It’s hard to know how much to make of this, but I just got an interesting call from the Chris Gabrieli campaign. They called because I was on their list of committed delegates for the convention. If they were correct, it wouldn’t be an interesting call. As a committed Deval Patrick delegate, however, who has been very public with his support of Patrick and has never had a communication with the Gabrieli campaign, I found it interesting indeed.
Now, if I’m the only mistake in their database and it was a result of clicking the wrong name in a list or something, this is no big deal. If, however, they have several “false positives,” the Gabrieli campaign could be in for a big surprise on Saturday.
shillelaghlaw says
Chris has to be sweating his 15%. Otherwise he wouldn’t be putting on the full court press to secure delegates. If he truly had a firm 15-20%, his campaign would be striclty focused on GOTV- making sure that his delegates were coming to Worcester, that they paid, have a ride up, etc. (Or simply making sure that Chris’ signs and materiel were ready for Saturday.)
<
p>Add Reilly to the “sweating” column. I just got an auto-call from Martha Coakley on his behalf, as well. He wouldn’t be spending the time and effort on persuasion calls, if he was certain he had his 15-20%.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I got two robocalls tonight. And I bet y’all did, too, those of you who is headed for Wista.
<
p>
One was from the Gabber’s campaign — a woman praised Deval Patrick for providing strength and diversity to our party and then asked me to vote for Gabrieli. Huh? It was laughable.
<
p>
Then, the aforementioned call from Martha. Now, it would not be hard for these campaigns (if they are doing their homework) to know that I am Deval Patrick’s biggest fan west of the Connecticut River. Not to dis the huge Patrick support of many of my friends and neighbors, but my point is that, hey, if they’re calling me, they’re calling everyone.
<
p>
Conclusion? What she said! They are sweatin’ it!
susan-m says
I wonder if they are using people from certain areas to read some script? On sco’s blog he talks about receiving the same type of call but from someone named, Roberta Goldstein (a name that does not appear on the DSC member list. Perhaps Roberta Goldman?)
<
p>
Anyway, the call I got was from DSC at-large member and former Ayer Selectman, Faye Morrison who used to be the regional desk coordinator for Deval in my area. For reasons unknown to me, she had some sort of falling out with the campaign (she has a reputation of being a bit of a handful) she was ill for some time, and then she just disappeared until today. I was very surprised to hear her voice when I picked up the call, because it sounded like a pro-Deval call right up until the end when I was asked to vote for Gabrieli on the “first ballot” as if there will be more than one.
<
p>
It all seems to me that some folks are getting mighty uptight about the idear of a non-insider candidate winning the endorsement.
tom-m says
I too just heard from the Gabrieli people thanking me for my support and I also have long since been on board with Patrick. I had gotten a letter from them about 3-4 weeks ago thanking me for agreeing to support Chris on the first ballot and I called them to correct the record, but I guess they didn’t get the message.
<
p>
I like Gabrieli, but he’s not my preferred candidate and I hope, for their sake, they hadn’t already counted on people like myself and Max because they are going to be in for a rude awakening.
max says
One could be really cynical and think that the Gabrieli campaign is doing this intentionally, trying to use some sort of power of suggestion to bring people over. You’d think they’d go after undecideds, but maybe they just don’t know who is supporting whom, so they’re trying everyone. That said, I usually tend to favor incompetence theories over conspiracy theories.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I think you’re right. I think they don’t have a clue.
lolorb says
Having worked for the Deval Patrick campaign as a coordinator, I’m guessing that the Gabrieli campaign is completely in the dark about delegates. The only way to know for sure who is committed to whom is by being part of the caucus process. The nuances and practices in each district are only known to those who actually participate. All the speculation about Gabrieli having a sufficient number of delegates to get 15% is just plain PR work. Robo calls, mass mailings, misleading commentary in the media or on blogs, etc., are all tricks of the consultant trade. It means absolute nothing in reality other than someone is shelling out a whole lot of money to thwart the efforts of people who played by the rules and worked hard for their candidate (Reilly or Patrick).
