To my mind, this weekend’s convention was a huge success, not least by avoiding the catastrophe of shutting one of the candidates out of the September ballot. Bonifaz got on; Goldberg and Silbert got on; Gabrieli got on. Good for all of them, and good for the party as well. Was there last-minute wheeling and dealing to ensure Gabrieli got those 17 votes he desperately needed to barely clear 15%? Probably. Good for those 17 delegates, who may well have voted against their preferred candidate to avoid a major embarrassment to their party.
So what does it all mean? My take, as one who until starting this blog not long ago probably fit the profile of the typical “likely voter” (someone who pretty much always voted but couldn’t name his state rep or senator most of the time, and who didn’t pay a lot of attention to any races until shortly before election day), is pretty simple. The winners were the ones who won: Deval Patrick (who got gigantic headlines in today’s Globe and Herald and as a result may appear on many voters’ radar screens for the first time), Tim Murray, and Bill Galvin. Everyone else survived to fight another day (namely, September 19), and good for them for doing so.
I must respectfully disagree with those who see the convention results as an important “win” for Reilly, Gabrieli, Silbert, or Bonifaz, or anyone else who perhaps surpassed expectations, or as a “loss” for Murray because he didn’t get the endorsement on the first ballot, or for Patrick because he didn’t clear 60% of the delegates. Honestly, do you really think anyone outside the DCU Center cares about that stuff? No one – I mean no one – cares that Tim Murray needed two votes rather than one to get the party’s endorsement. Point is, he got it, and going forward he can and will, loudly and proudly, trumpet himself as the party’s endorsed candidate. As for the rest of it, do you really think that any of the 745,000 Democratic primary voters who weren’t in the DCU Center this weekend care whether Silbert or Goldberg came in second to Murray, or whether Bonifaz got 29% as opposed to, say, 16% of the delegates, or whether Patrick got 59% as opposed to, say, 68%? I don’t.
Maybe I’m wrong – and I will agree that Bonifaz’s perhaps unexpectedly strong showing may help him with fundraising in the short term. But overall, here’s my bottom line: the convention, which most voters were not paying attention to anyway, is over; the party avoided the nightmare of shutting legit candidates out of the ballot; the headline results are the ones that will stick (to the extent anything does); and now we can all move on to what matters: the primary on September 19, and the general election on November 7. Thank goodness.
…if you point is that primary voters do not really care what happened this weekend in terms of the results…I would have to agree completely.
Forgive my ignorance, but I’m new to politics and I’m new to Massachusetts! Sounds like the convention was a big success. I don’t think there’s any question that Deval Patrick did extremely well, but I’m not sure I understand what this means for September 19. Is this a forecast that says Deval is likely to win the nomination? Does he pretty much have it in the bag now? Is it less certain, or does it mean nothing really? If someone could explain, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
Welcome to politics and the navel-gazing political blogosphere.
<
p>
The endorsement means very little for the primary. Patrick will get some good press coverage for a few days and then most voters will forget about all of the candidates again until (maybe) the week before the election.
<
p>
The news from the convention that matters is that we have a 3-way gubernatorial primary. We also saw that Patrick has a stong field operation, and that will be a big factor between now and election day.
<
p>
Oh, and Ted Kennedy got the endorsement for Senate. In case anyone was worried. 🙂
Welcome to Blue Mass Group!
<
p>
Patrick’s win at the convention reflects his win at the caucuses four months ago. That win helped him a lot – more energy among his volunteers, more credibility with the press, more donations, more respect from the party, etc. Winning the convention with 58% didn’t change that one way or the other, it’s still that caucus win from February.
[what does the endorsement of Patrick mean?]
<
p>
There’s some small advantage for Patrick in that he can say that he’s the endorsed candidate, but even that is a double-edged sword because so many Massachusetts voters have bad feelings about “the Democratic establishment” and/or “liberal activists”. Formally it means nothing at all — all three candidates will vigorously contest the 19 September primary and the one who gets the most votes will be the nominee with then seven weeks to make their case to the general election voters.
