1. Likeability. This is the toughest, because you either have it or you donât, but the truth is many times it is THE deciding factor.
This quote by John Maxwell speaks to the likeability factor.
âPeople buy in to the leader first, then the vision. If they donât like the leader but like the vision, they get a new leader. If they donât like the leader or the vision, they get a new leader. If they donât like the vision but like the leader, they get a new vision.â
Candidate ranking:
Patrick, Gabrielli, Reilly
2. Follow the will of the voters OR have a easily defensible position. This is rule as bostonshepard pointed out is one of the Democratâs biggest sins and illegal immigration is a great example. The tax rollback is also a good example.
Candidate ranking:
Gabrielli, Reilly, Patrick
3. No flip flopping. No one likes indecision even if the candidate comes around to your point of view. Donât change positions mid-stream.
Candidate ranking:
Gabrielli, Patrick, Reilly
4. Money. Tremendous grassroots effort = no main stream support and extremism in voters eyes.
Candidate ranking:
Gabrielli, Reilly, Patrick
It looks to me like Gabrielli will pull away with Patrick and Reilly holding on to only the most loyal supporters.
From the Grammar Police: Your poll asks us to use “this criteria” — I presume you mean “these criteria” since you list 4.
<
p>
From the Disclosure Police: You may be a “Gabrieli neophyte” but the sophistication of your post belies your claim to be a “political neophyte.” I don’t remember you ever disclosing your support for Chris, but I guess it’s pretty obvious.
<
p>
As to the rest of your post: bunk!
<
p>
1. I totally disagree. It’s the message that matters.
2. I don’t want a follower, I want a leader. I totally oppose government by plebiscite. The examples you cite are “great” and “good” examples of what?
3. You seem to have done a flip-flop of your own when it comes to immigration.
4. You seem to think that “main stream” and “grassroots” are somehow different. The voters think of themselves as extremists? I’m confused by this. If a “grassroots” campaign includes more than 50% of the voters, how is that “extremism?”
<
p>
In any case, I’m pleased to see that you agree that my candidate is the most likeable of the three. I can assure you, however, that is not the primary reason I am supporting Patrick. I am supporting him because he will make the best Governor.
If all voters were political activists then you would be correct. As we know that is not the case. This is not a post on why you should support a candidate, but on how people vote and unfortunately they are not the same.
<
p>
A couple of quick rebuttals and one mea culpaâ¦
<
p>
1. I do consider myself as a political neophyte. I don’t consider a couple of brief forays (Kerry and Reich) into campaigns enough to consider me anything else.
<
p>
2. If message were the primary determinant you would think we would be more successful. Being right does not equal success.
<
p>
3. You didn’t consider the fact that if you don’t have a defensible position maybe your position isnât right?
<
p>
4. The fact that I support rights for illegal immigrants once they are here and productive members of society does not mean I support illegal immigration. That’s like saying because I am pro-choice I think everyone that gets pregnant should get an abortion.
<
p>
5. Grassroots is a euphemism in politics for no main stream support.
<
p>
6. I liked your clever reply on my spelling of Gabrieli. It was inexcusable. I need to update my Word spelling list.
<
p>
7. I am undecided. I’m using my real name – check for any affiliation, donation or endorsement of any of the candidates. This is a post on how I think voters choose candidates not how I do (Kerry, Reich, Gore etcâ¦)
1. I’m not so sure anyone around here is a political neophyte… but I suppose it’s all relative, so be neophytical all you like.
<
p>
2. Better to be right and lose, methinks. I’d rather a candidate be honest, have a clear message, and not win than anything else (which, by the way, reminds me a bit of both Kerry and Gore — the former didn’t seen honest, the latter didn’t seem clear).
<
p>
3. What position isn’t defensible again? An easy argument against 5.3 to 5.0 is that the voters made that choice many years ago, before the impacts of slashed federal funding to the states resulted in the state having to cut local aid or raise taxes. The people did decide, but it was so many years ago they decided an answer to a markedly different question.
<
p>
4. Agreed.
<
p>
5. Bupkis. Grassroots support is just that — support from folks who demographically look just like everybody else: a wide mix of education, wealht, etc. Not just attorneys and business executives. Sometimes this wins (Dukakis for gov) sometimes it doesn’t (Dukakis for pres).
<
p>
6. Yes, yes it was.
<
p>
7. Many thanks for the disclosure.
<
p>
Following the will of voters OR having a defensible position makes you dishonest candidate?
<
p>
3. Staying at 5.3 is not easily defensible to the average voter. Dems are going to get killed on this. Republican spin will be that we are running a surplus and still Dems wonât follow the will of the voters.
