We’re rounding into October. I note with bafflement the recent polls that show that Charlie Baker is doing quite well in the polls among Democrats. And I’m at pains to point out that if Charlie Baker were a Democrat, we’d be viewing him as quite a disappointment:
- He refuses to fund public transit. Without funding, everything that he’s done with the T is window-dressing — a Potemkin village performance aimed at people who don’t take the T.
- He refuses to fund universal pre-K, which is a universally-acknowledged policy slam-dunk: For economic equity; for gender equity; for children; for parents; the economy at large.
- … But somehow he found $112 million in state tax breaks for GE, which recently changed CEOs (again) and lost $140 BILLION in market capitalization in 2017. Believe me, I’m rooting for GE as a major renewable energy manufacturer. But public money should be spent on public goods, not tax breaks for corporations.
- Baker refuses to protect immigrants from the snatches and snares of ICE. He could have supported the Safe Communities Act; instead he runs down immigrants in his speeches. It’s an applause line for him, even in the cruel and fascist age of Trump. In one his most unconscionable, inhumane moments, he resisted allowing Syrian refugees into the state. I won’t forget that betrayal of simple humanity; that’s when he lost me for good.
- Baker has not led on equitable school funding; he did not call for immediate passage of the Foundation Budget Reform Commission recommendations. He could have! He just has decided not to.
- He has presided over massive job losses in the solar sector for two years. This is not an accident – it is the predictable outcome of policies enacted by Baker’s industry-cozy appointments to the Department of Public Utilities. (Finally this may be coming to an end – but what took so long? Why must we beg for clean energy, which is exceptionally popular?)
I’d like to point to Miles Howard’s little Tweetstorm – it’s a nice precis of Baker’s failings:
Dear liberal America. There are a few things I’d like to say about Gov Charlie Baker, in light of his signing our state’s first automatic voter registration bill today and being championed by national media. Am I happy he signed the bill? Yes. However, it’s complicated… #mapoli
— Miles Howard (@MilesPerHoward) August 10, 2018
… and his conclusion from a WBUR piece from nearly a year ago — even more poignant after the legislative failures of Robert DeLeo’s House, which did not benefit from any leadership or prodding by the governor:
As a Massachusetts resident proud to hail from the state whose past governors have led the nation on issues like health care access, same-sex marriage and progressive taxation, Baker’s popularity not only mystifies me — it scares me. It suggests that a historically bold and visionary state is now surrendering its principles to the convenience of relativism in the age of Donald Trump. We are deceiving ourselves with the notion that the governor’s office is insignificant enough to be occupied by a man lacking in vision and courage.
I’d put it a different, more succinct way: A Democrat would do better — a lot better. And Jay Gonzalez is more than decent: He’s actually running on creating a real 21st-century transit system; early childhood education; aggressive action against climate change and a clean energy conversion; single-payer health care … you know, the things you would want a Democrat to support.
It’s all there, right in the open. Why would you want to support a pale centrism of governance by band-aid and half-measure, when there’s a vigorous progressive alternative?
This may be a sign of what is likely to be a lasting effect of the presidency of Donald Trump. His behavior in office has been so horrendous that the bar has been lowered almost to the ground on what is considered acceptable performance.
From now on, if an office holder doesn’t intentionally insult people on a daily basis, appoint totally unqualified people to their administration, rack up an endless series of personal scandals and conflicts of interest, openly consort with foreign adversaries, and generally operate as if they are running an organized crime syndicate or banana republic, the public will give them high marks for leadership.
I intend to vote for Gonzalez, but the polls don’t surprise me, for three reasons. First, the institutional Democratic Party may be significantly to the left of at least some Democratic voters on at least some issues. Second, as in some past national elections, it may be that voters prefer divided government. Third, voters may decide that it is important to support non-crazy Republicans, because it’s important that we have a functioning two-party system.
I also think the premise of the question (“What’s the matter with you, voters?”) is problematic and unlikely to lead to electoral success. The better premise is, “what’s the matter with you, politicians and party elites?” It’s the job of the politicians to earn the votes of the voters, not the job of the voters to support the politicians.
I think this sentiment is exactly the reason we have a completely uninformed hard-hitting dumbass of a reality TV star as a president right now and also the reason Charlie Baker is, apparently, cruising to victory without having produced much of anything of substance these past three years. But, I guess simply not being a women is enough for some people.
