Sidenotes on the results of the Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) straw poll for the three contested statewide offices:
SECRETARY OF STATE
The Secretary of State vote was the most interesting vote (and closest). Secretary Galvin addressed the crowd, evidently with a precondition that a straw poll NOT be held for this office. After John Bonifaz’ campaign manager made her address, a motion was made (by me) calling for including the Secretary of State’s office in the straw poll. A lengthy discussion ensued about why the CDCC executives would NOT automatically include this office in a straw poll, and the response was “out of courtesy for elected office.” One Ward 6 member offered a decisive comment, “Since when do the candidates get to decide who gets to conduct a straw poll about them?” A voice vote was held and the CDCC executives were overwhelmingly over-ruled. Score one against incumbency protection. Bonifaz went on to win the straw poll. Make that score two against incumbency protection.
LT. GOVERNOR
All four candidates for Lt. Governor made personal appearances, primarily because of the high delegate count. They asked for our vote tonight, as well as our vote at the convention the weekend after next. Andrea Silbert made several appearances in Cambridge over the weekend, and her busy weekend paid off. (She got me to commit to her as a delegate earlier in the day today — I was undecided at her weekend events).
GOVERNOR
This lopsided vote was predictable enough that Reilly and Gabrieli did not even send representatives to address the crowd (Patrick did — Rep. Alice Wolf spoke on his behalf). At the Cambridge caucuses, Deval won 99-2. I spotted one of Reilly’s two delegates at the event, but he decided not to address the crowd. This vote bodes even more poorly for Gabrieli, since delegates (and everyone else) were free to express support for him, and did not.
— Jesse Gordon, Secretary of the Cambridge Ward 10 Democratic Committee, and delegate to the State Convention.
I remember it well – lived there for years.
<
p>
If I were Deval, Andrea, or John, I’d be worried. 🙂
I sometimes get the feeling Galvin would rather we just didn’t have a contest. I’m glad to hear the vote happened, and more glad to hear we won the poll 🙂
it’s nice to see the proportion of each vote nearly perfectly matching my feelings about all those candidates, though gabrieli would be a stronger second than tied with reilly. but the lg numbers were very much like i would think from a non-worcester crowd: i think there are two kinds of LG opinions, the Murray crowd and those who are undecided, who in all likelihood I think will swing to Andrea.
A candidate with a business background, who touts economic jobs creation, getting endorsed by the most progressive city committee in the state?!
<
p>
Is this a seachange political event? Silbert can unite seemingly disparate factions in the Democratic Party and build a broad coalition. That ability is a heck of an addition to the November ticket—Silbert’s message appeals to a broad spectrum of voters.
Frankly, I’d still be happy with any of them…all for different reasons. Tim Murray brings the outer 495 votes, is polished and has a good background in local city government and could work easily into the LG’s traditional role of liason between municipalities and the state government.
<
p>
Goldberg seems really close to hitting the right note, also has a background in local government, she just needs to get a little more specific on how she would use her position to advocate for specific types of programs.
<
p>
Silbert has the jobs creation background, is assertive on the stump, and is as smart as the rest of the group. She also has an ability to fundraise, which we could use on the ticket.
<
p>
Sam, though a nice guy and I bet a good psychologist, is probably the weakest of the three but I like the conversation about health care that his entrance to the race brings.
<
p>
Any of them brings something a bit unique to the ticket. I still can’t really decide for my final vote. I suspect (since I’m not a delegate) that I will wait a while longer, getting the opportunity to take in more specifics from each of them once we’re close to the primary. I think I’ll also try to find time to conduct personal interviews with them during the summer.
Yes Lynn, I am a Silbert supporter and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have also volunteered on her campaign. I share your overall assessment of the LG field.
<
p>
Sam is a compassionate person, a healer, but elected office may not be his calling.
<
p>
I think David captured Deb Goldberg’s qualities the best when he wrote yesterday, “She show(s) a calm yet fairly intense demeanor… and an impressive command of a wide variety of issues.” (Note, the pre-internet excerpt instead of the link.) With one sentence, the old school is easier.) But in the end, I have to agree with you when you say Deb needs specifics and in my view, a message that articulates why she would be the best LG nominee.
