As I go out into the field and canvas for Deval, one of the recurring questions I get, primarily from Unenrolled/independent voters is: “In the last few gubernatorial elections I have voted for a Republican as a balance to the super-majority Democrats now hold on Beacon Hill. Why should I now vote for a Democrat like Deval Patrick who might give away the whole store and cave in to the desires of the legislature?”
What say you all? What are the best arguments to make to those voters who have a fear of Democrats holding both the legislative and executive branches of government?
Please share widely!
but I truly believe that a Dem in the corner office would greatly decrease the power of the legislative leaders, since that way there’s someone other than Sal and Trav setting an agenda for “the Democratic party.” With a GOoPer in the corner office, and veto-proof majorities in both houses, there’s literally nothing to stop them.
Maybe it was just a sense I had, but it always seemed to me that the State House “leaders”weren’t overly upset about losing the corner office.
<
p>
In their tiny little minds it made them, perhaps, “de-facto”governors
<
p>
It is plausible that the “leaders”felt it gave them statewide powers without running for statewide office.
<
p>
Deval Patrick is exactly the recipe needed to counter this perception: A Democrat with essentailly no ties to Beacon Hill and hence we can move forward with a Democratic Gov acting as a brake on the legislature.
<
p>
Ultimately there is no doubt that 16 years of Republicans have given us a stagnant government.
Or else guarantee voters that their taxes will go down by $200 each, at least, if a Democrat is elected Governor.
Any polls out there? I haven’t seen any which list the top 5 voter concerns. Anybody?
<
p>
I’m thinking that illegal immigration issue is the 800-pound elephant in the room this cycle, to be ignored at a politician’s peril.
<
p>
This issue has not been fully aired yet and will be front and center in the Healy campaign during the general election. When that happens, watch the polls to tighten.
<
p>
This is a massive cross-party issue. The loudest noises right now are coming from the construction trade unions, and woe be the Dem that tries to minimize the issue or takes the Tom Reilly hands-off approach.
<
p>
A recent trend on talk radio is to highlight how jobs are being pilfered by illegal immigrants. This is important to D’s, R’s and I’s. It’s Joe Six Pack carpenter versus the do-gooder progressive activists who aggitate giving illegals driver’s licenses and in-state tuition. (Just reporting how talk radio is framing the issue. I think it has traction. Listen up.)
Here are the top five issues from yesterday’s 7NEWS/Suffolk University poll (PDF):
Education16%
Economy/Jobs15%
Health Care11%
Illegal Immigration10%
Taxes9%
Here’s a quick two cents on those data. All five issues are pretty close – #1 to #5 is only 16% vs. 9%. Nos. 4 and 5 are obvious strong suits for Healey. Good to see that education is #1, though I’d like to see more info on that – if that means “all MCAS all the time,” it doesn’t help us much. It also means that the Dems have got to be perhaps braver than they want to be about issues like charter schools that resonate with voters but not teachers unions. Health care is an excellent Dem issue as long as we do a good job of not letting Romney take credit where it ain’t due, so good to see it up there. Economy/jobs should be a good issue for us in light of Romney/Healey’s dismal record, yet GOoPers talk a good game on that topic, even if it’s just talk.
<
p>
Bottom line: I don’t take a whole lot of comfort from those numbers, and since horserace numbers are still pretty much meaningless (Healey has not yet begun to spend, after all), I continue to think that we underestimate Healey’s chances of winning at our peril.
Aren’t those the top issues of likely DEMOCRATIC primary voters and not likely general election voters?
<
p>
The cards will get suffled again and this all changes for the general.
This was for the entire sample.
1. The Dems already have a supermajority in the legislature, so the idea of “balance” doesn’t make sense — the legislature just over rides the veto.
<
p>
2. Political appointments. Not happy with the Big Dig? School oversight? State parks? Well, the last 16 years were ones of Republican political appointments, so you can thank the GOP for the jobs not well done.
<
p>
3. With a governor’s office that works with the legislature, they can focus on establishing a set of priorities and accomplishing things together — instead of wasting time and money with one-upsmanship.
<
p>
4. We’ve had GOP governors, and we’ve bled jobs, resources, public infrastructure, and population. Maybe their ideas just don’t work in Massachusetts.
Liberal Dems v. Less Liberal Dems. Finneran types v. Dukakis types.
(long time lurker, first time poster here)
<
p>
I’ve heard a lot of the “check on the legislature” argument, and while it seems to make sense on the surface, the reality is that it hasn’t worked. As your prototypical unenrolled voter said, the Democrats have a super-majority in the legislature. Most of the time, when Romney vetoes a bill he doesn’t like, the legislature simply overrides his decision. What kind of a check is that?