‘What’s the matter with you, voters?’ is an entirely legitimate question to ask of the electorate. Right alongside the question that never gets asked after the vote but before the next, ‘Is this what you voted for?’ or ‘Is this what representation means to you?’
‘It’s the job of the politicians to earn the votes of the voters…’ is an invitation to pandering and manipulation of the baser passions of the electorate which, coincidentally (or not) is exactly the situation we are in right now. Charlie Baker is Governor merely because he’s not Martha Coakley. Donald Trump was voted into the Presidency because he’s not Hillary Clinton and because he’s the negation of Barack Obama. Nobody ‘earns’ that kind of vote on noble motives or particularly fine character. After all that, giving the voters a solid WTF is entirely appropriate and may even be necessary. I get that it’s au courant to bash Hillary Clinton for not ‘earning’ more than 66 million votes (a solid majority) but your notion of a meritocratic contest doesn’t explain the apparent default position of either reckless (Trump) or feckless (Baker)… It seems like more than a double standard to me.
Are many voters woefully uninformed and foolish? Yes. Has telling voters that they are woefully uninformed and foolish ever been a pathway to electoral success? No, as far as I know. I’m not disagreeing with you about the dangers of know-nothing populism. I’m just saying that you don’t earn anyone’s vote by telling him you don’t respect him.
It seems to me that the choice is to confront them with their failings and risk their petulance or say nothing and let them believe every vote they make is right and true and that they have nothing for which to make amends: Any and all disaster is out of their hands and not of their making.
I guess it depends upon what is your definition of ‘electoral success.’
Ted I guess I’m assuming that for most ordinary folks, their support for Baker is soft anyway and they won’t take it too personally. I mean it seriously, but with a not-for-nothing wink.
All in favor of winking!
Each time I hear people call Massachusetts a “Blue” state, I hear people talking about the past, not the future, as far as things have been going for the time I’ve lived here. We moved here from New York back in 2001.
Yeah, we’re progressive on some social issues, not all and as far as progressive economic issues go, we’re not even close to “Blue”.
I like Jay. First time I met him after he announced his candidacy, I backed him and not the two others who were in the race. I’m going to vote for him.
I think on social issues, independent voters lean left. There are no social issues in this campaign that matter to independents.
I think on economic issues, independents ought to lean left, but because of a failed communication problem with the Democrats and a successful one on the part of the Republicans, they lean right.
So say hello to four more years of Charlie.
It would be one thing if Baker were running against a bland centrist Democrat who failed to inspire. Gonzalez is running a strong, issue oriented campaign. He has the vision and experience to be a great governor. So why is he getting crushed? Three reasons.
An uncritical media. A media willing to skewer the previous Governor over how much he spent on the drapes that continues to give this Governor a pass on every issue. His son credibly accused of assaulting a woman on a plane. The State Police scandals which wastes taxpayer dollars and now have led to a retirement and recruitment crisis that threaten public safety. The ongoing mismanagement of the T, which is an embarrassment to a state that continually brags about innovation. Educational outcomes determined entirely by zip code. Every time Baker gets praised for a token take against Trump someone should ask him why he is endorsing the Trump like Diehl or failed to even vote in the last election. Instead they fawn over him.
Then there is money. Jay has been frozen from the airwaves and frozen from getting any big ticket donors. Both of these would be rectified by public financing and a cap on how much money candidates could spend.
Lastly our eye is so focused on stopping Trump at every turn we forget about making forward progress closer to home. I am just as guilty of this in my donations and my efforts this cycle. It was easy to get a strong turnout to protest Jeff Flake yesterday on short notice. I’m sure it’s a lot harder for Jay to get canvassers. The Ayanna win and primary wins against DeLeo show that we can generate upsets and turnout, let’s do it again!
Why don’t any Baker-voting Dems read or comment on this site? Better question
Why not?
I mean, I’ll likely vote for Gonzalez, but….why not vote for Baker? He says some anti-Trump, anti-Kavanagh things, and hey…he seems fine.* I’m only mildly plugged in to what calls itself the Democratic Party, but outside of those circles I haven’t really heard an argument for Jay. I know that any Democrat I’ve heard of didn’t want to run, and that I haven’t heard a whisper of Gonzalez (whose name I just had to doublecheck for spelling). I have seen more outreach and efficacy of the campaign for my county DA than this guy.
