I submitted the following to the Boston Globe on March 28:
To the Editor:
Chris Gabrieli is likely to announce shortly that he will seek the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. While I have a lot of respect for Mr. Gabrieli and the work he has done in the Commonwealth, I respectfully submit that this is a mistake that will harm both the Democratic Party and Mr. Gabrieliâs political career. Here are a few of the key reasons behind this conclusion:
First, Mr. Gabrieli has little chance of winning the nomination. In spite of his successful fundraising, he has neither the broad base of insider support of Attorney General Reilly nor the grassroots support of Deval Patrick. A loss this year, coupled with his loss during his lieutenant governor bid last cycle, will create an image of a perennial loser, hurting his chances in future elections. Meanwhile, a three-way split will divide the Democratic Party and will reduce the appearance of party unity and strength. Such an image would be better fostered by a two-person campaign, especially if one candidate were to win by a healthy margin.
Second, if Mr. Gabrieli did win the nomination, he would not be as likely as AG Reilly or Mr. Patrick to defeat Kerry Healey or another Republican challenger. While Mr. Gabrieli brings a great deal of experience and fresh ideas to a potential campaign, he has neither the political track record of AG Reilly nor the dynamism and energy of Mr. Patrick. To put it another way, he wonât play well in the press or in political ads, and this will prove an advantage to the Republicans.
Finally, a late entry by Mr. Gabrieli will splinter delegates at the Democratic State Convention in June. Currently, many delegates have declared publicly for AG Reilly or Mr. Patrick, while others are undecided but are likely leaning towards one or the other. For Mr. Gabrieli, an effective campaign would necessarily need to pilfer committed delegates from the other candidates while creating a three-way tug-of-war for the undeclared delegates. This will breed resentment towards Mr. Gabrieli amongst faithful supporters of AG Reilly and Mr. Patrick while reducing morale across the board for the Democrats. Right now, the Democratic Party is in a strong position to rebound from its recent string of defeats. Maintaining high morale is critical to ensuring that the partyâs nominee is carried to victory in November.
With these points in mind, I encourage Mr. Gabrieli to consider his decision not in light of his successful fundraising, but rather in light of what is best for his career and is best for the Democratic Party that he represents and that represents him.
Respectfully,
Maxim Weinstein
Maxim’s letter makes the following bare-bones points on why Gabrieli shouldn’t run:
<
p>
1) Gabrieli has little support.
2) A three-way race is too divisive.
3) He’s less likely than Reilly or Patrick to beat Healey.
4) Delegates have already made up their minds for Reilly or Patrick.
<
p>
All four of these points are fallacious.
<
p>
1) Gabrieli beat out three other candidates in 2002 to win the Democratic Lt. Gov. nomination. He has a statewide base and a record of winning a well-contested primary statewide. (And you certainly can’t blame Gabrieli for the Dems gubernatorial 2002 loss.)
<
p>
2) I wonder if Maxim has already committed to either Reilly or Patrick. A three-way race isn’t “too divisive” – it’s just another candidate for your guy to contest with. More candidates mean more voices, more energy, more ideas, and more volunteers for the general election, whoever the nominee is. It is only divisive if the candidates go negative. In his 2002 Lt. Gov. race, Gabrieli NEVER went negative.
<
p>
3) I believe that Maxim is basing this point (and point #1 to a degree) on recent polls showing Reilly and Patrick faring better against Healey than Gabrieli is. This is fallacious because Gabrieli is now JUST GETTING IN. How did Patrick fare in polls against Healey in the spring of 2005? People aren’t paying attention to the race, by and large. Polls are indicating that whoever the Dem nominee is, we’ll have a significant edge on Healey.
<
p>
4) All Gabrieli needs is 15% – there are more than that in the Undecideds pool, I’d reckon. In fact, I think it would be embarrassing for the MA Democratic Party to say “Yeah, you were good enough to be second in command in 2002, but you can’t run in 2006.”
<
p>
Additionally points:
<
p>
–Gabrieli has been a recognized leader on a wide range of issues from education to stem cell research to workforce and economic development.