<
p>
I would argue that a Democratic governor, particularly one who wasn’t previously entrenched in Beacon Hill politics, could actually be a much more effective check on the legislature. Standing up to the legislature on key issues is much more plausible when the governor is usually in general agreement with the legislators. A Democratic governor would become an influential force, taking away some power from the house and senate leadership (as a previous poster mentioned). Legislators would have to compromise with a Democratic governor, rather than ignoring him, or else risk losing the sense of strength that leads to the continued super-majority.
<
p>
Obviously, when you’re canvassing, you don’t want to get into the boring machinations of the legislative process, but I think my first point would effectively deflate the argument of many unenrolled voters. Romney claimed that he’s needed as a check on the legislature, but in fact his combative stance has made him irrelevant. Healey would just bring more of the same.
<
p>
Rafi
but not one Democrat’s have been able to sing convincingly.
<
p>
I think (euphemism for no data) that most Independents are not Democrats (in this state) because they donât believe Democrats are fiscally responsible enough, but do agree with Dems on most social issues.
<
p>
So it would reason to stand that a candidate that was preaching fiscal responsibility (support the rollback and talk about government efficiency) with a moderate to liberal social policy would be preaching to the choir.
<
p>
As for Deval Patrick, he needs to convince voters that the $200? (No rollback) investment they will be making in him will be worth it. For that to happen I think he needs to demostrate how he has done this in the past. Maybe the scholarship he received would be a good investment example.
When you say “Independents” I am reading “Unenrolleds” because I believe that’s what you’re getting at? That about half of Massachusetts voters aren’t enrolled as Democrats (or anything else, for that matter)?
<
p>
Because I certainly consider myself an independent Democrat.
<
p>
In any case, if I’m right, then I disagree with you. A state that has a Congressional delegation that is 100% Democratic and a Legislature that is something like 80% Democratic, with an enrolled base of only 40% or so of the voters is obviously heavily Democratic in nature.
<
p>
My candidate, Mr. Patrick, fits your desired prescription for
<
p>
Where you go wrong, imho, is in equating lower taxes with fiscal responsibility. It is not responsible, unless you are going to say where you are going to cut services. And we can ill afford to do that, what with our level of spending already an embarrassing 44th in the nation! If you cut income taxes w/o cutting spending, guess what — you see property taxes go up? Want proof? Ask anyone who owns a home in this state. And you still don’t end up with better services, except in rich communities that are willing to tax themselves even if it takes an override.
<
p>
As for government efficiency, ho hum, of course we’re all for it. In fact, Patrick has made concrete proposals as to how to save money. But that alone ain’t gonna fix our broken schools or repair our roads and bridges.
I was taking my queue from the original post’s headline. Your assumption is correct, I should have said unenrolled/independant.
<
p>
The question is how to attract Independant/unenrolled voters not on what is fair or what voters should demand of the candidates.
<
p>
I don’t “go” wrong by associating lower taxes with fiscal responsibility, because I don’t believe it! I am stating how I think the average voter looks at it – that you can disagree with.
<
p>
I understand the property tax issue very well (mine has gone up 60% over the last 4+ years – I live in Medford). However, the link between the rise in property taxes and the cutting of budget money to cities and towns is not understood by average voters and is difficult to explain. Voters (including me up until recently) associate the rise in property taxes with the rise in real estate values.
<
p>
I believe we are on the same page on most issues, but drastically differ on how voters percieve these issues.
Sorry I confused your own views with what you were ascribing to the average voter. I don’t necessarily disagree with you about that characterization, but I guess what I’m suggesting is that there’s an opportunity to reframe the discussion.
<
p>
For too long we have sat back while the GOP has told people that government is “bad” and that taxes are a “burden” (therefore requiring “relief”). It’s so refreshing to me to see people like Patrick going on the offensive to correct this misframing.
<
p>
Deval delivered a powerful closer at the Agawam forum in April in response to Tom’s constant prodding about the tax rollback.
<
p>
I paraphrase:
<
p>
<
p>
That brought down the house.
The original post is an accurate description of me.
<
p>
I think you are at least partially correct that lowering taxes is certainly not the same thing as fiscal responsibility.
<
p>
I do think, however, that you grossly underestimate the confidence that any unenrolled/indpendent voter has that the extra billion in income taxes will be wisely spent in a way that eases the property tax burden. Rather, I expect that some new and terrible need will arise– a new and more generous subsidized health care package for state employees, or gazebos for every town from Braintree to New Braintree, or administrative jobs at the turnpike authority for every extended family member of the members of the General Court, or the need for lots of new state employees to administer the new health insurance law, or something, leaving the localities again strapped, and property taxes will go up anyway.