<
p>
Even without being Mayor of Worcester—the host city for the convention—and having a network of Mayors and elected officials, Tim Murray would still be a heck of a candidate. But I think some of his rationales don’t hold water. (I just saw the Sunday debate and something he said really resonated with me and I hope to blog on that later.)
<
p>
But to you point cited that Tim would help with outer 495 votes—something I’ve heard Tim speak about in a couple of LG forums I volunteered for (their most have been 20 or 30 over the months).
<
p> I think Tim’s electability point is unpersuasive when you look at actual voting patterns. For example, the five counties west of 495 made up less than 24% (484,000 votes) of the 2002 MA Governor’s election (versus a total ’02 MA vote tally of 2,074,000). As a former resident of Hampshire and Hampden counties, I’m afraid to say that is not a critical base of votes.
<
p>
And the vote tally west of 495 does not appear to be our electoral problem, we only lost those five counties by 11,000 votes and we lost the eastern part by almost 95,000 votes. So these 5 western counties, representing 23% of the vote represent only 11% of the vote margin (105,000) the R’s had over us. But the counties east of 495 represent 77% of the electorate and accounted for 90% of our defeat.
<
p>
In addition, the City of Worcester has proven to have NO coat tails for surrounding towns in past elections. For example, in 2002, almost every city or town in Worcester County—except for the city of Worcester—voted for Romney/Healey. The city of Worcester voted one way and the rest of the county voted another. Why should we expect the city of Worcester to affect the votes in these communities in ’06 when they’ve have not done it in the past?
<
p>
No, I think Tim is wrong on this.
winning any poll in Cambridge is the kiss of death for any Gubernatorial candidate.
I’m sure you can cite concrete examples of past polls.
While you are at it, please.
care anymore about strawpolls that appeal to certain types of people out of the mainstream. It’s just a chance for failing campaigns to win something before losing overall, my bet is that none of the winners in this poll actually win the primary.
plus, lets remember that this strawpoll was taken in Cambridge of all places. Not very representative of the greater MA Electorate.
Jesse,
A correction.
The chair’s response was “Out of courtesy.” Take a moment to note that that answer is quite complete as it stands.
The addition “…for elected office” was not heard by me, and I was sitting right where you were (in fact, one row in front).
Score — sadly, amid cries of when will we ever learn, etc, etc, etc — 1 very big point against Massachusetts progressives getting it right.
I changed what I was going to say between when I wrote the subject (which now is a bit out of place) and when I wrote the text.
Galvin will kick Bonifaz’s ass (why would a statewide candidate make pro choice and anti war platform planks, hes really not helping his case with those two positions, not that i disagree but when it comes to statewide candidates its irrelevent and I dont care, these are also not positions different than Galvins)
<
p>
Patrick will have a very close primary race, to us progressives who really take our citizenry seriously we know that Deval will win at the Convention but it doesnt mean he will win the nomination, my dad is leaning towards Deval but says that Gabriellis ads impress him and sometimes its those media blitzes and name recognition that matter. And Reilly has HUGE statewide support.
<
p>
Lastly on the LG I am confident Murray will win and is the best candidate, all of the LG candidates have no name recognition except for Murray, Murray is raising the most money, and he is the only one with solid political experience at the executive level, no offense to Ms. Silbert or Dr. Kelley but what makes you both think your first political office should be LG thats a big leap Id say. And Goldberg knows that the Brooline Selectmen dont do shit.
<
p>
Anyway it is a biased take, Kelley is too boring, Deb too bitchy, and Silbert too optimistic and inexperienced. Leaving us with Murray who will bring in white Irish Reilly supporters on a Deval ticket.
So let me get this right — you are criticizing Andrea for being so ambitious that LG would be her first office… but you are fine with Deval making his electoral debut in the office higher? That stinks of a Murray bias and weak talking points.
