Maybe I'm missing something here. But if memory serves, voters vote for candidates for governor and lieutenant governor separately. This usually doesn't matter.
Here's a hypothetical. The race for governor comes down to a very close margin, but Deval Patrick is re-elected. However, a number of voters nevertheless choose Cahill, say about 5%. These voters see Loscocco's name still on the ballot, but as they know that Loscocco withdrew from the race because he's a rat, they vote for the Republican candidate, Richard Tisei. Those additional votes overcome Governor Patrick's margin of victory, and our next governor has a Republican LG.
I know that in some places (Arizona under Governor Napolitano springs to mind) managed with a mixed-party executive. Would our Commonwealth? How do you think that would work out?
Showing posts with label Cahill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cahill. Show all posts
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Cahill pulls a Boehner?
The last thing Cahill needs is to sound like a clueless DC Republican...and that's exactly what happened yesterday.
Boehner is the sad little man who is the Republicans' "leader" in the House of Representatives in DC. Earlier, he remarked "I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option". This obvious hyperbole/lie promptly garnered responses from constituents, and even a poll indicating that Boehner indeed has many Americans in his own district who favor a public option.
Well, Tim Cahill sounded an awful lot like Boehner yesterday:
To help out the Timster, I would ask a member of his campaign team to print out the following webpage: Regional and Area Offices Directory of the Office of Health and Human Services. Drive him to one of the addresses there listed, and ask around.
If Cahill wants to say that we haven't laid off sufficient state workers, well, I guess he's welcome to make that point. But to claim that none have been laid off, when it is so easy, convenient, and quick to disprove, is simply ridiculous. He isn't sounding pennywise on this one...he's just sounding foolish.
Boehner is the sad little man who is the Republicans' "leader" in the House of Representatives in DC. Earlier, he remarked "I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option". This obvious hyperbole/lie promptly garnered responses from constituents, and even a poll indicating that Boehner indeed has many Americans in his own district who favor a public option.
Well, Tim Cahill sounded an awful lot like Boehner yesterday:
Cahill said he does not know of a single state employee who has been laid off.
To help out the Timster, I would ask a member of his campaign team to print out the following webpage: Regional and Area Offices Directory of the Office of Health and Human Services. Drive him to one of the addresses there listed, and ask around.
If Cahill wants to say that we haven't laid off sufficient state workers, well, I guess he's welcome to make that point. But to claim that none have been laid off, when it is so easy, convenient, and quick to disprove, is simply ridiculous. He isn't sounding pennywise on this one...he's just sounding foolish.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Coakley leagues beyond others in Globe poll
As you probably have already read, the Boston Globe commissioned a poll. The rather misleading headline reads that "Patrick support plummets", though this is the third straight one that showed Deval Patrick is murky waters coming up on re-election.
The head-to-head numbers are fun, but I wanted to instead focus on voters' impressions of the main figures in the state. I assembled a list of all the statewide officeholders showing their net favorability (that is, % of total respondents with a positive view of a candidate, minus the % with a negative view). Next to that net favorability is a number in parentheses which shows the percentage of respondents with no opinion of the person mentioned.
Generally, you want a high net favorability (which means people like you) with a low number of people with no opinion (which means that people know you and like you).
Some observations are below...
The Executives
Deval Patrick -16 net (3% no opinion)
Tim Murray +22 (48%)
Of all the persons surveyed by the Globe, nobody is liked less than Deval Patrick, and nobody is as strongly defined. Somebody so poorly liked, and with such little room to grow is vulnerable, regardless of the dynamics of the race. Patrick can try to bring up these numbers, but it looks that Deval's main hope may be that he isn't as bad as anyone else on the ballot -- a hope I personally think has a good chance of being fulfilled. Tim Murray, meanwhile, is fundraising at a strong clip and is enough out of the limelight that he is generally well liked.
The Legislative Leaders
Robert DeLeo -4% (49%)
Therese Murray +1% (54%)
Not too bad for the legislative leaders, considering how vilified they often become, especially after passing a sales tax. Despite all the internecine struggles, they seem to have come out of it the better -- both are more popular than the governor. Oddly enough, Murray is less known as a quantity even though I seem to see her on the screen more. Most strangely (and granted, margin of error grows at this point), Murray elicits no stronger an opinion in her home territory of SE Mass than anywhere else -- not much of a homebase.
The Other Guys
Charlie Baker +2% (63%)
Christy Mihos -12% (29%)
Tim Cahill +24% (32%)
I am astounded by Tim Cahill's net positives. More amazingly, he is held in esteem by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, Republicans most of all. He's also notably liked among the wealthy. This is the first time I've seen anything to make me think that Cahill has a shot, but he's in great position on the start line.
I think Mihos is pretty much dead in the water. He used up all his goodwill the first time around, and he has net negative favorability among Republicans.
As for Baker, well, he's a blank slate. If I were him, I'd be getting ads ready for the fall to introduce myself to voters, to beat the others guys to the punch. Baker has lots of potential to sell himself in a positive way, at least as much as a Republican chief of an HMO is able. I maintain the words "Republican chief of an HMO" doom him in this race, no matter how much money he has.
The Future
Martha Coakley +39 (21%)
Nobody is in her league on this poll. She has a +17 among Republicans, and an incredible +48 among women -- Deval's weaker group. In age demographics, she has a great lead among older voters, again the mirror image of Deval.
Right now, it looks as if she could write her own ticket.
The head-to-head numbers are fun, but I wanted to instead focus on voters' impressions of the main figures in the state. I assembled a list of all the statewide officeholders showing their net favorability (that is, % of total respondents with a positive view of a candidate, minus the % with a negative view). Next to that net favorability is a number in parentheses which shows the percentage of respondents with no opinion of the person mentioned.
Generally, you want a high net favorability (which means people like you) with a low number of people with no opinion (which means that people know you and like you).
Some observations are below...
The Executives
Deval Patrick -16 net (3% no opinion)
Tim Murray +22 (48%)
Of all the persons surveyed by the Globe, nobody is liked less than Deval Patrick, and nobody is as strongly defined. Somebody so poorly liked, and with such little room to grow is vulnerable, regardless of the dynamics of the race. Patrick can try to bring up these numbers, but it looks that Deval's main hope may be that he isn't as bad as anyone else on the ballot -- a hope I personally think has a good chance of being fulfilled. Tim Murray, meanwhile, is fundraising at a strong clip and is enough out of the limelight that he is generally well liked.
The Legislative Leaders
Robert DeLeo -4% (49%)
Therese Murray +1% (54%)
Not too bad for the legislative leaders, considering how vilified they often become, especially after passing a sales tax. Despite all the internecine struggles, they seem to have come out of it the better -- both are more popular than the governor. Oddly enough, Murray is less known as a quantity even though I seem to see her on the screen more. Most strangely (and granted, margin of error grows at this point), Murray elicits no stronger an opinion in her home territory of SE Mass than anywhere else -- not much of a homebase.
