paulsimmons

Person #2547: 77 Posts

Recommended: 505 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. The Monmouth Poll was open-ended (1 Reply)

    …they asked the question you suggested (actually a variation thereof).

    Seven per cent responded “none of the above”, and thirty-two percent responded “unsure/other”.

  2. Consider this: (0 Replies)

    From today’s Washington Post: Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership

    “It’s a little bit insulting for him to say anybody who is not in agreement with a particularly flawed trade deal he put on the table wants to maintain the status quo,” said Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff for the AFL-CIO. “We promise not to fight the last war if he promises not to put the last version of the trade deal on the table.”

  3. Let's not get too self-righteous (1 Reply)

    Those attitudes are not particularly rare in “progressive” cities like Boston or Cambridge.

    In fact the “I’m not racist but…” variety is pretty common.

  4. Regarding the superscript to my post: (0 Replies)

    Cute, Bob. @#$&**** cute.

    I’m so crushed, I’m gonna spend the rest of election day curled in a fetal position, emitting inarticulate whimpers, until Inspectional Services carts me away in a biohazard box.

  5. The best way to define Democratic field outreach is "recruit and abandon" (1 Reply)

    …and Obama has the same problem, which is why we may just well lose the Senate.

    Specific to Patrick in 2006 and 2010, it must be remembered that the Governor’s pre-Convention field plan amounted to creating an insurgency at the caucuses, knocking off Convention regulars (who were, by and large Reilly supporters), wiring the Convention, and using the Convention victory to establish inevitability with the players, the media, and the electorate (in that order).

    Pursuant to that, Patrick’s people recruited almost every credible shoe-leather activist to work as paid staff on his campaign.

    Coakley’s campaign, on the other hand, is over-targeting supporters, and ignoring the broader electorate (at least in the cities), with foreseeable results. In addition her campaign consistently snubbed both credible grassroots players and elected officials. Re: the latter, Coakley is trying to play catch-up, but it’s difficult to compress work that should have started on September 10 into a week and a half. “Unity breakfasts” do not equate to combined campaigning.

    There were other matters in ’06, such as Tom Menino convincing Reilly to purge Chris Gabrieli as his running mate, thus creating an enemy for Reilly with deep pockets, but the abandonment of active engagement with grassroots voters (who are not always synonymous with “activists”) is the issue at hand now.

    For what it’s worth I can cite other examples over the past two years on the part of other campaigns…

  6. Yep, all 17.04% of them. So much for the base. (1 Reply)

    I’m not suggesting that Coakley was “forced” on me – or any other Democrat.

    I’m just saying that her campaign staff couldn’t organize a bottle party in a brewery.

    I think that the race is still tight, and Coakley could still pull it off; but her campaign staff are so dense they bend light.

  7. Here's the Google (0 Replies)

    Coakely has made it quite clear that she is willing to kiss the Speaker’s a… I mean work collegially with Mr DeLeo for the betterment for all the residents of the Commonwealth.

  8. Simply put, she ignored the ground game (2 Replies)

    …and took her base for granted. If you want folks to vote for you, you gotta ask them for your vote.

    …and, having asked, it never hurts to organize them on your behalf.

    As I said, passive-aggressive.

    I have the equivalent of two overlapping focus groups: players and civilians, all on my Massachusetts Supervoter list. For months I’ve asked them “What are you hearing from the campaigns?”, by which I mean mailers,lit, and political buzz by neighbors colleagues, and friends – phone banks and emails don’t count, because they are considered (at best) nuisances by recipients.

    For eleven months, nada.

  9. Please don't give me one this easy again (1 Reply)

    Please explain what more Coakley can do…

    She can run a marginally competent campaign.

  10. Consider that that is the opinion of a Globe writer (3 Replies)

    …and I don’t mean that ideologically.

    For more reasons than I care to go into at present, the Globe is mediocre at political reporting.

