If so, is this what a “different kind of politics” looks like?
Deval Patrick has been extremely impressive to date, but reporting from the Phoenix (left), Globe (middle left), and Herald (middle right) suggests that he and his campaign are trying to create a one man race this weekend. While this might be brilliant strategy, it runs counter to Patrick’s and the campaign’s pronouncements of inclusion and a different kind of politics. Not only is this hypocritical if the reporting from multiple outlets is true, but it also might not be the path to victory for the Democratic party to grab back the Corner Office after 16 years. Latest polls have Gabrieli at 33%, Reilly 20%, and Patrick at 17% with 30% presumably undecided – see Dan Payne Boston Globe 6/1/2006. When one also factors in that Gabrieli polls very well with independents – the largest voting block in the state – a logical person has to ask the following question: Do we want to make it 20 years by only placing Patrick on the ballot this weekend?
As an ex-officio, my plan this weekend is to vote Gabrieli on the first ballot and Patrick thereafter if he does not clear 50% after the first ballot. Deval Patrick certainly deserves the win this weekend. He, his campaign, and 3000 or so party activists voting for him do not deserve a September win right now by eliminating the choices for 750,000 voters in September and ~2 million (plus?) in November. Is that democratic – small d? Is that inclusive? Again, is that what a new kind of politics is all about? It sounds like 1928 to me.
In November, I plan to support whomever wins the Democratic primary in September unless chicanery this weekend turns me off on a campaign. And I define chicanery in this case as the few limiting the choices of the many! My guess is that there are a lot more like me than you think.
Best,
southshoreguy
Southshoreguy, methinks you have but one string on your guitar. This is your third post in two days saying essentially the same thing. You’re going to vote for Gabrieli on the first ballot. Fine. You’re going to vote for Patrick if there’s a second ballot. Again, fine.
<
p>
Those of us who think that partisan cannibalism is perhaps not the best strategy heading into November will have a different strategy.
<
p>
And, for the record, the poll Dan Payne cites is the internal Gabrieli poll and he makes that pretty clear in his article. No independent media poll has duplicated those numbers.
Wookie – “for the record”, the pollster for that Gabrieli poll was Tubby Harrison. Anyone who has followed MA politics for awhile knows that he is a top (read – accurate) pollster who has been hired by a wide range of candidates over the years. In fact, he was called a “respected pollster” by both Payne (Globe) and Buckingham (Herald) in the past week. Not one person in the media or in any of the other campaigns has contested those findings. The silence is deafening!!
<
p>
As to my one note, I like it for now! đŸ™‚ I’ll be happy to broaden the list of topics post convention…
<
p>
Best,
southshoreguy
<
p>
PS “partisan cannibalism” – I wouldn’t classify my strategy as that. I would classify limiting your choice to the guy in last place less than brilliant however.
C’mon, southshoreguy, that’s a little disingenous. Buckingham went on to point out that while Tubby’s a respected pollster…THIS poll was flawed. They sampled all registered voters and the figures you wrote here are from that sample. When the sample was drilled down to just likely voters, the race tightened to within a few points for each. Gabrieli’s numbers dropped, Patrick’s increased. This is predictable though: Gabrieli artifically inflated his name recognition in general by buying lotsa TV ads and Patrick’s name recognition is probably lower outside the circles of activists and likely voters that they have been targeting from day one.