<
p>
Dem voters will think about the electability factor and abandon candidates with this position and those candidates that tried to stand tall on every front will watch from the sidelines and talk about how they could have made a difference.
The term “message” in politics is not a list of where the candidate stands on issues. It is the broader idea that explains why the candidate is running and deals with the person, the background, the agenda, and what is different from the candidate and the others in the race. It very clearly IS the most important thing and that’s why candidates do polling and focus groups and lots of research to figure out how to package many complex factors into one digestable idea. It is the idea that ends up in the voters’ heads explaining their votes.
<
p>
Look at exit polling questions having to do with WHY people vote for the candidates they do. They overwhelmingly repeat the candidate’s message. People disagreed with many of Bush’s issues (like the tax cut, by the way) but were compelled by his message — that he was a strong leader that was truly leading America… and yes, it was that simple. That was all that was needed next to Kerry who was a weak flip-flopper that people shouldn’t trust in a time of war (that was the Bush take, not mine).
<
p>
And as far as issues go, I don’t know why so many people who post here are so sure that Dems have to come out for a tax cut. Look at polling on it. Most voters would rather use money for other issues than get a tax cut.
<
p>
Why are Dems so afraid to be up front on our issues? The Republicans aren’t. We’re not going to get killed on this if our message is about why we think there are better priorities than cutting taxes. Not that we want the election to be about taxes, but we really don’t have to be afraid of being right on the issue.
<
p>
Or we can be scared to stand for anything and just echo the Republican agenda just making it a bit softer… cause that works great!
I agree with your point on message but…
<
p>
There is a big difference on taxes in this election cycle. There was a ballot initiative that spoke to how the voters felt and will vote regardless of the polls (eliminating the income tax almost passed!).
<
p>
I don’t understand (maybe someone can explain) how ballot initiatives that pass can be ignored?
<
p>
I can tell you that voters will not be allowed to forget this and it will absolutley kill any candidate that defies it. Both Reilly and Gabrieli understand this.
“Dem voters will think about the electability factor…”
<
p>
Nothing makes my blood boil more than hearing otherwise perceptive, thoughtful political discussions repeat this ancient, herd-mentality canard. Whoever gets the most votes will win, not whoever everyone thinks will get the most votes. Ask Tom Dewey.
<
p>
“Filpflopping” is a Rovian image of sexual impotence meant to discourage complaints about bad policy. Leaders don’t hesitate to discard losing strategies as they learn from their experience.
<
p>
“Criteria” is the friggin’ plural of “criterion”. I understand that explaining this is like ‘pissing at the sun in order to put it out once and for all’*, but I had to say it.
<
p>
* Thomas Pynchon, in “V”.
<
p>
Great! then can we agree that the best way to make these people “legal” is to give them citizenship — ASAP?
You get a 6 from me Michael
Not sure how you rank Reilly ahead of Patrick for money. Patrick is far wealthier, and when all is said and done, will probably spend more on his campaign than Reilly.
Since your description of the “money” criteria doesn’t talk about money at all but only talks about grassroots, maybe you meant that Patrick is the most grassroots candidate…. not sure where that leaves you as far as the point of Criteria 4.
I think Reilly has more cash on hand now?
Reilly does have more money on hand at the moment, but I think Patrick can outraise Reilly any day of the week. He might do it all with 20 bucks here and 50 there from his grassoots, but money is money and Patrick will win the fundraising without a doubt.
but he’s made no indication that he’ll dip into his own funds. So, throwing out the “Deval is rich” line isn’t much use.
<
p>
I agree with a lower poster — DP can raise more, but I don’t think it’s because he’s got more in his own account.
My point is simply that for a variety of reasons, the Patrick campaign is most likely not going to be low-budget.
Deval will put personal money in when he needs to. I doubt it is prudent to announce you’re going to self-finance and then ask people to contribute to your campaign. I could be wrong (I have no inside knowledge at all) but it seems to me that he’s in this to win, and that means spending a lot of money.
Didn’t Deval put something like $375,000 of his own money into his campaign?
You don’t even explain what you mean in each of your points beyond merely mentioning them. What’s important? Likability, money, etc. Well, no duh!
<
p>
Furthermore, two of your points are actually Republican Talking Points (flip-flopping & trying to suggest grassroot efforts equate to having no main stream support and being extremists). First, there have been many politicians who have been extremely successful despite changing positions. Barney Frank just “flip-flopped” on Cape Wind, think he’ll lose his next election? Don’t make me laugh. As for grassroot campaigns, few candidates win major elections without having powerful ground movements which is the very nature of grassroots. Hell, if it weren’t for the GOP’s ground efforts, John Kerry would be presiding over 130,000 American ground troops quickly leaving Iraq.