<
p>
Also, just for the record, Andrea has raised more money than Murray. jconway, I would spend more time checking facts before attempting to pass feelings off as facts.
Most people I spoke to have catergorized Silbert as “bitchy” and Goldberg as wide-eyed and bushy-tailed. Ohh and Migrane – Since Murray entered the race, he has raised more than Silbert. I think Conway is just telling it like it is …everyone here has some bias or another b/c they are supporting a specific candidate, including you.
Bitchy? No need to go there, SSL, no need at all.
<
p>
I don’t know any of the candidates well enough to know whether one is nicer than the other, but they all seem pretty nice to me – and that’s not based on what “most” people say, that’s based on what I have seen of them.
it was in quotes, which is b/c I heard it a few people and in no way reflects how I personally think of her. I would never call someone bitchy, unless I actually knew them and knew it to be true.
think Tim Murray is a a dope, and that Andrea is overqualified.
<
p>
See how ridiculous that sounds?
…but you have no problem repeating it for hundreds (maybe thousands) to read. Ya, SSL you’re smooth.
Didn’t he transfer about $100,000 to start the race? If so, you should subtract that amount before claiming that “he has raised more”. If you want to include transferred/loaned $, Goldberg is winning hands down. If my memory is off on this, can someone let me know.
John Bonifaz is opposed to the Iraq War, and has done more than just about anyone to oppose it. He sued the Bush administration; he co-founded the After Downing Street coalition; he wrote a book about it. Hiding that would be ridiculous.
<
p>
But “platform planks”? What’re you talking about? He’s running for Secretary of State as a voting rights leader, something he’s worked on even longer and harder than he has on the Iraq war. He’s an expert on election law and election processes, and a tireless advocate and leader on these issues. That’s very relevant to the office of Secretary – in fact, it’s the most relevant experience anyone could possibly have for that office.
<
p>
If you think the anti-war stuff is irrelevant, why do you bring it up? It’s certainly not part of any “platform” Bonifaz has put forward for his campaign for Secretary. The keystone of his platform is a Voters’ Bill of Rights:
That’s what he’s running for: Democracy, open government, and real leadership both in this state and nationally.
I like Bonifaz, I think he is a great guy. I am concerned though about what Bonifaz’s ideas are for the myriad other responsibilities the Secretary of the Commonwealth has. He talks voting rights, which is music to my ears, but I have no clue if he knows that the Sec of Comm does more than voting issues. Thanks for any help in this area!
On the issues page you’ll find the voters’ bill of rights, John’s statement in support of the open document format, and the wide-ranging DFA Cambridge candidate questionnaire. The DFA questionnaire has some of what you’re looking for.
<
p>
Also note that #8 on the voters bill of rights is about some of the other aspects of the Secretary’s job: open government and public access to information. Bonifaz is a strong proponent. With him in office, we may finally get things like a state web site that lets you find out how your legislators voted on important issues. Imagine that! 🙂
<
p>
The issues page is just a start, there will be more there with time, but there should be enough to get you started now.
Just FYI, they’re not exactly easy to find, but all the roll-call votes are available online in the Senate and House journals. A more user-friendly system would certainly be an improvement, though, since you generally have to know either when the vote occurred or the bill number (or preferably both) to find anything in the journals.
Oh, I know the roll call votes are there, but having seen just a hint of the effort Jesse and his volunteers go through to produce the Mass Scorecard [2005-2006 edition currently being compiled], I also know how far those online house journals are from a web site that lets voters look up how their legislators voted on issues important to them. In fact, that’s the main reason we get so much praise for the Scorecard – it’s the best source of that information for voters, and a quantum leap over what the state provides.
<
p>
Cambridge has the same problem. Technically, every city council vote is posted on the web site. Practically, if you have an issue in mind and want to know how your councilors voted on it… good friggin’ luck. Even I can’t usually do it, and I’m very skilled with web searching and reasonably knowledgeable about local politics.
I knew you would point me in the right direction. I appreciate it.
