First off, the favorability numbers among Democrats, for Democrats in this poll:
| Pol | Approval | Neutral | Disapprove | Don’t know |
| Patrick | 51 | 9 | 37 | 3 |
| DeLeo | 25 | 14 | 14 | 27 |
| Murray | 29 | 9 | 9 | 54 |
| Cahill | 44 | 8 | 18 | 33 |
Deval’s unfavorables among Democrats exceed those of the Legislative leaders. Among Democrats with an opinion, Murray and DeLeo are as liked as him…including independents, they are considerably more liked. In a separate question, Democrats trust the Legislature over the governor to handle the budget mess by a 43-32 margin. On every rubric in this poll, the people Patrick is planning on running against are popular and trusted among Democrats, and definitely among all voters. It’s a bad idea to choose to run against people who are liked more than you. (Also, note that Cahill seems unaffected by his departure from the Democratic Party).
What is really mind-blowing, though, are the trust numbers. The poll asked voters who among Mihos, Cahill, Patrick, and Baker they trusted on a range of issues. Below is the percentage of Democrats who believe that Deval can “best handle” a given issue:
Economy and budget: 34%
Taxes: 32%
Health care: 36%
About two-thirds of Democrats do not view Deval Patrick as the best candidate to deal with the major issues in Massachusetts. Forget independents and Republicans, the clear majority of Democrats consistently do not think that Deval is the pick of the bunch on the key issues of the day.
This isn’t a case of voters being ignorant about how great somebody is — they (including Democrats) have made a clear judgment that Deval Patrick doesn’t have what it takes to do the job. This isn’t “oh the economy sux so I’ll blame the guy in charge”. The good news for Deval is that his abysmal numbers are still better than most others’.
This poll says that we have gone from a window of opportunity for an ambitious Democrat to a set of French doors.
Is it too early to start a “Draft Coakley” movement?
we appear poised to give away the corner office again. I know that Mr. Patrick’s priorities do not reflect my own, and I will be shopping for a new candidate. Really. Charter schools? That’s a Republican’s answer to education. Weld, right? Casinos? Closing down facilities for the disabled? The first time around, he didn’t have much baggage or a track record. This time he has both.
You’re looking for someone to Deval’s “left” (or wherever) on charters, casinos, and social services – which presumably means funding them adequately.
<
p>And what will his/her answers be to the challenges that this governor has actually faced? How will they be different, better — and more workable/realistic than this governor’s?
<
p>Who’s all that? And what’s the agenda? Genuinely curious.
My answer’s here. In part:
<
p>* 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. You can start by raising the overall rate while putting in an exepmtion for $50K and under);
* 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)
Doesn’t anyone get what the new economy has done to
what was once a good salary?
<
p>A truly progressive tax would exempt families with wages of 150,000/yr or less. I don’t know if you have a family or not, but let’s break down a yearly salary of $50,000
<
p>Gross monthly salary 4167.
<
p>after consideration of at least 25% fed/state/SS/Med income tax
<
p>Net monthly income would be 3125.
<
p>total take home.. 3125/mo
health ins. premium 232/mo (using Mass Health Connector guidelines)
mortgage 1330 (for a $200,000 mtg at 7%)/mo
RE tax 200/mo
electric/nat gas 195/mo
car insuranceX2 125/mo
homeowner ins. 50/mo
cable/phone/internet 150/mo.
car payment X1 245/mo
life insurance 15/mo
gas X2 40/mo
heating oil 133/mo ($1600/yr @$2.00gl)/mo
prescriptions 75./mo 3 needed every month for various family members (would vary based on health plan)
<
p>This leaves $77 dollars a WEEK for groceries, clothing, car registrations, inspection stickers, and any other of the various expenses that arise regulary that might not be considered a regular monthly expense. Families who earn $50,000/yr are poor in today’s economy.
<
p>A progressive tax should only increase taxes on those earning $150,000 or maybe even $200,000/yr.
<
p>
A progressive tax should increase taxes only on those earning $150,000 or maybe even $200,000/yr or more.
<
p>Erm, no. 25% might be the marginal rate at $50k salary, but there’s no way somebody who makes $50,000 in straight wages pays 25% in fed and local taxes. State is 5.3% before exemptions. SSI+Med is 6.2%. Federal allows a big ol’ standard or Sched A, and has low marginal rates at the low incomes. Plus, if he’s got that mortgage he’s filing Sched A for an even bigger exemption.
<
p>I live in a home with a teenager. Our electricity bill is about $30. We don’t have cable TV. Our heating is nowhere near your double charge of nat gas and heating oil. We also don’t have a car payment or pay for gas; instead about $100/mo for public transit gets it done. Your property tax estimate is high if the community has a residential exemption, knocking the effective rate from a typical 1% to something lower (in my case it lowers it by 1/3).
<
p>You underestimate the take home pay, and include some slack as non-negotiable expenses.
<
p>This isn’t to argue that $50k is living large. In fact, it’s quite solidly somewhere in the middle class in MA. Manage your money well, don’t take risks, and let your eventual home ownership fund your retirement especially if you can manage to work a few years after your home is paid off, pocketing a big chunk of take home.
<
p>
<
p>Exempting $150k or less isn’t progressive — it’s asinine.
Social Security and Medicare combined 7.65%
<
p>Tax rate on 50,000 income after a $20.000 deduction is 12.22% for a total of 3665. federal tax bill. More info here.
<
p>5.3 MA tax rate on income after deductions. Would completely depend on deductions. So let’s say the family is paying about 3% of the gross income in State taxes.
<
p> 7.65% SS Med
+12.22% fed
+ 3% state
=23%
<
p>I was close.
<
p>Glad to hear about your commuting options, not available in Western Ma. Need cars, even two. Only having one car payment is a good thing. Some families have two.