As Atrios says, Democrats need to do better than “we don’t suck like THEM”.
* Not really, but wow the Democrats haven’t made a discernible effort to repudiate that in a public way. They had plenty of chances to force Charlie to veto good ideas or come out against conservative ideas, but folded every.time.
I really am appalled by the silence of our elected officials about Charlie Baker.
Mr. Baker is failing on just about every objective measure that we Democrats allegedly care about. We claim to have good ideas — yet we refuse to talk about them.
Where is our lege? Where are our mayors? The silence is deafening.
Matthew 7: 15-20
Indeed.
“By their fruit you will know them.”
Long time listener, first time caller.
I’m a Baker Democrat and here are some observations:
Baker is a decent guy. “But his son and the airplane!” Remember, it was his son, not him on that airplane, and he got out ahead of it acknowledging the seriousness and indicating that he would cooperate with the federal agencies having jurisdiction. This is how most people like to believe that they would respond to a similar situation in their own family. His appropriate handling of the matter is therefore more endearing to potential voters, who would not begrudge someone for family problems.
Non-political people feel like they know him because he shows up to non-political events they attend. I am a member of the McKeon Post (Dorchester AmVets) which has a youth boxing program for seven to 12 year old boys which ends with a “fight night” on Good Friday (classically Catholic character building to have a bunch of kids nervously fight contemporaneously with the observance of the crucifixion of Christ). I swung in for a beer and noticed first that the referee was really tall, and then that the referee was Charlie Baker (celebrity referees are brought in). I appreciate that Charlie Baker, the ivy league-educated Swampscott resident, makes the effort to meet people on their own terms (in this case a union hall on a Friday night). As a Democrat, I feel as though the obligatory Democratic party response would be to demand that the Department of Children & Families investigate whether proper precautions were being taken to prevent chronic traumatic encephalopathy before boycotting the event because no girls were participating. Most of the crowd at this event were nominally Democrats, attributable to tradition and their police/fire union membership, but would resent the idea that there is “something the matter” with any disconnect between their lived experience and their inability to support what they see as an overly progressive policy.
People think he is doing a good job and, in any event, want an executive in charge. He has real world (“real world” as defined as private sector, where the majority of voters exist) experience and success. People still remember him saving Harvard Vanguard, which had to have been literally tens of thousands of local families who had their medical insurance saved (those numbers might not be exact but that’s the perception).
People prefer a divided government. In fact, I’d argue that many of the “failures” ascribed to Baker are simply culminations of systemic problems enabled by Democratic hegemony. Tough to pin chronic underinvestment/resistance to external supervision going back decades, at least in this state, to anything other than Democratic complicity. Multigenerational Massachusetts resident Democratic voters understand this because they have experienced it for themselves (and sometimes contributed to it).
For starters, nobody is campaigning on what happened with his son. You may want to consider changing your party affiliation.
You mean the Charlie Baker who refused to ride the T when Governor Mike Dukakis suggested that doing so was an excellent way to ‘meet people on their own terms.’ … and who, when asked why he didn’t heed the advice, stated that to do so would ‘not be honest’???
You must be thinking of a different Charlie Baker. than I…
The flaw of this post is that it pretends that the Legislature does not exist.
All of these “he refuses to…” are things that require legislation that does not exist, and is not likely to exist, absent a change in power in the legislature. Governor Patrick tried to do many of the things that you guys pretend don’t happen because “Gov. Baker refuses to…” and was brushed aside, rather like a bug is brushed aside by the windshield of a car moving at 80mph. So who cares if Baker “refuses to…;” the governor’s opinions on such things are entirely irrelevant because such things are not supported by the party that controls the government.
The governor is an administrator, and one who is challenged to get a lot of work product with not a lot of resources. For all of Patrick’s “vision”and inspiration, Baker has been better at this.
I’m not convinced that Gonzalez is going to be capable of running the bureaucracy, though, admittedly, I know almost nothing about him, and would not recognize him if he showed up at my front door. There’s a month left to convince me.
But, “BAKER IS TRUMP!!!!!” does not convince me, and more than “WELD IS HELMS!!!” did. The entire premise of that argument is “We think you’re too stupid to notice that we’re lying.” Maybe it will work this time, unlike each of the other times. Good luck!