Frank is right. The Bonifaz website has vastly improved. The original was confusing, a bit hard to navigate, and has that stated (if memory serves) that he was running because Galvin was running for Governor. The tone changed slightly after Galvin pulled out. The improved site is much better.
<
p>
Nonetheless, I must agree with Dave that the candidates must address the entire range of responsibilites of the office. While the website no longer contains references to the Iraq war or impeachment of the president, it still contains no refernces in the issues section (granted – I have not completely vetted the entire site) to securities regulation, historic preservation issues, census issues, etc. Bonifaz simply is not credible as a one issue candidate (1.5 if you count open source), especially where Galvin has a great deal of success on these issues. He and Spitzer are the leading state securities regulators. Galvin has been the leading voice in Massachusetts on corporate responsibility, and pushing this issue means more than “getting money out of politics” – an issue for legislators not SOC. Galvin did great work ensuring an accurate count for Massachusetts in the 2000 census. I having asking for quite some time about these issue areas, and the best that has been offered thus far is “coming soon”. Recently added to that response is promise of “real leadership.”
<
p>
Let’s heear the complete pitch. Can somebody tell me why Galvin should be turned out and why Bonifaz should get the job?
“solid political experience at the executive level” is a requirement for governor, lieutenant governor or any other constitutional office?
<
p>
If we’re going on “executive experience” in terms of years serving a complex enterprise, surely Andrea Silbert’s decade serving as Chief Executive Officer counts, right? Why this fascination with putting the word “political” before “executive experience”? What makes that more relevant to becoming the LG or Gov.?
<
p>
These are mostly rhetorical questions, but you get my point: too many of us are so fascinated with elected officials in this state that we fail to remember that they a) don’t hold a monopoly on being more politically astute than non-electeds, and b) their executive experience in government may not place them in the best position to see the forest for the trees — i.e. see the best solutions to the real problems that people face every day.
<
p>
I dare say that Ms. Silbert has exceedingly more executive, professional and life experience than Mr. Murray – who is some years her junior. Working in financial services, living amongst the poor in Brazil, and starting a small business trump becoming a lawyer and getting elected to the City Council and being named Mayor by that Council (unless he won it by getting the most votes – how does it work?)
<
p>
Ms. Goldberg also has more “experience” than Mr. Murray: she has worked in a number of businesses, holds two professional degrees, apparently has been active and, I presume, a leader in a number of large charitable entities in the greater Boston area.
<
p>
And while I’m at it, I’ll assert that Mr. Kelley has more “experience” than Mr. Murray, through his work for various Congressmen, Hillary Clinton’s health care task force, and others.
<
p>
So, I think the assertion that Mr. Murray has more “executive experience” than the others is a bunch of hooey. However, he is no neophyte, and he certainly has relevant experience as well: he is an attorney, he lives in a rich, diverse community that has all the blessings and curses of an urban setting, and he’s clearly thought creatively about the problems, and solutions, facing us.
<
p>
But I’ll go back to the premise I started with: why does his status as an elected official somehow make him more qualified for the job when his competitors have all either worked in, or extensively interfaced with, government during their professional careers?
<
p>
I want someone with a diverse background and experience in the way the various facets of Massachusetts work – in the private, non-profit and governmental sectors, all of which are essential to our everyday lives here. Andrea Silbert lives her life at the crossroads of those sectors, and for those reasons, she is the most qualified to be the last voice our Governor hears before making an executive decision.
Out here in Leftern Massachusetts, the results are pretty much in line with the Cambridge readings. Here’s my version of Jesse’s table for the Berkshire, Hampshire & Franklin District:
<
p>
<
p>
Please note that only 29 people who responded to my email poll expressed a preference for LG, whilst 40 had an opinion re the SoC race.
<
p>
I’m amused by all the talk of how “unrepresentative” these polls are, and that may very well be true. Money buys votes, Chris has proved that for us. The comforting thing is that it doesn’t seem to take much.
<
p>
But to chastise Bonifaz for taking an “antiwar” stand as being out of touch with the electorate? Hello? Anyone seen our Warp Resident’s approval ratings lately? And this is Massachusetts!