<
p>
BTW – I would still be volunteering my time and effort to the DP campaign if I had the time. I remain a committed DP supporter even though I won’t be living in this state when he becomes Governor.
cannoneo says
“It means absolute nothing in reality other than someone is shelling out a whole lot of money to thwart the efforts of people who played by the rules…”
<
p>
As I understand it, at least 40% of the delegates are not elected at the caucuses. Just last night, on Greater Boston, Pat McGovern, Warren Tolman, and Kimberly Atkins of the Herald were talking about how hard Gabrieli has been working to win over delegates on a personal level. This includes trying to sway previously committed delegates, but most of Gabrieli’s votes will come from the ex-officios and add-ons. This is hard work and is playing by the rules.
<
p>
I also have to laugh at the notion, often presented here by those who hold the “process” above all, that the results of the caucuses should fully determine the outcome at the convention. If that’s the case, why bother with a convention at all?
<
p>
I refer you to the statement of the party’s legal counsel after the last attempt to define the caucuses as the end-all and be-all of the process.
lolorb says
Yes, only 60% of the delegates are “elected” at the caucuses per the wonderful new party rules which give ex-officio’s even more control of the convention. For anyone other than Gabrieli, this would mean that only 60% of the “elected” delegates could be persuaded to give him 15%. But no, Phil Johnston and his lackeys determined that all delegates are “elected”. Just imagine if it were Deval Patrick spending millions to buy his way into the convention and onto the ballot. Do you for one instant believe that Phil Johnston and crew would be so concerned about the “Democratic” process if Deval were struggling to get 15%. Ha ha ha. If you buy that, I’ve got a lovely piece of property for sale.
<
p>
What you seem to be missing is that regular people, LOCAL COMMITTED PEOPLE got involved and went to the caucuses to vote for people to represent their wishes at the convention. They are the voters — the very constituents who are speaking through the process. By dismissing the process, you are dismissing the people who should have a voice in a democracy. If I were Phil Johnston or an ex-officio, I would be most concerned with what the voters want. I’ll say it again: It is time for a change.
cannoneo says
I have a lot of respect for the work that went into caucusing, and for the terrific result it earned for Deval Patrick. It will earn him the party’s endorsement. But it doesn’t earn him immunity from aggressive and well-financed rival campaigns trying to get on the ballot at the convention. I don’t dismiss the process – I respect all of it. Again, you’re saying that the caucuses are the entire process – and they’re not. You’re saying that only those who caucused deserve a voice in the process, and that’s neither fair nor is it the way the process is laid out.
<
p>
Those who caucused for Deval are local committed people, but not all local committed people are Deval supporters. And local committed people are indeed voters, but they do not equal “the voters.” Those are all the people who will vote in the primary and the general election. Lots of them will be disappointed if they don’t have a chance to vote for Chris Gabrieli.
lolorb says
I’m not you’re friend and nothing that I wrote supports your argument.
frankskeffington says
My Gab call was from 703 – Virginia. I immediately thought it was a paid political ID call. Actually, the exact opposite happen to me…I did committ to vote for Gab and they had me as uncommitted. Becuase I figured he was a paid caller, I gave him nothing and they still think I’m undecided.
<
p>
I have liked the type of campaign Chris has run, compared to the past, but his over reliance to astro turf campaigning is annoying.
cos says
Could be family or friends volunteering, who live in Virginia. Could be someone who moved to MA recently, or perhaps a college student, who has a Virginia cell phone. Could be donated cell phones for volunteers at a phonebank. Just because the area code is 703 doesn’t mean anything about whether it’s a paid call or not.
bob-neer says
Good Lord Cos do you really think Gabrieli is relying on donated cell phones?!
charley-on-the-mta says
When the phone bank was full, and folks had free minutes on the cell phones, we used them. It’s a perfectly sensible thing to do.
andy says
The Patrick delegates getting these calls all assume it is because Gabs’ campaign might not realize that they support Patrick. My question is why doesn’t anyone think that this is purposeful on the part of the Gabs campaign to “trick” less astute delegates?
cos says
I don’t get this theory. What does the Gabrieli campaign have to gain by spending their time (or money) calling known Patrick supporters, if they know they’re comitted to Patrick, just to “trick” them, rather than to persuade them? What’s the value of this trick, in getting more votes for Gabrieli at the convention? This is a campaign for votes, not a practical joke, so “tricks” are pointless unless they’re a way to get votes. Explain?
