- First off, everyone step away from the panic button. Just because the Democrats lost this special election doesn't mean that the entire agenda gets junked. Nor does it mean that we slap together a pile of cr-p, call it "health care reform" and pass it before Brown gets there (edit: or pass the crap that is the Senate bill through the House without even thinking). A morass that insists all Americans must funnel cash to a private industry is not going to help any Democrat on the campaign trail this summer and fall. Don't read too many implications into this odd election -- the last law passed in the midst of blind panic was the Patriot Act. Whoops.
- Politically, it's better to fail spectacularly at Republicans hands than fail incrementally with Democratic help. In policy terms, the best thing is for Reid to grow a pair, as he'll likely lose his re-election anyway. He may as well go out as the Senator who implemented real health care reform after junking the filibuster. Seriously -- if there's a legislative chamber that requires a 60% supermajority on all laws (as the Senate has over the last few years, suddenly) anywhere in the Western world, I've not heard of it. Nuke it.
- Moving on, there's plenty of blame for this loss to go around. Coakley, having forgotten about people like Weld and Romney, apparently felt that she didn't really need to earn anyone's vote in Massachusetts. Even the greats, Kennedy and Kerry, hustled against Romney and Weld for hard-won victories. She disappeared, and not just around Christmas but for several days in either direction.
- But it wasn't just her -- if you see your candidate screwing up, you're supposed to do something about it, I thought. There are people whose job it is to tell candidates to get over themselves and hustle for votes, often called the party "elders". They were snoozing as deep as Martha, whether it was the staties in Charlestown or the muckymucks in DC. Would it have killed them all for someone -- someone! -- to take a poll? At the end, Coakley owns the loss because her name was on the ballot, but Democrats who should know better were as complacent as her.
- Anyway, it's not all the Dems' fault. Brown came up with clever ads, got the help he needed across the state and nation, won every news cycle going away, courted the media smartly, interrupted any Coakley narrative, held his ground in the debates, and worked for the vote. You can be a Democrat with a sucky campaign and win -- just ask John Kerry after his victory over Beatty. Coakley gave Brown oxygen, and he used it in a way that connected with the electorate. Any Democrat who denies this is going to be caught unprepared as well.
- The electorate didn't change its mind from 2008...the electorate itself changed. People who would have helped Coakley in a regular election didn't vote -- turnout was under 40% in major cities. This gives me hope for 2012, but expecting the Democratic base to show up without being told why is a fool's game, as we saw last night. This to me is the grand lesson about preparing for November, and how to handle the agenda going forward.
- As to who takes on Brown in 2012, we'll have to wait and see. Here's what I expect: census indicates that some Congressperson must lose his/her seat. After some semi-public negotiation, one of them announces a run for Senate, and allows his/her seat to be re-districted out of existence out from under him/her.
Showing posts with label Martha Coakley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martha Coakley. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thoughts on the "day after"
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Talk about the issues, Coakley
"How did it end up this close?" will be a question studied by academics and "pundits" for ages. There is no earthly reason that the typically measured electorate of Massachusetts would even be considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material, yet he's tied, perhaps leading, in the polls for Tuesday's election. So what's happening?
My answer is that the electorate of Massachusetts isn't considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material. They're not thinking of Coakley and Brown as possible Senators, but as celebrities.
Brown has masterfully guided this raise from any semblance of the issues, with a narrative-hungry media playing accomplice. When I call voters, they're not talking about health care, torture, or foreign policy. They're talking about the "negative tone" of the campaign and "it's the people's seat". This is a conversation where Brown has a shot, especially with his excellence at playing victim, and sending out his daughters to do the same. He's moved the question from who do you want doing the work of a Senator to who do you want to be Senator. It's a fine difference, but it allows him to move the conversation from the issues (where he loses) to random crap (where he does well). It may seem crazy, but George W Bush turned this strategy into two electoral victories.
The media, of course, has joined in, shelling Coakley with questions about the "negativity" of her campaign -- heaven forbid anyone point out what a nut Brown is -- and focusing on process stories. Unfortunately, bringing in Clinton and Obama makes it look that Coakley is playing down to Brown's level, hoping to borrow some charisma against his. Answering these silly questions rather that insisting that we talk about foreign policy or health care is a disastrous move. The race starting getting wobbly when the issues took a back-seat. The fact that Brown is too cheap and cruel to pitch in on his own employees' health care isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a regime where those employees don't have to rely on the goodwill of their bosses for affordable health-care. The fact that Brown breaks military policy by posing in his uniform for campaign materials isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a policy where the military isn't risking soldiers' lives by carrying out a dead-end mission in Afghanistan.
I personally find that the most effective thing in talking to voters is to stick to the issues. The message you send with your vote will be received that day. The consequences of your vote last two years. What consequences do you want?
The values of Attorney General Coakley are the values of the people of Massachusetts. This is the reality that Brown is trying to drown out with noise about his pickup truck and tender feelings. This is the reality that must be hammered home over the next 48 hours, top to bottom.
PS: Future studies of "what happened" would also do well to examine the decision to keep the Mass. Legislature in session over this period to discuss attempts to throttle labor rights in connection with Deval's education bill. Had all these folks been organizing, instead of defending the idea that contracts should be enforceable by law, how would things have gone differently?
My answer is that the electorate of Massachusetts isn't considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material. They're not thinking of Coakley and Brown as possible Senators, but as celebrities.
Brown has masterfully guided this raise from any semblance of the issues, with a narrative-hungry media playing accomplice. When I call voters, they're not talking about health care, torture, or foreign policy. They're talking about the "negative tone" of the campaign and "it's the people's seat". This is a conversation where Brown has a shot, especially with his excellence at playing victim, and sending out his daughters to do the same. He's moved the question from who do you want doing the work of a Senator to who do you want to be Senator. It's a fine difference, but it allows him to move the conversation from the issues (where he loses) to random crap (where he does well). It may seem crazy, but George W Bush turned this strategy into two electoral victories.