<
p>Property tax also varies by town. The numbers I provide are accurate for a tax rate of $11.92 per thousand dollars of valuation.
200000/1000 = 200 X 11.92 = 2384/12= $199.
<
p>Never heard of a residential exemption. Could you enlighten me on that?
<
p>Electric bills vary so much it’s ridiculous. If you have a well and sewer pump, your bill will be higher. Notice I did not include a monthly charge for a town water and sewer bill, which can also be high.
Not sure of cost of Natural Gas. Propane is high. 2 fifty gallon fill ups per year at 5.00/gal = $500./12 = $42/mo of the $195 I allotted for electicity and gas.
<
p>What exactly was non-negotiable. Prescription drugs. Car registrations & inspections. What about clothes. Not deductible as a business expense I’m afraid. Kid’s need school clothes and supplies. I would say none of these are negotiable, unless you were to move to an urban region where you would not need a vehicle.
<
p>So you think $150,000 income should have a tax rate increase? I think it shouldn’t. The cost of living in other regions of the state is much higher than the budget I presented.
A $200,000 thousand dollar home is a modest 3 bedroom ranch in Western MA. Such a home could cost much more in a different region. People who earn $150,000 dollars a year might be considered upper middle class, but are by no means wealthy. They already do pay higher taxes, as noted in the link above.
<
p>I realize my hypothetical budget is just that. Hypothetical.
I’ve taken some of the numbers from personal experience, others from data off the web. I think it’s a reasonable reflection of a the cost of living in 2009, in Massachusetts.
<
p>
an additional $67 would be added to the $77 for groceries, clothing, car expenses, etc.
<
p>I’m sure there are other expenses that I have not even considered, I have not included copays and deductible for doctor/dentist visits. That new transmission that was needed this year, or school portraits, gifts for weddings/birthdays, school field trips, cell phone service, a trip to the movies once a year, or any of the many other things that could pop up, or might be enjoyed by a family who works hard and earns a decent ($50,000?)living. (granted, many of those are negotiable, certainly not needs, but wants.)
<
p>So you think this is the cutoff to where lower taxes should be. I think this is the cutoff to where subsidized services should be. I think higher taxes are more easily handled by people earning a hefty income of $150,000/yr or more.
… and I think your claims are often either inaccurate or so parsimoniously defined as to be misleading. (I mean, the gov pushed for closing corporate tax loopholes, and agreed to lower the rate — while raising revenue. What’s your problem again?)
<
p>But you didn’t answer the question. Who’s that person? A credible candidate? A Green? A Dem?
I don’t really expect you to be reasoned out of supporting Deval Patrick, but the fact of his policies remain. Higher corporate taxes were on the table, and he said no. Back when we viewed Deval Patrick primarily as a governor, not a candidate for governor, that was a bad thing. Now that the campaign season is upon us, I expect every poll and decision to be “put into context” to try to neutralize any questions about the governor.
<
p>As for the question, I will again repeat myself — the list of Democrats we can identify with the base to credibly challenge Deval has two names: Martha Coakley and Tom Menino. Again, I don’t expect either to run. I would also point out that Deval was a joke at this point in the last cycle, so I wouldn’t eliminate a dark horse too quickly. As for the Greens, well, they’re not credible.
<
p>One last time — I do not expect anyone to primary Deval while taking advantage of the polling and policy room he has left open in the Democratic primary. However, I will point out that the room is there, and be happy to respond to the same objections with the same answers.
Educators supported Deval with huge efforts, sign holding, organizational support; and our unions spent lotsa time and money urging our support and efforts on his behalf.
<
p>Give me a reason to repeat that effort. I am dead serious. Oh, I’m not saying Deval might not be the best of a crappy lot; but we weren’t merely Anti-Muffy in the last election, we were pro-Deval. I’d have a hard time summoning even a pallid vote for the guy at this point. At least with a Muffy-like candidate, we’d know who the enemy is.
Well, put it this way: He advocated for revenues to keep you guys in jobs. Again and again. Local options, corporate loopholes, and now the sales tax — not to mention the GIC, which yes, would change benefits, but also would save money and jobs. And was willing to take the political hit for it. No, he doesn’t have good news to show for it, because there just isn’t any good news to go around revenue-wise.
<
p>This is a two way street, though. This is a topic for a much longer post, but given public opinion’s move — it’s not just electeds, it’s the public — towards charter schools, I think it’s up to teachers to demonstrate their commitment to being flexible. You’ve got to be open to trying new things, new ways of doing education, and not simply fighting the rear battle to protect what you’ve got.
<
p>I hear teachers express the desire to be treated as professionals — and indeed, I have little doubt that most are. Being professional means striving for excellence, all the time. It would be great if the unions would be partners, and get out front of the wave of public opinion, rather than trying to hold it back.
<
p>If this is blazingly ignorant, let me know — put it in a post, and tell me how Mass. teachers are leading us forward. I want to believe that. I hear “innovation” and “working together” in the MTA’s rhetoric,
http://www.massteacher.org/new…
but it still always seems like the bottom line is “no.”
I like the idea of attracting these economic sectors to do business in MA, thank you very much. After all, Deval Patrick actually said many times during the campaign that CANDIDATE Romney was on target about selling the state to businesses. GOVERNOR Romney unfortunately prefered to make the state the butt of his jokes on his way to the presidential nomination.
…and selling the state isn’t a bad idea. However, what we have is a program that hopes to guess which sectors will provide the bucks. Domestic movie earnings are plummeting, but that is a sector that is on the list. Casino earnings are plummeting, and Deval is chasing those dollars all he wants. (By the way, both those trends predate the September downturn).
<
p>Life sciences is a possible exception, if the life sciences companies that receive the benefits are actually stable enough for the tax credits to gain overall revenue for the state. It’s a $2 billion bet, at a time where that isn’t chump change.