–Gabrieli has the personal dollars to go toe-to-toe with the millionaires club of Healey and Mihos.
–By running statewide before, he has been publicly vetted in a way that Deval Patrick hasn’t
–He HAS debated Kerry Healey before, in the 2002 Lt. Gov. race, so he has experience against her.
<
p>
What do you think, Maxim?
1) In 2002, Mr. Gabrieli won a three-way race for Lt. Gov. against a weak one-issue candidate and a state rep with no statewide recognition who never got his fundraising off the ground. That hardly qualifies as a “well-contested” race and it’s certainly not in the same league as running against Deval Patrick and AG Reilly.
<
p>
2) A three-way race is not inherently divisive, but I think in this case, with or without negative campaigning by Mr. Gabrieli, it would be. While I applaud the idea of more choice, there’s something about a candidate being nominated by only 35 or 40 percent of the delegates that makes the party look weak and divided. (Yes, I know that ultimately the candidate will get at least 50% + 1 delegate, but that’s only after all the gamesmanship of multiple rounds of voting, and that fools nobody.) Incidentally, the only reason it wouldn’t be divisive is if all but a small percentage of delegates ignored the Gabrieli candidacy, in which case he’d be pulling a Ralph Nader. (And, for the record, yes, I am supporting Deval Patrick, but long before I knew the name of a single candidate, I was hoping for the party to have no more than two candidates this cycle after the debacle in 2002.)
<
p>
3) As they say, assumption is the mother of all mistakes. I didn’t base any of my points on polls (in fact, I have not seen any poll results involving a possible Gabrieli candidacy). As I said in my letter, my point was based on the fact that Mr. Gabrieli, for all the great work he’s done, does not have the “special sauce” needed to win. AG Reilly has the bully pulpit of his office, a good track record in elected office, and at least as many “insider” political friends as anyone. Deval Patrick has a well-developed grassroots organization and phenomenal presence and public speaking ability. Mr. Gabrieli has maybe as much insider support as AG Reilly, poor public speaking ability, no bully pulpit, no extensive grassroots support, and no political track record. That’s just not going to do it against the Republican media machine.
<
p>
4) I said an effective campaign, and I don’t believe it would be effective to aim for just barely 15% of the delegates’ votes pulled entirely from the undeclared pool (which is already larger than the undecided pool). If his goal is really to bring the Democrats to victory and/or increase his own political capital, he has to try to sway delegates, and there’s no way he’s going to do that without alienating people. Indeed, even his plan to enter the race has already begun to do that.
<
p>
By the way, your last two “additionally” points contradict your #3. If he’s already been vetted and debated Lt. Gov. Healey so effectively, then why is he still polling so poorly?
<
p>
It all comes down to this: Even had he entered early, Mr. Gabrieli would have been unlikely to win the primary, even more unlikely to win a general election, and likely to divide the party in a key election year. Couple that with Tim’s excellent point about the ill timing (even if it was completely within the rules) of Mr. Gabrieli’s entry into the race, and you really have a losing proposition for the candidate and the party.
Max – I think you have proved my point with your errors.
<
p>
1) It WAS a four-way race, not a three way race, at its peak – and the “one-issue” candidate (the one trying for clean elections) was the one knocked out first. And the State Rep with “no statewide recognition” (which is wrong since Slattery was a favorite among many union folks) was O’Brien’s first choice for a running mate. Gabrieli was originally considering a Treasurer run when Shannon O’Brien talked him into LG.
<
p>
2) WHY would Gabrieli’s entrance be divisive??? You keep saying it will be, but not why. He won’t go negative, so what’s the problem?
<
p>
You also say: “there’s something about a candidate being nominated by only 35 or 40 percent of the delegates that makes the party look weak and divided.”
<
p>
This really proves my point about the convention being misunderstood – a candidate is ENDORSED at the convention, not “nominated” – the nomination comes after the primary.
<
p>
My point here is that even you misunderstand the convention, so lecturing on why it’s better to keep voices out of the primary is probably misguided.