The media, of course, has joined in, shelling Coakley with questions about the "negativity" of her campaign -- heaven forbid anyone point out what a nut Brown is -- and focusing on process stories. Unfortunately, bringing in Clinton and Obama makes it look that Coakley is playing down to Brown's level, hoping to borrow some charisma against his. Answering these silly questions rather that insisting that we talk about foreign policy or health care is a disastrous move. The race starting getting wobbly when the issues took a back-seat. The fact that Brown is too cheap and cruel to pitch in on his own employees' health care isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a regime where those employees don't have to rely on the goodwill of their bosses for affordable health-care. The fact that Brown breaks military policy by posing in his uniform for campaign materials isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a policy where the military isn't risking soldiers' lives by carrying out a dead-end mission in Afghanistan.
I personally find that the most effective thing in talking to voters is to stick to the issues. The message you send with your vote will be received that day. The consequences of your vote last two years. What consequences do you want?
| Topic | Coakley | Brown |
| Placing any limits on US government use of torture | Yes | No |
| Women's medical needs override personal beliefs of doctors | Yes | No |
| Returning tax rates of the rich to Reagan/JFK-era levels | Yes | No |
| Expanding health care coverage of Americans | Yes | No |
| Respecting entirety of Roe v Wade | Yes | No |
| Preserving equality in marriage | Yes | No |
The values of Attorney General Coakley are the values of the people of Massachusetts. This is the reality that Brown is trying to drown out with noise about his pickup truck and tender feelings. This is the reality that must be hammered home over the next 48 hours, top to bottom.
PS: Future studies of "what happened" would also do well to examine the decision to keep the Mass. Legislature in session over this period to discuss attempts to throttle labor rights in connection with Deval's education bill. Had all these folks been organizing, instead of defending the idea that contracts should be enforceable by law, how would things have gone differently?
Friday, January 15, 2010
I make the National Review!
For all the wrong reasons, of course. The Scott Brown subpage at National Review picked up my last post here (via BMG) as "When Massachusetts Democrats stop being polite and start getting real". My biggest exposure since DailyKos picked up on a sarcastic remark I made almost exactly one year ago. I guess I do my best writing in January.
I was pleased that the writer understood the tone I was attempting, although he indicated so with a dated cultural reference. Naturally, National Review was mendacious about what I said, claiming (without any supporting links) that the agenda promoted by Brown was prevailing public opinion. Of course, polling is against the excise tax on good health care plans and oppose the War in Iraq and believe we've done all we can there. But who reads NR for the truth.
The best part, of course, is in the last line. Unwilling to give anyone else the last word, the post ends with an attempt at flippancy:
A tip to this guy: it's tough to condescend if you can't spell a candidate's name right.
PS: Andrew Sullivan quotes my title, too. This should be my last blog post...I'm peaking.
I was pleased that the writer understood the tone I was attempting, although he indicated so with a dated cultural reference. Naturally, National Review was mendacious about what I said, claiming (without any supporting links) that the agenda promoted by Brown was prevailing public opinion. Of course, polling is against the excise tax on good health care plans and oppose the War in Iraq and believe we've done all we can there. But who reads NR for the truth.
The best part, of course, is in the last line. Unwilling to give anyone else the last word, the post ends with an attempt at flippancy:
With this kind of support for Coakely, who needs negative ads?
A tip to this guy: it's tough to condescend if you can't spell a candidate's name right.
PS: Andrew Sullivan quotes my title, too. This should be my last blog post...I'm peaking.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Suck it up: Vote Coakley
Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.
You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
sabutai :: Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.
Pissed? Me, too. Not just because I supported Mike Capuano. I'm frankly pissed about Washington, DC. Things are going very wrong -- President Obama was absent from the process as the public option was killed, and would rather tax public servants in the middle class with so-called "Cadillac health insurance" then ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Health care reform is heading toward a route where more money comes from the middle class, with about half going to people who need health care, and half going to the insurance companies. Oh, and Guantanamo is still open while American soldiers walk the streets in Baghdad and Kabul. Remember Employee Free Choice? Meanwhile, Harry Reid races to catch Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's farts on Capitol Hill.
But I don't think Senator Coakley wants to torture people, give the obscenely rich a tax refund, or tell a rape victim to hospital-shop until she can find the care she needs. Senator Brown does. And the right-wing, desperate to believe it's been forgotten how they ruthlessly dimmed America's power and pride over the last eight years, is pouring as much corporate money as possible onto our airwaves. Disciples of failure are already slavering over bullrushing one of their own into the Senate.
So suck it up and vote Coakley on Tuesday. If you stay home on Tuesday, and a smirking Jim DeMint puts his arm around Senator Brown next month, will you feel good about yourself? Will you take pride in your "message" when Tom Coburn assigns Scott Brown the task of maintaining the filibuster on any health care reform? When you see Scott Brown publicly wetting his pants over terrorists getting American justice, or the latest moron who fails in an inept plan to hurt our country, will you think "Yep, I'm the reason he's there to embarrass Massachusetts on the Senate floor."
I think some folks are already getting a message. The mortal scare the DC Dems are feeling this week about the voters of Massachusetts -- Massachusetts! -- considering walking away. They can read polls, and they realize what they've wrought. Maybe Reid, Nelson, heck even Obama needs a primary next time around, I don't know.
But nowhere on the ballot will be an option to send a message to DC. Your and my only choice is to send a Senator. And that Senator should be Martha Coakley.
(cross-posted on Blue Mass Group)
You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
sabutai :: Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.