<
p>As for circumventing the campaign laws, the Patrick Seventy-First Fund “skirts the law” per the Boston Globe:
<
p>
…how is he circumventing campaign finance law?
<
p>The only solidly republican answer to education has been ‘school vouchers’ an issue which is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Republicans and conservatives have tried to co-opt the charter schools issue out of their knee-jerk antipathy to teachers unions but that doesn’t make charter schools a signature issue of republicans.
a national Republican response, but here in Massachusetts, Bill Weld was a HUGE charter school supporter. And charter schools went through and thrived on the watch of how many Republican governors? And who bloody cares if the Republicans co-opted the charter school answer – they’re using it to bludgeon the teachers unions, school committees and basically democracy as we know it.
<
p>Charter schools offer what exactly? If you take out the selection bias, the test scores aren’t all that different than the local public schools. So what exactly is different? For the parents, it’s the “prep school perception” on the public dime. For the politicians – it’s the perception that “they’re finally doing something.” I have to admit, it’s got great branding…but at an enormous cost. It’s the “separate but equal” for the kids who can learn in a standard classroom, but it’s anything but for the kids with learning disabilities and behavioral challenges.
<
p>I don’t recall Governor Patrick claiming to be a big charter school supporter during the 2006 campaign. Do you?
<
p>And that tells us… what? Though I bow to no one in my distaste for Weld, and his administration, he isn’t what I would consider an exemplar of Republican ideology and thinking (sic). He won office in 1990 because he was more liberal than his Democratic opponent (John Silber).
<
p>
<
p>And Democratic Governors… so that, too, tells us what?
<
p>
<
p>Charters schools offer two things: an approach to education moving away from the ‘cookie-cutter’ model of public schools; and a chance at sane, controlled and defined de-regulation, with oversight, per school. Significant opportunities for innovation and advancement exist alongside equally significant opportunities for corruption (quasi-privatization) and failure. I don’t view this as very different from most political endeavors.
<
p>
<
p>Honestly, I don’t recall the question being asked of him. I’m not an opponent of charter schools so I wasn’t watching for it…
have never been typical for the rest of the country. But nevertheless, we are discussing education policy in this state, Massachusetts, and hence, it’s not unreasonable to point out that Charters were embraced and executed under Republican governors.
<
p>petr – this is NO overight of these schools. The trustees are typically an incestuous crew, who go along to get along. They’ve got loved ones working for the Charter and kids in the system. The office of quality assurance at the DOE is an oxymoron in terms. It has allowed charter fiefdoms to perpetuate without any obligation to the taxpayers who fund them.
<
p>On the topic of Charters re the 2006 campaign:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>
<
p>So what has changed since 2006? Funding? The goal was to “eliminate the tension between public school systems and charters.” Oversight? The toothless office of quality assurance, who when you complain about the incestuous board of trustees who are unwilling to insist on proper special education resources…send you back to the same damned UNELECTED trustees, calling it “a local issue.” You can’t go to your local school committee – they can’t do a thing about it. So where the hell is someone with an issue to go?
<
p>There’s NO ACCOUNTABILITY. That’s my problem. This is not innovation….this is a separate, private system funded with public money. How the hell is this any different from a voucher program?
he gave a very measured response to enthusiastic charter school students who queried him on his support for their type of school. He answered that he approved of charter schools, but he thought they should be funded in a way not to take money away from public schools.
<
p>After Obama’s plan to Chicagoize America’s public schools, and the possibility of Massachusetts getting half a billion for more charter schools, I’m starting to think that weird, conspicuous re-invention of charter schools called Readiness School that popped up in Patrick’s Readiness plan was due to inside knowledge of the President’s education plan.
<
p>Myself, I can understand why someone would want to send their kids to a charter school if the public school was seriously bad, though New Leadership Charter School in Springfield would give me pause, but the idea that charter schools are inherently innovative and set some sort of example for public high schools is ludicrous.
our charter school has zero trustees who have family who either attend our charter or work for our charter.
<
p>some charters — and all district-run pilot schools in boston by the way, blessed by the union and the district, where is your tirade against those schools, btw? — have parents on the governing board.
<
p>bill clinton has said one of the reason he (i know, he’s a republican) created the gigantic growth of charters in the 1990s was because he liked the idea that they’d be started by teachers and parents.
<
p>* * *
<
p>let me ask you a question. i’m involved with several district schools, including a district-controlled pilot school, and i work at a charter.
<
p>our charter has to file an annual report with the state with all sorts of data, IN ADDITION to filing ALL of the same information as the regular public schools.
all the trustees might file a disclosure form with the state.
*we have to have our charter reviewed by the state every 5 years – one of the 14 schools in boston was shut down this year by the review, so it’s not toothless.
<
p>at the pilot school, which you say is accountable because it’s part of a district
<
p>no annual report
nobody must file a disclosure with anyone
*no review by the city or state; no pilot has ever been shut down
<
p>theoretically, you could go to the school committee, which by the way is not elected. it’s appointed. by the mayor of boston. they oversee 140 schools.
<
p>c’mon.
Let’s be clear. The charter in my district is EVERYTHING I said it is. It is an incestuous little cesspool, where the trustees have both kids in the school and loved ones working for the Charter,and it’s all “go along to get along with the director.” Special ed kids have been bullied right out the door. No concern for them, GGW? Too bad and so sad?
<
p>I don’t know anything about pilot schools, (my city didn’t have them) but as a former elected official, I can tell you what I know about district schools:
<
p> 1.Budget is filed every year, reviewed by the school committee and city council or selectman. Our district, as do many districts, put out an annual report.
2. Disclosures are required by state ethics for all school systems. No ifs, ands, or buts. BTW, as long as relationships are disclosed, they’re pretty much “authorized.”