<
p>
In 2002 Shannon O’Brien won a four-way primary (see GoldsteinGoneWild’s recent post) and lost the general to Romney. One theory is that she suffered from the short period that she was the annointed alternative to Romney — there are other theories as well. In 1998 and 1994 the convention-endorsed candidates won the primary fairly easiy. In 1990 the struggle for the convention endorsement was between Bellotti and Murphy but Silber, who barely made the 15% threshold, won the primary and then lost the general. In 1978 and 1982 incumbent Democratic governors Dukakis and King lost their primaries for re-election — I don’t know what happened in the respective conventions but I don’t expect it mattered much.
<
p>
The best thing about the convention endorsement for Patrick, IMHO, is that it demonstrates his statewide base of support. Most of those delegates who voted for him will be working for him in their hometowns, and boosting your own turnout in a primary can easily be decisive.
<
p>
[I’ve given money to Patrick and am planning to vote for him.]
<
p>
If you have an opinion on the outcome, make a prediction on my other thread!
Oh, the pooooooor party, it narrowly avoided being embarrassed. /snark
<
p>
Seriously, is it for the best that Gabrieli got on? I’m not so sure. Primarily because he’s fracked as far as getting a real momentum underway for the general election, by his own late admission into the process.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but embarrassing the party is sometimes a good thing. It SHOULD be embarrassed a lot of the time, or at least lately. It behaves badly enough that people joined the ranks of Unenrolled just to punish it.
I think it’s GREAT Gabrielli will be on the ballot, continuing the perception that Money Talks in the Dem Party, and they are hypocrites for trying to tag the GOP on this, and watching him take moderate votes away from Duuu-VAHL. While ‘Shirtsleeves’ Reilley, that POOR underdog, just bravely keeps nipping at the heels of the powerful fron his mahogany third floor office in the State House.
Personally, I’m embarrassed to be part of a party where backroom deals struck by an embittered former front-runner (who has only himself to blame for screwing up the caucuses) got an undeserving candidate on the ballot in he vain hopes that said undeserving candidate will split the more progressive vote with the one cadidate who’s worked his ass off to get where he is, thus handily delivering the primary to the one guy out of the three who can not win against Healy.
<
p>
And I’m embarrassed to be part of a party which has engineered it so that the primary will now be entierly about money. Neither Partick nor Reilly had all that much, so they were going to have to use it wisely and concentrate on other things. I’m really not looking forward to the next few months, and I think it’s going to be a disgusting display of money.
<
p>
All you Gabrielli and Reilly supporters who are patting yourselves on the back for this “upset” should look in the mirror and be ashamed and horrified at what you see. Kerry Healy can spend the summer sitting back and counting her wealth while the democrats infight their way to another defeat.
We all sat in our seats after the announcement of that 15.3% and said no way. The fix was in. Bullshit.
I was horrified. The only person in our area who was happy about it was 1 of the 2 Reilly supporters. The only person from our town who voted for Gabrielli works for the state party, lost at the caucuses, and was an add-on. What does that tell you?
<
p>
It was cheap and dirty, and it makes me angrier the more I think about it.
No one around me in the 1WO bought it one bit. Certainly, our delegation of 10 didn’t buy it. In fact, many around us were speculating that the long delay was to accommodate fixing the vote so Gabrieli would get his 15%. Naturally, we weren’t surprised one bit when the “he just made it” scuttlebutt starting coming down from on high through the ranks.
Yeah it seemed a smidge odd to us in 3MI as well I really wonder what the heck went on in the two districts he won. One by a land slide. Basically those two saved his bacon otherwise he would have been complete toast getting about 7% of the vote. Anyone from those districts care to comment?
If your point is that voters don’t care how well candidates performed at the convention, you’re understating the point: In fact, most voters barely even know there was a convention, let alone who “won”.
<
p>
But if your point is that candidate performances at the convention won’t affect primary voters, I think you’re missing why it matters. Because the people who do pay attention to the convention – party officials, grassroots activists, donors, bloggers, and the press – do affect the dynamic of the primary and voters perceptions, and will affect the final outcome in September.