The Other Guys
Charlie Baker +2% (63%)
Christy Mihos -12% (29%)
Tim Cahill +24% (32%)
I am astounded by Tim Cahill's net positives. More amazingly, he is held in esteem by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, Republicans most of all. He's also notably liked among the wealthy. This is the first time I've seen anything to make me think that Cahill has a shot, but he's in great position on the start line.
I think Mihos is pretty much dead in the water. He used up all his goodwill the first time around, and he has net negative favorability among Republicans.
As for Baker, well, he's a blank slate. If I were him, I'd be getting ads ready for the fall to introduce myself to voters, to beat the others guys to the punch. Baker has lots of potential to sell himself in a positive way, at least as much as a Republican chief of an HMO is able. I maintain the words "Republican chief of an HMO" doom him in this race, no matter how much money he has.
The Future
Martha Coakley +39 (21%)
Nobody is in her league on this poll. She has a +17 among Republicans, and an incredible +48 among women -- Deval's weaker group. In age demographics, she has a great lead among older voters, again the mirror image of Deval.
Right now, it looks as if she could write her own ticket.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
How to primary Deval...
I'm talking about challenging the governor within the Democratic primary today. I don't think anybody will do it successfully, much less do it at all. However, if Tim Cahill can launch a quixotic fizzle of an independent campaign, then I get to engage in far less expensive dreams as well.
To get far against Deval in a primary, I think a candidate would need three things:
A claim on being taken seriously
This doesn't mean that you have to be a person of significant electoral success in the past, or even notable experience in government. Deval Patrick fit neither of those criteria, and he went from being a corporate executive to governor. Heck, Obama's president on a thinner elected resume than any we saw in years and he's doing a fairly good job as prez to boot. So while the natural instinct is to look at accomplished Democrats in our Commonwealth's government, Deval (like Arnold Schwarzenegger) has proven that there are other routes to a governor's seat.
The reason you need to be taken seriously is to attract talent and votes eventually. You'd need to attract some talent within the Commonwealth to build a campaign, or you may already have it "in-house". True, the governor has a lot of political talent in the Bay State wrapped up, but he also is staffing from Obama's shop and thus leaves more unemployed hacks than normal out there. Plus, I imagine some good folks in the Legislative branch could lend you their rolodex as well. Of course, Deval had a head start here, as he enjoyed a great deal of talent on loan from a certain freshman Illinois Senator who was looking to conduct a practice drill of his own future campaign.
Talent and votes are attracted by money. And to claim that they should be taken seriously, this person would need money. Whether from corporate sources (Deval), the fiscal resources of a wealthy candidate (Gabrieli), or the established fundraising networks of an established politician (say, Coakley). Money tells talent that you are for real, and it attracts more money. It puts in place the ability to seem serious by coordinating a presence at different events, signs on lawns, bumper stickers on cars. The upfront costs of such a campaign will not be handled by supporters independently coming to you -- you need to find a way to cover them. To go from nobody on the public radar screen without finding a way to quickly access cash is difficult, which tends to restrict the list of possibles.
2. A platform that would attract many progressives
Believe it or not, this is the easy part of challenging the governor in a Democratic primary. His choices have often been moderate or even conservative, and there remains a long list of positions that could appeal to self-defined progressives. To wit:
Granted, the population of persuadable voters who hold all six of these positions may not be large, but I suspect that the number of persuadables who hold 4 or 5 of them is large enough to get the ball rolling.
3-A willingness to move outside Deval's orbit.
This is the trickiest one. Many people with progressive bona fides and a network of donors (Jamie Eldridge, for instance) are deeply enmeshed with Deval already. Others with bright futures may content themselves to wait out Deval's moment and hope for an inside track on the next open primary (Martha Coakley, for instance). Of course, the last two candidates who tried to slide from one executive department to the other can tell you it isn't that easy. This narrows the list considerably as there are few people with fiscal backing who seem at all interested in taking on the governor.
The only real possibility is a rare Massachusetts politician who hasn't folded into Deval Patrick completely -- Therese Murray and Thomas Menino spring to mind, but both would be losing power in such a move -- or a thorough dark horse who can tap into money quickly.
I think the ideological opportunity is there, and is sadly the easiest to reach. I think such a candidate would get the 15% at the state party convention, because seeing a strong legitimate candidate flame out at an activists' meeting would do severe damage to the wide appeal to any eventual nominee (and Deval's people know that). There is a tremendous amount of "issue space" unoccupied in this race -- Mihos has the right, and Baker is chasing the center right. Cahill is laying claim to a sliver of the middle, and Deval sits in the center while profiting from a dubious claim on the left. If a candidate laid question to that claim, we would learn who is the real Deval, and who is the real Democratic Party -- and both would be the richer for it.
Not that I expect this to happen, but it's fun to think about.
To get far against Deval in a primary, I think a candidate would need three things:
- A claim on being taken seriously;
- A platform that would attract many progressives;
- A willingness to move outside Deval's orbit.
A claim on being taken seriously
This doesn't mean that you have to be a person of significant electoral success in the past, or even notable experience in government. Deval Patrick fit neither of those criteria, and he went from being a corporate executive to governor. Heck, Obama's president on a thinner elected resume than any we saw in years and he's doing a fairly good job as prez to boot. So while the natural instinct is to look at accomplished Democrats in our Commonwealth's government, Deval (like Arnold Schwarzenegger) has proven that there are other routes to a governor's seat.
The reason you need to be taken seriously is to attract talent and votes eventually. You'd need to attract some talent within the Commonwealth to build a campaign, or you may already have it "in-house". True, the governor has a lot of political talent in the Bay State wrapped up, but he also is staffing from Obama's shop and thus leaves more unemployed hacks than normal out there. Plus, I imagine some good folks in the Legislative branch could lend you their rolodex as well. Of course, Deval had a head start here, as he enjoyed a great deal of talent on loan from a certain freshman Illinois Senator who was looking to conduct a practice drill of his own future campaign.
Talent and votes are attracted by money. And to claim that they should be taken seriously, this person would need money. Whether from corporate sources (Deval), the fiscal resources of a wealthy candidate (Gabrieli), or the established fundraising networks of an established politician (say, Coakley). Money tells talent that you are for real, and it attracts more money. It puts in place the ability to seem serious by coordinating a presence at different events, signs on lawns, bumper stickers on cars. The upfront costs of such a campaign will not be handled by supporters independently coming to you -- you need to find a way to cover them. To go from nobody on the public radar screen without finding a way to quickly access cash is difficult, which tends to restrict the list of possibles.
