Back in May when I made this balance of power argument in a comment it was put down as “silly” the counter argument that we lost was we haven’t run quality candidates…
frankskeffingtonsays
…I think of that very poster who was so dismissive of your point.
jim-welikysays
To echo what I just posted in response to the “why we keep losing” diary, I think the balance of power threat is a real one, but I think the underlying cause of that concern is that people see elected Democrats in this state as a bunch of hacks who need to be reined (sp?) in. I think that if our candidate can successfully create an identity for himself as someone authentically apart from the run-of-the-mill hacks, and not just on policy issues (like rejecting the Ruane deal) but in style as well, then he can beat the balance-of-power argument. I think Romney won last time because he seemed fresh, new, different, a “reformer” and just looked good on TV. We need the same kind of candidate. I happen to think Patrick is that kind of candidate, which is why I’m less nervous about that particular balance-of-power statistic than some.
<
p>
Not sure about the tax thing, yet. Will think more.
renaissance-mansays
I don’t claim to have all the answers…
<
p>
But I think I know what some of the questions are.
<
p>
I pointed to that old post to validate what you’re talking about, but to also show that some people don’t think this is a question worthy of discussion. I think the answer will come by dissecting the issue, researching the republican premise and blowing them out of the water with the facts. I think it has been and it is the principle strategy the Republicans have used for the last 16 years. Republicans have also been helped by a fractured party subsquent to the primary, although there was less of that the last cycle. Lesson from 4 years ago, unity breakfasts aren’t enough. The party needs a devastating comeback to counter the “balance of power” argument.
<
p>
But I see that as a process that needs the input of the BMG to succeed… Thoughts?
factchecksays
I posted this on a different thread in response to Frank’s comments, but it seems to belong here. My appologies if I’m not supposed to re-post like that… though I’m assuming it’s appropriate.
<
p>
First of all, taxes was picked by 19% (and 27% of Republicans) as the most important issue. The next on the list – education, healthcare, the economy, housing, jobs — are all good Democratic issues and together add up to WAY more than 19%.
<
p>
Even just looking at the unerolled responses on taxes vs. Education: if the unenrolled voters broke such that most taxes voters end up voting R and most education voters end up voting D, we win. By a lot actually.
<
p>
Also, If respondents were given second choices of issues, or allowed to rate the importance of EACH of a list of issues, we would see very different results. And polling of the general electorate on whether we should cut the tax rate to 5.0% show that they are pretty evenly split. The other issues, in total, matter much more.
<
p>
Second, relax about two-thirds saying that it is very or somewhat important that the Governor is from a different party from the legislative majority. The first goverment specific issue on the big list only had 3.4% naming it. It’s just not what people are thinking about when they vote. When other issues are tested in the same way — increasing funds for education, for example — their are FAR more people saying that they are VERY important. The party issue fails in comparison.
<
p>
Only 27% of unenrolled voters said the issue is “very” important. I am sure that there are about 20 issues that would have double that number if they were tested, but they weren’t. People who said it was somewhat important, I might add, were saying that is is NOT very important.
<
p>
Finally, even if these issue responses were as bad as you suggest, the election question is right there for you to see. The Dems are up from 5 to 10 percent against Healy depending on which Dem. Unenrolled voters are split evenly between Reilly (the worst in the general) and Healy — which again, would mean a big win for us. When, and only when, those numbers change, you can talk about your theories of why we keep losing.
<
p>
You are right that it doesn’t do us any good to try to educate the voters about tax rates and so forth. It’s too hard, and it means trying to fight on the Republicans’ turf.
<
p>
But your concern about where the voters are just doesn’t match what this poll says is the case.
glosta-demsays
On Saturday morning I was canvassing for Deval and met a woman whose top concern was taxes: real estate taxes. She is desperately trying to hold on to her family’s (multi-generation) historic house, is still working full-time at age 64 with no end in site and was out doing yard work, falling way behind on what had once been really nice landscaping, because she cannot afford any help. I asked if rolling the income tax rate back to 5% from 5.3% would help and she laughed. When I explained Deval’s approach to the tax issue she volunteered to help with the campaign.
<
p>
The fact that people say they are concerned about taxes does NOT necessarily mean that rolling the income tax rate back to 5% is their top issue.
<
p>
I am concerned about taxes, specifically the unfairness of our current tax system. I would rate that concern pretty high, since the unfairness skews so much else in the public policy arena.
<
p>
Andrea Silbert told me that she hears from many “blue collar” people that they are making the connection between cutting taxes and cuts in services they need.
<
p>
It takes leadership to engage the public effectively in a conversation about taxes: how we pay for the things we do together. One of the many reasons I am supporting Deval Patrick is his willingness to lead that conversation.
factchecksays
That is a great point, that I missed in my analysis. Thanks!
frankskeffingtonsays
The issue numbers are close and taxes do not overwhelm the poll. One reason I “sounded the alarm” is so many folks on this site dismiss taxes totally and think voters won’t be swayed by a 10 million dollar ad blitz. They will and taxes are a big issue–the poll does indicate that (as does history).
<
p>
But, with the right strategy and an understanding that we are playing with fire (the tax issue) we can neutralize it. But we need to be smart. We need to beat the Reps at what they have proven so good at: controlling the message agenda of a campaign.
<
p>
As I said a few weeks ago, if the press is asking about taxe cuts and positions on immigration during the General–we lose. But if they are asking questions about teacher layoffs and flood-damaged bridges that still aren’t fixed–we win.
