I have to admit, I’m stunned — not at the decision itself, but that it has to be made:
With only $51,644 in his account after a year of campaigning, Warren was expected to send an e-mail to his supporters Thursday morning explaining that he did not have the resources to take on the popular Republican, who has a $7.9 million campaign account and consistently high standing in public polls.
“We took a hard look at the numbers and what it would take to run a winning campaign against the incumbent governor,’’ Warren said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “I just saw the challenge was insurmountable, based on the ability to raise the money and the resources.”
The money situation is just untenable, I get that. People have to get paid; ads have to be bought, mailers printed, etc. But I’ve simply never felt that the political situation was impossible: Charlie Baker’s enduring and broad popularity seems impenetrable — he gets mild to strong support even from Democrats. He certainly gains from a favorable comparison to the President, which is not saying much at all. But then (for example) you get this, from MassINC Polling:
Baker ought to be vulnerable. That’s not even an exceptional statement about any politician, but as a transit user and a climate-aware person, to me his shortcomings are especially acute. Massachusetts is doing OK in many respects — cruising on the bolder leadership of past eras — but faces vast challenges of climate readiness and energy transformation; transportation; housing; economic inequality; health care costs; institutional racism; and on and on. Baker doesn’t boldly or even adequately lead on any of these. I don’t think he deserves the support of Democrats. I think a Democratic governor — any of the candidates — would be a lot better.
But even though I don’t understand or agree with Baker’s popularity, I can’t really dispute its legitimacy. People think what they think. But $7.9 million to $50K … that’s tough. Regardless of the polls, you can stay in a race if you have money.
Forget about Democratic politics for a moment; this moment is just bad for accountable government.
scout says
Disappointing, but it’s not exactly news that you need to raise many millions to run for Gov.
SomervilleTom says
We see again how thoroughly the 0.1% owns our government.
It pains me to say this as much as anyone here, and yet it remains true: the money HAS to come from somewhere.
We are in a catch-22 — we progressives cannot win elections without money. When we create circular firing squads around each Democrat that is able to raise money because they are able to raise money, we guarantee that we will continue to lose.
FDR was from an aristocratic moneyed family. JFK was from the family that epitomized wealth. I think it is entirely appropriate to demand that every candidate reflect our progressive values. I think it is dangerously inappropriate to disqualify and attack candidates solely because they are wealthy or because they attract wealthy donors.
Like it or not, the demise of the Setti Warren campaign shows that we need wealthy donors at least until we reverse Citizens United.
tedf says
I agree with your basic point that candidates need money to run and win and that it’s wrong to reject a candidate just because he or she is wealthy or has wealthy donors.
That said, I don’t think the point here is that Warren didn’t attract enough rich people. There are 1.5 million registered Democrats in the Commonwealth. The money gap was $8 million (okay, $7.85 million). If each Democrat gave $10, Warren would have twice as much on hand as Baker. If each Democrat gave $5, the money race would be even. If just a fraction of Democrats gave very small donations, Warren could have hung in there. So I don’t think we can make this about wealthy donors. Warren failed to attract small donations in any appreciable number.
doubleman says
Yes. Other Warren isn’t having that problem.
Was Setti Warren not trying to hit up wealthy Newton donors for his campaign? I assume he was trying that and it wasn’t working. Same for Gonzalez and Massie. None of them are inspiring large donors or small donors.
There are many things happening in this race and although I don’t think any candidate is incredible nor any campaign firing on all cylinders, I think there are failures with the party, the press, and elsewhere that’s contributing to choking out these campaigns.
A mediocre Democratic leadership either apathetic to any Democrat or tacitly supporting Baker (like Marty Walsh playing coy with the press until only a couple months ago about who he would support for governor). A thoroughly pathetic local press who barely covers the race nor covers any shortcomings of the Baker administration, of which there are many. Some downright good politicking by the administration over the past few years. They have done just enough on many issues that they’ve neutralized many issue-oriented groups on the progressive end of things. Some of those groups may even endorse Baker, and many are scared to come out against him for fear of upsetting some of their wealthy donors or being locked out from the administration in the future. There’s also just the general feeling that energy and resources would be better spent elsewhere. I disagree with that, but I know lots of people feel that way.