Pissed? Me, too. Not just because I supported Mike Capuano. I'm frankly pissed about Washington, DC. Things are going very wrong -- President Obama was absent from the process as the public option was killed, and would rather tax public servants in the middle class with so-called "Cadillac health insurance" then ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Health care reform is heading toward a route where more money comes from the middle class, with about half going to people who need health care, and half going to the insurance companies. Oh, and Guantanamo is still open while American soldiers walk the streets in Baghdad and Kabul. Remember Employee Free Choice? Meanwhile, Harry Reid races to catch Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's farts on Capitol Hill.
But I don't think Senator Coakley wants to torture people, give the obscenely rich a tax refund, or tell a rape victim to hospital-shop until she can find the care she needs. Senator Brown does. And the right-wing, desperate to believe it's been forgotten how they ruthlessly dimmed America's power and pride over the last eight years, is pouring as much corporate money as possible onto our airwaves. Disciples of failure are already slavering over bullrushing one of their own into the Senate.
So suck it up and vote Coakley on Tuesday. If you stay home on Tuesday, and a smirking Jim DeMint puts his arm around Senator Brown next month, will you feel good about yourself? Will you take pride in your "message" when Tom Coburn assigns Scott Brown the task of maintaining the filibuster on any health care reform? When you see Scott Brown publicly wetting his pants over terrorists getting American justice, or the latest moron who fails in an inept plan to hurt our country, will you think "Yep, I'm the reason he's there to embarrass Massachusetts on the Senate floor."
I think some folks are already getting a message. The mortal scare the DC Dems are feeling this week about the voters of Massachusetts -- Massachusetts! -- considering walking away. They can read polls, and they realize what they've wrought. Maybe Reid, Nelson, heck even Obama needs a primary next time around, I don't know.
But nowhere on the ballot will be an option to send a message to DC. Your and my only choice is to send a Senator. And that Senator should be Martha Coakley.
(cross-posted on Blue Mass Group)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Collection of thoughts....
- It sure is strange to read high-profile blog posts and receive nationwide blast emails asking for help to move the vote in Massachusetts. After a lifetime of being taken for granted by American Democrats, it is a bit odd to be the receiver, not driver, of help. I'm not saying I want to be New Hampshire, where presidential candidates offer to scratch my a-- every day for two months, but it is nice.
- Fact is, though, Coakley's a rotten candidate. After accepting the primary victory, she (and her team) seem to have gone into hiding. I've gotten zero mail from her, and nothing on the phone. Then again, it says something for these high-charging political consultants that my cell number has been my sole number for over 5 years, and nobody in the political universe has gotten their hands on it yet.
- Obama lied to me. After promising not raise taxes on any family making under $250,000 Obama is backing a plan that would entail a tax hike. Obama backs a plan that would put a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac health care plans". My health care plan somehow qualifies, and my family makes less than a fifth of this $250,000 limit. Then again, my mistake must be in choosing public service that offers decent benefits to compensate for the low pay rate of qualified workers. I'd have been better off as one of those investment bankers who receive tender care from Obama.
- It's crap like that that's leaving Coakley on the ropes. That, and the whole not-campaigning thing.
- A local bank has come up with a cutesy campaign urging people to have a "game plan" for their retirement. The cutesy poster is accompanied by the traditional "x and o" format of a football play. Unfortunately for these geniuses, anyone the least bit versed in football recognizes the play as a Hail Mary -- the long-shot play you uncork only in desperate circumstances. Doesn't anyone in the banking world play Madden?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
What's next for Khazei?
Well, Tuesday came and went, surprising nobody who could read a poll. With a strong start, Coakley never looked back, had a tightly controlled campaign and cruised to the win for the Democratic Senate nomination by almost 20 points over a strong field. Although I supported Capuano, I've no doubt that Coakley would make an excellent Senator -- heck, it wasn't too long ago that I wanted her to run for governor.
Capuano will remain in the House, where he'll continue to be an unapologetic voice for liberalism, shouting into the wind of Republicans, and at times Democrats. It's kind of a win-win.
Pagliuca can just go back to doing whatever the idle rich do. Hopefully Rondo's jumper keeps improving.
I'm most interested in Alan Khazei's future. I won't hide that I found him rather under-qualified for the Senate job. At the same time, he did show a willingness to go through the painful campaign process, and eventually tamed his instinct to look down upon everyone else. He has many supporters, and with some more campaign seasoning, I think Khazei could have a great impact on the political life of this state. Although one has to take it with a grain of salt a week after the election, Khazei seems open to the idea, recently saying:
Fortunately, opportunities abound. The attorney general is resigning to run for senate, DeNucci will not run for re-election as auditor, Tim Cahill will leave as treasurer to run for governor, and rumors abound that Bill Galvin is quitting his post as secretary in order to run for Attorney General. This is a real logjam-break in the Bay State, opening up four elected offices for the first time in years...
Of those four offices, I think Khazei would be a particularly good fit in the post of Secretary. "Big Citizenship" seemed to be about involvement with the community, and political engagement is a focus of that job. He's got the right, strong instincts to push for maximal involvement in the process, starting with voting and moving beyond. Khazei certainly doesn't strike me as a numbers guy, and doesn't have the legal experience for AG. (Plus, we already have a good candidate in Steve Grossman for the treasurer's post.) I strongly hope that upon reflection, Khazei announces a run for the slot of secretary, giving Bill Galvin a primary if necessary.
All that said... there have been many progressives who enter a high-profile primary, lose, and then disappear. It's frankly quite disappointing, especially given that it's a common dictum that one has to run twice in politics to run once. I hope Khazei doesn't join that list of progressives in Massachusetts who run in a glamorous primary, only to abandon the process (and their apparent commitment to it) after losing once. He seems like too sincere a guy to do that. If Khazei runs in 2010 my vote will be his to lose. If he doesn't, it will just confirm my less positive suspicions that kept my vote from him in the first place.
