt or use donor gametes, but to procreate offspring with our spouse, together. The reality is, there is only a right to procreate as our own sex, with someone of the other sex.

    • JA Marshall

      He’s just saying don’t be a bonehead by pretending you are an expert on love between two people.

      • JohnHoward

        Love is one thing, and that’s what I hope he’s talking about. But reproduction is another thing, and its a basic right of man and the basis of equality and rights and liberty. If we allow same-sex reproduction or transgender reproduction using stem cell derived gametes, it will not only bankrupt us and put children in harms way, but will destroy the basis of equality and dignity.

    • JA Marshall

      some married people procreate. some play tennis. who the heck cares? haha

      • JohnHoward

        I’m not saying everyone should procreate, I’m saying everyone should procreate with their own natural gametes combining them with their spouse’s own natural gametes, and no one should procreate using genetically modified gametes, like a transgendered person would do if they tried to actually procreate as their new sex, or a same-sex couple would do if they tried to create offspring together. The reason they shouldn’t be allowed to do that is it would be expensive and unethical and is completely unnecessary and there is no right to do it, and it would harm natural reproduction rights down the road.

  • JA Marshall

    keep running that ad. its great!!