<
p>
And so, in light of that, I think I’ll write my own post-convention post about how I think the results affect the candidates.
Hence my comment about benefits to Bonifaz. I just think it matters less than you probably do. But I’ll look forward to reading your post.
I also plan to vote for Patrick, and hopefully get out and work for him… once I finish moving up to Massachusetts (I’m in Texas right now…)!
stuff makes the rest of the voting population’s eyes glaze over. Only we really care about the convention, the machinations, the percentages, the tone, and the scuttlebutt.
<
p>
Having said that, however, I’d add this. On the plus side, Deval Patrick gets his name in neon for a few days as does Tim Murray. That’s good. Each will rake in money on the buzz and be carried by a fair amount of robustly energized supporters. On the minus side, we didn’t clear the field, which, imho, is a bad thing. I would have preferred to have only Reilly and Patrick on the primary ballot because they offer two distinctly different choices. Anything more than two muddies the waters, divides the party, and makes us look disjointed, redundant, and fractured. Same ol’ same ol’.
<
p>
As for lieutenant governor, I’m from Worcester, so Tim’s showing was nothing short of exhilarating. For the same reasons stated above, I’d like to see just two names on that primary ballot, but that’s unlikely, of course. Candidly, I’d like to see Patrick and Murray start their discussions on developing their message as a ticket. I think it’s time.
<
p>
Bonifaz’s showing opens a dialogue that would never otherwise have taken place. I’m glad to see Galvin have some competition for that very reason.
<
p>
In short, given that the average voter has a headline mentality, all that will float to the surface is that Patrick and Murray won the convention and their names will begin to sound familiar to people. Period.
Patrick and Murray should start discussions? If Patrick wants to preserve his outsider appeal, I suggest he NOT do that. Sure, Murray is the frontrunner coming out of this, but a sure thing? Not there yet, and I could give you a million reason$ why not….
disagree. I’m no fan of Andrea Silbert or Deb Goldberg. I don’t think they offer anything of substance to the ticket, so the only real alternative in my view is Murray. Consequently, there’s nothing lost in talking early and seeing what the landscape looks like.
I agree that Deb Goldberg has little to offer, but I propose that we do agree that each of Tim and Andrea have substance, just in different focus areas. Andrea = job creation experience, which some believe is a fix for what is wrong in MA. Tim = municipal experience, which some believe would result in more attention being paid to local issues. None of the Gov. candidates has either of their experience, which is why one of them would be a good choice.
<
p>
As for talking w/ a Gov candidate, I actually think that forming a post-convention ticket wouldn’t be a bad idea poltically for one of the Gov candidates to do. It would shake things up, etc… I’m sure we could have a spirited debate about the “best” combo for Dems come November.
<
p>
Hmm, now I’m intrigued by this possibility, but am too tired to write any more…
It makes the most sense. First of all they are about the same height, always a plus 🙂
<
p>
2. Local Govt & Corporate experience = broad appeal
3. Agree on basically all the issues
4. Both are Endorsed by Sen. Augustus, Cong McGovern, & Cong. Tierny (he voted for Murray at the Convention) among several others.
5. Murray brings with him support from Central & Western MA, while Patrick plays well to the Eastern MA crowd.
6. Chocolate Liquor & Bailey’s Irish Cream = great combo 😉
<
p>
Also, arguements that Murray is supported by a broader voter base can be seen by the fact that Murray won in the districts that Patrick, Gabrielli and Reilly won, while Silbert & Goldberg only won is areas that Patrick won.
SSL. Great comments as usual, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you support the same candidates as I do.
Great analysis, they do complement eachother not only in opninions, and lets not forget drink metaphors, but in voting appeal. If Murray is weak in a distrcit Patrick is strong, and if Patrick is weak then Murray is strong. That voting appeal is important come November if we Dems are to win back the corner office. I would just like to add another reason they make a perfect team:
<
p>
7. Their slogans go hand in hand, Deval’s “Together We Can” and Murray’s “A Brand New Day for Massachusetts.” Add the word “make” and you get a ticket slogan of “Together We Can Make A Brand New Day For Massachusetts!” Do I hear destiny calling?