3. Our school committee was elected, which keeps them accountable to the parents and taxpayers.
<
p>We don’t need a faux “separate but equal” system. This is not innovation…this is “just don’t stand there, just do something.” The data, once adjusted for selection bias, doesn’t tell me that charters are any better than district schools.
That’s a pretty strong charge to be making without backing detail.
<
p>Sounds like you’re describing Lehman Brothers… a now defunct bank which operated with little oversight and an incestuous crew working against any form of quality control and which perpetuated a variety of fiefdoms. We agree that those things are bad.
<
p>However, nobody is arguing that because Lehman Brothers acted in this way therefore all banking is done this way and thus no banking should be done at all.
<
p>Nor should you argue that corruption, in public schools (charter or otherwise), is a reason not to have public schools.
is that the separate but ‘equal” status of these schools and the lack of oversight – no school committee, in the tank and the koolaid trustees, etc…can’t help but create the environment that I am talking about. As a disabilities advocate, I am disgusted by how Charters have been allowed to skirt regulations by bullying these kids out of school. I’ve seen that with my own two eyes…and when the parents have tried to get redress, the totally in the tank trustees turned their backs. The QA office at the DOE called it a local matter. So how the hell is a family supposed to appeal such proceedings when no one is minding the store? That’s my issue. And they’re doing it with public money.
“Charters schools offer two things: an approach to education moving away from the ‘cookie-cutter’ model of public schools; and a chance at sane, controlled and defined de-regulation, with oversight, per school. Significant opportunities for innovation and advancement exist alongside equally significant opportunities for corruption (quasi-privatization) and failure. I don’t view this as very different from most political endeavors.”-petr
<
p>Charters have not brought one innovation to the public schools; but the reverse is true, as many public school innovations became charter schools for the money. Charter schools are merely segregated populations removing money from public schools, which are left trying to do the same with less, and which must accept the detritus of charters when charters reject the students the public schools must accept. Charter are the great fake of the reform movement. Charter schools can’t keep educators, who bail out at the first opportunity.
<
p>What’s weird is that Charters have operated with positive PR for as long as they have. Ed Moscovitch has seen the light…and there’ll be more studies out soon.
<
p>Charter schools are public schools. They are not allowed to charge tuition and, in addition to taking public money, take public students.
<
p>
<
p>Public money follows public students to public schools. If a charter school takes money and students from other public schools, where’s the situation of “left trying to do the same with less“? Vouchers are a specific de-funding method. I do not support vouchers. Charter schools are not a de-funding mechanism.
<
p>Personally, I’m not only opposed to anything but lottery based admissions, but I’m not even aware of charter schools which do anything else. I am aware that some charter schools have transfered and/or otherwise shuffled students around to make their numbers better. This is a corruption of the idea and should not be done. But we ought not to prohibit charters because somebody might abuse them anymore than we should prohibit banks because someone might rob them…
<
p>I think your point about public schools being the incubators of innovation, which then moves to charter schools, is exactly how the evolution of innovation and education ought to go. I think the strictures and regulations of public schools means that innovation can only move so far, paced slowly and that charter schools are the next step for a particular innovation… I don’t like the ‘experimental’ aspect of charters, and worry about the effects upon young learners… but I also don’t think that’s an insurmountable problem.
i mean all the major 2008 presidential republican candidates have been charter supporters
<
p>there was
<
p>barack “we need to double charter schools” obama
<
p>john “encourage charter schools” edwards
<
p>hillary “I stand behind the charter school/public school movement, because parents do deserve greater choice within the public school system to meet the unique needs of their children” clinton
<
p>* * *
<
p>i will admit i need to stop responding to erroneous anti-charter school stuff on bmg and either watch the sox or get a life
<
p>
if you can cite Democrats who support charters, you can’t say that charters are a Republican issue?
The biggest backers of charters are Bill Clinton (launched em) and Barack Obama (avidly growing them).
<
p>Bush supported them too, though not as aggressively.
<
p>The standard bearers of the party since 1992 – Clinton, Gore, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kerry – I had to look him up – all pro charter.
<
p>Kerry:
<
p>Okay so now I’m trying to make it more complete: Dean, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun, Clark, Lieberman, Graham, Kucinich, Sharpton, Gephardt back from 2004. I think that’s all of em.
<
p>Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt – all pro. I think Mosley Braun actually has a charter named after her. I think Dean was skeptical of charters but not sure if he took a stand. Sharpton
<
p>Kucinich is anti charter. So there’s one for you.
It appears to me that the “base” you refer to was most likely never in Deval’s corner to begin with, as he was initially the outsider candidate with the brazen temerity to take on the Massachusetts Democratic establishment. It would be nice if it was his base. It should be his base. In most other states it would be his base. But it isn’t.
<
p>As for making any inroads with this group, in desperate economic times, that’s a tough nut to crack. Beyond the necessary (and successful) bare knuckle battle with the Democratic legislature, the fallout from severe belt-tightening just might be hitting some former sacred cow Democratic constituencies harder than others (I’m not talking about the poor and the disadvantaged, who are clearly suffering).
<
p>As for your off hand dismissal of “oh the economy sux (sic) so I’ll blame the guy in charge” as a potential explanation for what’s going on, you couldn’t be more wrong. That dynamic is almost as universal as “not in my backyard” and “throw the bums out” and is clearly at work here. You can witness it being played out in states across the country, as we speak.
<
p>So you have basically dressed up your now familiar theories with some questionable poll analysis (you appear to be adding opponents’ numbers together), to reach the same conclusion: Deval is going down like the Hindenburg. It doesn’t matter how many fake “amazes me” or “really mind-blowing” phrases you sprinkle in there, anyone who has read your past posts knows exactly where you’re going to end up. Ho hum.