2. A platform that would attract many progressives
Believe it or not, this is the easy part of challenging the governor in a Democratic primary. His choices have often been moderate or even conservative, and there remains a long list of positions that could appeal to self-defined progressives. To wit:
- No further promotion of gambling beyond the already extensive presence of the Massachusetts lottery. No slots, no "racinos", no "resort" casinos (as Deval and Cahill support);
- Support of public schools through respect of local democracy and opposition to the privatization/charter scheme (of which Deval is an enthusiastic backer);
- Raising the corporate income tax (Deval blinked on this);
- Implementing a graduated income tax so that the wealthy pay their share (He's staying out of this fight);
- Reining in profligate spending and breaks on privileged sectors of the economy, such as "life sciences" and making Hollywood movies. (Billions of spending right there)
- A commitment to campaign finance reform, even Clean Elections. (Deval circumvents the law already)
Granted, the population of persuadable voters who hold all six of these positions may not be large, but I suspect that the number of persuadables who hold 4 or 5 of them is large enough to get the ball rolling.
3-A willingness to move outside Deval's orbit.
This is the trickiest one. Many people with progressive bona fides and a network of donors (Jamie Eldridge, for instance) are deeply enmeshed with Deval already. Others with bright futures may content themselves to wait out Deval's moment and hope for an inside track on the next open primary (Martha Coakley, for instance). Of course, the last two candidates who tried to slide from one executive department to the other can tell you it isn't that easy. This narrows the list considerably as there are few people with fiscal backing who seem at all interested in taking on the governor.
The only real possibility is a rare Massachusetts politician who hasn't folded into Deval Patrick completely -- Therese Murray and Thomas Menino spring to mind, but both would be losing power in such a move -- or a thorough dark horse who can tap into money quickly.
I think the ideological opportunity is there, and is sadly the easiest to reach. I think such a candidate would get the 15% at the state party convention, because seeing a strong legitimate candidate flame out at an activists' meeting would do severe damage to the wide appeal to any eventual nominee (and Deval's people know that). There is a tremendous amount of "issue space" unoccupied in this race -- Mihos has the right, and Baker is chasing the center right. Cahill is laying claim to a sliver of the middle, and Deval sits in the center while profiting from a dubious claim on the left. If a candidate laid question to that claim, we would learn who is the real Deval, and who is the real Democratic Party -- and both would be the richer for it.
Not that I expect this to happen, but it's fun to think about.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Anti-casino voters not at home among Dems
David makes a good point in his addendum over at BMG. Basically, that anti-gambling voters are not going to be interested in voting for any current or former Democrats running for governor unless they are pushed in that direction by an egregious Republican candidate...
Now, living in a town that may end up hosting such a casino does tend to focus the mind greatly on gambling, and people distant to the issue may not realize how quickly it rises up the priority list for such a voter. I suspect that gambling may be an issue that is either nearly irrelevant to picking a candidate, or very relevant -- not in between. However, anyone who cares deeply about gambling is going to be hard-pressed to give Cahill or Patrick his/her trust on the matter.
If Mihos or Baker can minimize hot-button issues from the past (abortion, gay marriage) and collect those anti-gambling voters, that would be the foundation to a strong coalition. Mihos has come out against casinos, but favors slots at racing tracks, something that makes him a real player in my neighborhood of SE Mass. I would also note that Mihos has taken my advice and is labeling himself an "Independent Republican" for governor on his website.
In 2007, a poll found that about 1/3 of unenrolled voters and 1/3 of Democrats were against Deval's proposal. About 1/5 of those groups are strongly against the proposal. If Baker or Mihos can neutralize the hot-button issues while coming out strongly and smartly against gambling, they would be the natural candidate for that 20% of the electorate -- including people who may have been with Deval in 2006.
PS: Another nugget from the poll -- Martha Coakley had +66 net favorability among Democrats, +29 net favorability among unenrolled, and +9 favorability among Republicans. That would drop in any race, but I really have to believe this woman has a future in this state.
- Cahill loves gambling and would station slot machines inside elementary schools if he thought he could get away with it.
- Deval Patrick "only" wants at least one resort casino in Mass.
Now, living in a town that may end up hosting such a casino does tend to focus the mind greatly on gambling, and people distant to the issue may not realize how quickly it rises up the priority list for such a voter. I suspect that gambling may be an issue that is either nearly irrelevant to picking a candidate, or very relevant -- not in between. However, anyone who cares deeply about gambling is going to be hard-pressed to give Cahill or Patrick his/her trust on the matter.
If Mihos or Baker can minimize hot-button issues from the past (abortion, gay marriage) and collect those anti-gambling voters, that would be the foundation to a strong coalition. Mihos has come out against casinos, but favors slots at racing tracks, something that makes him a real player in my neighborhood of SE Mass. I would also note that Mihos has taken my advice and is labeling himself an "Independent Republican" for governor on his website.
In 2007, a poll found that about 1/3 of unenrolled voters and 1/3 of Democrats were against Deval's proposal. About 1/5 of those groups are strongly against the proposal. If Baker or Mihos can neutralize the hot-button issues while coming out strongly and smartly against gambling, they would be the natural candidate for that 20% of the electorate -- including people who may have been with Deval in 2006.
PS: Another nugget from the poll -- Martha Coakley had +66 net favorability among Democrats, +29 net favorability among unenrolled, and +9 favorability among Republicans. That would drop in any race, but I really have to believe this woman has a future in this state.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Deval's win: primary voters + 20% of the rest
In the wake of an apparent three-way election, I just wanted to run the numbers based on the results of the 2006 gubernatorial election in Massachusetts, reproduced further below. What I found is bad news for anyone not named Deval Patrick.
For giggles' sake, I took every single Democrat who did not vote for Deval Patrick in the primary, and awarded their votes to a mythical Independent candidate, named Tim C. in the general. Unenrolled voters, and Democrats who did not vote in the primary, went untouched. The results would have been:
*for example
This proves nothing (for many, many reasons) about what will happen in 2010. What it does indicate is that even if we reduce Deval Patrick's vote total to Democrats who liked him during the primary, he's in great shape. Even subtracting every Democrat who did not vote for Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary -- discounting any idea of party loyalty -- you have to figure that Deval Patrick starts with about 700,000 votes in hand, almost a third of the total cast. That even allows for a large percentage of Deval Patrick supporters who have since moved away. In any case, if you start a three-way race with 1/3 of the votes on your side before the debate even begins, you have a really great chance of winning the whole enchilada.
Hypothetical: Tim Cahill runs a meandering campaign that nonetheless does a bit better than Mihos and captures 10% of the vote, or about 220,000 votes. That means that in order to win, Deval Patrick needs to keep his loyal soldiers from the 2006 primary season, and merely add on about one-fifth of the remaining electorate.