andy says
Well first of all many would say that Gabs is already tricking people by claiming there is a “first” ballot so to say that trickery is pointless might be something you should pass on to the Gab campaign. My point, however, is this: I find it very hard to believe that the Gab campaign is so clueless that they don’t know who is supporting Patrick or that even after being told whom an individual is supporting that they would still call. I am thinking there is another motive…that is all I was getting at.
shoegirl says
On the Delegate Survival Guide that Deval’s campaign is passing out, their first points are:
<
p>
“CRITICAL FOR DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
<
p>
-Make sure you have paid your convention fee
-Bring your credentials and a photo ID
-Early check in starts at 9 AM. Be sure youâre checked in no later than 10 AM on Saturday, June 3
-Vote for Deval Patrick on the FIRST and EVERY ballot“
<
p>
(This is my first post, so please be kind! And apologies that I don’t know the HTML for the quote box. I’m a committed Deval delegate from Cambridge, but I find all of the mud-slinging among campaigns and volunteers to be draining and contrary to all the reasons I wanted to attend the convention.)
tim-little says
My impression is that this was worded precisely to underscore 2 points:
<
p>
1) The first ballot is do-or-die. There are no second chances, so if you support Deval make sure you vote for him on the first ballot to make sure he gets at least the 15% necessary to make it onto the primary ballot. Don’t be tricked into “playing nice” on the first ballot, assuming that you can always vote for DP on the next one. There won’t necessarily be a next one. If DP doesn’t get 15% in Round One, then Round Two is a moot point.
<
p>
2) There are no guarantees that DP (or any of the candidates) will win the party endorsement (50+%) on the first ballot. If so, votes in the second ballot will be critical to securing the party endorsement. Of course, this presumes that the candidates make it onto the second ballot…. (Again, underscoring the importance of the first ballot.)
<
p>
So, basically, if anyone has committed to any of the candidates (Gov., Lt. Gov., Sec. State), make sure you vote for him/her on the first go ’round — and the second, if it comes to that. It comes down to common sense, really: Why vote against your own candidate?
cos says
That’s not the question. I didn’t make a blanket statement that “trickery is pointless”, I said that this is a campaign for votes, and tricks only make sense if they’re a way to get votes.
<
p>
You proposed that the Gabrieli campaign might be calling committed Deval supporters as if they’re uncommitted, as a “trick”. What I don’t understand, is what value such a trick might possibly have for them, as a way of getting votes. If I understand you correctly here, you don’t either. If you don’t have a theory that explains why this “trick” might be useful, and if none of the rest of us can think of one, then I’d say it’s extremely unlikely.
<
p>
The “trick” of asking people to vote for Gabrieli on the first ballot is an obvious ploy for votes. By saying it that way, they try to make people feel like they’re not being asked to change their choice of candidate entirely. Just vote for Gabrieli on the first ballot, and the implication is, when the second ballot comes around, you can vote for the candidate you actually support.
<
p>
That “trick” makes perfect sense.
<
p>
Do you have any theory as to how the “trick” you suggested might make sense?
andy says
I am not making a statement about Gab’s approach other than to say that we shouldn’t assume that the campaign has no idea what is going on because they are calling committed Patrick supporters. I am not pretending to know or suggesting anything whatsoever about the motivations of the campaign. I am not slinging mud. If anything I am somewhat sticking up for the Gabrieli campaign by suggesting that they may have a strategy. I do not know what that strategy is nor do I really care to speculate about it either. I am just trying to offer another point of view besides the one that was floating here, namely that Gabs is clueless. Is that enough of a clarification for you Cos? Jeez. And just because you in your infinite wisdom cannot come up with the strategy doesn’t mean there can’t possibly be one.
renaissance-man says
That statement is probably the only thing we can be certain about today as we look toward Worcester.
<
p>
So let me explain what the Gabrieli campaign is doing. They are “talking” with the only source of information on how a delegate will vote, that is the delegate.
<
p>
It is called persuasion politics. Nothing wrong with it. So if I’m considering the “best interests of the party”, I may decide even if I like Deval, that in the “best interest” of the party, a three way primary, helps the candidates formulate, organize and define their message better.