<
p>But I did get a kick out of your cute middle school girl spelling of “sucks”.
Anytime I see that you have responded to a post or comment of mine, I can expect a personal attack. If you doubt my numbers, look at the polls yourself. And the “sux” thing is a little something called parody.
2. But a majority of the people polled by the Globe seemed to favor them
3. Deval favors them but was unable to get them built
<
p>Patrick indeed seems to have found a way to piss off everyone, vis a vis casinos and other issues. Who knows what has harmed him more, his promotion of them or his failure to actually deliver on that support? I think that there were some labor unions that were eager for the construction work casinos may have brought, but it is hard to imagine a few projects could make or break many blue collar fortunes. Personally, I don’t know what accounts for Patrick’s extreme unpopularity- it’s a little confusing, though it seems to be a trend that began very soon after he took office.
<
p>With “Don’t Know” polling at 3% (pollwide) for Deval and 54% for Sen Pres Murray and 49% for DeLeo (both pollwide) you can’t make the assertion that “Murray and DeLeo are as liked as him… “
<
p>If you take only ‘Democrats with an opinion‘ you significantly decrease the sample size and thus, significantly, increase the MOE. You likewise cannot compare the 97% of the polled who have an opinion about Deval Patrick and compare it the the 51% (DeLeo) and 46% (Murray) who have an opinion about DeLeo and Murray.
<
p>
<
p>Yes. It is. If Coakley is smart (and I believe she is) she’ll not take a poll that is 16 months out all that seriously. 0’Reilly and Gabrieli were all polling pretty well in 2005. Harshbarger and O’Brian likewise in 2001. Hillary Clinton polled similarly well in 2007 pres race, as did Fred Thompson and Rudy Guliani. In 2003 Howard Dean looked like a juggernaut. In 1999 Bill Bradley was outpolling Al Gore for the Dem nomination and John McCain was riding the ‘straight-talk express’ well ahead of a certain Texas Governor… We’ve been here before. Polls change drastically as the race hots up.
<
p>Your willingness to throw in the towel, so well ahead of the opening round, is disconcerting, to say the least.
<
p>
<
p>That’s why I said Among people with an opinion. Favorables as a share of fav/neu/unfav are as high for Murray as for Deval, and a shade lower for DeLeo. My whole point stands. I realize the MOE is raised, but it would have to be astronomical to artificially lower Deval’s numbers this much. This fits with the finding in the same poll that Democrats trust the Legislature to deal with the budget more than they trust the governor.
<
p>As I’ve said before, I don’t expect Coakley to run. However, if she’s smart she will definitely keep her options open. Polls can change, however it should be pointed out that Deval’s favorables are unlikely to go up as he is such a known figure. His best hope remains that as low as his are, everyone else’s are abysmal.
Patrick’s favorability vs. unfavorability among people who know who DeLeo and Murray are; that is, who read an entire non-sports article in the paper from time to time and thus perhaps have a fairly accurate sense of what state government is about, what the issues are, and so on. Just for curiosity’s sake more than anything.
<
p>you said “Among Democrats with an opinion“. They aren’t even a majority of the respondents. And Registered democrats make up only a third of the respondents. And, at least for DeLeo, 47% of them responded “Don’t Know”… So you’re comparing responses of less than half of a minority to those responses of 97% (a clear majority) who have an opinion of Deval Patrick.
<
p>
<
p>The only way that this is true is if the “Don’t Know” percentile is very small. For Deval it is 3%. For DeLeo and Murray it approaches 50%. Thus you cannot compare them. The sampling error on this poll is 4.2% and the response rate is 20%. The only way you can extrapolate similarities in fav/neu/unfav for Patrick, Murray and DeLeo is if you assume the ‘Don’t Know’ respondents would fall into the fav/neu/unfav categories in the same ratio’s if they knew. For Devals numbers, with a DK of 3% well withing the MOE, this can be assumed. This cannot be assumed with a DK of 47% (DeLeo) and a DK of 54% (Murray).
<
p>
<
p>No, it does not. You’re again assuming equivalence of ratios. But with a so large DK in the more specific questions related to the State Legislature their stated trust in the legislature can’t be trusted…
<
p>So far out from the election the numbers you want to be looking at are the ‘right track/wrong track’. These aren’t so bad amongst Democrats responding and thus can’t be used to support a primary challenge to Deval. Independents/unaffiliated are more worrying and, if they hold, will not bode well in the general election. I don’t think they’ll hold as Patrick gets out there and starts hammering the message.
I’m not saying this is telling us how the election will go. I am saying that Deval’s net favorability is very low, and with so many people knowing about him, he doesn’t have much room to define himself. There is plenty of room to define Murray or DeLeo, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that much of the favorability answers aren’t rigorously linked to what they’ve done. After the tense budget process, I just was looking to highlight how unaffected DeLeo and Murray were by the conflict.
<
p>Your comment to which you linked does bring up a point. I personally believe that voters do not view always Murray and DeLeo as a stand-in for the Legislature, as we do. Many people may only know their own legislator (who they generally like — hence the astronomical re-election rate) and extrapolate from that person, not the leaders, to the entire Legislature. Since they like their Legislators, they like the Legislature. In addition as people may have an unfavorable opinion of Deval — where this starts — they are more likely to favor the Legislature. As for Murray and DeLeo, they may not be as familiar with them as individuals. I bet if you asked any questions testing respondent knowledge of the two — even their party ID, home region, or other — you would get very, very low responses.
here: http://sacredcods.wordpress.com/
<
p>Basically, I think Deval back in February cast his political lot with the “bash the Legislature and take credit for enacting needed reforms” strategy.
<
p>And now not only did that not work, but now he has lost a building full of people who held signs and raised money for him in 2006.