To his credit, Baker has done a decent job avoiding scandal and also avoiding doing anything important. With that, an economy doing alright, and a nightmare in Washington, the climb was always going to be tough for a challenger. He’s also done a good job separating from Trump, which many Democrats are happy to indulge. The Republican party at all levels is horrendous and shouldn’t get the support of any Democrats. I don’t know why people want to think “no, these guys are different” when those guys are still raising money for the party. Baker raised money for a party that funded Roy Moore – I don’t care if Baker said the party should have not supported Moore. If you still carry that R in 2018, you’re part of the problem.
SomervilleTom says
I didn’t say that Setti Warren didn’t “attract enough rich people”.
I encourage each of you to refresh your memory of what we’re talking about:
Tedf argues against himself with this:
The point is in this statewide race, the 1.5 million registered Democrats in the Commonwealth actually gave an average of less than a nickel ($0.034) each. We don’t have the data about where Mr. Baker’s money comes from, but according to sites like this, there were about 0.5M registered Republicans in MA at the end of 2017.
That means that the average contribution for each registered GOP voter is about $15 (compared to $0.03 per Democrat). The “small money” theory suggests that GOP voters are on average 500 times more generous than Democratic voters, or that Charlie Baker is 500 times better than Setti Warren at getting GOP voters to give.
Which do we think is more likely:
1. Charlie Baker is five hundred times better than Setti Warren at getting voters registered in his party to give small amounts
2. Charlie Baker and the MA GOP has more deep-pocketed big donors than Setti Warren and the MA Democratic Party
3. The other Democratic candidates will be five hundred times better than Setti Warren at getting registered Democrats to give $5 or $10 each
4. Charlie Baker will walk away with an easy win because Democrats don’t find a way to fund even a modestly competitive campaign.
In my view, this epitomizes magical thinking. If we Democrats want to win elections, we must find a way to fund our candidates. Attacking each candidate because our favorite small-money ideology doesn’t work strikes me as prescription for continued defeat.
@doubleman: Of course the “other Warren” doesn’t have this problem.
Ms. Warren is a high-profile incumbent in a national office with high visibility and receives donations from a nationwide pool — she is not a mostly-unknown challenger in a statewide race
From your own link, I note the following (emphasis mine):
So Mr. Kingston has collected $200K from other donors. That’s about four times the total collected by Mr. Warren. Do you think Mr. Kingston got that $200K from a large number of small donations from voters who dislike Ms. Warren, or do you think he perhaps solicited and received larger donations from sources with deeper pockets?
Nobody likes war. No sane person likes shooting people with guns or dropping bombs on cities. Nevertheless, America won WWII because we did that anyway.
Nobody likes depending on big donors. Nevertheless, if we are to change the way our government operates, we must win some elections.
I think we need to keep ALL our options on the table to accomplish that. I think we need to stop attacking our people and their supporters because they are good at raising large amounts of money.
tedf says
My point was just: you need to raise money; if you can’t get big donors, you’d better get small donors. If you can’t excite either, you probably need to drop out.
SomervilleTom says
I guess we agree.
I think we need ALL donors, so long as the contributions are intended to support and advance the vision and values that we share.
The money has to come from somewhere.
johntmay says
There is a book by Dr. Shankar Basu, fomer President and CEO of Toyota Material Handling USA, and a friend of mine. It’s titled “Corporate Purpose – how it matters more than strategy”.
There is more in the book than I can put into one post, but to the point that “the money has to come from somewhere” he writes that while Toyota (in this case) needs to turn a profit to pay its workers and pays its bills, that has to be a small part of the equation and that corporate purpose, if pursued properly, will generate enough profit.
If our candidates have the right message, the right purpose, the money will come from somewhere.
doubleman says
I really don’t understand your point. Has anyone attacked Warren or Gonzalez or Massie about going after rich donors? I haven’t seen it. These candidates can’t raise enough money from ANY sources. You made a charge that circling firing squads attacking candidates courting rich donors is the problem, but there’s no evidence of that being the case for Warren ending his campaign.