<
p>
The Democrats have major credibility problems on these issues.
<
p>
Just coming off of a successful override in a town that historically gave every indication that an override was as possible as George Bush becoming a raving liberal, I say you’re right. The electorate is muddled when it comes to the fuzzy notion of “fiscal responsibility.” The town in which I teach is proof positive of this. If you can make voters understand the true calculus involved in real fiscal responsibility, they will respond. The success is a measure of the messenger. The token few that are posting on this blog as indicative or representative of the voter described appear to be out of touch with their compadres. The messenger is key to this race, and I’m putting my $$$ on the guy who best delivers the ugly truth. After June 20th, I’m a true believer. It can be done, even with the most recalicitrant of voters.
…yes we have disagreed a fair amount here. We have some policy differences, but mostly tactical differences. I’m far cynical about our past effectiveness in moving that last few percentages of unenrolled voters into our column to win. If you were running for Governor against Kerry Healey I’d be volunteering for you and I’m afraid we’d lose again. I agree with 90% of what you say from a policy point of view, but I think in the vastly imperfect world of modern campaigning, you’re views would be distorted and youâd spend more time explaining/defending your views from unfair and gross distortions of what you really mean, that you’d never have a chance to win. (And that is my basic concern with Deval.)
<
p>
Example, a TV commercial would run like this, “I’m Lt. John Smith and I’m a recent veteran who was wounded serving my country. Recently I tried to get a job, but was told all the jobs were filled by illegal workers. Michael Forbes Wilcox supports this policy. That’s why I’m voting for Kerry Healey. She understands that the right thing to do is to support veterans returning from war. Michael Forbes Wilcox does not understand that and I urge you to support Kerry Healey and do what is right.”
<
p>
Lies and BS I understand. But that is the imperfect system we have. And the group of voters that will decide the election–just a few percentage points based on the last couple of election results–will not be the fully informed and involved voter that you and I are. They will believe that BS.
<
p>
And it’s not just immigration; it’s BS about taxes and Dems being in the tank with the legislator and hacks, and so on.
<
p>
You often argue your points on the merits and facts and the reality is that history proves elections–nationally and locally–are decided on emotion, emotions that are usually fear and anger.
<
p>
So my question is: how do you over come this? In the crazy week before the election, how do the merits and facts transcend emotions in deciding elections?
<
p>
Until you can convince me otherwise, I will base my view of the upcoming election from the emotional side of the equation and not trying to use reason with the causal voters. Thanks.
“Frank”
<
p>
Thanks for giving me the link to your query. For some reason, this diary stopped showing up on my home page. I mentioned this to Charley so he can register it on his list of technological mysteries, but he had no explanation of why that might happen.
<
p>
So, now that I’ve had a chance to read your comments, I must say you’ve pinpointed why I would never make a good candidate. Too intellectual. And I certainly agree with you that voters go with their guts, not their heads. Take a glance at who’s in charge of this country if there’s any doubt of that!
<
p>
All that said, I still believe that Mr. Patrick will connect with the average voter. He gives thoughtful, careful answers to difficult questions, and he certainly comes across as a guy with a lot of brainpower. He also, however, provides an emotional overtone to his stance on things, which arises from his deep convictions.
<
p>
Is all that too complex for the average voter to grasp in this sound-bite age? I hope not. Will it make it easy to frame attacks like the one you hypothesize? Maybe. But the counterargument to your skepticism (despair?) is that we (I speak for the large contingent of Deval-unteers) are out there pounding the pavement, holding signs, talking to our friends and neighbors, emailing our buddies, etc., to make people aware of our candidate and ask for their votes before the serious media circus begins.
<
p>
To use me as an example, I have gotten 120 people to pledge to me that they will vote for Deval on September 19. I know people who have done more than that. If all of the people who have signed on to volunteer for this campaign do the same thing, we won’t need the TV ads — we’ll have the election won before it starts. Of course, that ain’t gonna happen, I know that, but you get the idea — we’ll have made inroads long before the attack ads start. We already have.
<
p>
So you may be right about the marginal/casual voter, but my hope is there won’t be many of those left by the time the campaigns go searching for them.
In all my conversations with neighbors, raising this issue really cuts through the clutter and gets people interested.