<
p>That 52% disapproval is monstrous. It is exceedingly tough — especially here in Massachusetts, which loves its grudges — to make people un-not like you. If that makes sense.
The best salve for that problem is time, I imagine. If the economy pivots into growth by summer 2010, I think those numbers would change.
LOL! Not in my town.
<
p>A bunch of people came out of nowhere and did the grassroots work. The Drmocratic establishment did jack.
…who held signs in 2006 are sitting around wondering what happened to Deval in 2009. Most will probably vote for Deval against the current field, but the enthusiasm is in short supply.
green energy policy, protecting marriage equality and human services. I figure he performed great on two out of three, which isn’t bad, and much of the disappointment with where we are on the third owes more to the Bush economy and collapse of state revenues than to any particular failing on the Governor’s part.
<
p>My point was just a reaction to this comment by southshorepragmatist
<
p>I don’t really see the legislature as a building full of people who held signs and raised money for Patrick in 2006, do you?
<
p>The disaffection you report (amongst party activists) is another matter. I don’t share it, but I know that many teachers are unhappy with the charter schools proposal.
<
p>
that doesn’t poll likely voters?
<
p>It may as well have been an internet poll, as far as I’m concerned.
One analysis is “fixated”? In any case, I can’t see that accounting for this abysmal result. Let’s be honest — if Mitt Romney had been polling like this in July 2001, we’d have been breaking out the party hats.
Actually, many polls either of state or federal races will not include likely voters this far out before an election. The reason is that it is very difficult to extrapolate from 2008 election behavior when that was a presidential year and 2010 is an off-year. A poll could ask people whether they are likely to vote in 2010, but people tend to overestimate their chances of voting, especially this far out.
<
p>You might argue that a poll this far out of adults really doesn’t give an accurate picture (particularly since Baker, and to a lesser extent, Cahill and Mihos aren’t very well known), and you would have a point, but it is pretty standard for polls this far in advance not to include “likely” voters.
It seems that he and I have been the only people consistently pointing out that a significant number of Democrats are tired of Deval Patrick. I refer you to my March 28th post ‘Devals Done’ which shows essentially the same numbers as this recent poll-only his standing among Democrats is getting worse. Also in both polls he has a strong majority of independents disapproving of him. Cahill switching parties will matter little since most voters know him as nice old ‘Tim the Treasurer’ and still think he is a democrat and the anti-Deval democrats will vote for Cahill instead of voting against Baker by voting for Deval so arguably it hurts Deval to have Cahill-basically another Democrat-all the way into the general. Kinda like Mihos hurt Healy.
<
p>For a site that claims to be ‘reality based’ the editors and many people on BMG are simply refusing the read the tea leaves and see the inevitable-Deval, fairly or not, is damaged goods, and if this site is really committed to keeping Mass blue, instead of blind loyalty to Deval, it ought to seriously consider this predicament. Baker and Cahill who most people on BMG arrogantly dismissed as being easy to beat and beneath Deval’s dignity to run against are kicking his ass in the early polling and the more people learn about them and where they stand they more they will kick his ass. For Baker to have that much now-when he is basically a generic Republican is stunning. Imagine how much traction he will get when people find out how moderate he is on social issues?
<
p>The writing is on the wall people and as soon as you wake up from your Deval induced daze you will realize that outside of this site the Governor is in real trouble.
But none of them have run for anything like Governor before. We don’t know how they’ll be as candidates — and Baker’s first big go, his announcement video, wasn’t exactly inspiring. Given that the strength of one’s campaign abilities is so important to winning anything, I don’t think I’m “arrogantly dismissing” anything.
<
p>Deval Patrick the candidate was far better than Deval Patrick the Governor (which isn’t to say I don’t think he’s been a good governor — it’s just that he was an excellent candidate). Does that mean he can be an excellent campaigner in Round 2? It will be hard to pull off such a great repeat performance, especially after having 4 years of baggage, but the dynamic is still there; Deval Patrick’s a dynamo speaker (better than Barack IMO), who hires the best talent to lead the field (this year it’ll be Obama’s former campaign manager). With John Walsh running things over at the state party, the state party will be fine-tuned to help the Governor win a Gubernatorial campaign… and the Patrick Campaign never had that support last time around until after the primary… and even then, the party apparatus wasn’t exactly geared for the same kind of field-fight that was the modus operandi of the entire Patrick campaign.
<
p>Do I think this is going to be easy-breezy? No. Baker could be a downright scary opponent — if he ends up being a strong campaigner. I just have my doubts. This poll doesn’t take any actual campaigning into consideration, making it even more meaningless. Get back to me 6 months from now, when things start to ramp up, and let’s see if the polls don’t start to change. For now, this “warning sign” of a poll is sort of like the fire alarm I had at my dorm in college — it would go off making hash browns for breakfast.
<
p>Neither had Deval and it was quite easy to dismiss him against the establishment candidate Tom Reilly and the bottomless funds of Chris Gabrielli-both of whom had previous statewide campaign experience.
<
p>Hillary Clintons introduction video was just as staged, just as canned, just as fake looking but she still came incredibly close to winning the Presidency and got a damn good second place position if I do say so myself.
<
p>Ted Kennedy gave a horrible first interview after he announced he was running for President being unable to answer why he ran for President yet he came just a few delegates shy of ousting a sitting incumbent during a presidential primary.
<
p>I would argue this first video is not an indicator of how well he will perform.
<
p>As for Deval being a better speaker than Obama
a) I would disagree and
b) being a great speaker doesn’t matter when you’re running on your record not your rhetoric.
<
p>So the poll shows Deval has lost the trust of the voters. Most of my anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that as well.