I'll repeat that -- Deval's winning coalition is:
2006 primary voters + one-fifth of the entire remaining electorate.
That 20% is a small majority of Democrats who voted for Reilly or Gabrieli in the primary. Or a healthy dollop of first-time or second-time voters, or a fair amount of unenrolleds. What it means is that unless Cahill can somehow poach on people who sided with Deval Patrick way back when, Cahill isn't moving up in the world, and Deval isn't moving out of his office.
For giggles' sake, I took every single Democrat who did not vote for Deval Patrick in the primary, and awarded their votes to a mythical Independent candidate, named Tim C. in the general. Unenrolled voters, and Democrats who did not vote in the primary, went untouched. The results would have been:
| Healey/ Hillman | 784,342 |
| Patrick/ Murray | 775,652 |
| Tim C./ Guy G.* | 459,332 |
| Mihos/ Sullivan | 154,628 |
*for example
This proves nothing (for many, many reasons) about what will happen in 2010. What it does indicate is that even if we reduce Deval Patrick's vote total to Democrats who liked him during the primary, he's in great shape. Even subtracting every Democrat who did not vote for Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary -- discounting any idea of party loyalty -- you have to figure that Deval Patrick starts with about 700,000 votes in hand, almost a third of the total cast. That even allows for a large percentage of Deval Patrick supporters who have since moved away. In any case, if you start a three-way race with 1/3 of the votes on your side before the debate even begins, you have a really great chance of winning the whole enchilada.
Hypothetical: Tim Cahill runs a meandering campaign that nonetheless does a bit better than Mihos and captures 10% of the vote, or about 220,000 votes. That means that in order to win, Deval Patrick needs to keep his loyal soldiers from the 2006 primary season, and merely add on about one-fifth of the remaining electorate.
I'll repeat that -- Deval's winning coalition is:
2006 primary voters + one-fifth of the entire remaining electorate.
That 20% is a small majority of Democrats who voted for Reilly or Gabrieli in the primary. Or a healthy dollop of first-time or second-time voters, or a fair amount of unenrolleds. What it means is that unless Cahill can somehow poach on people who sided with Deval Patrick way back when, Cahill isn't moving up in the world, and Deval isn't moving out of his office.
| Democratic gubernatorial primary[33] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
| Deval Patrick | 452,229 | 49.57% | ||
| Chris Gabrieli | 248,301 | 27.22% | ||
| Tom Reilly | 211,031 | 23.13% | ||
| Write-in | 787 | 0.08% | ||
| Blanks | 14,054 | |||
| Majority | 203,928 | 22.35% | ||
| Turnout | 926,402 | |||
| 2006 gubernatorial election, Massachusetts[34] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
| Democratic | Deval Patrick (Tim Murray) | 1,234,984 | 55.64% | +10.70 | |
| Republican | Kerry Healey (Reed Hillman) | 784,342 | 35.33% | -14.44 | |
| Independent | Christy Mihos (John J. Sullivan) | 154,628 | 6.97% | +6.27 | |
| Green-Rainbow | Grace Ross (Martina Robinson) | 43,193 | 1.95% | -1.54 | |
| Write-in | All others | 2,632 | 0.12 | +.06 | |
| Total votes | 2,219,779 | 55.63%% | + 0.40 | ||
| Blank | 24,056 | ||||
| Turnout | 2,243,835 | ||||
| Majority | 450,642 | 20.30% | |||
| Democratic gain from Republican | Swing | + 25.13 | |||
Monday, July 6, 2009
Cahill bails, everyone loses
Apparently Tim isn't tough enough for a Democratic primary. Sure, the deck was stacked against him, but he's re-registered out of the Democratic Party in preparation of an all-but-definite run for the governorship.
I figure nearly everyone loses:
Only Deval Patrick wins, which means that many prolific bloggers will celebrate this as a great day.
First off, I'm not voting for Cahill. If he isn't tough enough to take on Deval in a primary, he isn't tough enough to take on the problems facing this state. His infatuation with predatory gambling is nearly an addiction in its own right, and he is a cipher on too many issues. But beyond that, Cahill is running just to the left of the Republicans and just to the right of Deval. If the ideological field is going to be split that finely, the election comes down to organization and machine, something the Democrats and Deval Patrick have to spare.
What this does mean, however, is a pull to accompany a pre-existing push on many Democrats. There is a traditionalist view of the Democratic Party that predates my birth or Deval's move to Massachusetts. It's the view that a man (or woman) could count of the Democratic Party to make sure s/he could put food on the table, back up his/her right to be in a union to do it, and otherwise leave them alone. The Dems were for the common man, but they weren't going to tell the common man how to run his life.
That school of thought has been a subject of attack by Deval Patrick's followers, who love bureaucratic expansion, basing sales taxes on calorie count (soda, for example), loathe labor organization, and have the solution to any number of social issues. I'm not saying they're all wrong, but there's a lot of wrong in that approach. In addition, their palpable condescension for any other point of view than what they've newly discovered is a real push on the Democrats who built this party in the 50s and 60s.
Now these people being pushed out have somewhere to go -- the Tim Cahill campaign. Cahill is kind of a Democrat, and he's no Republican. He's not going to call you a cynic or a naysayer because you disagree with him, and he's not going to tell you he knows how you should live your life better than you do.
All of which is probably going to be very attractive to thousands of Democrats who are treated as pariahs in their own party -- the party many of them built before a dry run was needed for Obama's campaign. So as the Devalcolytes push these folks away from the party, the Cahillians are going to pull them into their campaign. Sure, it may only be 5-10% of the electorate, but that makes a difference in close State House and county races. Who knows -- if Cahill gets his head straight about gambling and education, I may be part of that 5-10%.
Of course, in December 2010 Cahill's campaign is dead, and his political future likely will be, too. The Democratic Party's "big tent" will have shrunk, and there will be a large group of people looking for a political home as the Cahill campaign is subject to electoral forclosure.
And if the Republican Party ever pulls its head out of its a--, those people are their ticket back to relevance. So I guess it's not just Deval who wins.
(Update): Blogging compatriot Charley on the MTA over at BMG has kindly linked to this post calling me an "inveterate Deval hater". The emoticon makes it clear that the comment is meant tongue in cheek. I think. Either way, it helps support some of my points.
I figure nearly everyone loses:
- Cahill loses his job, and his bid for the governor.
- Deval Patrick supporters lose any impetus to reflect on their concept of the Democratic Party.
- Old-school Democrats lose their strongest representative in the conversation within the party.
- The Democratic Party's tent gets smaller.
Only Deval Patrick wins, which means that many prolific bloggers will celebrate this as a great day.
