“It’s Healey’s race to lose”

The discussion started with a review of the past legislative session – topics included the health care bill, Melanie’s Law, in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants, the upcoming vote on gay marriage, and the Sal & Trav show.  Here’s the short version of that part of the discussion:

• Health care: No one, including most of the legislature, really knows what was enacted (Braude reported that an NECN intern called 15 random legislators and 13 of them couldn’t answer three basic questions about the new law).  When the real-world impact of the business assessment and the individual mandate penalties start to be felt by actual businesses and actual uninsured people, there will be the potential for a major backlash.  Buckingham saw the health care bill as a potential albatross around Romney’s neck in his presidential bid, noting the Wall Street Journal’s criticism of the plan and Ted Kennedy’s blessing of it.
• Melanie’s Law: The consensus view was that this was an excellent example of the legislature assuming that business-as-usual – i.e., we do what we want and no one really pays very much attention or calls us on it – applied here, but it didn’t.  Melanie’s family spoke up in the press, the press followed Eugene O’Flaherty et al. to Portugal, and suddenly Romney and Healey had the clout they normally lack to influence the debate.  Braude saw it as an example of the press really doing its job.  Vennochi had a great line: she said that usually the legislature operates on the principle that “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” but on this occasion it didn’t work out that way.
• In-state tuition: Buckingham reiterated a point she makes in her column today, namely, that Massachusetts, despite its overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and congressional delegation, is actually not all that liberal a state.  Braude and Vennochi both seemed to think that it’s unfair to punish the kids for the parents’ bad acts and that the bill was a good one, but they also agreed that advocates for the bill had a tin ear for how it would play to the public.
• Gay marriage: Braude and Vennochi both think that “the war is over” on this one, though unpleasant battles may remain.  Vennochi again had a great line: “immigration is the new gay marriage.”  Buckingham and Sandler disagreed, seeing the issue as still very much a live one here in Massachusetts as well as elsewhere.  Everyone thought that the proposed anti-marriage amendment would get the 50 votes it needs in the next two legislative sessions and that it will be on the ballot in 2008.  Braude predicted a 60-40 defeat for the measure.
• Sal & Trav: Sandler, who spends much of his working day inside the State House, had a lot to say on the question whether Sal DiMasi becoming House Speaker and Robert Travaglini becoming Senate President has mattered.  His bottom line is that things are much different than in the Finneran days.  Sal and Trav, despite some differences, are a lot closer on most issues than the quite-conservative Finneran ever was with his Senate counterpart, so some important legislation – like emergency contraception and stem cell research – that likely wouldn’t have passed under Finneran has been passed this session.  And, generally, Sandler thinks that House-Senate gridlock is less of a problem now than it used to be.

  Vennochi then raised an interesting question: do Sal and Trav really want a Democrat to be elected Governor?  Given the makeup of the legislature, a GOP Governor has very little ability to shape the agenda, so that job defaults to the legislative leaders.  A Democratic Governor would be an entirely different kettle of fish.  Buckingham made the related point that, to the extent Republican Governors have been able to team up with one of the chambers against the other, they’ve had some success in advancing their agenda, since the House and the Senate are more interesting in outdoing each other than they are in outdoing the Governor.  (What she didn’t say is that, to the extent that Trav and DiMasi see eye to eye on more issues than Finneran and Trav’s predecessors did, that strategy may be harder to implement going forward.)

Out of the Sal & Trav yakkity-yak came the transition into the big topic: the Governor’s race.  And, to the extent that these four represent the “conventional wisdom,” I’d say the conventional wisdom is that Healey has an excellent shot at keeping the Governor’s office in GOP hands.  All of them except Braude think Patrick is “too liberal to win,” and Braude (based in large part on the Channel 4 debate moderated by Jon Keller) expressed concern that Patrick, as a political novice, will shoot himself in the foot more than once as time goes on (he said that a more experienced politico would never have answered Keller’s “if you had to raise taxes, what tax would you raise” question, other than by saying “I’m not planning to raise taxes”).