Capuano will remain in the House, where he'll continue to be an unapologetic voice for liberalism, shouting into the wind of Republicans, and at times Democrats. It's kind of a win-win.
Pagliuca can just go back to doing whatever the idle rich do. Hopefully Rondo's jumper keeps improving.
I'm most interested in Alan Khazei's future. I won't hide that I found him rather under-qualified for the Senate job. At the same time, he did show a willingness to go through the painful campaign process, and eventually tamed his instinct to look down upon everyone else. He has many supporters, and with some more campaign seasoning, I think Khazei could have a great impact on the political life of this state. Although one has to take it with a grain of salt a week after the election, Khazei seems open to the idea, recently saying:
Would I rule out a future in politics? No. I was honored by it and I think I learned a lot.
Fortunately, opportunities abound. The attorney general is resigning to run for senate, DeNucci will not run for re-election as auditor, Tim Cahill will leave as treasurer to run for governor, and rumors abound that Bill Galvin is quitting his post as secretary in order to run for Attorney General. This is a real logjam-break in the Bay State, opening up four elected offices for the first time in years...
Of those four offices, I think Khazei would be a particularly good fit in the post of Secretary. "Big Citizenship" seemed to be about involvement with the community, and political engagement is a focus of that job. He's got the right, strong instincts to push for maximal involvement in the process, starting with voting and moving beyond. Khazei certainly doesn't strike me as a numbers guy, and doesn't have the legal experience for AG. (Plus, we already have a good candidate in Steve Grossman for the treasurer's post.) I strongly hope that upon reflection, Khazei announces a run for the slot of secretary, giving Bill Galvin a primary if necessary.
All that said... there have been many progressives who enter a high-profile primary, lose, and then disappear. It's frankly quite disappointing, especially given that it's a common dictum that one has to run twice in politics to run once. I hope Khazei doesn't join that list of progressives in Massachusetts who run in a glamorous primary, only to abandon the process (and their apparent commitment to it) after losing once. He seems like too sincere a guy to do that. If Khazei runs in 2010 my vote will be his to lose. If he doesn't, it will just confirm my less positive suspicions that kept my vote from him in the first place.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Mike Capuano: A Sure Bet, A Liberal Lion
The primary of the decade shook out to an embarrassment of riches before us in Massachusetts: three unabashed liberals are running for the Senate. Attorney General Martha Coakley, Alan Khazei, and Congressman Mike Capuano are united in holding mature, articulated liberal policies and a record of public involvement. Democrats in many states would love to have any one of these as a serious candidate for a Senate seat. In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of knowing that two of them will continue to live out their values in creating policy as public officials, and the hope that the third will join them. This wonderful choice has led to indecision -- how to pick between so many great choices? Many well-informed voters still shift between these choices because they're so good.
I can only speak for myself. I'm the type of guy who, on "Let's Make A Deal", will take the luxury automobile on offer, rather than the off chance that there may be two luxury automobiles behind curtain number two. I like a sure bet. I'll gamble when I must, and I'll pick the most likely of two unsure bets. I was willing when I supported Ed O'Reilly over John Kerry. But this time, I don't have to gamble. I'll have a sure thing on the ballot next Tuesday. A lock.
If there is a sure bet in politics, it's that Mike Capuano will stand up for liberal, progressive values. Why is this a sure bet? Because he already has, even when such a stand stood to cost him. Capuano stood for civil liberties against a full-court bullying for the Patriot Act. A hysterical media and Beltway screamed that the Constitution had to be shredded and anyone who disagreed was not really American. Capuano stood for smart and successful public education against a full-court bullying for the No Child Left Behind Act. A President Bush desperate for a domestic policy achievement threw the kitchen sink at it and anyone who disagreed hated children. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for a wise foreign policy against a full-court bullying for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We were told to trust the president and anyone who disagreed loved terrorists. Capuano stood for our values.
Capuano was the rare leader who lifted the flame of liberalism when the media and the GOP wielded an extinguisher and most Democrats dove for the shadows. He stood for Democratic values when so few would. Capuano didn't do this at dinner parties or private conversations away from sight, but in the unblinking eye of the media. Over this campaign, Capuano hasn't had to explain what he woulda done...he merely has to point to what he did. He's a sure bet.
Capuano roared loud for the beliefs of Massachusetts progressives in the bleakest times. He still does. As did Ted Kennedy, Capuano is immovable for what is right, unbending on what is wise, and forthright -- too forthright for Lieberman delicates -- for the values we have as Democrats.
A liberal vote in the Senate? We have three decent choices. But another liberal lion in the Senate? Mike Capuano's a sure bet.
Capuano is a liberal lion. He has earned the lion's seat.
I can only speak for myself. I'm the type of guy who, on "Let's Make A Deal", will take the luxury automobile on offer, rather than the off chance that there may be two luxury automobiles behind curtain number two. I like a sure bet. I'll gamble when I must, and I'll pick the most likely of two unsure bets. I was willing when I supported Ed O'Reilly over John Kerry. But this time, I don't have to gamble. I'll have a sure thing on the ballot next Tuesday. A lock.
If there is a sure bet in politics, it's that Mike Capuano will stand up for liberal, progressive values. Why is this a sure bet? Because he already has, even when such a stand stood to cost him. Capuano stood for civil liberties against a full-court bullying for the Patriot Act. A hysterical media and Beltway screamed that the Constitution had to be shredded and anyone who disagreed was not really American. Capuano stood for smart and successful public education against a full-court bullying for the No Child Left Behind Act. A President Bush desperate for a domestic policy achievement threw the kitchen sink at it and anyone who disagreed hated children. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for a wise foreign policy against a full-court bullying for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We were told to trust the president and anyone who disagreed loved terrorists. Capuano stood for our values.