So out of curiosity, how can it be both that no one pays attention to these sorts of things (which I agree with) and the fact that locking Gabrielli out woul dhave been an embarassment (which I don’t agree with)? Either the average voter cares about what happens at the convention, or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
<
p>
It’s going to be a much, much bigger embarrassment when the democrats completely self destruct over the next few months, handing the November win to Healy. I’m not saying Reilly v. Patrick would have been pretty, but the influx of Gabrielli, who has nothing going for him but money and the backing of a racist establishment that seems to think that a charismatic black man can’t do what an oily Mormon did, changes the entire dynamics of the race. And not for the better.
<
p>
What is this “racist establishment” of which you speak? I think I get what you’re getting at, but I want to make sure I understand.
You honestly don’t think that’s the elephant in the room? One person actually told me point-blank that she doesn’t think a black man can win and that’s why she’s supporting Reilly. And others have certainly insinuated that there’s something wrong with Patrick, something they can’t quite put their finger on… no, not his record, or his experience, or his fundraising, or his support, or his beliefs, or anything else you might mention to them… hmmm, what else is there? What else could there be that’s wrong with Patrick that no one really wants to discuss? Something wrong with Patrick, but right with Gabrielli, who shares most of the same ideology, who is also a successful businessman, who is also trying to claim to be an outsider? I dunno, I give up. You tell me!
A poster at the south shore political blog wrote this, which I think sums it up better than I could.
<
p>
The claim that Gabrieli “deserves” this is laughable. Why? Because he spent a lot of money on television spots? Because, right now, he looks a lot better to insiders than the fizzling-out Reilly? If the shoe were on the other foot and it was an outsider, for instance, Patrick, trying the same maneuvers, he would be crucified by the party and press alike. So, what exactly is the difference that makes the “old boys” and “smart money” want to give Gabrieli a leg up?
<
p>
Both Gabrieli and Patrick are a rich guys. One is not questioned about where his money comes from and why he doesn’t seem to ever have to work. The other is constantly questioned about every affiliation he has had with large corporations, his mortgages, etc.
<
p>
One’s an insider to Massachusetts politics. The other isn’t.
<
p>
One didn’t play by the rules and now wants people to feel sorry for him and cut him some slack for his lack of decision-making skills. The other has been working his tail off for over a year visiting town committees and local Democratic groups to garner grassroots support for his candidacy.
<
p>
One was a lackluster candidate on a lackluster ticket that lost to Mitt f&%$ing Romney in the last election. The other is a thoughtful candidate who wins over almost every crowd he speaks to.
<
p>
One’s white and considered electable by the insiders. The other is black and the political insiders, who have a really bad track record of picking winners, say he can’t possibly win in Massachusetts because . . . er . . . the people of this state won’t vote for . . . uh . . . someone who’s . . . well, you know. What is it? Spit it out! Are you saying the people of Massachusetts are . . . um . . . er . . . RACIST?
Sad to say it, but I think there’s unfortunate truth to this. I hope it’s not strong enough to make a huge difference in September/November, but we’d be foolish to ignore it.
Sorry, just to be clear: you think there’s truth that a black man will have a tougher time getting elected governor, or that you think that there is a double standard because Patrick is black and Gabrielli isn’t?
I think there is a huge double standard and that race will be the elephant in the room.
<
p>
I appreciate your candor on this topic, too. Thanks for opening up this discussion; it’s much needed, though I suspect there’ll be, uh…, ironically, little tolerance for that.
I think that it is and can be an issue, but what I really, really hate… what is driving me absolutely wild, is that WE (democrats) are making it an issue. I think the Gabrielli push is very much based on the idea that “a black man can’t win” (and I don’t think that all Gabrielli supporters think this, obviously… but I do honestly believe that many do), and this makes me utterly ashamed of my party. Aren’t we the progressive party, living in one of the most progressive states in the country?