First off, I'm not voting for Cahill. If he isn't tough enough to take on Deval in a primary, he isn't tough enough to take on the problems facing this state. His infatuation with predatory gambling is nearly an addiction in its own right, and he is a cipher on too many issues. But beyond that, Cahill is running just to the left of the Republicans and just to the right of Deval. If the ideological field is going to be split that finely, the election comes down to organization and machine, something the Democrats and Deval Patrick have to spare.
What this does mean, however, is a pull to accompany a pre-existing push on many Democrats. There is a traditionalist view of the Democratic Party that predates my birth or Deval's move to Massachusetts. It's the view that a man (or woman) could count of the Democratic Party to make sure s/he could put food on the table, back up his/her right to be in a union to do it, and otherwise leave them alone. The Dems were for the common man, but they weren't going to tell the common man how to run his life.
That school of thought has been a subject of attack by Deval Patrick's followers, who love bureaucratic expansion, basing sales taxes on calorie count (soda, for example), loathe labor organization, and have the solution to any number of social issues. I'm not saying they're all wrong, but there's a lot of wrong in that approach. In addition, their palpable condescension for any other point of view than what they've newly discovered is a real push on the Democrats who built this party in the 50s and 60s.
Now these people being pushed out have somewhere to go -- the Tim Cahill campaign. Cahill is kind of a Democrat, and he's no Republican. He's not going to call you a cynic or a naysayer because you disagree with him, and he's not going to tell you he knows how you should live your life better than you do.
All of which is probably going to be very attractive to thousands of Democrats who are treated as pariahs in their own party -- the party many of them built before a dry run was needed for Obama's campaign. So as the Devalcolytes push these folks away from the party, the Cahillians are going to pull them into their campaign. Sure, it may only be 5-10% of the electorate, but that makes a difference in close State House and county races. Who knows -- if Cahill gets his head straight about gambling and education, I may be part of that 5-10%.
Of course, in December 2010 Cahill's campaign is dead, and his political future likely will be, too. The Democratic Party's "big tent" will have shrunk, and there will be a large group of people looking for a political home as the Cahill campaign is subject to electoral forclosure.
And if the Republican Party ever pulls its head out of its a--, those people are their ticket back to relevance. So I guess it's not just Deval who wins.
(Update): Blogging compatriot Charley on the MTA over at BMG has kindly linked to this post calling me an "inveterate Deval hater". The emoticon makes it clear that the comment is meant tongue in cheek. I think. Either way, it helps support some of my points.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Quick notes
- Using stupid nicknames just makes the user look stupid. Anyone who calls her "Ka-Ching" Murray or him "Cadillac" Deval is demanding to be laughed at. Similarly, anyone who calls Tim Cahill not a Democrat just because of a difference of opinion is a risible, as well. Especially since our platform is now so meaningless that Cahill can say pretty much whatever he wants and still fit into our platform.
- I do enjoy watching people try to pretend that Deval Patrick's loss on the tax battle is some sort of victory. He managed to get from a blowout to a tie, which is very admirable. Let's not exaggerate, however. The biggest impact on the Commonwealth is the higher sales tax, which Deval is preparing to take ownership of.
- In any case, "tougher" ethics laws are very nice but beside the point. Unless you take the lawyers seriously, the issue with Wilkerson, Turner, et al isn't the ethics laws. These people knew the laws and felt they could break them with impunity. That is an issue as much about the people as the laws. Write whatever reforms you want, but the surest way to stop ethics violations is th elect ethical people. The almost-as-sure way is serious campaign finance reform, and I don't hear Deval saying anything about that.
- I may well be tired of Michael Jackson's music by the end of July.
- Hub Blog sadly lobbies to place Michael Jackson above Prince as a rock immortal. Hardly. Jackson sang, but sadly other people told him what to sing and how to sing it. Prince wrote, played the guitar, sang, orchestrated, produced, and in his spare time acted. They can match up well in terms of musical impact, but Prince is so, so much more talented. Jackson's dancing was largely derivative from James Brown, and Quincy Jones could make me sound like a genius on an album. Prince's music is thoroughly him, not his "team". No contest.
- Marry in Mass comes away with a positive reaction to Menino from an interview. Of course he did well -- loathe as self-defined progressives hate to admit it, Menino is a great mayor. He's no visionary (of course, we're pretending the Big Dig wasn't a massive vision) but an effective manager who has managed to personally meet a self-reported 57% of the people of Boston. I'll keep saying it: the only two prominent Bay State politicians who love their current jobs are Tom Menino and Ted Kennedy.
- In the musical 1776, the New York delegation relates how their state assembly sent them with no instructions because (paraphrasing) "it's a confused place where everybody shouts over each other and not very much gets done." At least on the Senate side, they've somehow managed to go downhill from there.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
On taxes and toughness...weekend blather
- Republican morons
At my second home at BMG, I explain why I have trouble taking Deval Patrick's tough talk relative to the Lege seriously, and why I don't think they have reason to take him seriously, either. He had a golden opportunity to change the face of the Legislature during last month's special election primary for Sal DiMasi's old seat. Deval and his people sat on the sidelines and watched the machine keep a vulnerable seat. Unless Patrick & Co. are going to give legislators notice that they will work to unseat them when possible, they won't be listened to.
For that matter, the more I think about the sales tax hike, the less upset I become. That's partially because I lived in Montreal, which features a total sales tax above 15% on most goods to pay for a crap health care system. Also, most of your essential expenses are not subject to sales tax in the Bay State -- mortgage or rent, supermarket food, health care, gasoline, heat, etc. The sales tax affect discretionary spending mainly, so it's not as if this is affecting working class folks in ways they can't avoid -- the way that an income tax hike would.
The only long-term solution to revenue shortfall is progressive income taxes, where everyone pays a fair share. Jamie Eldridge and Sonia Chang-Diaz pointed this out in the Globe recently.
Speaking of which, State Senator Chang-Diaz is emerging as an interesting case. On taxes, she is voting more with the governor's position and not that of the Legislative leaders. Given that the power rests with the leaders, and that Deval endorsed her criminally indicted opponent with a history of playing things fast and loose during the primary, she really doesn't owe him much. All of which leads me to presume that Senator Chang-Diaz is voting along her sense of what is right or wrong. Good for her.
I'm adding "Massachusetts Liberal" to my blogroll. Check it out for stuff such as this:
What the GOP is apparently incapable of doing in Massachusetts is consistently recruiting and electing a farm team, people willing to run for state representative and senate. [Weld and Romney] lost interest in the job and put personal gain over creating a team that could actually develop into a credible minority party.