<
p>
The problem, in terms of your original “what can Democrats say” question, is that only Patrick has the goods on this. The legislature–both parties, but that includes us–have very poor track records on aid to the cities and towns. The last time we Democrats stepped up to the plate on this was in the Dukakis administration.
<
p>
For Patrick, though (if not for Democrats as a group), this shows his independence from the legislature and the conventional wisdom on an issue that really hits close to home.
where I think that a quick 10 second answer is actually best. Most people don’t want to hear a long response, and you won’t have much time when you’re out canvassing. Plus, the “balance” argument is a bad argument and doesn’t warrant a long response about who’s going to be more or less powerful come a Democratic governor.
<
p>
30 words, 10 seconds, 3 main points:
<
p>
The state needs leadership and vision more than âbalance.â Deval Patrick supports fiscal responsibility, strong schools and a renewable energy sources. Deval is a fresh, outsider voice for Massachusetts.
“Balance” vs. gridlock.
<
p>
One of my arguments (aside from how lousy GOP governors has been) is to ask voters whether we’ve had “balance” or “gridlock”. The Big Dig is a perfect example — from day one it was pretty clear that this was going to be a boondoggle, but how are you going to have effective oversight if the people charged with that detest each other? If we had a Democratic governor, I think there would have been a much better chance of changing the corruption at the top, because the issue would be competence rather than one of party. But so many of these issues become a throwdown between Republicans and Democrats for party’s sake that good policy becomes a football.
<
p>
Instead of having one cogent agenda, education and oversight have “fallen through the cracks” as governors’ have chosen inaction because they can’t manage an effective solution and refuse to adopt a Democratic position (the health-care bill is a partial exception). I keep saying that we need a governor with an effective and independent power base, not an irrelevance linked to a sliver of the Legislature (on either wing of the spectrum), or someone so new that they haven’t developed any real relationships with people on the Hill.
if anything, the democratic legislature has had to be a reality check on a governor who believes he’s got bigger things to worry about than the citizens of the commonwealth. a reality check to start to put the interest of families and workers and businesses ahead of their own career paths.
first we elected bill weld, who really wanted a more glamourous post somewhere else more than he wanted to work for massachusetts.
then, we elected celluci who ..(see above)
and now we’ve got romney who ..(see sbove)
deval patrick is running for massachusetts. he’s not an insider. he’s not playing the game.
finally, we have a chance to elect a governer who actually going to work for you, ma’am.
and deval patrick is that man.
have a nice day.
Honestly, I can’t say anything about Gabs or Reilly, but at least Deval wouldn’t be beholden to the state legislature. It’s the very nature of his campaign. If he went back on his word, he’d be held accountable for that next election.
<
p>
However, a more realistic answer is we get our fair share of independents and smile as Mihos scraps enough away from Healey that she’s not even going to come within 5% of the Democrat on the ballot.
This is an important issue for the general election, regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
<
p>
1) So how is that working out for you? MA has been moving in the wrong direction for quite a while and our government has been deadlocked. Maybe we should try getting everyone on the same page again.
<
p>
2) Having a Republican governor lets the Democratic legislature off the hook. They can get away with not doing their jobs responsibly by blaming the governor.
<
p>
3)When the Republican governor vetoes something, the legislature just overrides the veto. We are then stuck with a governor being responsible for implementing something he just vetoed. What sense does that make?
I don’t want to offend the masses, but I’d like to be frank: Deval Patrick has some excellent ideas and clearly a great following among registered democrats and delegates, but to outsiders, they don’t seem like passionate voters, they seem like they’re ‘drinking the kool-aid.’ Deval’s great, and he’s appealing to our urban centers, but at the end of the day, there’s an entire western half of the state and a very influential belt in the center of the state who consistently vote. If you’re looking to appeal to independents, that’s great, but make sure you’re appealing to independents who vote – the elderly, the middle-class, so on & so forth. If we want to appeal to the independents, we can’t make our focus strictly in the urban areas. Folks out in the nowherevilles care too. And they vote. Give THEM something to connect to.
I feel like Welcome Wagon delivering a dead fish. “Welcome to BMG and your wrong”. I’m not sure where you start drawing the western half of the state, but if you start at Worcester and include the other 4 counties you’re not talking about a lot of voters–about 12% of the ’02 general election results. And, the two of the three larges urban communities are Worcester and Springfield (although their turnouts do not reflect that).
<
p>
The Dems base is in the blue-collar urban cities. If Dems want to win, we have to do MUCH better in the suburban communities between 128 and 495. We get killed in those areas and to win we need to reach those independent voters. Maybe that is what you meant.
<
p>
Anyway, welcome and I hope my next greeting is a little more pleasant.