<
p>
3) He does not have the “special sauce” needed to win? This is your argument? I don’t have all night to go through why everything in your point 3 is wrong, but look again at my original response – he is the only one who has debated Kerry Healey – and he crushed her; he IS a good public speaker, no matter how many times you say otherwise. Deval is a better public speaker, but he has never run for office before, much less statewide office, much less chief executive. I don’t see you kicking him to the curb.
<
p>
4) An effective campaign comes with time. If he doesn’t pull together an effective campaign, he won’t get elected! That’s how democracy works. Meanwhile, actually do some research on him and take a look at his work on education policy, stem cells, workforce and economic development, etc. – he could infuse more IDEAS to our side of the race, which will only help whoever the Democratic nominee is against Healey. Why would you want to silence that? Are you really afraid your candidate couldn’t beat him?
<
p>
And, to answer your question, he’s polling poorly because he has been out of the public spotlight for over three years. Where was Deval polling a year ago? Should we have kept him out?
<
p>
If he doesn’t poll well in a few months, approaching the primary, he won’t win. Hooray democracy!
<
p>
In the meantime, he has the opportunity to offer some actually new ideas (seriously, do some research on his work). And nobody in this string has offered a SUBSTANTIVE reason why his candidacy would hurt the Party besides “it’s too late – he missed his chance.”
I think there’s really only one reason Gabrieli shouldn’t run: He’s not playing by the rules. He already decided he wouldn’t run, he let the process happen without him, and that should’ve been that. If he were going to run, he should’ve gone through the caucus process like the other candidates, not get the state committee to bend the rules to create a new process just for his benefit because he wanted to change his mind so late.
<
p>
If we were talking about this before the new year, I’d be all for more candidates running. I’d still support Deval Patrick, but I like healthy democratic contests. Of course I think multicandidate contests would be much healthier and more democratic with instant runoff voting [PDF], but I wouldn’t argue that a candidate shouldn’t run just because I’ve picked someone, or on the grounds that more candidates is more divisive.
<
p>
P.S. I disagree with you, but I like to see this kind of post here, so I’m recommending your post.
Cos, I think what Gabrieli’s doing is well within the rules. That being said, he comes across as a first-class jerk by throwing his hat in the ring at this late date. And, yes, on general principle I’d welcome any candidate who has the inclination and support to run; but I think Gab made his bed, so to speak, by not getting in
<
p>
He buried himself further in my doghouse with his NECN interview the other night. He seems like he’s more than a bit self-absorbed and hasn’t really been paying attention to what any of the other candidates has been saying or doing. There’s something about his implied “I’ll be the one to swoop in and rescue the Democrats and the Commonwealth” that I find incredibly arrogant (albeit in a low-key sort of way) and I think is turning off a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to listen to what he has to say. (And granted I don’t personally know the man; this is just how he projects in the couple of times I’ve seen him on TV.)
<
p>
I really think he’d do himself and the Democratic Party a favor if he just sat this one out….
<
p>
And, yes, I am supporting Patrick, but I think I’d be just as offended if I were a Reilly supporter.
Cos, I think what Gabrieli’s doing is well within the rules. That being said, he comes across as a first-class jerk by throwing his hat in the ring at this late date. And, yes, on general principle I’d welcome any candidate who has the inclination and support to run; but I think Gab made his bed, so to speak, by not making a decision earlier (i.e., pre-caucus).
Gabrieli is arrogant, but in a low-key way? I don’t know if arrogance can be low-key – that’s why it’s arrogrance…
<
p>
And the “I’ll be the one to save the Commonwealth” attitude is the right attitude for ANY Democrat who wants to save the Commonwealth from 16 years of short-sighted Republican rule. Reilly and Patrick should have more of that attitude!
<
p>
And who is Gabrieli turning off? Most voters aren’t watching yet. We are – and he’s not turning you off – you’re already committed elsewhere, so you’re not his specific target audience.
<
p>
Yes, you are a Deval supporter, Tim; and, yes, you’d be just as offended if you were a Reilly supporter, of course. Because you don’t want a third candidate muscling in on your guy’s territory. Would you be offended if you were 100% undecided (or decided, but, at least, objective) – that is the question.