Capuano was the rare leader who lifted the flame of liberalism when the media and the GOP wielded an extinguisher and most Democrats dove for the shadows. He stood for Democratic values when so few would. Capuano didn't do this at dinner parties or private conversations away from sight, but in the unblinking eye of the media. Over this campaign, Capuano hasn't had to explain what he woulda done...he merely has to point to what he did. He's a sure bet.
Capuano roared loud for the beliefs of Massachusetts progressives in the bleakest times. He still does. As did Ted Kennedy, Capuano is immovable for what is right, unbending on what is wise, and forthright -- too forthright for Lieberman delicates -- for the values we have as Democrats.
A liberal vote in the Senate? We have three decent choices. But another liberal lion in the Senate? Mike Capuano's a sure bet.
Capuano is a liberal lion. He has earned the lion's seat.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A process, not a product
Remember back in the dark days of the Bush presidency, when most progressives would have given anything to make a public health-care regime happen? Yeah, now that we're there, the tune has changed. With an initial bill -- not even near final bill status -- to read, people are hitting the brakes. People I admire (the indefatigable Deb Butler, and Martha Coakley) are finding this or that provision that is disagreeable in the bill, and declaring that the whole thing should be shot down. Perhaps we'll do better next time we try, which would probably be around 2027 or so...
Go ahead and knife the current effort if you want, but if this bill is killed don't expect anyone to try again for a while. Obama has expended gigantic amounts of political capital on this and needs to build some up. Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are some of the sharpest vote-counters since LBJ. The ombre of Ted Kennedy still hangs over Congress. In the wake of a failed attempt at reform, there'll be many more Republicans in Congress come 2011. Right now is the moment -- if we don't take it, it will not return probably for a generation.
Health care reform is a process, not a product. Canada passed its current health care regime into law in 1984, and they still tinker with it almost weekly. The CBC has mountains of reports of health care improvements, studies, and reports. Canada's system is a work in progress, and so would our system be. Don't doubt that in two years, before the health care system is actually implemented, that Stupak would be lasered out of the system by a smart bill weaving through a pro-choice Congress. Don't be surprised that in four years defects will appear in the system that will need shoring up.
It's a work in progress, if we get there. But first we need something to work on, and that "something" is this bill. Because righteous indignation ain't gonna take care of your cancer when you can't afford a doctor; this bill will.
Go ahead and knife the current effort if you want, but if this bill is killed don't expect anyone to try again for a while. Obama has expended gigantic amounts of political capital on this and needs to build some up. Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are some of the sharpest vote-counters since LBJ. The ombre of Ted Kennedy still hangs over Congress. In the wake of a failed attempt at reform, there'll be many more Republicans in Congress come 2011. Right now is the moment -- if we don't take it, it will not return probably for a generation.
Health care reform is a process, not a product. Canada passed its current health care regime into law in 1984, and they still tinker with it almost weekly. The CBC has mountains of reports of health care improvements, studies, and reports. Canada's system is a work in progress, and so would our system be. Don't doubt that in two years, before the health care system is actually implemented, that Stupak would be lasered out of the system by a smart bill weaving through a pro-choice Congress. Don't be surprised that in four years defects will appear in the system that will need shoring up.
It's a work in progress, if we get there. But first we need something to work on, and that "something" is this bill. Because righteous indignation ain't gonna take care of your cancer when you can't afford a doctor; this bill will.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Coakley on "kill the bill" side
Martha Coakley does deserve credit, I suppose. Rather than run a play-it-safe campaign typical of a front-runners, I have to agree with Massachusetts Liberal that Coakley certainly embraced risk by saying she'd have voted against the health care reform bill. Her vote isn't against health care reform, but rather the Stupak Amendment that would prohibit funding of abortion as part of this system:
Meanwhile, the bill which it amended would open access to health care to an unprecedented extent in American history. It would slide through a narrow, historic, window of political opportunity -- a Democratic President and Congress spending massive political capital to enact an idea that is standard practice in the industrialized world and was first proposed in this country in 1912. Millions of people would have the access to prevetitive and theraputic care they need.
Let's be clear about this -- a no vote on this health care package in the House would have killed health care reform for another generation. Bill Clinton didn't even get that far and it was 16 years before someone took a kick at the can. Voters who elected Democrats to make it happen would be disillusioned, and the next window of opportunity would likely be in the far future. Instead, Coakley would sacrifice it in the name of abortion access at the same vote when battle-hardened Democratic women such as Maxine Waters kept the push on. I suppose in Coakley's ideal world she could stand on these principles while hard-charging activists for women's rights fold in the name of progress.
I could almost understand Coakley's statement were this the final vote on the bill. But with health care reform still to go through the Senate and conference (where the Stupak Amendment is likely to die) it is a bit early to finish off the bill. Again, this is the furthest that a public health care regime has ever gotten, and I'm amazed that Coakley would be ready to kill it so far from the finish line. It's like giving up on a losing football game at halftime, and refusing to retake the field.
Update: Mike Capuano is showing his experience in Congress by refusing to announce how he'll vote on the final bill...possibly because the final bill doesn't exist yet. Capuano, unlike Coakley, did what he could and what he had to do in order to advance health care to the next -- not final -- stage. For this high-stakes high-wire act, promises are best made by those uninterested or powerless over the consequences. With Capuano, the fight for health care lives another day. With too many like Coakley, it would be dead.
PS: At the end of the day, I think it comes down to not just what is more important (better access to abortion, or any access to health care for millions) but what is more likely (a pro-choice Congress and president building abortion provision into the system post facto, or getting a second go at heath care this decade).
Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.She explained her judgment that
Fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill.The Stupak Amendment wouldn't end access to abortions, though it would probably narrow it. Abortion providers (such as Planned Parenthood facilities) could still offer the procedure in private practice under the Stupak-ed reform. Given that many Midwestern states count less than half a dozen abortion providers, that practice is already under threat. The end result would be fewer, and less accessible abortion providers.