Once people start canvassing they will be surprised to hear that their golden boy has become an embarassment. I say this as a former precinct captain for Deval who was incredibly pumped up to work for his campaign, endured canvassing in 90 degree weather in Arlington heights and Cambridge, and someone who was glad to finally see one of his progressive heroes win. To me, the governors words set a high standard that he has simply been unable to live up too. He is a good, decent man, a very eloquent man, but he is a horrible political leader and that will ultimately doom him.
Like Obama, Deval is great on giving a speech that hits the moment on front of friendly or even neutral crowds.
<
p>Where Obama outshone Deval in the last election is on the debates. I remember the 2008 primary debates as Obama going toe-to-toe with an excellent Hillary Clinton, and improving throughout the process. I remember the 2006 primary debates as Deval whining at Gabs and Reilly to stop being so mean to him. One looked like a leader, one didn’t. In the general, Deval pretty much held his own against a rather uninspiring opponent. I think Baker and/or Mihos have more to offer in that context, so I hope Deval improves.
You compare it to the past few similar elections — namely, 06, 02 and probably 04. You could go back further, if you wanted, but probably not necessary. There are other things you could do with it, too, but I’m just keeping it simple. Then take those voters and poll random samplings of them. The fact that the Globe hires out professional people to do this stuff for them makes it even more lazy.
The BMG editors and other posters on this site remind me of the 28% of the public that supported George Bush and assumed the country would still vote Republican when they learned how much of a liberal Barack Obama was. Well they did and they still threw the GOP out.
will I have to vote for a candidate I don’t like and don’t support because the other alternative(s) are so much worse?
<
p>I genuinely liked Deval Patrick the candidate. He was fresh, inspiring, seemed authentic, and seemed excellent at describing three-quarter-empty glasses as “one-quarter full” — a skill I suggest we desperately need in this State.
<
p>As I have written here before, I am deeply disappointed by Deval Patrick the Governor. I was willing to cut him a little slack in his support of Ms. Wilkerson. When he so obviously sucked up to Sal DiMasi, he lost me. That was stale, not fresh. Depressing, not inspiring. Dishonest to the point of betrayal, not authentic.
<
p>His, and my, three priorities are transportation, health-care, and education (there is precious little any of us can do about “the economy”). The most important factor in doing anything effective about each of these three is funding. The Governor’s support of casinos is, in my opinion, dead wrong. He should have gone to his base to get a personal income tax increase, a gas tax increase, an estate tax increase, or all three. Instead, he sold his political soul to Sal DiMasi and Terry Murray.
<
p>James Aloisi is a disaster. The Governor’s handling of transportation has been extraordinarily disappointing. This state (and nation) needs government-sponsored single-payer health care, and Governor Patrick has chosen to duck that (as far as I can tell). I think the best thing we can do for education is regionalize school administration, increase state funding of schools, raise class size, dramatically increase teacher salaries, and find ways to financially reward our best teachers (I intentionally avoid the phrase “merit pay” because it is fraught with dragons and innuendo that I don’t mean to imply). I don’t see Governor Patrick doing anything to advance my education agenda.
<
p>I was astonished at the intensity of this blog’s reaction to my inquiry about the leadership slate. I want to echo jconway’s comment about “reality” — the reality is that, if anything, I’m more “blue” at the ballot box than most voters. If the residents of progressive sites like this so loudly shout down people like me, where will candidates we seek turn for support?
<
p>I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate for Governor is next fall (assuming that candidate is to the left of John Silber, surely a low threshold). I do so solely because the GOP is so bereft of ideas (or candidates) and because Mr. Cahill shares none of my priorities or values.
<
p>At the same time, I am weary of and angry about being forced yet again to choose the least-bad candidate. I might write in “Mickey Mouse”.
<
p>How about drafting Mike Dukakis?
Tom I gotta agree with you about how excited I was about Deval Patrick. Frankly Deval Patrick’s governorship and my role in causing it has helped turned me from an optimistic, idealist, progressive into a hardened and cynical pragmatist in just a three year period. By the way Im not even 21 yet.
I cannot contain in words the amount of disappointment I feel everytime I see that not only is he a mediocre-bad governor but that he is also the man I helped elect.
<
p>Drafting Dukakis was obviously meant as a satire but frankly the Democrats need to draft somebody else or face a thumpin’ at the polls.
<
p>Frankly a contest between Baker, Cahill, Patrick, and Mihos makes me feel bad for our state-this is the best we can do? These are our best and brightest? I’ll admit I’m intrigued by Baker but his record on the Big Dig, his silence on a few important issues, and the R next to his name are all a little disconcerting.
<
p>Bring back Harshbarger who had wonderful reformist potential. How about running Mike Capuano, Martha Coakley, or other experienced and competent progressive leaders? What other leaders do we have? Galvin-please the man can’t even be competent in his own job. I doubt Tim Murray will stab his boss in the back. I can’t think of anyone in the Senate or House who is either not tainted by Deval or the leadership. Sadly Im afraid they will all simply march in lockstep to a Republican victory. The timing could actually be right for a Joe Kennedy resurgence but I sincerely doubt that would unfold.
This Governor has a long list of accomplishments to his credit. What is the overwhelming disappointment about? What else specifically would you have needed to see in the last three years to count the Governor’s first term as a success?
I’d like the MBTA to be running better, not worse. I’d like more, rather than less, service. I’d like lower, rather than higher, fares. I’d like to see state funding of the MBTA dramatically increased. I’d like to see the debt burden of the MBTA returned to the state, where it belongs.
<
p>I’d like to see far fewer non-operating MBTA workers. One operator per train, instead of one per car. I’d like to see the average MBTA compensation package be five figures instead of six.
<
p>I’d like commuter rail to be running better, not worse.
<
p>I’d like to see the gas tax $0.25/gallon higher and all tolls (and toll takers) gone.