MaLib does a great job tracing the history of failure that is the Republican Party's misadventures in Legislative elections. I would add that this is the closest comparison we have to the status of Deval Patrick's 2008 promises to remake the tired politics of Massachusetts.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The 15% Rule Cometh
A good article in Boston's kinda-newspaper, the Phoenix about Tim Cahill's possible run for governor (I'll see the Phx as a real paper if they stop running ridiculous graphics like the one attached to this article). For me, the highlights were the recounting of Tim's fractious relationship with the Democratic Party mandarins -- you know, the hacks that are dragging the party's reputation through the mud in this state. He became state treasurer despite them, and remains treasurer despite them. And there's a good chance that he'll run for governor despite, or simply to spite them. In any case, these folks are good enemies to have, save for one speed bump:
First off, let this be another round in the chamber to fire at Deval zealots who interpret anything Cahill does as proof that he wants to bring down the Democratic Party.
Secondly...here we go again. It was bad enough four years ago with Gabrieli, and I really don't want to deal with this again. It's ridiculous to even discuss prominent civil servants with strong records of public service wrestling with appeasing a sufficient number of party faithful. Now, I can see the rationale behind some ballot threshold. Democratic Party leaders don't want some Bill Ayers-Ward Churchill type getting on the Democratic ballot, the way that southern Republican primary ballots can end up carrying unreconstructed Klansmen.
Gabrieli's main issue in 2006, of course, was declaring for governor after the caucuses occurred, and relying on arm twisting, superdelegates (remember when that word was all the rage?), and deals to get over the limit. So he brought on his own problems.
However, if Cahill has any trouble vaulting 15%, there is a serious problem. That ballot limit should be the party's screen against nutjob candidacies, not a plaything of the bosses.
I do have to disagree with the Phx on this one, actually. If Ed O'Reilly can get 25% against Kerry -- while the Party is doing all it can to undermine him within and without the convention hall -- the sitting treasurer can make it to 15%. There are a lot of delegates who arrive at the convention from all over the state, an even the Deval machine can't get to all those towns and cities. The North Adams area, the Cape, and South Coast could all be fertile ground for somebody running against Deval. His stimulus dispensation didn't wow too many folks around there, and the Democrats in those parts of the states aren't as left-leaning, and aren't as easily taken in by the rope-a-hope strategy. Add in some stalwarts with grudges, I think you get to 15% pretty quickly.
In any case, the headache of having to explain the shutting out of a state treasurer creates more problems than it solves for the Democratic Party, and I think the big cheeses admit that. If Cahill were to come out of next year's convention with 13-14%, you could expect the party rolls to thin down a bit soon after.
Still, this bears watching. And frankly, the more grief Cahill faces on hitting that threshold, the warmer a lot of folks will feel toward him.
[O]ne person close to Cahill's inner circle says that his preference is still to run as a Democrat...
Cahill has two obstacles in running as a Democrat against Patrick...Cahill's second problem is the Democratic Party nominating convention. To get onto the primary ballot, Cahill would need to win at least 15 percent of the delegate votes at next summer's convention.
That might sound like a low threshold, but it could be a major hurdle. Party delegates are not going to be eager to offend the governor or party leaders — mostly Patrick people — by voting for any opponent.
First off, let this be another round in the chamber to fire at Deval zealots who interpret anything Cahill does as proof that he wants to bring down the Democratic Party.
Secondly...here we go again. It was bad enough four years ago with Gabrieli, and I really don't want to deal with this again. It's ridiculous to even discuss prominent civil servants with strong records of public service wrestling with appeasing a sufficient number of party faithful. Now, I can see the rationale behind some ballot threshold. Democratic Party leaders don't want some Bill Ayers-Ward Churchill type getting on the Democratic ballot, the way that southern Republican primary ballots can end up carrying unreconstructed Klansmen.
Gabrieli's main issue in 2006, of course, was declaring for governor after the caucuses occurred, and relying on arm twisting, superdelegates (remember when that word was all the rage?), and deals to get over the limit. So he brought on his own problems.
However, if Cahill has any trouble vaulting 15%, there is a serious problem. That ballot limit should be the party's screen against nutjob candidacies, not a plaything of the bosses.
I do have to disagree with the Phx on this one, actually. If Ed O'Reilly can get 25% against Kerry -- while the Party is doing all it can to undermine him within and without the convention hall -- the sitting treasurer can make it to 15%. There are a lot of delegates who arrive at the convention from all over the state, an even the Deval machine can't get to all those towns and cities. The North Adams area, the Cape, and South Coast could all be fertile ground for somebody running against Deval. His stimulus dispensation didn't wow too many folks around there, and the Democrats in those parts of the states aren't as left-leaning, and aren't as easily taken in by the rope-a-hope strategy. Add in some stalwarts with grudges, I think you get to 15% pretty quickly.
In any case, the headache of having to explain the shutting out of a state treasurer creates more problems than it solves for the Democratic Party, and I think the big cheeses admit that. If Cahill were to come out of next year's convention with 13-14%, you could expect the party rolls to thin down a bit soon after.
Still, this bears watching. And frankly, the more grief Cahill faces on hitting that threshold, the warmer a lot of folks will feel toward him.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Treasurer's Corrupt? Oh, Happy Day!
A sign of the blind loyalty -- if not zealotry -- that infects much of the Massachusetts blogosphere today. Tim Cahill is in for a rough ethical ride:
When this news broke over at BlueMassGroup, an editor rated the posting of this news item as "excellent". Now, I like David and his ideas an awful lot, but either he was blown away by somebody else's ability to copy-and-paste from the Globe as I have done, or he thinks that it's excellent that our treasurer is in hot water. Or he's thrilled to have a potential opponent for Deval out of the way.
Massachusetts Liberal salivates "stick a fork in him", and amusingly maintains that Deval's Ameriquest phone call wasn't about favors, when that's exactly what it was about.
The Internet comments alongside the Globe story already include calls for resignations . Granted, many of them are reactionaries who want to turf out every incumbent they can find and kill the income tax, but it doesn't take much to find the satisfied liberal in the comments.
Critical Massachusetts has picked up on something that I did as well -- how strange it is that soon after openly standing against the governor, Cahill's past is being explored. Just as Sal DiMasi was harassed by a drip-drip-drip after standing against the governor's casino push, now Cahill is being chased mere weeks after letting slip that he was challenging the governor. Same m.o., too -- breathless Globe coverage of vague questions being asked about decisions taken years ago, as if it were Sal or Tim stuffing envelopes into their suitcoats.
Of course, buried in the celebrations is that this ethics probe is a resurrection of a decision made five years ago -- in other words, around the same time that Coca-Cola's poisononous business practices were finally coming up against the ethical limits of Deval Patrick. Regardless, this happening once is insignificant, twice a pattern, and should there be a third time, it will be obvious that we have a problem. If Terry Murray has any ambitions (and she should), for her sake she'd better keep them to herself.
The most stomach-turning thing about all this is that given the choice of Deval, Cahill, Charlie Baker, and Christy Mihos, I'd still vote to re-elect. Call it Deval By Default.