Meanwhile, the bill which it amended would open access to health care to an unprecedented extent in American history. It would slide through a narrow, historic, window of political opportunity -- a Democratic President and Congress spending massive political capital to enact an idea that is standard practice in the industrialized world and was first proposed in this country in 1912. Millions of people would have the access to prevetitive and theraputic care they need.
Let's be clear about this -- a no vote on this health care package in the House would have killed health care reform for another generation. Bill Clinton didn't even get that far and it was 16 years before someone took a kick at the can. Voters who elected Democrats to make it happen would be disillusioned, and the next window of opportunity would likely be in the far future. Instead, Coakley would sacrifice it in the name of abortion access at the same vote when battle-hardened Democratic women such as Maxine Waters kept the push on. I suppose in Coakley's ideal world she could stand on these principles while hard-charging activists for women's rights fold in the name of progress.
I could almost understand Coakley's statement were this the final vote on the bill. But with health care reform still to go through the Senate and conference (where the Stupak Amendment is likely to die) it is a bit early to finish off the bill. Again, this is the furthest that a public health care regime has ever gotten, and I'm amazed that Coakley would be ready to kill it so far from the finish line. It's like giving up on a losing football game at halftime, and refusing to retake the field.
Update: Mike Capuano is showing his experience in Congress by refusing to announce how he'll vote on the final bill...possibly because the final bill doesn't exist yet. Capuano, unlike Coakley, did what he could and what he had to do in order to advance health care to the next -- not final -- stage. For this high-stakes high-wire act, promises are best made by those uninterested or powerless over the consequences. With Capuano, the fight for health care lives another day. With too many like Coakley, it would be dead.
PS: At the end of the day, I think it comes down to not just what is more important (better access to abortion, or any access to health care for millions) but what is more likely (a pro-choice Congress and president building abortion provision into the system post facto, or getting a second go at heath care this decade).
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Return of the "angry" liberal Democrat
Little to surprise one in last night's Senatorial debate. Would-be and could-be Senators Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley staked out similar policy ground and different approaches while chasing Democratic Bay Staters' votes. Coakley was clipped as is her wont, and Capuano was bombastic as is his.
A lot of commentary saw the debate as largely a draw, doing nothing to alter Coakley's comfortable lead. What did catch me unawares last night was the decision of many commentators to recycle a favorite epithet for an honest, liberal Democrat: "angry". Joan Vennochi used it in a phrase of punditry quintessence: "Why is Representative Michael Capuano so angry?" No proof offered, just a wild stab masquerading as an opinion. Politico joins in, labeling Capuano as a "borderline angry personality". With synchronicity, supporters of Coakley's rival rush in -- the blogosphere is littered with Coakley boosters who labeled Capuano as "angry".
After all, what is there to be angry about in the Senate? Afghanistan? Iraq? An economy that fails anybody who isn't a millionaire? The current strategy of dealing with education through ignorant platitudes and energy with...well, nothing? Joe "Filibuster" Lieberman?
This ridiculous name-calling bugged me for a few hours until it found its mate in memory -- the attacks on Howard Dean for being angry, by watery pundits and Kerry-lovers back in 2004. This 2003 Time article is a perfect representation of the media' pearl-clutching -- are Democrats ready for an angry nominee??!? Kerry jumped on his opportunity, salting his primary stump speech with the phrase "don't just send people a message...send them a President". Kerry doesn't indulge in anger...he's presidential according to everyone but the voters. I wrote back in 2004:
Here we are, five years later. We're still in Iraq. Our economy is still being run by the rich, if not for the rich. Harry Reid had to be bullied by "angry" Democrats such as Chuck Schumer to put a public option in his health care bill. John Kerry isn't president. Howard Dean was right about pretty much everything.
Another thing that hasn't changed are these faint-hearted observers and name-callers. Take honest liberal values, and combine them with a well-built male. This progressive big guy (Dean was a high school wrestler) starts talking plainly about the state of our union, and the delicates whimper at their "anger". They prefer the dispassion coolness that handed Kerry a loss and handed Patrick a 34% re-elect (true, this works for Obama, but everything works for that guy...Coakley and Kerry are not Obama).
And frankly, what Capuano and Dean offer isn't even anger but righteous passion. Perhaps some sheltered folks find passion scary if it comes from a tall guy with broad shoulders, I don't know. Heaven knows how they'd react if the tall, broad-shouldered guy were African-American as well (no chance of getting their vote). There are plenty of good reasons to dislike a politician, but the fact that he's squarely built and cares about the country is not one of them at all. Sure, Dean and Capuano are unafraid of a fight...but that's only a problem if you plan on being on the other side.
And if you plan on standing opposite Mike Capuano on a regular basis, you shouldn't even be voting in a Democratic primary.
Hey, you know who doesn't show any real passion about injustice? Charlie Baker. Vote for him, maybe he's more your speed.
A lot of commentary saw the debate as largely a draw, doing nothing to alter Coakley's comfortable lead. What did catch me unawares last night was the decision of many commentators to recycle a favorite epithet for an honest, liberal Democrat: "angry". Joan Vennochi used it in a phrase of punditry quintessence: "Why is Representative Michael Capuano so angry?" No proof offered, just a wild stab masquerading as an opinion. Politico joins in, labeling Capuano as a "borderline angry personality". With synchronicity, supporters of Coakley's rival rush in -- the blogosphere is littered with Coakley boosters who labeled Capuano as "angry".
After all, what is there to be angry about in the Senate? Afghanistan? Iraq? An economy that fails anybody who isn't a millionaire? The current strategy of dealing with education through ignorant platitudes and energy with...well, nothing? Joe "Filibuster" Lieberman?