Of your choices, the most likely is #4, and I think there are a lot of things feeding that, and it’s not just finding funding. All of the candidates have low name recognition, don’t have developed bases of support (for funding or votes), aren’t terribly inspiring, and I don’t think any have hit on the right message of why they are running or why Baker needs to be fired. But also, as I said above, are also trying to get Democratic leadership to pay some attention to this race, fighting for news coverage among our awful local options (the large ones anyway), and we’re in a national landscape that makes this race seem less important. If other candidates were running, I think they could overcome some of this issues – like if Maura Healey was running, she’d be sitting on millions right now, no question.
I do think the party is failing in this race, and has generally failed with Baker. That the legislative super duper majority has only overridden his veto once, and to give themselves raises, is such an embarrassment. High profile Dems seem more interested in being Baker’s friend than moving the ball on important issues. In this state, with these majorities, a Republican governor should have to come to the legislature absolutely begging to get any movement on their agenda.
And the major Dem donors? They probably like Baker. He won’t mess with them on taxes and won’t do anything too bad on many easier social issues. They don’t give a crap about Medicaid or issues of inequality.
bob-gardner says
“I think we need to keep ALL our options on the table to accomplish that. ”
Surely, you’re not serious, Tom. ALL options?
SomervilleTom says
What clarification do you seek?
Is it easier if I say “… ALL legal options…”?
bob-gardner says
Do you advocate actions that are legal but do damage to democracy.? Like a legally surreptitious campaign to discourage voters that would vote against us?
SomervilleTom says
Of course not.
Here’s what I wrote (emphasis here):
Is some part of that emphasized phrase unclear?
bob-gardner says
Not so much unclear as naive in the extreme. If the “visions and values we share” include getting big money out of politics, injecting big money into our politics pretty much nullifies that part of our vision and values.
SomervilleTom says
I just disagree with you.
We aren’t “injecting big money into our politics”. Big money has been pervasively enmeshed in our politics for as long as we’ve had politics (probably longer).
A very brief history of previous attempts to get big money out politics includes:
– The Tillman Act (1907)
– Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910)
– Federal Election Campaign Act (1971)
– Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002)
There are also the various failed attempts at providing public financing (such as the income tax checkoff created in response to the 1972 Watergate scandal.
People have been trying to get big money out of politics for a long time, and there is precious little evidence of progress.
I therefore suggest that it is just as “naive” (your word, not mine) to suggest that we’ll somehow be successful in 2018 or 2020. Other than clap our hands together really hard and sprinkle magic fairy dust all over, I have seen precious little concrete evidence that we’ll succeed.
When any workable proposals ARE put forward, I suggest that getting those proposals actually passed and enforced is going to take a LOT of …. MONEY.
If it is “naive” to suggest that we must win elections in order to pass the laws we want, then I plead guilty as charged.
bob-gardner says
“I think we need to keep ALL our options on the table to accomplish that. I think we need to stop attacking our people and their supporters because they are good at raising large amounts of money.”
Just wanted to refresh your memory about what you actually wrote.
If you think we can get from that quote to the goal of eliminating big money from politics, I’ll share some of my magic fairy dust with you.
SomervilleTom says
I suggest we agree to disagree. I stand by my comments, and apparently you stand by yours.
FDR is often rightly cited here as a hero in his fight for working-class Americans. His extraordinary actions against the banks and bankers that caused the 1929 crash are rightly cited as examples for what we Barack Obama could have and should have done.
FDR was wealthy (emphasis mine):
If a reincarnated FDR was just now climbing onto our much-depleted bench, I would enthusiastically welcome him. You and those who join you in attacking progressive Democrats because they are wealthy would reject him.
I think you’re mistaken, and I disagree with you.
bob-gardner says
Agreed–or disagreed. When dead presidents start rising from their graves, we can pick up where we left off.
petr says
There’s no failure here, be it of press or party. Money gets a veto. It is as simple as that. And here money has decided that Baker is ‘acceptable’ and having so decided, money has pre-emptively exercised that veto.
We can all attempt to sleep better at night thinking that small money is better than big money, but neither is very republican, never mind democratic.
I guess the only saving grace might be Governor Feckless Jr, himself who, if he adheres to the Weld playbook, will run against Sen Markey in 2020… and lose, wander away and leave us at the mercy of acting-Governor Polito. Then Baker’ll re-emerge on the Libertarian ticket for Pres in 2032.