Without digressing too much, I think there’s a difference between confidence and arrogance. I think DP projects confidence; Gab comes across as being arrogant. (Reilly…. Well, let’s not go there.) That’s my perception.
<
p>
And yes, I am biased but these are my impressions of the guy. I have listened to his NECN interviews and Gab has said nothing to acquit himself in my eyes.
<
p>
As for delegates, I figure Gab considers anyone fair game. I, too, received one of those letters from Brother John, so I figure I’m entitled to my $0.02.
Cos – I respectfully disagree with the premise of your response.
<
p>
Gabrieli is playing by the rules – the rules say he needs 500 delegates to be considered at the convention, and 15% of the delegates to make the primary ballot. That’s the rules. The rules do not prohibit entrance after the caucuses. There is no “bending the rules” and to suggest so is misleading and dishonest.
<
p>
In fact, to put it in proper perspective, I think we have to take a look at the purpose of the caucuses. It is NOT to specifically choose candidates. It is to gather representative Democrats from the 351 towns and cities in Massachusetts to discuss party business – one item of which is voting on potential primary candidates.
<
p>
To frame the purpose of the caucuses singularly through the prism of gubernatorial delegate selection is to miss the greater purpose of the convention, and the Party for that matter.
<
p>
Gabrieli started late, so he has to play catch-up on everything, including delegate support. But it is just an obstacle – not an all-out restriction.
<
p>
To admit my own bias, I do believe that many of those who find fault with Gabrieli’s entrance this late do so because they don’t want the added competition for “their guy,” be it Reilly or Patrick, but I will certainly stick to the merits of the arguments at hand.
<
p>
Elsewhere, Cos, I do fully agree with you about instant runoff voting. That, however, would take a ton of voter education to prevent IRV foul-ups and people not understanding the process when at the polls. Hopefully, IRV proponents will focus not just on convincing legislators to give it a shot but also educating the masses on why it’s a better system and will more accurately achieve democratic representation.
Even in our flawed vote for just one, first past the post system of electing a nominee, it doesn’t necessarily follow that a new entrant into the race will hurt my candidate or your candidate. As a Patrick supporter, for example, I’m not convinced that Gabrieli will take more votes away from Patrick than he would from Reilly. He may very well appeal more to potential Reilly supporters than to Patrick supporters and help my candidate out (though I’m not convinced of that either). So I don’t think that particular motivation is at play here.
<
p>
If we had IRV, it would be a much simpler situation. We wouldn’t have to think about who he takes votes away from, only about which candidates he might get more support than. That would be much healthier. (and even less reason to resent new entrants, as long as you think you can beat them)
Up until about a month ago, the rule was that you could be added for consideration at the convention if you could get the signatures of 500 elected delegates. When Gabrieli decided to run, it wasn’t clear that he could do that, because the bulk of the elected delegates ran as either Patrick or Reilly supporters, and it seemed likelye that weren’t 500 out of those ~3000 who would support him. So, as I understand it, the party leadership unilaterally decided to reinterpret the rules to say that ex-officio delegates could also count for that 500. And, as I understand it, Gabrieli is depending on the signatures of ex-officio delegates for his 500 – he doesn’t actually have 500 elected delegates supporting adding him as a candidate at the convention.
The State Committee did not make any change to the rules.
<
p>
The rules were always clear that all elected delegates could sign the papers to get a candidate in front of the convention. What happened here was that some folks read “elected” as “elected at the caucuses” and raised the possibility to the State Committee.
<
p>
I was at the State Committee meeting and there was very little disagreement with the ruling. This despite the fact that most of the DSC members in attendance were solidly behind Deval Patrick (and a few for Tom Reilly).
<
p>
By the way, a fair number of people signed the petition that night who were supporters of Patrick or Reilly.
As PatrickA correctly notes, there was an interpretive issue to be resolved, and it was resolved in a manner favorable to Gabrieli. Maybe the fix was in, and maybe it wasn’t, but it is simply not correct to say that the party unilaterally changed the rules.
