The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of this newspaper.
Recent writers have called for the return of Bob Siegrist to his former position as state representative, and have asserted that Bob “lost the 2018 election because of his party affiliation.” Is that a reference to his vote to ban bump stocks which was opposed by most other Republicans, or perhaps to his opposition to conversion therapy, another misguided position of Republicans? Or is it possible that issues promoted by his party were simply unpopular?
There seems to be denial that other factors contributed to his defeat. Bob may have had a 100% voting record and was typically seen at community events, but there are higher standards for serving in elected office. As an incumbent, Bob would have an expert understanding of his constituents’ concerns after two years. He had an opportunity to
advocate for them related to healthcare, the environment, infrastructure, and the state economy. As their state representative, he would have legislative successes to run on in his re-election bid, or proposed legislation to tout to constituents. The writer alerts us that “Bob’s voting record is public”, but on examination there is little that stands out except his vote to allow rate hikes for Eversource. The record also indicated that he voted against a pay increase for homecare workers, financial aid for undocumented students (not a pay out but a loan), and the national popular vote.
You decide. Did Bob lose in 2018 because of his party affiliation?
Claire Walsh
Deep River