<
p>I’d like to see a smaller number of better teachers paid significantly more. I’d like to see larger classes with better textbooks taught by better-qualified and better paid teachers. I’d like to see more teachers and fewer principals, vice-principals, guidance counselors, and similar administrative overhead. I’d like to feel as though my children’s math and science teachers know more than me about both. I’d like my children encouraged to engage the topics they study, rather than conditioned to pass a standardized test.
<
p>I’d like to see regionalized schools, with fewer school boards, fewer purchasing departments, fewer budgets with fewer public employees playing games with them.
<
p>I’d like to see a significantly higher estate/gift tax for the wealthiest individuals. I’d like to see a significantly higher capital gains tax for the wealthiest individuals (not high income, but high wealth).
<
p>I’d like to see cities and towns be able to vote to impose a local income tax surtax, up to some statewide ceiling.
<
p>I’d like to see the Governor explaining that expanded gambling revenue is off the table, and I’d like to see him leading the way to replace lottery revenue with taxes.
<
p>I would like the Governor to have declined to endorse both Diane Wilkerson AND Sal DiMasi. I would like to have seen the Governor joining with Attorney General Coakley to aggressively pursue the network of corrupt doctors and lawyers that enable the on-going public service disability scams.
<
p>I would like the Governor and Attorney General to have been far more aggressive in seeking whatever tools they need to stop future Cognos and ticket reselling scams.
<
p>I would like to have seen some powerful white men (like Richard Vitale or Sal DiMasi) perp-walked like Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Turner.
<
p>I hope this is specific enough for you.
The Gov advocated for the gas tax increase, remember? But unilaterally setting setting taxes isn’t a power given to Governors in our Commonwealth.
<
p>My read is that only two on your list – not disavowing Wilkerson and DiMasi before their corruption scandal broke and putting forward the resort casino proposal – are squarely on the Governor’s shoulders.
<
p>I get (but don’t share) the intensity on the casino issue, and I understand the difficulty faced by the Governor in not alienating two legislators who in hindsight we know were headed for a fall but at the time were the subject only of rumors and concerns.
<
p>Really does not seem cause enough to repudiate a forward-thinking first-term Democratic governor who can be expected to get better at his role as his political experience grows.
I understand that he made noises about a gas tax increase. You didn’t ask that, you asked “What else specifically would you have needed to see in the last three years to count the Governor’s first term as a success?”
<
p>You didn’t ask about rationalizations, or press releases, or failed attempts. You asked about accomplishments.
<
p>The Governor’s comments about Mr. Grabouskas, reported in today’s Globe, have turned me against Governor Patrick. I can’t imagine voting for a Republican. I will not vote for Governor Patrick. He’s DONE in my book.
<
p>I don’t know Governor Patrick personally. I can’t speak to his personal authenticity or lack thereof. I can say that I find his public comments about Mr. Grabouskas contemptible. His attempt to scapegoat Mr. Grabouskas for the “serious fiscal issues at the T” is scurrilous, dishonest, cheapshot politics at its worst. His similar attempt to blame Mr. Grabouskas for safety issues that the MBTA can’t possibly address without massive additional state funding is worse.
<
p>Governor Patrick’s comments were so egregiously dishonest that the reporter (Noah Bierman) added the following:
<
p>THAT says it all.
<
p>If it slithers like a snake, hisses like a snake, and bites like a snake — then it is a snake.
<
p>I’m done with Governor Patrick.
Have to expect to be held accountable. It sounds like the Governor has concerns about his financial management and failure to provide a safe service. I find your vituperative comments about the Governor completely out of line – it’s his job to demand accountability.
Have to expect to be held accountable. It sounds like the Governor has concerns about his financial management and failure to provide a safe service. I find your vituperative comments about the Governor completely out of line – it’s his job to demand accountability.
I have no problem with the Governor kicking ass in private. My problem is with making statements like this on the record, apparently to the Globe’s Noah Bierman.
<
p>Do it in private, not in public. If Governor Patrick feels that Mr. Grabouskas needs a spanking (a view that I have much sympathy with), then pull Mr. Grabouskas into his office, say what needs to be said, press whatever buttons need to be pressed, and pull whatever levers need to be pulled. An effective executive — any effective executive — should know how to do that, especially after two years on the job.
<
p>I have no doubt that President Obama had some seriously harsh words with his staff and subordinates after the early screw-ups during his transition period. I think he provides an excellent model of how an effective executive handles such situations.
But he doesn’t. He’s appointed by and reports to the MBTA Board of Directors. The Governor has to make his point by political means; he isn’t in position to directly order changes in Grabauskus’ management of the system.
He doesn’t have to directly order anything. That’s what I meant by “pushing buttons” and “pulling levers”. It should be done in private. Not in public.
<
p>Here’s is where his choice of Mr. Aloisi looks particularly bad. So we’ve got the Governor and Mr. Aloisi publicly attacking Mr. Grabouskas, with the Lege supporting him.
<
p>Meanwhile, nobody is speaking the truth, which is that Governor Celluci and Mr. Finneran put a knife in the back of the MBTA back in 2001, when they simultaneously imposed both forward-funding AND crushing Big-Dig debt. Mr. Aloisi can’t talk about that, because of his role in the mess. Governor Patrick can’t talk about that, because his own pick for Transportation Secretary played such a major role in creating the problem.
<
p>The ugly truth is that James Aloisi was a key player in bankrupting the MBTA (and the Turnpike, before that). That makes it impossible for Governor Patrick to now do anything about that debt without attacking his own Transportation Sececretary. No wonder he and Mr. Aloisi gang up on Mr. Grabouskas — who else is there?
<
p>I’m no fan of Mr. Grabouskas, but I think this is terribly incompetent governance and politics.
<
p>I’m telling you, this is BAD for Governor Patrick and bad for the state. We deserve better.