This ridiculous name-calling bugged me for a few hours until it found its mate in memory -- the attacks on Howard Dean for being angry, by watery pundits and Kerry-lovers back in 2004. This 2003 Time article is a perfect representation of the media' pearl-clutching -- are Democrats ready for an angry nominee??!? Kerry jumped on his opportunity, salting his primary stump speech with the phrase "don't just send people a message...send them a President". Kerry doesn't indulge in anger...he's presidential according to everyone but the voters. I wrote back in 2004:
I'm tired of Democrats being 'concerned' about the economy being run by the rich for the rich. I'm tired of them being 'troubled' about the rape of our Constitution. I'm sick of them being 'bothered' by the needless killing fields in Iraq. I am tired of the leaders of my party being 'worried' about what's happening to our country. I am way past 'concerned' or 'troubled' -- I'm pissed and I'm glad to see that somebody running for president is pissed too.
Here we are, five years later. We're still in Iraq. Our economy is still being run by the rich, if not for the rich. Harry Reid had to be bullied by "angry" Democrats such as Chuck Schumer to put a public option in his health care bill. John Kerry isn't president. Howard Dean was right about pretty much everything.
Another thing that hasn't changed are these faint-hearted observers and name-callers. Take honest liberal values, and combine them with a well-built male. This progressive big guy (Dean was a high school wrestler) starts talking plainly about the state of our union, and the delicates whimper at their "anger". They prefer the dispassion coolness that handed Kerry a loss and handed Patrick a 34% re-elect (true, this works for Obama, but everything works for that guy...Coakley and Kerry are not Obama).
And frankly, what Capuano and Dean offer isn't even anger but righteous passion. Perhaps some sheltered folks find passion scary if it comes from a tall guy with broad shoulders, I don't know. Heaven knows how they'd react if the tall, broad-shouldered guy were African-American as well (no chance of getting their vote). There are plenty of good reasons to dislike a politician, but the fact that he's squarely built and cares about the country is not one of them at all. Sure, Dean and Capuano are unafraid of a fight...but that's only a problem if you plan on being on the other side.
And if you plan on standing opposite Mike Capuano on a regular basis, you shouldn't even be voting in a Democratic primary.
Hey, you know who doesn't show any real passion about injustice? Charlie Baker. Vote for him, maybe he's more your speed.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Capuano stronger on education
I was thrilled to recently learn that Representative Capuano had voted against George W. Bush's attempt at education policy, the No Child Left Behind law back in 2001. Capuano became one of only 45 representatives to stand against this law. On the heels of becoming one of only 2 representatives to vote "present" on a motion to "Support Charter Schools Week" in 2001, Capuano really had his priorities straight back then.
His explanation last month for the 2001 vote is reported in the Globe:
I was impressed with Capuano's prescience, and was ready to firmly throw in with him. I was looking forward to reading his remarks in the Congressional Record about the law, only the find...nothing. While I am disappointed that he remained mute on the House floor during the debate, I cannot question Capuano's understanding of education on this bill, given his 2001 op-ed piece in the Globe which showed his understanding of the nature of this law:
I came into this race leaning toward Martha Coakley. However, her issues page remains silent on education, and a follow-up inquiry elicited this response:
NCLB is about to blow up, as the stated goal of making every child magically proficient in reading and math by 2014 hits reality. The US Senate will be part of the reaction to reality, and on that vote I'd rather have a strong, knowledgeable Senator such as Michael Capuano than someone measuring the winds.
His explanation last month for the 2001 vote is reported in the Globe:
Capuano and other critics say the metrics are unfair and unfunded."I voted against it, because there was no money in there for you guys to do the things we were telling you to do," he said, prompting enthusiastic applause.
I was impressed with Capuano's prescience, and was ready to firmly throw in with him. I was looking forward to reading his remarks in the Congressional Record about the law, only the find...nothing. While I am disappointed that he remained mute on the House floor during the debate, I cannot question Capuano's understanding of education on this bill, given his 2001 op-ed piece in the Globe which showed his understanding of the nature of this law:
This is frankly an article that President Obama, Secretary Duncan, and Governor Patrick should be forced to read. Capuano understands not only the fiscally debilitating implications of the bill on schools, but the sheer injustice of private/charter/religious receiving a full helping of public education funding with very little of the attendant responsibilities. Let me be clear: I am not ready to see Rep. Capuano as a leader on education issues: he's been rather silent in Congress on education. It's a lot to take a person on faith based on very few votes. However, if the Senate finds itself needing a leader to emerge on this issue, I think and hope that Senators Begich and Capuano are the best hope for a smart policy.The president promises substance and accountability. He proposes to measure a school's success through annual testing of all students, Grades 3 through 8, in math and reading. But what will his high-stakes tests really accomplish?
Such tests force schools to drill students in test-taking strategies and emphasize rote memorization. Less time is available to teach children to read, write, and calculate. Less time is available to teach them to think critically, to ask questions and seek answers. Is this the education we really want?
Reading further, you learn that the president would permit any student from a school that tests poorly to take $1,500 of Title I funding out of the failing school and transfer it to another school. ... This would accelerate the downward spiral and leave those who remain significantly worse off: 36 subsidized, 414 harmed.
...
What about the private schools that would receive Title I funds? Must they offer classes for special needs children? Can they demand religious conversion? Who will review their curriculum? We already know they won't be held accountable - the president's plan exempts private schools from his high-stakes testing.
And what about justice? Even if we exclude schools that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender, no private school accepts every applicant, and all can expel at will. So who remains in public schools? Children with disabilities, children with developmental problems, children from families where homework is not checked. The neediest and most troubled children - those who most need our help and cost the most to educate - will not disappear. Maybe President Bush should call his proposal "Leave some children behind."