Oh. What fun that will be. Would be nice if there were a legit republican process to short circuit that… Sigh
ykozlov says
We can build a strong public financing system right here in Massachusetts without touching Citizens United. I believe all (formerly) 3 of the Democratic candidates spoke in favor of this.
It sometimes seems like Citizens United has turned from a rallying cry to an “uncle” cry w.r.t. money in politics. There are, in fact, clever people thinking up and implementing clever ideas to work around it like Democracy Vouchers.
I donated to Massie as soon as I saw this this morning, as Warren made the strongest case for giving the candidate something to work with NOW so they have a chance in November.
gmoke says
Gee, I remember when the referendum process passed public financing for elections here in the Commonwealth only to be revoked, in practice, by the legislature. Not saying we shouldn’t be working towards that result. Just saying that we’re going to have to do it differently the next time around.
SomervilleTom says
I like the idea of Democracy Vouchers. I certainly agree that at $25 per voucher and four vouchers per tax-payer, all three Democratic primary candidates could be competitive with Mr. Baker in campaign funding.
I think some questions remain:
1. Why isn’t this already law in MA? I’m looking squarely at Mr. DeLeo, who as Speaker of the House with a veto-proof super-majority can make this happen anytime he chooses.
2. Are we collectively ready to champion the tax increases that would be needed to fund this? Or, if not, are we ready to slash our already decimated state budgets even further?
3. What will do differently in this generation of public campaign financing efforts that will avoid repeating the failures of each of the several prior attempts?
I’m not at all suggesting that we cry “uncle”. I’m insisting that we move beyond magical thinking and focus on real solutions to real problems.
doubleman says
One easy way to start is to let every elected Dem and Dem running know that a vote for DeLeo as speaker should be considered disqualifying.
These were the only Dems to support continued Speaker term limits in 2015.
Jonathan Hecht (D-Watertown), Bruce J. Ayers (D-Quincy), Denise Provost (D-Somerville), James J. Dwyer (D-Worcetser), Dennis A. Rosa (D-Leominster), Walter F. Timilty (D-Milton), Diana DiZoglio (D-Methuen), Jonathan D. Zlotnik (D-Gardner), Stephen L. DiNatale (D-Fitchburg) John Rogers (D-Norwood), and Carolyn C. Dykema (D-Holliston).
SomervilleTom says
Jeesh, Now I get it, I misunderstood your second paragraph.
Six sixes for your comment and an “amen”.
doubleman says
Yeah, I should have said “opposed Speaker for Life status for DeLeo.”
SomervilleTom says
I wrote “Jeesh” at myself, I originally misread your comment and saved a reply that I was surprised that Denise Provost supported the Speaker. After my comment was up, I realized my mistake.
I don’t think we can remove comments ourselves, so I edited it (thank you, editors!) to reflect my mistake.
I really like your proposal.
bob-gardner says
Is there any evidence at all that Warren was deterred from soliciting wealthy donors because he was afraid of purists ‘ criticism?
johntmay says
Of course, all campaigns need funding and the weaker the message, the more ordinary and unremarkable the candidate, the more it becomes necessary to try to get out in front of all the noise. Again, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 outspent the Republican by a wide margin, and lost. Add it up any way you want but the answer to the equation remains the same: More money spent = lost the election.
We need wealthy donors so long as we run unimpressive or deeply flawed candidates.
chuckysum76 says
Fundraising is a convenient scapegoat, but it is a symptom not a root cause. He wasn’t likely to get over the signature hurdle anyway so probably a good time to bail.
Christopher says
Can you back that up? I saw no evidence as someone looped into the campaign that he was struggling on that count.
gmoke says
Until the Globe and the other last existing big-foot media organizations start looking hard at the empty suit that is Charlie Baker, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to unseat him. So far, his good looks and his pleasing manner has let him skate with the media. Any Dem candidate (I like Bob Massie myself) is gonna havta make Baker crack his benign shell and be recognized as just another corporate Republican.
Christopher says
He didn’t need to compare his bank account to Baker’s at this point. First is to get the nomination and the nominee would likely have a better time of it.