<
p>
It’s only an issue if someone makes it an issue. And I think that many democrats ARE making it an issue, and I don’t think that’s fair on anyone: not on Patrick, not on his supporters, and certainly not on the voters of Massachusetts.
I meant that I agree with the fact that there’s a double standard. I also agree that Patrick will have an obstacle to overcome that Gabrielli and Reilly won’t because of his race. It sucks, but it’s true.
<
p>
I say we keep talking about it. If we confront it head-on the maybe, just maybe, it will lose some of its prominence.
<
p>
Sadly, I think both are the case.
but, there are still people in our party who are racist. It doesn’t mean that they are going to effect the election, because most likely they are a small minority, but they are still there.
<
p>
As a Jewish woman this bothered me . . . but a friend pointed out that if Deval won and Silbert or Goldberg won it would be the ultimate minority ticket. Black man and Jewish woman. Which, though I hate to say this might not make the cut in November.
Wow, that’s pretty scathing, but I have to admit there’s, sadly, not much there to dispute. The race thing is going to rear its ugly head with a vengeance now.
<
p>
Yesterday, I was in the last row of the 1WO. There was a narrow aisle behind me separating us from the 2WO. As Patrick began the part of his speech that referenced growing up on the Chicago South Side, I heard a woman behind me groan, “Oh, here we go….” At that moment, my heart sank. Did she have similar impatience with Tom Reilly’s working class Irish roots? I don’t think so.
<
p>
Will we hear things similar to what we heard about Obama’s speech at the 2004 Convention (he’s very well spoken for a black man…..)? Yes. Unfortunately, the Race Thing is going to be the elephant in the room. Can we overcome it? Yes. Call me naive, but I really believe that.
I also rolled my eyes during the “south side of chicago” bit, as well as when Reilly mentioned that he lives in the same home in Watertown that he always has and whenever anyone tells me that John Edwards’ father was a mill worker. It’s just impatience with the necessary repeated messaging. If people like us are sick of it then it means that maybe the rest of the electorate has heard it once.
In an election cycle where the GOP has TWO fully backed and promoted African American candidates for governships of two very large states Ohio and Penn… and are fully supporting and promoting the candidacy of another African American for Senate in Maryland… it is a crying shame that in the supposed bright blue librul state of Massachusetts… the Democratic establishment has gone out of its way to bend rules and undertake backroom negotiations to keep a wonderful, competent African American out of office.
<
p>
The only freaking elephant in the room are those in the Masschusetts Democratic establishment.
<
p>
The GOP is willing to take an ex football player with absolutly no political competencies and polish him up and stick him in the race just because he has name recognition. Meanwhile, Ma Dems are conniving to keep out a one in a million candidate because THEY are afraid of doing something thing the GOP did in MAssachusetts over 30 years ago… that is elected an African American to a high level office.
<
p>
Pathetic… this is why there has not been a Dem gov in so long… because the Ma Dem estblishment has done everything in their power to ensure a loss….Rielly should have never been “selected” in the first place…where did they did him up… in the Gray Davis school of political losers.
I know we’re not big Romney fans here, but I think that crosses a line.
<
p>
calling Romney a pretty-boy, empty shell of a governor, however…
I think he’s really oily. His hair is oily, his smile is oily. He’s smarmy, nasty, and every time I see a picture of him I want to take a shower to scrub myself clean.
If deval had bad judgement with hair gel and someone called him an “oily black”, you (and I) would take it as beyond the bounds of polite discussion to say the least.
I meant “oily” and “mormon” as two separate adjectives and “charismatic” and “black” and “man” as three separate adjectives. Perhaps it was confusing, as “mormon” can be a noun and “man” is obviously a noun, and I apologize. But I think that there is, for the most part, more racism against black men than there is against black women.
and should have written that I gave you the benefit of the doubt, there’s another thing that could’ve been cleared up but for lack of complete exlicitness 🙂
Totally unacceptable.