<
p>
And to say that Reilly has “huge” support around the state? Where? What evidence? Have you been to any of the public events that have been held so far in this cycle? Where were the “huge” Reilly supporters? They decided to stay home and write checks? Just to cite one example (and I have many others), see my post, with photos about the Agawam debate. Right across the river from Springfield, where he grew up, Reilly supporters stayed away in droves.
<
p>
Note that my table is for an area of only 20% or so of the voters west of Worcester County, but my guess is that it is fairly representative of the rural and college towns that make up the westernmost quarter of the state. In the cities (Springfield, Holyoke, and Chicopee), the electorate is probably more inclined to support incumbents than is the case elsewhere, but that’s a matter of degree, and is not necessarily all that different, imho.
<
p>
Also, for those who seem to dismiss Cambridge and the Berkshires (and the Cape and the North Shore and …) as being “unrepresentative” of the state as a whole, I would strongly warn against using past voting patterns as a good predictor of what is afoot this time around. I sense a very different mood in my neck of the woods, and I don’t think it’s just because I only talk to political junkies. For one thing, that’s not true, but even among my activist friends, I sense a new determination that this time it’s going to be different.
<
p>
That said, my background is in finance, where a standing joke is that the most dangerous words in investing are the very ones I just used, “this time it’s different!”
<
p>
Still, I think it is. I’ve recorded a few thoughts on this topic, and I think I’ll be coming back to it often, because I’m sure we’ll be seeing lots of press commentary trying to tell us how (no matter what happens), the pundits know better than the delegates to the Convention, or better than those wacky polls in Cambridge, or better than those left-leaning Primary voters, etc, etc.
<
p>
Nine days till the MassDems Convention in Worcester!
118 days (4 months) till the Primary Election
167 days (24 weeks) till the General Election
<
p>
I’m pretty sure the criticism had been of the relevance of the war in a secretary of state race, not out of touchness.
The quote to which I was referring was:
<
p>
<
p>
So, the charge was that being “pro choice and anti war” is “irrelevant” for “statewide candidates” — not just this race.
<
p>
One can quibble about this I suppose, but I’ve been in plenty of gatherings where Deval Patrick was asked for his position on Iraq. It doesn’t seem to be irrelevant to a lot of voters. And it seems to me a clear strategy for the General Election to be sure to identify our candidates as being from the Party that is NOT the one running the show in Washington.
<
p>
btw, I’m glad to learn that Galvin supports Bonifaz’s stance on these issues. You may remember that the 2005 Convention passed a resolution against the war on Iraq, and there is a plank in our platform that says “We affirm our unwavering support for the provisions in Roe v. Wade and absolutely oppose any effort to weaken or overturn it.”
I don’t much care what the Secretary of State thinks about the war in Iraq. I care what the Secretary of State thinks about voting, securities regulation, and public records, which are probably the three biggest things the SoS does. The point being made in this thread, which I think is quite a valid one, is that candidates need to pay attention to the portfolio of the job they’re seeking, and would be well advised to limit most of their comments to that portfolio. It’s different for a Governor candidate – the Governor’s portfolio is obviously much broader than any other statewide officer, and as titular head of the MA national guard there’s at least arguably some job relevance to what he thinks about national policy (though even if he’s against deployment to Iraq he can’t stop it, as we learned under Dukakis). Also, at least to some degree the Governor can be said to speak for the state. The SoS is a different kettle o’ fish.
The irony here is that it was the commenter who brought up anti-war. He said “platform planks” but he’s making that up. Bonifaz has no “platform planks” mentioning the war – look it up. What he’s referring to is John Bonifaz’s leadership in opposing the Iraq war, which is indeed part of John’s background. The specific issue isn’t relevant to the office of Secretary, and John doesn’t pretend that it is. Showing leadership is very relevant, because that’s what we lack currently in that office.
I hadn’t heard of John bringing up the war in the context of the race, but his leadership on that issue has been great. But the classic problem of what issues to talked about where is what the original commenter was talking about in a very inelegent way. IF candidates were to emphasize it as an issue, it would be easy to see it was hardly relevent, but like you said, addressing leadership in other areas shows good judgement too.