I came into this race leaning toward Martha Coakley. However, her issues page remains silent on education, and a follow-up inquiry elicited this response:
In the next few weeks, the Attorney General's position on education will be posted on her website.I can't help thinking that the primary election will be over "in the next few weeks". Right now, it looks as if she's ducking the issue. On education, Capuano is clearly emerging as the more progressive candidate on education. While I am still uneasy about what his attack mentality, and refusal to enter the race without permission from the Kennedy family say about his ideas of leadership, Capuano's grasp of education issues is heartening.
NCLB is about to blow up, as the stated goal of making every child magically proficient in reading and math by 2014 hits reality. The US Senate will be part of the reaction to reality, and on that vote I'd rather have a strong, knowledgeable Senator such as Michael Capuano than someone measuring the winds.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Genuine indecision
Si, it'll be Coakley vs. Capuano for the Senate (plus some millionaire and an aspiring Axelrod clone).
On the Axelrod metrics -- "leadership", "optimism", "judgment" and all those other feel-good subjective impressions that don't tell you a damn about how a candidate will actually govern -- I prefer Coakley. She has a better way of talking to people and listening. In rare and brief personal encounters, she always struck me as a thinker with an ability to look beyond the next re-election campaign. I imagine that she'd be effective in the insular Senate world. However, the only issue on her website is health care, so I have no idea how she'd act on education or foreign policy, my top two issues. I can't commit to anyone who keeps those kind of secrets.
On the other hand is Capuano, who does mention non-health care issues, but also ignores education. Capuano has been in Congress for ten years, and I can't think of anything he's done. Sure he gives good speeches on all the good things and often joins with other groups of people, but I haven't seen much from him in the way of leadership. Plus, his very first press conference as a candidate included a needless attack on Coakley. I realize he'll have to throw some slime to bring down her astronomical favorables, but being unable to wait a single day shows a lack of class.
I think Coakley would be a slightly more effective Senator, but I don't know what issues and positions she'd be effective moving. I want to support her, but have no reason to -- and reason to wonder if Capuano might be a better pick. So as of now I'm genuinely undecided. Anyone else in the same boat?
On the Axelrod metrics -- "leadership", "optimism", "judgment" and all those other feel-good subjective impressions that don't tell you a damn about how a candidate will actually govern -- I prefer Coakley. She has a better way of talking to people and listening. In rare and brief personal encounters, she always struck me as a thinker with an ability to look beyond the next re-election campaign. I imagine that she'd be effective in the insular Senate world. However, the only issue on her website is health care, so I have no idea how she'd act on education or foreign policy, my top two issues. I can't commit to anyone who keeps those kind of secrets.
On the other hand is Capuano, who does mention non-health care issues, but also ignores education. Capuano has been in Congress for ten years, and I can't think of anything he's done. Sure he gives good speeches on all the good things and often joins with other groups of people, but I haven't seen much from him in the way of leadership. Plus, his very first press conference as a candidate included a needless attack on Coakley. I realize he'll have to throw some slime to bring down her astronomical favorables, but being unable to wait a single day shows a lack of class.
I think Coakley would be a slightly more effective Senator, but I don't know what issues and positions she'd be effective moving. I want to support her, but have no reason to -- and reason to wonder if Capuano might be a better pick. So as of now I'm genuinely undecided. Anyone else in the same boat?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
It dawns on me...
...if Martha Coakley wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, she should probably have some ideas on foreign policy, national security, and education on her website. It's been three days since her declaration, and nothing.
I want to support her for Senate. In Axelrodian terms, she has all the intangibles of charisma and attitude that I look for. However, I'm no "hope and change" sucker, and I need to see some attention and principles on the issues before I fall in love and fall in line.
I want to support her for Senate. In Axelrodian terms, she has all the intangibles of charisma and attitude that I look for. However, I'm no "hope and change" sucker, and I need to see some attention and principles on the issues before I fall in love and fall in line.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
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.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The finest leader in Mass.
Martha Coakley:
Huge bonus points for any gubernatorial candidate who publicly declares support for this lawsuit. If any of them, perhaps the lawyers, files an amicus curae, I'll be delighted.
PS: I'm not looking forward to the depths of depravity that Obama's Department of Justice will go to defend this law.
PPS: One thing that stands about blog coverage of this -- the Massachusetts set is ignoring Coakley's leadership in filing this suit, while the national folks put her name all over it. Coakley (like Terry Murray) usually gets underestimated and under-credited by progressive bloggers in the Bay State, so this is no surprise, but passive-voice headlines "Lawsuit against DOMA filed by Massachusetts" are a slap in the face of the Attorney General. Imagine the hagiography we'd have seen had Deval Patrick sent a press release about the case.
The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004.This is real leadership. Looking at the depressing specter of a gubernatorial race featuring an HMO penny-pincher, Obama's understudy, a failed Democrat, and a bombastic Cianci-lite, it's nice to see that somebody can show leadership in this state. Coakley is showing what she's made of here, and continuing the recent tradition of the Massachusetts AG standing for what's right against the federal government, tobacco companies, and even Microsoft.
The federal law interferes with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage," according to the suit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law "overreaching and discriminatory."
Huge bonus points for any gubernatorial candidate who publicly declares support for this lawsuit. If any of them, perhaps the lawyers, files an amicus curae, I'll be delighted.
PS: I'm not looking forward to the depths of depravity that Obama's Department of Justice will go to defend this law.
PPS: One thing that stands about blog coverage of this -- the Massachusetts set is ignoring Coakley's leadership in filing this suit, while the national folks put her name all over it. Coakley (like Terry Murray) usually gets underestimated and under-credited by progressive bloggers in the Bay State, so this is no surprise, but passive-voice headlines "Lawsuit against DOMA filed by Massachusetts" are a slap in the face of the Attorney General. Imagine the hagiography we'd have seen had Deval Patrick sent a press release about the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