<
p>
Your first paragraph is nonsensical, creating an either/or when none exists, and your cries of racism are frankly unsubstantiated. Your prejudice against Mormons, on the other hand, is blatant and reprehensible.
How, exactly, am I prejudiced against Mormons? I have very good friends who are members of LDS, and I know that they experience a lot of prejudice, just like many black people do. Jokes about magic underwear show up on tv all the times in ways that jokes about fried chicken would NEVER get past the advertisors. HBO has a one-joke show about a Mormon with three wives and the hijinx they get into.
<
p>
My point is that to say that a member of a minority group that faces frequent prejudice can’t win the governor’s race ignores the current political reality of Mass.
your “oily Mormon” comment rubbed a lot of folks (including me) the wrong way – perhaps because of a grammatical problem, as you posted upthread. If you’d like, I’m happy to delete the original comment, and you can then re-post what you actually meant. What do you say?
This was my first convention, and it was…interesting. David, I think you’re spot on. The convention is over, and now the mainstream election has begun. The numbers from the convention reflect a very progressive and activist support group that will only be a slight slight minority of primary voters. Preparing for a convention and preparing for a primary are two completely different things. So, if candidates were trying to speak to the voters in a convention, they’re going to have to completely shift gears and try to speak to average democrat voters.
<
p>
As for Gabrieli, I think it’s a tragedy, and was classless that so many people at the convention booed when his 15% was announced. Grow up. Nobody booed Tom Reilly when his 29 percent was announced, despite the fact that he made no effort to court the caucuses in Feb. Chris has a right to get on that ballot, and I know good people who worked hard to get him there. People are loyal to him, and if that means they may have shifted, then so be it. (I am, for record, a Deval supporter). He worked within the rules and that’s that.
<
p>
On that note, I get the feeling that many progressive Dems might not vote in November if Chris gets the nod. If that is the case, shame on you. Period. I support Deb Goldberg and Deval Patrick, and if they don’t get the primary nod, I’m going to vote for whomever is on the Democratic ticket in November, period. If that happens to be Tom Reilly and Tim Murray, so be it. Because, as we’ve been saying over and over again, it’s about getting a good, democratic Governor and LG in office here.
<
p>
So that’s where I stand. If you’re bitter and “disgusted” about Gabrieli getting on the ballot, fine…but just think twice when you want to take a principled “no-voting” stance if he happens to be the candidate we have in November. As far as I’m concerned, I would have no problem giving him my vote.
about not voting….
for one. (Not “not voting,” but not voting Democratic.)
The strongest rebuttal to that comment comes from Katie Wallace, the chair of Progressive Democrats of Somerville. Which commenter do you think is more representative of progressive Democrats’ views?
<
p>
We often hear a lot of talk about how these pesky new progressives are disloyal to the party, and turn away if their candidates don’t win. In practice, what we’ve seen in Massachusetts elections in recent years where the progressives got heavily involved, is exactly the opposite: When the progressives’ choice loses the primary, progressive voters support the nominee (Moran, Toomey), but when the progressives’ choice wins, a large number of the voters who supported the other Democrats drop off or switch sides (Sciortino vs. Ciampa, Jehlen vs. Mackey/Callahan/Casey).
<
p>
Let’s not worry about what Patrick’s supporters will do if Reilly wins. We know they’ll support Reilly.
All of this just makes me more proud of the speech Massachusetts Sen. Ed Brooke, a Republican black man, gave at our convention.
<
p>
BTW – our GOP Senate candidate is a black man as well; how many black men are there in the Dem-controlled State Senate now….
Because we all know that no Party represents inclusion like the Republican Party. /snark I like your selective attitude too. How many gay legislators are Republican? Hispanic? Female? Asian?
I can only comment about Mass., not the known universe. Out of a grand total of 25 –
<
p>
Gay? Four
<
p>
Hispanic? If we count Portuguese, two or three.
<
p>
Women? Seven
<
p>
We do not have anyone black at the current time, although we DO have an Albino. And a black Senate and Rep. candidates.