<
p>
So what’s wrong with that? I KNOW Deval will get the endorsement on the FIRST or SECOND ballot. By voting for either TR or CG I can at least assure some healthy discussion of the issues, isn’t that my right?
<
p>
Last time I checked, how I decide to vote at the convention is NOT legally enforcable.
<
p>
So I vote for one of the tow others and then for Deval on the SECOND ballot.If there isn’t a SECOND ballot, he’s already all set, right?
tim-little says
See my post to Shoegirl above.
<
p>
As I Deval delegate, I know I’m taking NOTHING for granted.
renaissance-man says
I read your post you mentioned. You seriuously think Deval has a problem getting 15%, so that’s your excuse to keep with him on the first ballot?
<
p>
Gee, I didn’t realize you consider his support was so thin, that you had to worry about losing 75% of your support (60% estimated delegates with Deval to less than 15%).
<
p>
I bit disingenuous isn’t it? That is your argument that Deval might go below 15% on the first ballot…
tim-little says
It’s a matter of a) integrity and b) common sense; why should I vote for someone I have no interest in supporting? As I said before, to do otherwise is just plan silly.
<
p>
Gabrieli is making no friends by pulling, as my wife — also a Deval delegte — puts it “cheap political tricks” trying to con DP (and presumably Reilly?) delegates into throwing away their votes in the all-important first ballot.
tim-little says
I suppose it’s a plausible strategy from Gabrilei’s perspective.
<
p>
Seems a little slimy to me, even if it’s technically on the up and up.
max says
“So let me explain what the Gabrieli campaign is doing. They are ‘talking’ with the only source of information on how a delegate will vote, that is the delegate.”
<
p>
No one can blame them for calling delegates and asking which way they’re voting. My original question was why they’re calling committed Deval Patrick delegates and thanking them for being committed Chris Gabrieli delegates. As I noted in my original post, I only see two explanations: incompetence or underhanded scheming, neither of which is very flattering to their campaign.
<
p>
“So if I’m considering the ‘best interests of the party’, I may decide even if I like Deval, that in the “best interest” of the party, a three way primary, helps the candidates formulate, organize and define their message better.”
<
p>
Well, for one thing, it’s probably not in the best interest of Deval, so IF you’re supporting him because you think HE’D be best for the party, you’d be hurting the party by helping to create a three-way race. More relevantly, though, I have yet to hear/read any valid argument for how a three-way primary helps the candidates or the party.
<
p>
“So what’s wrong with that? I KNOW Deval will get the endorsement on the FIRST or SECOND ballot.”
<
p>
Sure, but consider how much more political capital he gets if he scores an overwhelming majority on the first ballot than if he gets 51% on the second.
<
p>
No one’s questioning your right to vote as you see fit, but there are certainly valid reasons for the Patrick campaign to be asking their delegates to vote for him and only him.
renaissance-man says
The convention is the next phase of the campaign after the caucuses.
<
p>
The rules always allowed a candidate to emerge AFTER the caucuses, provided they had the certified signatures of 500 delegates and 10,000 voters.
<
p>
Sure politics is to some degree is: “who is the better man?”
<
p>
But the important aspect, in my opinion, is “the process” the candidates go through to win. The more challenging the process, the better the candidate is prepared.
<
p>
A good example is the Lincoln-Douglas debates. If we took your arguments, Douglas should never have run against Lincoln, because Lincoln was the better man, so therefore entitled to run unopposed?
<
p>
I say Lincoln was “the better man” and eventually a better president because of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. BUT only because of the debates!
<
p>
And the country is a better country because of those debates also! They galvanized the country on THE question of the time, slavery.
tim-little says
If Gabrieli can muster 15% or 50% or 90% of the delegates without resorting to shenanigans, more power to him.
<
p>
But to make some sort of assinine suggestion that it’s better to support the process than a particular candidate just doesn’t add up in this case. (If it were an uncontested race — or virtually uncontested, as in the Galvin/Bonifaz race — I’d be more inclined to agree with you.)