Sandler opined that this year’s race looks like 1998, featuring an uninspired, unenergized Democratic base, independent voters willing to vote Republican, and the possibility that the Democratic establishment wouldn’t coalesce around a Reilly or Gabrieli candidacy with any more enthusiasm than it did around Harshbarger.  (One obvious rejoinder to that, which no one brought up, is that obviously at least part of the Democratic base is pretty jazzed up about Patrick.)

Vennochi and Braude were both impressed by the extent to which Tom Reilly has rebounded from the infamous Conte call and the St. Fleuriasco – his poll numbers have been fairly steady, and he’s been running a much better campaign since then.  Everyone continues to think that Reilly is the man to beat in the Democratic primary.  But Vennochi predicted that in a Reilly vs. Healey match-up, women voters might break for Healey resulting in a Healey win.

Buckingham and Braude both talked a bit about the “woman factor,” i.e., can a woman win a high-profile statewide race on her own in Massachusetts?  Buckingham, interestingly, sees this issue as a huge problem for Healey, noting that it’s not easy to figure out how to “warm up” or “humanize” Kerry Healey to the public – you can’t exactly have her jumping into the Charles River.  Sandler disagreed, taking the view that voters might think that (1) one-party rule would be a problem, (2) Healey’s “not so bad,” and (3) “the time has come” to elect a woman.

There ensued a brief discussion of Christy Mihos.  Pretty much everyone agreed that he has no chance to win, but that he could make life difficult for both sides if he doesn’t self-destruct first.  Buckingham urged the media to “do its job,” noting that Mihos participated in lots of votes while on the Turnpike Authority that increased Big Dig costs, and that there’s surely interesting stuff out there on the way he managed his chain of convenience stores.  (And I agree with her on that – what kind of wages and benefits do those employees get, anyway?)  And there was general agreement that, while voters may not be thrilled with the way things are right now, there didn’t seem to be the kind of palpable anger that would be needed to fuel a third-party (or, more accurately, non-party) candidacy.

There were also a couple of questions from the audience:

• Will Romney campaign with Healey? Buckingham and Vennochi thought he would, though perhaps in a limited way.  Buckingham sees that as a plus for Healey, arguing that voters like Romney as a Governor; what they don’t like is that he’s leaving.  (Personally, I’m not so sure that voters will parse their view of Romney that finely.)</li
• What should the candidates say about the loss of jobs and population? Sandler had the most interesting response to this one.  His view is that everyone knows the reason people are leaving the state is the insanely high cost of housing, but the only thing that can be done about it is a political impossibility, namely, taking the power to enforce zoning restrictions away from cities and towns.  Therefore, he said, nothing can be done about the problem of decreasing population.  And all the panelists generally agreed that, if truth be told, there isn’t really that much a Governor can do about job creation, other than to try to avoid making things worse.
• Is Mass. ready to elect a person of color as Governor?  Sandler said yes – look at Ed Brooke (a Republican, as Buckingham noted).  Braude wasn’t so sure, wondering whether voters would harbor unspoken reservations about a black candidate in the same way they’re less willing to pull the lever for a woman.
• Can the candidates run on the issues facing municipalities? Sandler thought that running on how badly the state treats cities and towns is always a losing issue – but that property tax is much more important, and that that issue presents a real opportunity for Patrick.  Braude agreed, noting that Patrick could blunt the effect of the rollback question by always talking about property taxes in the same breath.
• Will the Lieutenant Governor nominee have any impact on the race?  No.

I’m glad I went to this thing, as I think it provided an excellent snapshot of what some of the most thoughtful observers in the mainstream media are thinking about the Governor’s race.  There is, without question, a significant divide between the MSM and the lefty blogosphere on the issue of Deval Patrick’s viability as a candidate, both in the primary and (if he gets that far) in the general election.  I’m really looking forward to seeing who’s right on that one!

Please share widely!

0

0