<
p>
More here, and here, for those who would like to refresh their recollections.
because with 4-8% points against Reilly and Patrick right now the only way he will be able to get the nomination will be by spending $10million on negative ads against them — even then it is a gamble.
<
p>
one of the posts said no one is paying attention and that is right to some extent but they have been paying attention to the 16 years that Reilly has been around and they have been paying attention to the credible agressive campaign of Deval Patrick. The fact that Gabrieli ran for Lt. Gov. and 80%+ of the people polled have no idea who he is should be sign enough that he is done and shouldn’t be a party killer.
<
p>
I know people will say well he will spend money to define himself. All the while Kerry Healey will be sitting pretty with her deadbeat running mate and we will all be fighting eachother. The table was set for two — no room for a party crasher. Sorry Chris give it 4 to 8 years and try again. This is not your time.
Why do you assume he’ll go negative when he never has before?
<
p>
If he can’t make up the ground, he won’t win and that’s that – meanwhile, he has the chance to infuse the race with some new ideas – how can that hurt? It’ll help the party by bringing in people who might not have otherwise joined up with the Dem side.
<
p>
Think about it like this – most people can’t name a single Kerry Healey accomplishment, and Reilly and Patrick STILL only poll within ten points of her. What happens when she gets credit in the public with anti-gang stuff (if she can spin it right). Reilly’s and Patrick’s leads may be tenuous. Why not just let another CREDIBLE voice in the race. How can that hurt? Unless you really are putting your candidate above the good of the Party by not giving the Democrats throughout the state the chance to hear as many voices as possible.
Lets put aside our politics here and observe how much the $500 campaign donation limit really hurts our democratic process.
<
p>
Wealthy candidates like Gabrielli and Mihos have now tested the pulse of the electorate. They have scoped out the field and have now waited until the last minute to jump in the race. The “privilege of the rich” is he luxury of not dealing with grueling fund raisers for a year or more prior to the election and during the actual campaign. The $5,000,000 in their own personal funds at primary time gives them a war chest to create enough negative attack ads to give them a shot at the general election.
<
p>
In a effort to clean up the campaign finance laws the do gooders in the legislature cut its own throats with this $500 restriction. Most states have a $2,000, $5,000, $20,000 or even an unlimited maximum contribution per person .Even if Andy Card wanted to run, it would be a waste of time because of his lack of personal resources.
<
p>
Having a higher contribution limit would make a negligible difference in the amount of fundraising effort some candidates would need to make, but a significant difference in the amount of effort other candidates would need to make – they key difference being how many wealthy connections they’ve got. Consider, for example, a city council race pitting a candidate from the poor neighborhood against a candidate from the wealthy side of town. Raise the limit, and candidate 2 gets to raise $1k each from half his $500 donors. Candidate 1 barely has any $500 donors anyway, and raising the limit doesn’t help her.
<
p>
Then there’s the real point of contribution limits: reducing the potential for quid pro quo arrangements. Will a legislator do someone favors for $500/year to their campaign fund? Will they do someone legislative favors in exchange for $2000/year to their campaign fund? Much much more likely.
<
p>
I can see a rationale for having higher limits for statewide races. Everyone running for a statewide office is gonna find some $500 donors who could give more, and given the higher overall budget for such a campaign, $1k donations may not pose as much of a corruption risk as $500 donations pose in a state house race.
<
p>
Of course if we really want to solve these problems, we need public financing. Playing with contribution limits only goes so far.
The question I have regarding Gabrieli’s entrance into the race is this: will a 3-person primary help or hurt the eventual nominee? Will the democrat who wins in September be better prepared to face Healey or bruised and bloodied by the primary process? That’s what we all need to be considering as Democrats, regardless of who our horse is in the race.
<
p>
Personally, I don’t know the answer to the question. Gabrielly could spend $5 million on attack ads or he could not. Reilly and Patrick could do a perfectly good job attacking each other without Gabrieli in the race.
<
p>
Regardless of the number of candidates, we need to make sure that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot in the primary and let the republicans walk into the corner office come November.