<
p>
The only woman ever elected to Congress from Mass. was Maragaret Heckler.
<
p>
You talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Mass. Dem’s idea of diversity in the congressional delegation is finally electing an Italian (Capuano).
<
p>
I’ll stack my percentages up against yours any day.
gabrieli had the most apropos intro music of any candidate in my opinion.
<
p>
alabama ‘hurry’
<
p>
i’m in a hurry to get things done
i rush and rush until life’s no fun
all i ever wanna do is live and die
I’M IN A HURRY AND DON’T KNOW WHY.
that Patrick used to fuel his campaign and win a successful endorsement in the convention .. But in his defense it was the only way a newbie could possibly win any delegate votes without having an established base of support like Reilly or buying the votes sort of like Gabrielli. As a multimillionaire you first romance the left ,then pretend you are a progressive, get your foot in the door with the delegates, gain name recognition ,and finally plan a strategy to attract the other 85% of the democrats. Bill Clinton did it, Hillary is in process. It is a very popular strategy by Dems on both a local and national level.
<
p>
Now that the party is over and the reality sets in, the Patrick campaign understands that only a moderate has a chance to win. You will now see much backpedaling by Patrick to the other side starting in the next few weeks. The progressives will howl that he is a backstabber but he will surely make a deal with them.
<
p>
When he starts to show the other side, the press will definitely be all over him . The blogs will also make others aware of his chameleon characteristics.
<
p>
I assume that as a result,Tom reilly’s solid unwavering moderate ideology and experience will gain the respect of a number of doubters, especially those who only thought he would squeak by with 15%.
<
p>
cmon lets give Tom credit for ignoring the caucuses and raising much needed money during that period.
<
p>
On the black issue i don’t agree that the fact that he is of color is the problem. Because he is both liberal and color makes it a problem. If he was a republican he would be welcomed with open arms by the voters .
This “left wing ideology” nonsense is so silly. Bob Reich got 15% of the delegates 4 years ago, and Deval got 58%. Has the “left wing” grown all that much, or is there a far broader base to his support? Note that Bonifaz got half what Deval did, so even if most of Bonifaz’ supporters went with Deval, the majority of Deval people voted for Bill Galvin, not exactly the “politically correct” thing to do in some progressive circles.
<
p>
This year, the convention got it right — A charismatic “outsider” at the top of the ticket with broad appeal; a local official from Central Mass. with links to locals across the state and a solid incumbent with ties to the base of older ethnic voters and the support of Barney Frank and Lois Pines. Doesn’t sound like a crew that went off the deep end to me.
<
p>
Anyway, this delegate voted for all three, was the only person in my pool to pick Silbert for second and came pretty close to picking the final percentages — so all you multimillion dollar candidates — I’m available! (not)
And Patrick is a left-wing ideologue because? . . . He doesn’t support an immediate rollback of the income tax rate from 5.3% to 5%? A position that is entirely consistent with the Mass. House of Representatives, and not that far from what the Mass. Senate proposed in its budget? A position that Tom Reilly held until he announced his candidacy for Governor? Because Patrick backs gay marriage? – although all 3 Democratic gubernatorial candidates now back gay marriage. Is it because Patrick is pro-choice? – although all 3 Democratic gubernatorial candidates are now pro-choice.
<
p>
What else? Because he describes cutting the state income tax rate as a back door move to keep local aid below the level it was in 2000? Because he talks about hope? Because he thinks that government can be used as a tool to make peoples’ lives better? Because he has offered a concrete plan to make state government more efficient and cut waste? Because he backs Cape Wind when every other candidate is afraid to do what is right on that issue?
<
p>
What is it that makes him a left-wing ideologue then? Is it because he is a person of color? Because he talks about poor people? Because he rejects the politics of cynicism?
<
p>
Inquiring minds want to know.
and the combination of a left wing governor and the liberal house would be a dangerous marriage. DiMasi and Trav have tried to hold the line the past couple of years but based on the current budget add ins spending will be a much bigger issue during the next Governors term.