    The Democratic problem is structural. Simply put Coakley has a crappy field operation. This is not necessarily her fault as a candidate; the field vacuum on the Democratic side is Statewide, as is the indifference of most Democratic elected officials.

    Coakley ran an essentially passive-aggressive campaign in the primaries, correctly presuming that the incompetence (approaching political malpractice) on the part of the Berwick and Grossman campaigns would give her the nomination by default.

    Given her consistently high negatives it’s not surprising that competent (not great, just competent) campaigning by Baker would result in momentum on his behalf.

  11. Not quite, Coakley's problem also involves defecting Democrats (1 Reply)

    I haven’t gone into the weeds with the crosstabs from the just-released Globe poll, but these excerpts from yesterday’s David Bernstein column in Boston Magazine are instructive:

    There remain, according to most polls, an unusual number of undecided voters remaining, for such a high-profile race between two well-established candidates. The lion’s share of those undecideds appear to be regular Democratic voters, whether they identify as party members or not. Conventional wisdom would suggest that most of them will, in the end, “come home” to their party’s candidate, to use the political argot, as they did for Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick in 2012 and 2010.

    But in this race, the “come home” phrase increasingly brings to my mind the image of a parent waiting up as curfew passes. The later the hour grows, the more likely that the wayward child will decide to crash at a friend’s house for the night.

    It looks like Coakley’s problem can be summed up as sufficient Democrats breaking towards Baker to give him an edge which is now outside the margins of error of (at least) the Globe poll.

  12. The source polls are at the Pollster site (1 Reply)

    …that I linked to in the post.

    On that site are likes to the individual polls’ marginals and crosstabs. In addition the graphic at HuffPo/Pollster is interactive, and can give information by source poll/point in time.

  13. I was responding to jconway (0 Replies)

    I remember that race very well. Rush kicked Obama’s ass by running against Hyde Park and Harvard. The slogan on the streets was that Obama was “too bright and too white”.

  14. That's somewhat revisionist (1 Reply)

    What happened was that Obama led (not for the first time, nor the last) with his hubris. From a very good recap in the September 9, 2007 New York Times:

    Mr. Obama was a 38-year-old state senator and University of Chicago lecturer, unknown in much of Mr. Rush’s Congressional district. He lived in its most rarefied neighborhood, Hyde Park. He was taking on a local legend, a former alderman and four-term incumbent who had given voters no obvious reason to displace him.

    Mr. Rush’s name recognition started off at 90 percent, Mr. Obama’s at 11. Then Mr. Rush’s son was murdered, leading Mr. Obama to put his campaign on hold. Later, while vacationing in Hawaii with his family, he missed a high-profile vote in the Legislature and was pilloried. (One Chicago Tribune editorial began, “What a bunch of gutless sheep.”) Then President Clinton endorsed Mr. Rush.

    “Campaigns are always, ‘What’s the narrative of the race?’ ” said Eric Adelstein, a media consultant in Chicago who worked on the Rush campaign. “In a sense, it was ‘the Black Panther against the professor.’ That’s not a knock on Obama; but to run from Hyde Park, this little bastion of academia, this white community in the black South Side — it just seemed odd that he would make that choice as a kind of stepping out.”

  15. The dangers of binary thinking (0 Replies)

    Without belaboring any point about either charter schools in isolation, or the Boston Foundation’s support thereof, this is not a morality play.

    From the Globe article linked to above:

    One hopeful sign comes from the two front-runners in next month’s gubernatorial election. Republican Charlie Baker and Democrat Martha Coakley have condemned the Board of Education vote and are calling on its members to reverse the dense decision that undermines charter schools in urban areas where they are needed most. The Race to the Top Coalition, which includes the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts and the Black Ministerial Alliance, reinforced that message yesterday, citing the “perverse effect” of the formula change.

    The broader argument is about quality education, and both sides have cogent arguments when they’re not talking past each other.