I must have missed that bit of legislation whereby the General Court ( or mebbe jus’ Sean Hannity) redefined the very word G-O-V-E-R-N-O-R into its very opposite. Neat trick, that…
Poor Governor(-forbidden-from-governing) Baker… Circumstances and resources are always against him. alack and alas! I’m sure he’d be eager to help, if only his hands weren’t tied… and there’s also the fact that an old friend came in from outta town … he ran outta gas … He got a flat tire… His tux didn’t come back from the cleaners…. Somebody stole his car… A terrible earthquake… Floods… Locusts… Just not his fault…. Swear to God!
Another epic success for the ‘party of personal responsibility’… So much winning.
I fear you miss CMD’s point.
Deval Patrick made no such evasions. Mr. Patrick attempted to govern. He attempted to do precisely what we here at BMG deride Mr. Baker for not doing.
Mr. Patrick was smacked down, embarrassed, and shamed by Mr. DeLeo and the lege.
Did you miss the legislation that made Bob DeLeo speaker for life?
Mr. DeLeo made even a Democratic governor irrelevant. So long as the lege is filled with lock-step “Democrats” who endorse every sneeze of Mr. DeLeo, then no governor from either party has a prayer of actually doing what needs to be done.
I suggest that your snarkery is better directed at Bob DeLeo and the “Democratic” lege.
CMD and the Ba’ath Democrat make great points and I welcome their perspective to this site. Gonzalez is unlikely to win and unlikely to govern if he does. I know this reality and I am still voting for him for three clear reasons which I hope are persuasive outside of the BMG bubble.
1) Immigrants and Refugees Can’t Vote, so I should
Maybe this doesn’t matter to a middle class dad in central mass or a Dot union hall guy from Savin Hill. In Revere where I teach, it matters. I have students who are Syrian refugees fundraising to help the kids they don’t know displaced by the Revere Fire. I think they are wonderful people who lost everything and are still giving their sweat equity to make their adopted community better.
Baker banned them from coming into this state.
I have a student who’s father was deported with the assistance of local law enforcement cooperation with ICE. A student heavily involved with his Catholic parish who showed me a selfie he took with the Pope. A good kid now staying in a group home run by the church with our star wide receiver who’s parents were also deported. Baker is willing to kick more dads and families like that out the country. I think that is Cruelty 101. No matter your stance on immigration, we should want the good kids to have a good life.
2) Baker IS PART OF the shatty legislature
The idea that he is a check on DeLeo is a joke. The idea DeLeo isn’t voting for a second Baker term is a joke. These two guys love to get nothing done so nobody can be blamed for doing something. Sure a progressive governor would have a hard time overcoming DeLeo, but at least we would be honest about what’s really going on. This idea that Republicans check the bad Democrats is a joke. A progressive governor failing to move the ball would force more primaries like the kind that successfully fell Rushing and Sanchez. To beat DeLeo, it’s good to get that Corner Office on our side and not his.
3) He is far closer to Trump than Weld was to Helms
My folks voted for Weld twice. He invested in the environment, was largely pro union, fought for tough gun laws and vocally took on the religious right and agents of intolerance in his party. Baker does not do that. He mildly criticized the President but then fundraisers with his biggest Bay State supporters. He then endorsed the Presidents immigration policies in his own convention. He opposed Healeys gun control. He opposes the Pacheco law and is a union buster like Rauner and Walker.
So he may show up to union halls to have a beer. I don’t doubt Coakley and Patrick were too snobby to do that. But he’s deporting the good people, he’s playing footsie with DeLeo, and he wants to kill the same union his supporters belong to. We can do so much better.
A good campaign ad would feature a series of pundits referring to Susan Collins as a “Republican moderate ” then using the same terms to describe Charlie Baker.
No. I got the point. I know it to be wrong.
No sale. Even those, like myself, who opposed casinos must admit that Deval Patrick took the idea from zero to enacted almost singlehandedly. That’s the very opposite of ‘irrelevant.’ I suggest your hindsight on the matter of Patricks tenure is… blinkered.
Deval Patrick took on the legislature toe to toe and he won some and he lost some, all while being shepherd, with the help of Jay Gonzalez, to the CommonWealth through the direst of economic circumstances, without complaint or despair or the buck-passing of the type we constantly see from both DeLeo and Baker. Perhaps it is exactly the pushback — actual ‘governing’ that is — that Patrick undertook that has strengthened DeLeo’s resolve to massage the passive in Charlies aggression in order to avoid actually having to do something strenuous.