<
p>
Patrick has supported increasing local municipal taxes including rooms and meal taxes without providing offsetting cost savings. He is against the rollback. That’s left wing thinking in my world. The rest of the poor people talk and rejecting politics of cynicism is campaign speak that is meaningless dribble and for the ears of students, idealists , progressives and socialists ,because only a few have real jobs pay any taxes or run businesses.
<
p>
Yes, Reilly held the rollback position until such time as the state developed a huge budget surplus. But he understands that there is no justification for burdening businesses and the voters with the .3 % while there is a surplus and gas prices and the cost of living in Massachusetts have gone through the roof.
<
p>
YD, are you trying to deny that Patrick is not left wing but the convention proves otherwise. I sense that you are very concerned about the lefty tag . You are correct. But just wait he will start to moderate shortly. Its his only chance to win.
No taxes … no investment
<
p>
The GOP have successfully demagogued taxes to sound a “dog whistle” that those librul Democrats want to give “hand outs” to Black people i.e. “Welfare Queens”.
<
p>
How do you propose we keep out schools open, streets paved and street safe… all this comes from investing in the infrastructure. Last I heard some cities where talking about firing all of the janitors in their schools to save money. Cities are already charging to pick up trash (large items).
<
p>
It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts only help the wealthy and in fact hurt the middle and lower classes. Yeah, they might get an extra 400 dollars in their pocket but then have to shell out an extra 2000 to send their kids to a state school or even move to a richer neighborhood because the crime rates have gotten out of control for the lack of police.
<
p>
but your comment
<
p>
<
p>
makes you an asshole.
Someday you will understand that Pols only tell you what they want you to hear. That is how they get elected.
<
p>
It is what they actually do that counts and should be the basis from which we make a decision to vote. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder.
<
p>
Sorry for being an asshole and telling you the way it is .
<
p>
By the way I am also a supporter of George Bush and proud of it.
<
p>
On this I do not disagree. That, and my residence in Precinct 1 in Brookline, takes nothing away from your jackassery by “telling [me] the way it is” with your claim that “(few) students, idealists , progressives and socialists , … have real jobs pay any taxes or run businesses.”
<
p>
which is, of course, complete crap.
<
p>
Want to give legitimate analysis, opinions that have some root in data or logic, or just shoot the breeze? That’s cool, encouraged even. But your “they don’t think like me, therefore they must be leeches on society” slant is pure, unadulterated jackassery, trolling, and not productive.
<
p>
And by the way — my coalition won 3 of the 5 three year TM seats in Precinct 1, which had previously been assumed untouchable. I’m quite proud of the successful work we’ve done in Precinct 1, bringing representation to more than just a cabal of right(notmiddleorleft) winged representatives centered around Carlton Street.
You’re out of step with 70% of the country. So what is it that you like about him? High gas prices, foreign policy or domestic policy? Personally, I loved it when he can’t get an immigration bill or reasonable energy policy issue managed, so he waves the gay marriage constitutional amendment around. Nothing new under the sun there, little buckaroo.
Ahh, the politics of cynicism…..
He did a great job trying to keep out Gabbrielli. Almost worked. Good for Deval for trying.
Unfortunately for Deval, Tom Reilly is the biggest winner.
<
p>
I see Reilly winning the whole thing now.
the candidate who was supposed to be a shoo-in when this race walks away with less than 30 percent. the candidate who was barely considered as serious walks away with almost 60 percent. multiple reports from the floor indicate that many voted for reilly out of an obligation that they do not intend to fulfill going forward.
<
p>
yeah, i totally see how reilly won this one.
Other than getting candidates on the ballot, which is very powerful, the convention has as much to do with who the nominee in September as a grade school straw poll on a state wide office. – OK, huge exaggeration, but you get my point.
More like letting the towns of Leicester and Barre speak for the entire state.
As a candidate all I would want is 15 % and let the September voter know I don’t think much of the Ma State Party’s non-inclusiveness.
The results of the voting by district are now available on the Massachusetts Democratic Party Site