<
p>
Lastly, your ranking system makes no sense. It’s so absurd it doesn’t even try to make sense. You don’t justify a single scoring of any catagory. For example, when it comes to money, you just say “Gabrielli, Reilly, Patrick.” How so? What measurement? If it’s campaign contributions and you subtract Gabrieli’s personal investments, his economic support plummits and probably ranks at the bottom. Furthermore, while Reilly may currently have more in his “war-chest,” Patrick has been out-fundraising him for months. Do you count new trends? If you don’t, Reilly could empty his chest while Patrick has been getting campaign reinforcements.
<
p>
I hate to come off so harsh, but it appears as if you were trying to create an intellectual post that could truly measure each candidate’s potential to win. However, as Shakespeare so eloquently wrote in Macbeth, your analysis is “full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing.”
<
p>
Good job!
You get some points for sarcasm and using duh and Shakespeare in the same post, but aside from that your criticism is incoherent (perhaps blinded by your apparent hate for Gabrieli) and more importantly devoid of your opinion on what criteria you think voters use.
<
p>
You don’t even explain what you mean in ….
In the same sentence you are criticize me for not explaining my points and then you call them obvious?
<
p>
Furthermore, two of your points are actually Republican Talking Points …
Who cares where they came from, they are true. Flip/flopping is now part of the common vernacular like it or not and grassroots candidates (at the national and state level) almost never win because you need establishment support.
<
p>
By using the Barney Frank example are you saying that flip/flopping is good or doesn’t matter? It seems like a flippant response.
<
p>
For example, when it comes to money, you just say “Gabrielli, Reilly, Patrick.” How so?…
I agree I should have been clearer, but I explained my reasoning in a previous response. The strange thing is you seem to agree that Gabrieli will outspend both candidates and right now Reilly has more money than Patrick. How is this ranking absurd?
<
p>
I hate to come off so harsh, but…
You should have called me an idiot first and then used that line.
<
p>
Please, please, please do not just criticize without stating your view.
How much money candidates are taking in is almost as important, if not more important, as the money they currently hold. Since I’m not quite up to date on the exact specifics, just general trends, let’s say Reilly has about 4.5 million dollars and Patrick has 3 million. There are about 13 weeks left in the campaign, and Patrick is outfundraising Reilly by a decent margin. I’m not 100% sure, but it’s a couple hundred thousand a month. Even if it’s just $200,000 a month, but the end of the primary Patrick will be able to outspend Reilly. That simple enough?
<
p>
Quite frankly, I didn’t respond with all of my thoughts because a) my post was already long and b) I wanted to point out just how invalid your post was in the first place. If you backed up your opinions with a shred of analytical evidence, I may have still disagreed with you, but it would have been a very different response. And there are still things I need to comment on, a reply to your reply.
<
p>
For example, the campaign message is of paramount importance in winning. When people engage in Republican Talking Points it almost always helps REPUBLICANS, even when it’s democrats saying it.
<
p>
Let me say that again, for emphasis: If you engage in Republican Talking Points, you help them become true. By saying flip-flopping is bad, it discourages candidates from adopting nuanced and INTELLIGENT positions on difficult issues. By saying flip-flopping is bad, Presidents decide they can’t leave Iraq because it will hurt them politically.
<
p>
By saying that Grassroot candidates can’t win, they lose far more frequently. Never mind the fact that it ISN’T true, grassroot efforts are paramount, perception can become reality. Of course, in any race, there are a lot of dynamics to win – but a grassroots effort is the difference between Bush winning Ohio and Kerry losing the entire election (and Kerry’s ground effort wasn’t even bad, just not good enough). Furthermore, while grassroot efforts alone can’t win Deval Patrick his election, it got him to the point where he is today – at the top of the race. Grassroots did a lot of things for his campaign, such as:
<
p>
1. Create a buzz. People like the newest thing and were impressed by Deval’s politics, story and charisma. About a year ago, he had perhaps 5% support in the polls. By going town to town, and from the buzz that those lectures created, Patrick is sitting pretty with a plethora of cash to compete with Reilly and even Gabrielli.
<
p>
2. Get lots of volunteers to help spread his message. Few new Deval, but by going town to town and using grassroot efforts, dozens of bloggers (such as myself) have been spreading his message. Thousands of volunteers have gone door to door. Hundreds of people – for the first time ever – participated in the Democratic State Convention and secured Deval Patrick a very important endorsement – the state party itself.