Now, some people would be upset that Treasurer Cahill may be corrupt. You do not want the guy controlling the money to be the one who has trouble being honest with money. Most people would be upset, but not for many Bay Staters....State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill is facing a state ethics inquiry for awarding a $21 million state lottery contract to a company that was secretly paying Cahill's close friend and fund-raiser, Thomas F. Kelly, tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees, according to multiple people who have been briefed on the investigation.
Investigators from the state Ethics Commission interviewed Cahill this month about his decision in 2004 to award the contract toScientific Games to make scratch tickets, despite a recommendation from his own staff that Scientific Games receive less state work, said two of the people who have been briefed. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because Ethics Commission investigations are confidential.
When this news broke over at BlueMassGroup, an editor rated the posting of this news item as "excellent". Now, I like David and his ideas an awful lot, but either he was blown away by somebody else's ability to copy-and-paste from the Globe as I have done, or he thinks that it's excellent that our treasurer is in hot water. Or he's thrilled to have a potential opponent for Deval out of the way.
Massachusetts Liberal salivates "stick a fork in him", and amusingly maintains that Deval's Ameriquest phone call wasn't about favors, when that's exactly what it was about.
The Internet comments alongside the Globe story already include calls for resignations . Granted, many of them are reactionaries who want to turf out every incumbent they can find and kill the income tax, but it doesn't take much to find the satisfied liberal in the comments.
Critical Massachusetts has picked up on something that I did as well -- how strange it is that soon after openly standing against the governor, Cahill's past is being explored. Just as Sal DiMasi was harassed by a drip-drip-drip after standing against the governor's casino push, now Cahill is being chased mere weeks after letting slip that he was challenging the governor. Same m.o., too -- breathless Globe coverage of vague questions being asked about decisions taken years ago, as if it were Sal or Tim stuffing envelopes into their suitcoats.
Of course, buried in the celebrations is that this ethics probe is a resurrection of a decision made five years ago -- in other words, around the same time that Coca-Cola's poisononous business practices were finally coming up against the ethical limits of Deval Patrick. Regardless, this happening once is insignificant, twice a pattern, and should there be a third time, it will be obvious that we have a problem. If Terry Murray has any ambitions (and she should), for her sake she'd better keep them to herself.
The most stomach-turning thing about all this is that given the choice of Deval, Cahill, Charlie Baker, and Christy Mihos, I'd still vote to re-elect. Call it Deval By Default.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Shallow weekend thoughts
- Utah Gov. Huntsman is the Mike Huckabee of 2012 -- a lucid, reasonable, friendly Republican. He even goes Huckabee one step further by toning down the hidden fanaticism...he's endorsing civil union for same-sex couples. Oh, and check this radical proposal that Republicans should contribute ideas of their own, rather than reject the President's...wow.
- I hadn't realized that the Mongolian Embassy in Washington, D.C. had contacted "Mayor Anthony A.Williams about the possibility of erecting of a statue of Chinggis Khaan [Genghis Khan] in Washington D.C in honor of his contribution to the world civilization in 2005. As the Embassy of Mongolia is now working to add its national hero’s name in the list of Monuments in Washington D.C., we would welcome your comments on the idea of erecting the statue of Chinggis Khaan..." While I admire the great contributions and leadership of Chinggis Khaan, I will admit that a statue of a 13th century Asian conqueror would be a surprise to come across in D.C.
- Ever since Sal DiMasi got cashiered shortly after opposing casino interests, the de facto leader of the Opposition here in the Commonwealth has been Treasurer Tim Cahill. Most of his ideas are not that bright, particularly his keystone concept of warehouse-like slot machine parlors. Megaresorts such as Mohegan Sun put out the ritz to attract the high rollers, the "whales", as well as the middle class looking for spectacle. A warehouse is squarely aimed at gambling addicts who can't afford to play. Not a good idea, no more than the idea that anonymous people around Cahill are rumored by the Globe to be considering an independent bid for governor in 2010, either. All that said...it's nice to have somebody challenging the governor. Heaven knows the Massachusetts Republicans obviously can't do it (called out by the Healey-McCain Herald, no less!) and with DiMasi gone, somebody had to step up. Their eager distortion of that independent bid tidbit, complete with editing out relevant quotes that detract from the persecution complex, is proof enough of blind loyalty. This is a cult of personality that would do Gaius Baltar proud, but cripples our ability to focus on issues rather than slogans.
- Speaking of which, last week's episode of BSG had too much crying, not enough doing. Next week better be, well, better. The whole series ends in two episodes...and with BSG gone, and Leverage off until June, the television turns
off for a whileover to March Madness, then the NBA Finals, then... - Gaming out costs by day -- whether it's tax rate restoration or gas tax hikes or anything else, is dishonest in my mind. Almost anything sounds cheap if you divide it by 365. It might sound crazy to donate $200 to me every year to keep this blog going, but keep in mind that's less than a donut per day!
- I'm musing this idea: a basket of 1 stock each from CitiGroup, AIG, Wachovia, and ING would cost $9.27 right now. If I were to purchase some 30 "baskets" right now on the bet that if even one of these companies survives the next 18 months, their stock will restore to a spot where I could sell the whole lot for profit. As the old saying goes, "the time to buy is when there's blood on the streets."
- We have way too many stores already, as evidenced by the failures of Circuit City, Steve & Barry's, KB Toys, and Linens'n'Things. So which stores do the fine people of West Bridgewater expect to come into the retail center they just voted to approve?
- Yes, you too can support Roland Burris's 2010 run for Senator! Thus far, the only portions of the website that work are his biography and donation link. Nothing on issues or endorsements.
- It's astounding how many Obama nominees screwed up their taxes. It's also astounding how "didn't adequately itemize minor items and violated byzantine codicils in the tax code" has become "didn't pay their taxes," as if it were volition and not inadequate counseling.
- Question here -- every day or so I'm tooling down the highway when we come up to a construction area with a police officer staring down the hole that's been dug, or sitting in the cruiser with the lights on. Everyone slows down to 65. I've never been sure if said officer has the liberty to leave the construction scene which s/he is being paid to observe and chase off after a speeder. And for those times s/he is outside the vehicle, how would even be possible to generate a speed to write on the driver's ticket? Do we even have to worry about this happening?
- "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz has to be the most cloying, saccharin, desperate stuffing of pretentious cuteness into 3 minutes 20 seconds of banal lyrics and unnoticeable music that's been released in decades. If this is what he turns out after 7 years releasing albums, he should just quit. Ugh.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Model schools: A pretty good idea
As part of his seeming effort to save money while getting his name out there, Treasurer Tim Cahill just announced an effort to establish a series of pre-designed school buildings in order to crack down on runaway school construction. On the whole, it's a smart idea provided that these plans prove sufficiently customizable.
