The problem is, after the caucuses, less than 20 percent of the delegates are unattached to either Reilly or Patrick. It’s no secret both Reilly and Patrick are doing everything they can to keep their delegates on the reservation. Reilly needs a pissed-off Gabrieli in this race just slightly less than a Marie St. Fleur media tour. Patrick will likely get very outspent (and beaten?) by Gabrieli. Both have motivation to keep him out.
Sure, some delegates will defect. But Gabrieli is still looking at the task of getting about three-quarters of the unattached delegates to his side. That’s quite a mission.
Wisely, Gabrieli is using the big media buy to create a presence and drive up poll numbers to look viable. It appears to be working. In his blog yesterday, WBZ’s Jon Keller notes:
One more thing: with poll showings like this (and Gabrieliâs strong pull in the
latest Suffolk University poll) how on earth will the Democratic powers-that-be
justify keeping Gabrieli off the ballot at the June 3 convention?
That’s just what Gabrieli wants people to be saying. Whether he can people in the seats at the convention to think the same way remains to be seen, and it’s still very possible Gabrieli’s campaign will be a very expense two-month endeavor.
It’s true getting on the ballot will be a tall order. In addition to getting as many uncommitteds as he can, I think Gabrieli will convince some Reilly and Patrick delegates to come over (not many of you folks, I understand). He wasn’t an option at the caucuses, so the less strongly committed, who weren’t smitten with either candidate, are open to persuasion.
<
p>
“Sand foundation” is a little harsh, though. True, it disappears into air if he fails to get on the ballot. But if he does make his 15%, then the foundation becomes real, and he has the money to keep building all summer and fall.
<
p>
One reason I think folks ought to want Gabrieli on the ballot is that he represents a real alternative to the other two candidates, one that primary voters deserve to have available. He splits the difference between centrist and liberal, between establishment and outsider, between cronyism and charisma.
“… Gabrieli … represents a real alternative to the other two candidates, one that primary voters deserve to have available. He splits the difference between centrist and liberal, between establishment and outsider, between cronyism and charisma.”
<
p>
I don’t agree. I am supporting Patrick because he would make a great Governor, not because Primary voters deserve to have him on the ballot. Whether Gabrieli is on the ballot or not, the voters of Massachusetts will choose Patrick.
<
p>
I think you have damned Gabrieli with faint praise. You make him sound like a centrist liberal [whatever that is], who is an insider but not part of the establishment [could it be that someone who received the Party nomination for LG is not?], and someone who has neither cronies nor charisma.
<
p>
There is a lot to admire about Chris, and I hope you’ll tell us about his positive attributes instead of using him as an excuse to tear down the other candidates.
this comment was in defense against a post questioning Chris’s support, thus was about why he should be on the ballot, not why he should be governor. The only point was that Chris has a well-defined place in a three-way race, one that represents the general position of a lot of primary voters.
Hi, Jason! Nice to have another blog from North Central Mass.
<
p>
Folks, be sure to check out Jason’s other blog, Save Fitchburg too. Good stuff and a very lively community.
<
p>
On topic: It’s not a huge surprise that folks would ID Gabrieli in this poll, every time I turn on my TV he’s there. Gabrieli doesn’t have much of a field operation, hence the media blast.
<
p>
As I’ve mentioned on the poll thread, this poll was directed to likely Democratic voters, not delegates attending the convention. I guess we’ll see how the strategy of buying your way into the election works out.
<
p>
And just who are the “Democratic powers-that-be”, anyway? I’m seriously asking. Would these be the people (like my State Senator Bob Antonioni) who are encouraging people to not honor their commitments to their candidates?
<
p>
One thing’s for sure: politics in Massachusetts is never boring.
Boy, he only got 11% of the delegates to vote for him at the convention, so he must have spent thousands of dollars for each of those votes. I think it’s a good thing we cut him off before the primary…
<
p>
I continue to be amused by this “denied a place on the ballot” line, which seems based on the notion that it’s wrong for the other candidates to want to win the nomination. If it ends up that I’m one of the 89% of the delegates who didn’t vote for Gabrieli, I won’t be worried about having to justify anything to anyone. I will have made what I thought was the best decision.
But as an “uncommitted” delegate, I asked myself a question…does his life accomplishment’s and contribution to the Democratic Party (yes, in the obvious financial way–but also from a policy perspective with his work w/ mass2020) does he deserve an opportunity for the Democratic Primary voters to consider him. I say yes.
