Along with three contested State Representative races, Lowell voters also cast ballots yesterday in a number of statewide contests. And the results in the races which saw more than one candidate, the will Mill City voters echoed that of their counterparts state and district wide.
In the Republican Gubernatorial primary, Mike Minogue coasted to victory over Brian Shortsleeve by a 76%-24% margin across the Commonwealth. In Lowell, that margin was only slightly smaller, at 72%-28% (1,159-450). Minogue will now face Governor Maura Healey in November’s general election.
On the Democratic side, incumbent U.S. Senator Ed Markey rolled over Congressman Seth Moulten with a comfortable 65%-35% cushion. The Mill City margin was even larger, at 71%-29% (5,844-2,370).
Finally, in what was potentially thought to be a competitive race for Middlesex County District Attorney found D.A. Marian Ryan emerged victorious over challenger David Solet. While district wide numbers aren’t yet available, the gap in Lowell was sizable, with Ryan amassing 79% of the votes, to 21% for Solet (5,953-1,576).
Below is a link to the unofficial result from the five communities InsideLowell covers:
Lowell
Dracut
Chelmsford
Tewksbury
Westford
4 responses to “Lowell Voters Echo Statewide Election Pattern”
Percentage of democrats compared to republican votes in general. How many people in lowell are Democrat compared to republican
In Lowell, according to official enrollment data from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a ratio exceeding 4-to-1. “Out of 75,064 total registered voters, the partisan breakdown isolates 19,516 Democrats (26%) against a minimal core of 4,655 Republicans (6.2%). However, a VERY commanding 66.6% majority (49,984 voters) is registered as Unenrolled or Independent”.
This also represents Massachusetts’ statewide distribution, where “registered Democrats sit between 24.5% and 27%, Republicans hold roughly 8%, and Unenrolled voters form a massive 64% to 66%”. Because a substantial portion of the electorate is Unenrolled, voters are less bound by official party labels and ideology.
Turnout and candidate preference are often influenced and persuaded by the local issues and the economy. You all know, those “kitchen table issues” plus direct “door to door” contact and “constituent services”. So in working-class, post-industrial gateway cities like Lowell, “political pundits” usually find that voters prioritize immediate economic concerns, like localized jobs, housing costs, infrastructure, and inflation over rigid and uncompromising national party and ideology platforms.
Always remember, this unique electorate dynamic frequently creates a “structural paradox” in Massachusetts state representative races. Why, because in the low-turnout September state primaries, a highly progressive or ideological candidate can successfully secure the nomination because they motivate a small, energetic base of voters and activists. However, when that nominee advances to the November general election, they suddenly face the more practical and realistic working-class Lowell voters.
So, if they fail to strategically pivot away from the rigid and unrealistic national ideological platforms and fail to focus squarely on those “kitchen table” issues, they become highly vulnerable to a more moderate, community-focused candidate who can effectively appeal to the MASSIVE independent majority!
FYI:
In Chelmsford, according to official enrollment data from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a much closer ratio of roughly “2-to-1, compared to Lowell’s 4-to-1 gap”.
Out of “27,159 total registered voters, the partisan breakdown isolates 5,232 Democrats (19.3%) against a core of 2,513 Republicans (9.3%)”. However, much like Lowell, a MASSIVE “70.8% majority (19,217 voters) chooses to remain completely Unenrolled or Independent”.
Folks, it’s time to draw a hard legal line before the 2027 election cycle even begins. WHY, because free political speech does not give ANY individuals a blank check to fabricate and put forth criminal labels against a sitting city councilor on social media or manipulate media narratives as was done during the past state primary in the 16th Middlesex District.
In a court of law, the charges against Councilor Robinson were completely and legally dismissed. In my opinion, repeating the false and highly damaging “beater/ batterer”label or similar references online, that was done during the state rep. campaign, plus weaponizing local newspaper headlines to continuously fuel a false narrative, pushes past regular campaign spin straight toward targeted defamation.
For those of you who think public officials cannot hold private citizens accountable, look at the legal precedent that was set in Chelmsford. In the landmark Massachusetts case, Van Liew v. Eliopoulos, a former town selectman successfully sued a resident who used a relentless, multi-platform smear campaign to attack his integrity, resulting in a multi-million dollar verdict after the jury rejected the defense that the allegations were protected speech.
Furthermore, under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the law dictates that public officials must meet the strict “Actual Malice” standard to win a defamation case. This means individual commenters cross a clear legal line when they know a case was legally dismissed, yet maliciously choose to keep spreading a narrative with a reckless disregard for the truth in order to destroy a professional reputation.
We also see this ongoing media narrative continue to play out in real time, most recently referenced in the Lowell Sun column, “Winners take all,” by Melanie Gilbert, which show and details how she has continuously,as well as some political figures, explicitly campaigned against him by keeping past, legally dismissed controversies front and center.
The primary state rep. election may be over, but the 2027 council race is around the corner, and opponents are already trying to line candidates up and build a campaign out of a legally dismissed court case. I feel Councilor Robinson should absolutely explore his legal options against the specific individuals who typed and posted all those defamatory words. It’s time to let the legal system hold ALL these specific commenters responsible for the damage they have and are planning to continue to cause.