<
p>
3. By engaging the populace early and getting them to volunteer and work towards a victory in September, Deval has created a ground movement that WILL be able to beat poll numbers come election day by a solid 2-3%. That’s what ground movements do, that’s why they’re important. If George Bush didn’t have a ground team, he would have lost Ohio. That’s what all the polls indicated. However, Bush beat the polls and took Ohio… and thumped Kerry in Florida by 5% when Kerry had been polled as tying or in a slight lead there just a day or two before.
<
p>
<
p>
If you want my views, then yes I’ll agree money is important, likability is important, etc. etc. etc. However, the money involved in this race is only an advantage that goes to Gabrieli… and it’s a double-edged sword. Just like in the Lord of the Flies, Gabrieli just may ending stabbing himself when he goes for Reilly and Patrick’s jugular. He got a ton of bad PR for his little joke and if he doubles either of the candidates spending, he’ll get even more bad PR. Furthermore, if Reilly and Patrick spend 3-5 million in the primary (and I think that’s about what they’ll spend), then they’ll have gotten their message out and the difference between their campaigns and Gabrieli money-wise won’t matter all that much.
<
p>
As for likability, it’s in the eye of the beholder. Some people love Reilly, other people hate him. There are lots of Irish Catholics in Massachusetts and I’m sure a many of them think Reilly’s just great. I think most people who meet Deval think he’s great, so he probably would win in that catagory, but I have no statistical evidence and can only base such an opinion on pure anecdotes… so I wouldn’t be making a post on how Patrick wins that catagory any time soon. The only reason why I mention it is because you asked for my views.
1. Flip/Flop is not a Republican talking point. It just happened to be used more effectively by Republicans. If you hear me say Pro-Life or Death Tax then by all means accuse me of using Republican talking points.
<
p>
2. Bush did not have a grassroots effort. It was a party controlled and run same as Kerry’s. Grassroots efforts are associated with non-party managed efforts.
<
p>
While not related, I read through your blog and thought it was pretty good, with some funny posts. I liked you coverage on the environment. Here comes the but…
<
p>
This is not meant to be snarky, but please reconcile the statement:
<
p>
“A progressive wants government run by the people or as close to it as possible”
<
p>
with what I assume is your support of ignoring the tax rollback ballot initiative.
I may be wrong, but didn’t Gabrieli flip flop about the number of jobs that he created? And hasn’t he flip-flopped around on the income tax cut? And didn’t he flip flop around his political independence by being afraid to say anything about the special pension for Rep. Ruane (RIP)? It is hard, though, for Gabrieli to flip flop on other issues, like Cape Wind and immigration, when his views are so difficult to pin down.
<
p>
And Deval Patrick has flip flopped on what issues?
This was tough for me. I don’t think either have had a true flip/flop, but Gabrieli’s positions are less well known and therfore the perception of a flip/flop is less likely. Remember, I’m talking everyday voters not activist voters.
<
p>
FYI again – I am undecided. I AM NOT A GABRIELI SUPPORTER! Check my other posts.
Jim – You are not standing by your criteria. How can Deval be criticized as an extremist and be criticized for flip-flopping? And Gabrieli – the candidate of ideas, the man with results – his positions are less well known after how many millions spent on TV and radio ads? And isn’t Reilly, with his pro-tax cut position, closer to the will of the people?
<
p>
So, Patrick wins on likeability, Reilly on listening to voters, Gabrieli on having more money, and Gabrieli and Patrick tie on not flip-flopping. And Gabrieli is going to run away with it? Dream on, Jim.
<
p>
Oh, and you need to add a 5th criteria for Governor in Massachusetts – independence from the political establishment. That’s what croaked Shannon O’Brien in 2002. There is much truth to the perception that voters want someone to act as a brake on the overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature.
I didn’t criticize him on a flip/flop. I just gave Gabrielli a slight edge in the category.
<
p>
During the last few weeks of the primary there will be as there always is talk of electability. Gabrieli (I predict based on my criteria) will be designated as most electable and Reilly and Patrick will lose voters to Gabrieli in an effort to ensure we have the most viable candidate.
<
p>
Patrick = Dean, Gabrieli = Kerry. (I can hear the teeth gnashing from Patrick supporters from here â maybe I should go anonymous)
<
p>
This not what I think should happen, but what I think will happen.
<
p>
BTW – I agree with your 5th criteria. Now if only we can get some of that logic to work in the midterm electionsâ¦.