<
p>
If he needs to siphon off otherwise committed delegates, it really doesn’t speak well for his viability as a candidate.
cos says
I have no idea where you got the impression that I said you were slinging mud, or taking sides for or against any candidate.
<
p>
Look, it’s simple:
<
p>
1. Gabrieli people are calling committed Deval delegates, and seem not to know they’re doing so. People speculate that this is either because Gabrieli doesn’t think he has 15% yet and is desperate for more delegates, or because the Gabrieli campaign just doesn’t realize they’re calling Deval supporters (which, given that Michael Wilcox is one of them, means they must have a very poor database of IDs!).
<
p>
2. You come up with another idea: Maybe the Gabrieli campaign knows what they’re doing, and it’s a “trick”. But you provide no theory about this trick, and I can’t think of any possible reason for it. So I pointed that out, and asked if you had thought of a reason.
<
p>
3. You respond, talking about all sorts of other things, but giving no plausible purpose for this trick. So I still think it doesn’t make any sense.
<
p>
There, done.
andy says
I think I have waited the appropriate “dinner party” time to respond. If you read the comment in context you will notice that a previous commenter, a Deval delegate, was complaining about the mudslinging that is going on. She did not accuse me, at least I don’t think so, however I was just highlighting the fact that my question and discussion piece was not intended to be either pro or anti Gabs and therefore it was not to be construed as mudslinging. So don’t get confused and jump to conclusions about the mudslinging portion, it was meant for you.
<
p>
As to your point number 1 above. You say “and seem not to know they’re doing so.” Therein lies the whole point of everything I said. You, nor I, nor the numerous people who make the same assumption as you, have any evidence that the Gabs is without a plan when making calls to committed Patrick delegates. Because we lack such evidence I was putting out there for discussion the notion that there may be a strategy we aren’t seeing. You mention the two most common “speculations” as you refer to them. I am saying, could there be a third? A fourth?
<
p>
As to your points 2 and 3. I will concede that perhaps trick was a poor word choice. What I was suggesting however is that the Gab campaign is calling these delegates for support to further push their 2 ballot strategy. Because I do not know the substance of the calls I cannot be definitive on this point. Again, I was just trying to look to the broader audience here at BMG to see what they are thinking, see if we could come up with an idea for why the Gab campaign would be making some of these calls. I give no plausible purpose because I am looking for DISCUSSION. I am not looking to score points or talk up one cadidate but to look to other smart folks to see what they are thinking.
<
p>
I doubt that this will serve as enough of an explanation for you as it seems that one can only talk when they have specific points to be made rather than discussion starters. I am probably going to get banned from BMG but I feel a certain need to call you on what I perceive as a sort of constant smug superiority. You are a knowledgeable guy and I have learned a lot from you, I respect the work you do but sometimes on here you come across as all knowing and frankly, I find it offensive from time to time.
since1792 says
All the Deval supporters TOLD Gab’s people they would vote for the Gabber on the “first” ballot just to get him off their backs and throw his numbers off?
<
p>
I have friends who’ve done that – although it’s probably not widespread – it IS going to throw off the Gabbers.
<
p>
Just for the record – I have not done that.
<
p>
Or have I?
<
p>
🙂
bluemassman says
I think it’s equally likely that the Gab’s campaign is either duped or itself trying to dupe others. But who cares?
<
p>
So what if the campaign made a mistake? The thing can’t be in such disarray that it hasn’t realized its error, winced with a little embarassment, and moved on, double-checking its lists and going for more delegates.
<
p>
And so what if the robocalls were a ploy? All they could do is create a little confusion in Deval’s ranks, which I predict will lose a few more votes than it knows to Gabs. The campaign’s got some money, and the convention looms. Because Gabs is the underdog, shaking things up helps him.
massole says
I think the problem here is that itâs not clear that it is a mistake. I mean granted itâs a little pathetic and very ineffective to attempt to change peopleâs votes by convincing them that they already have, but itâs not outside the realm of possibility. Especially when itâs a matter of using a whole lot of money (which they have) to garner a slightly greater percentage of votes (which they need).
bluemassman says
You agree with me. The calls could have been a mistake, or they could have been a ploy. But if the calls were a mistake, nothing important happened, because the error must have been trivial, not some reflection of a wildly unorganized campaign with shoddy lists. And if the calls were a ploy, nothing important happened, because it appears that nothing’s really changed and Deval’s people are still in line. Either way, nothing important happened. That’s my point. So…whatever.
max says
I care, because one of the first things I look for in evaluating a candidate, especially for an executive branch position, is how s/he runs his/her campaign.
tim-little says
As I’ve said elsewhere, siphoning off delegates by questionable (if technically legit) means raises questions about this particular candidate’s viability and political savvy.
renaissance-man says
Sounds like this is your first convention? A bit unrealist in your expectations?