<
p>
In my mind, voting for him at the convention is like being one of the 10,000 signatures to help get someone on the ballot. No more.
<
p>
Now, if I were passionate about a particular Candidate for Governor, I probably would not sign their nomination signatures. So I don’t want to appear “high and mighty” and suggest you are advocating anti-democratic principles–but the argument could be strongly made.
<
p>
Given my lack of enthusiasm for Deval, I’ve ask myself a basic question and that is “Does Chris deserve to be on the ballot”. The answer is yes. And despite the obvisous fact that a sitting AG also deserves to spot on the ballot, if Reilly needed my help to get his 15%, I wouldn’t give it.
<
p>
Ah, contradictions…it’s such a universal human quality.
All the Deval die-hards are looking for some sinister reason how Gabrieli all of a sudden shot up in the support column…
<
p>
Of course, Gabrieli’s early TV spots propelled his rise in the polls, but it’s not just TV & money. He actually does have accomplishments, ideas, and a vision to back up his rhetoric. He has been a state party stalwart for years, a policy leader in MA for years, and a person with statewide name ID (that people just need their memories jogged on) from 2002.
<
p>
What about Deval’s sand foundation?
<
p>
Keep in mind, Deval’s meteoric rise from 20+ points down on Reilly to near-even came mostly after his tremendous showing at the caucuses.
<
p>
But a significant amount of his showing at the caucuses was not pro-Deval, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts. Certainly much of his support was; but much of his support was also anti-Reilly, following Reilly’s awful press in January due to the unfairly bad press for the Conte call and the legitimately bad press for the St. Fleur debacle, which made Worcester people mad at him for snubbing Tim Murray for Lt. Gov. and made people in general question his judgment.
<
p>
That chunk of support was soft – a sand foundation. And now those anti-Reilly voters/delegates have another alternative with more history in MA, more experience, more personal resources, more ties in MA both in and out of state government.
<
p>
Deval has tons of attributes, but Gabrieli is another legitimate contender with tons of attributes himself – and you can call his support soft or his foundation “sand” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so.
<
p>
Deval peaked early (caucuses?), and by putting up ads now, Gabrieli risks peaking too early himself (convention – if he makes 15% ?) – and then it really becomes anyone’s ballgame.
It’s a little early to say who has peaked too early.
At least your contention that even some of Deval’s caucus success was from Reilly’s melt down. At best that was icing on a well made cake. The Patrick people had their shit together. In fact, one could argue that Reilly was lucky to have a melt down the week before. That way he had something to point to, to explain the poor showing that he was going to have.
<
p>
We have about 6 weeks of meaningless campaigning before the summer makes the campaigns even more meaningless (except for us crazies).
<
p>
Brain McGory had a great line about elections. He compared them to NBA basketball games, in which the first 55 minutes of the game doesn’t count and all the action is in the last 5 minutes. A perfect analogy. Right about now, we still have a couple of minutes left in the first quarter.
From my experience, organizing a community for Deval Patrick in the caucuses, not a single one of our votes came from anti-Reilly people – those people didn’t show up. People only showed up, for the most part, if they were long-time party activists or were Deval Patrick supporters. Deval’s caucus results were built on hard work and organizing. Of course, it might have been different if there was another candidate organizing against Deval – say Reilly, but he had nothing but disdain for grassroots oganizing, or Gabrieli, but he was still sore for being dumped as Reilly’s Lt. Gov. candidate. Our delegates were and are strong for Deval Patrick, and they won’t turn their backs on the people who voted for them only because they were supporting Deval. In contrast, Gabrieli’s support, to the extent he has any, will come from those un-elected “elected delegates”, that some, not me, disparage as insiders.
You write, “Gabrieli’s support, to the extent he has any, will come from those un-elected “elected delegates”, that some, not me, disparage as insiders”
<
p>
Well I was elected at my local caucus and I intend on voting for Gabrieli.
Were you elected as part of a slate? Or were you an undecided running for delegate?
<
p>
If you (not necessarily you personally, just the collective “you”) ran as part as part of a slate and you succeeded in getting elected because you benefited from the work of the slate builders and supporters, then decide to switch votes later — well, that’s my beef with the Gabrieli’s campaign strategy of poaching elected delegates.
…but at the time it was my intention to vote for Deveal over Reilly (and it were a two person race I still would).