…did you have a hand in that Cos? The last time I visited the site, Bonifaz did highlight his oppostion the the war, which given the office he was running for, I thought was out of place.
I’ve taken some heat for quoting the CDCC chair saying that the Secretary of State race was not included in the straw poll “Out of courtesy for elected office”; so I asked the chair what she actually said, and what she thought of my motion to overrule her.
<
p>
The CDCC chair says she indeed meant “out of courtesy for elected office”. She may have said “out of courtesy” a couple of times, because she had to respond to a lot of people’s questions, but she meant that Galvin deserved particular respect because he holds elective office.
<
p>
The CDCC chair did not grant the Bonifaz campaign the same courtesy — as Bonifaz’ campaign manager stated, publicly, that evening. Had the Bonifaz campaign been asked, they’d have said yes, they wanted a straw poll.
<
p>
The CDCC chair was put in a difficult position because Galvin’s campaign asked to not be included in the straw poll. She said that she did what she felt she had to do, because she was asked, but she was happy that someone had overturned her ruling in an inarguable way (i.e., by a democratic vote). If it wasn’t me, she concluded, she assumed someone else would have brought up the same issue.
<
p>
The CDCC chair has also taken some heat for omitting Bonifaz’ name from the headline in the Cambridge Chronicle, and omitting Bonifaz’ vote tally from the article (article online at http://townonline.com/cambridge/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=502046). She did not write the headline; a reporter did; and I can attest that this paper always writes their own headlines anyway. The printed version DID include the vote tallies, for Bonifaz as well as the others.
<
p>
I’ve also heard from several CDCC members that they voted for Bonifaz BECAUSE Galvin asked not to be voted on. In other words, they would have voted for Galvin, but were put off by his action, and hence voted against him. A classic case of a strategy backfiring.
<
p>
I think the comments on this posting are just great — except the ones dismissing Cambridge’s support as the kiss of death for candidacies. I think the upcoming convention will prove Cambridge to be the leader this time around — not the outsiders.
Someone rightly pointed out that I am holding Silbert to a different standard than Deval, I am not saying Silbert is a bad LG candidate, she’s just a bad LG candidate for my preferred nominee Deval Patrick. They are both outsiders which is exactly why they are wrong for one another, both Patrick and Silbert are outsiders, private sector people, granted Patrick has far more government experience than Silbert, neither are as experienced as Murray. Murray is a lifelong MA resident, neither Silbert or Patrick are (or Healy or Romney for the matter) but that is a big plus, hes from Western MA and he is a liberal Irish pol so he wont turn progressives off but he can bring in the bread and butter Democrats suspicious of Deval. Additionally he has direct experience with the huge mess that state wide tax cuts create for towns and would easily help resonate Devals message that local aid must not be cut for unwise income taxes.
<
p>
That being said I feel that after Murray Goldberg is more qualified than Silbert, but I think Silbert is more personable than Goldberg who carries some of that Shannon O brien backlash with her.
<
p>
Also in a statewide race the LG wont make a huge difference.
Not a lifelong MA resident? How does being born and raised in Brookline, going to college and grad school here, moving to NY to work and then Brazil to help people, then moving back here to start a business then moving to Cape Cod sound? Huh?
<
p>
As for what I know about Tim Murray, he was born in MA, went to college in NY, law school here and has lived here since.
<
p>
So, they’re tied in terms of the ## of years living outside of MA.
<
p>
It’s a comical argument to say Murray is more of a MA resident than Silbert and a sign of the fear felt in the Murray camp over Silbert’s threat to the coronation Murray’s people are making it seem like he feels like he deserves.
<
p>
Here’s a tip to all you Murray folks tossing grenades at Silbert and Goldberg: give it up, It’s Junior Varsity negative campaigning. And as always with negative campaigning, beware of being the pot that calls the kettle black; the counterpunch is always more effective.
are you saying Worcester is western mass or is he from somewhere west?