<
p>
What do you think happens at conventions? The coin of the realm is delegate support. People ask questions. They seek information. Sometimes it’s as simple as a hesitation in giving a clear answer.
<
p>
Delegates come with various interests and various levels of support. A good senate district whip’s job is determine who might waiver in their support.
<
p>
Any campaign will look for votes where ever they might find them. We understand you are sticking with Deval. Good for you, that means your
word is good as gold. Others have not made that level of committment, that
is their support is soft or they are having second thoughts about a campaign that is so paranoid of competition in the market place of ideas.
<
p>
But keep in mind, lots of delegates have various levels of committment. The search is on to determine those levels. And remember it isn’t over until it’s over…
<
p>
Deals will be cut, favors will be called, and some delegates will be moved enthusiastically and others reluctantly. But it is beyond YOUR control and beyond MY control. I suggest you just go with the flow…
tim-little says
I think the objection is to perceived misleading statements coming from the Gabrieli camp. Some of us find that offensive. Perhaps that’s naive, perhaps that’s just fatigue with politics-as-usual — which some of us are actually trying to do something about.
<
p>
The appearance is that his campaign is spreading misinformation about the balotting process — particularly aimed at DP delegates, for many of whom this will indeed be their first convention and consequently may not be clear on the rules. (Although the DP campaign is doing well to keep their delegates well-informed.)
<
p>
Also, I wonder how much delegate swapping will actually take place due to this year’s rule change? I think all candidates have too much at stake going into the ballotting on Saturday to be willing to piss away delegates to someone else. I wouldn’t if I were in Reilly’s camp either.
<
p>
But, as you say, we shall see on Saturday….
massole says
Fundamentally my opposition is not so much that his campaign is spreading misinformation; itâs that his campaign is spreading a sort of behavior that is (if technically allowed) just immoral. I am a Deval supporter. Perhaps my opposition is overly critical; it may be just politics as usual and I may be a bit naïve, but I hope we are involved in this movement because we look forward to a new and better administration, not simply politics as usual.
renaissance-man says
Please, let us know what is “immoral” ?
<
p>
Asking to be allowed to get 15% under the rules to be allowed on the ballot after qualifing with thousands of signatures from citizens across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
<
p>
Timing is everything in politics. Deval stepped into the race with perfect timing. There was a vacumn at the caucuses like I’ve never seen. Deval had the advantage of that.
<
p>
But advantages don’t last forever. If the caucuses were meant to be the end all, EVERYTHING would have been over in February.
<
p>
If you are seriously concerned about morality, then please address the immorality of ignoring the voices of over 10,000 Massachusetts registered voters who nominated Chris Gabrielli…
stoughton4patrick says
“then please address the immorality of ignoring the voices of over 10,000 Massachusetts registered voters who nominated Chris Gabrielli”
<
p>
May I address the fact that these “Nominations” were puchased,..bought and paid for, (in many cases using temp help earning less than minimum wage with no benefits), as was the “Name Recognition” refected in the polls.
Consider This as opposed to an Army of Dedicated voluteers, that having had heard their candates message and were so moved that they chose to sacrifice their own time to talk to voters about the strength of the candidate and convince them to join in his election.
<
p>
This is the “Real” difference.. which will be the message sent to the voters of the “Commonwealth” if we avoid a bloody and expensive three way race. Money Can Not Buy you an election! Cronyism Can Not Buy you an election! Meeting the People..Listening to the People, and Providing Clear, Thoughtful and Intelligent Leadership will Win Elections!
<
p>
This is “The New Kind of Politics” (Actually Old Kind of Politics) that will regain the corner office!