His idea:
This new push is more or less explicitly in response to the Newton High School project, a new high school whose price tag almost double from $100 to $200 million. Policymaking in the wake of a failure of planning and oversight often misses the point, including this bill -- the largest price bump came from an unexpected asbestos slab that had to be carefully and safely removed and surprisingly hard foundation stone. This was not the fault of any contractor nor architect, but was merely rotten luck, and you can't legislate luck away.
Although Cahill's effort would have done little to change Newton's fate, on the whole it's a good idea. Every school has the same essential core: plant operation, classrooms, central office, etc., etc. I agree with Ryan that "each community's needs are different," and that is why I'd want a decently customizable approach. This may simply mean ensuring a hallway that ends at an outside door bordered by electrical, plumbing, and water conduits sufficient to handle significant usage. Thus, if schools wanted to put in luxurious athletic facilities or lecture halls, they could. If necessary, a town could purchase the school and gymnasium separately, and simply knock down one wall in order to hook up the supplemental buildings.
Schools should reflect the community's wishes and needs, but education is becoming increasingly generic in our state and country due to the existing legal framework, thus physical plant needs are as well. I don't see how four different arrangements of the core facilities is an unacceptable limit of choice, particularly if designed for addition in the future. It would save a lot of money in the design and bidding phase, even if that makes architects unhappy.
Of course, given the pressure to add more days to the school year and/or day, it would be important to design these buildings for significant more wear and tear. And frankly, if this is going to be the case, we're moving to the point where air conditioning will be more or less necessary in these buildings.
His idea:
The designs would be based on high schools built over the last 10 years. The buildings would be between 170,000 and 240,000 square feet, depending on enrollment, and would include a gymnasium, an auditorium, science labs, and energy-efficient systems. No field houses or swimming pools would be allowed. If communities want those things, Cahill said, they would have to be built as separate buildings that would not qualify for state reimbursement.
Roughly four designs would be chosen, and the architects of the winning designs would automatically work with any school district that selects the design. That could be a financial windfall for those architects, while leaving other firms with little work.
This new push is more or less explicitly in response to the Newton High School project, a new high school whose price tag almost double from $100 to $200 million. Policymaking in the wake of a failure of planning and oversight often misses the point, including this bill -- the largest price bump came from an unexpected asbestos slab that had to be carefully and safely removed and surprisingly hard foundation stone. This was not the fault of any contractor nor architect, but was merely rotten luck, and you can't legislate luck away.
Although Cahill's effort would have done little to change Newton's fate, on the whole it's a good idea. Every school has the same essential core: plant operation, classrooms, central office, etc., etc. I agree with Ryan that "each community's needs are different," and that is why I'd want a decently customizable approach. This may simply mean ensuring a hallway that ends at an outside door bordered by electrical, plumbing, and water conduits sufficient to handle significant usage. Thus, if schools wanted to put in luxurious athletic facilities or lecture halls, they could. If necessary, a town could purchase the school and gymnasium separately, and simply knock down one wall in order to hook up the supplemental buildings.
Schools should reflect the community's wishes and needs, but education is becoming increasingly generic in our state and country due to the existing legal framework, thus physical plant needs are as well. I don't see how four different arrangements of the core facilities is an unacceptable limit of choice, particularly if designed for addition in the future. It would save a lot of money in the design and bidding phase, even if that makes architects unhappy.
Of course, given the pressure to add more days to the school year and/or day, it would be important to design these buildings for significant more wear and tear. And frankly, if this is going to be the case, we're moving to the point where air conditioning will be more or less necessary in these buildings.
Tim Cahill shooting for the understudy?
In the wake of his surprisingly strident critique of Deval Patrick's budget, Tim Cahill has unveiled a detailed plan to limit school construction costs by giving districts incentive to choose from a limited number of pre-designed choices. Ryan gives his reactions to that plan here. There's much to be said about it in a separate post, but I will join the chorus that is looking at the choices our state treasurer is making.
Before doing any horse race analysis, I want to say up front that I think that this is a good thing. In general, I disagree with many of Cahill's critiques of the budget, and agree with much of what he has to say about school construction. However, the fact that we have two people at the upper level of state politics talking about the course we chart in this state is a good thing. Tim Murray has been invisible, as has Martha Coakley. At this stage, the most prominent Republican move has been that Democrats aren't sufficiently in favor of marriage equality(!) In terms of the lack of effective opposition of which I wrote earlier, Cahill is slowly moving into that role. While he isn't the conservative option that I believe many Bay Staters want, he is a differnet voice in the din. I like that somebody is asking questions publicly, not in cloakrooms at the State House. It's good for our state and its democracy.
Yet I can't imagine that Cahill is aiming at Deval Patrick. Deval has a corps of rabidly loyal supporters and all the advantages of incumbency right now. And while his popularity has sagged both within the party and across the state, it's still pretty notable and I'd wager sufficient to beat back Cahill. If Cahill is planning to try to oust Patrick, he's a fool.
Instead, I'd say that Cahill is thinking that he may not end up running against Deval. I personally think odds are slightly less than 50-50 that Deval will be working in Washington, DC in a year's time, and Cahill may see in Murray a much more vulnerable candidate: somebody based outside of metro Boston, who has been invisible over the last two years, and has uneven relations with labor.
Here's betting that if Deval does remain in Boston, we suddenly start hearing less of Cahill going forward.
Before doing any horse race analysis, I want to say up front that I think that this is a good thing. In general, I disagree with many of Cahill's critiques of the budget, and agree with much of what he has to say about school construction. However, the fact that we have two people at the upper level of state politics talking about the course we chart in this state is a good thing. Tim Murray has been invisible, as has Martha Coakley. At this stage, the most prominent Republican move has been that Democrats aren't sufficiently in favor of marriage equality(!) In terms of the lack of effective opposition of which I wrote earlier, Cahill is slowly moving into that role. While he isn't the conservative option that I believe many Bay Staters want, he is a differnet voice in the din. I like that somebody is asking questions publicly, not in cloakrooms at the State House. It's good for our state and its democracy.
Yet I can't imagine that Cahill is aiming at Deval Patrick. Deval has a corps of rabidly loyal supporters and all the advantages of incumbency right now. And while his popularity has sagged both within the party and across the state, it's still pretty notable and I'd wager sufficient to beat back Cahill. If Cahill is planning to try to oust Patrick, he's a fool.
Instead, I'd say that Cahill is thinking that he may not end up running against Deval. I personally think odds are slightly less than 50-50 that Deval will be working in Washington, DC in a year's time, and Cahill may see in Murray a much more vulnerable candidate: somebody based outside of metro Boston, who has been invisible over the last two years, and has uneven relations with labor.
Here's betting that if Deval does remain in Boston, we suddenly start hearing less of Cahill going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