<
p>
Yes, the issue numbers are not way out of whack–I agree. But if the Reps control the message agenda in the Fall, they have issues they can run on–and we lose again.
centralmaguysays
(This was also in response to Frank on the other post, so we’re in the same boat, FactCheck.)
<
p>
Frank’s right. Healey’s poll numbers are crap right now because she hasn’t been campaigning much, though the sleeping GOP giant is starting to wake. Once she hits it full-steam with her “law & order” running mate, she’ll be taking the Republican message of doom and gloom to the people through clever and pricey campaign ads and high-profile public engagements. Then watch her poll numbers rise.
This is a likely attack against the Dems as a party:
<
p>
1. The Dems spend out of control.
<
p>
2. The Dems won’t cut your taxes like you demanded and are going to raise them.
<
p>
3. The Dems are going to open our state to a flood of illegal immigrants.
<
p>
4. The Dems want to give needles to junkies and little kids.
<
p>
5. The Dems are going to destroy the sanctity of marriage by letting gays wed.
<
p>
Etc, etc, etc… You can’t trust them to have the Corner Office as well. Keep a Republican as your governor.—
<
p>
Again, this is how they’re going to hit us. As Al Franken put it, “smears, fears, and queers.” Massachusetts isn’t as liberal as people think it is, especially Central and Western MA. So we need to fight back. We know we have the facts right and we know that we’ll do better. But we need to listen to Frank’s advice and find ways of countering with our own “emotional” tactics.
<
p>
Off the top of my head, Republicans have closed your schools, they’ve cut your police and fire departments down, made you less safe, put your kids’ futures in danger, created a “giant sucking sound” (a la Perot) of jobs and residents fleeing from our state, created the pothole that popped your tire…
<
p>
It’s late and I’ve tried to inject a little humor to this discussion, but we can fight back standing firm on our core values but presenting them in a way that instills a sense of urgency to our cause and disgust towards the GOP.
<
p>
<
p>
I’d also add that Romney won because he spent a ton of money, much of it his own, to beat his message into the brain of the public, a message that was adeptly crafted. O’Brien was competitive in part because of the strong financial backing of her running mate, Chris Gabrieli. We’re looking at Healey throwing down tens of millions to also hammer away another set of adeptly crafted ads and mailings. Deval has been unwilling thus far to invest his own fortune in this race, Reilly can’t throw in any more than he can raise, which leaves Gabrieli. If the Democratic nominee lacks the finanical firepower to fight the war over the airwaves, victory relying on the grassroots to get out the message is going to be extremely difficult.
frankskeffingtonsays
…in a really sad and disturbing way. I hope they can’t say it as well–but I think they will. They confuse facts and truthes about issues with emotional crap like you just came up with. My thoughts:
<
p>
First we need a real “outsider” as the nominee. Sorry MavDem, that ain’t a guy that has been winning elections for the last 16 years–no matter how “independent” Tom really is. I’m a Gabreili supporter partially because he paints a much smaller “tax and spend liberal” target on his back. I also like the fact that Chris can be on TV with huge buy the day after the primary, instead of having to catch his breath and raise money. But Deval is a fighter and has mojo that makes me feel “ok”. As previous postings have mentioned, all three Dems need to be running against the Leg as much as Healey and Sal and Trav have got to suck it up.
<
p>
But most importantly, we need the use emotional buttons like the Reps.
<
p>
Run ads that talk about the shell games the Reps play, with Kerry as a carnival barker promising TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS and all the person gets is higher property taxes and/or no services.
<
p>
Or a tongue and cheek “person on the street” ad having people say what they’ll do for a $200 income tax—like a mother with kids saying, “my kids don’t need teachers–I want my $200” or a guy saying, “Hi, what do we need fire fighters for, I want my $200 bucks”
<
p>
In a previous posting on the Dem/Leg issue, someone brought up the point that Rep. Gov. hasn’t been the answer, they’ve proven themselves to be as much of the problem.
<
p>
With that in mind, another ad that opens with a Wizard of Oz like scene where the great and mighty Oz warns against to much Dem control and Toto pulls the curtain away and there are Weld, Celleci(sp) and Romney look alikes with their bags packed telling a Healey look alike to “just pull the strings, you’ll be elected and you can get a much better job real soon”
<
p>
Charley had a great line a while back that we Dems should be using, it was “the Big Dig culture on Cronyism on Beacon Hill” (I did it from memory–to late to do the research–but it struck me as such a great line that I’ll bet I recalled it exactly right).
<
p>
That line is perfect. It rolls all the perceived shenagians (sp) voters (correctly) believe are going on on Beacon Hill and mixes the Republicans in the same mud pit with the Dem Leg. That is worth an ad–let’s elect an outsider–Chris or Deval–and stop the Big Dig culture on Cronyism on Beacon Hill. What a great line.
<
p>
So those are some late night thoughts. No charts, no jargon about per capita–just emotional images that are designed to counteract the emotional lies the Republicans are sure to use.
<
p>
Thank you for all that made it to this point. It’s late and proofing is not my strength.
Why can’t the Democrats do that, if they are so smart. Kerry Healey says she can.” This is a question that has to be addressed head-on. Personally, I think all of the Democratic candidates should support the roll-back to 5.0, but if they are not going to do that they better damn well have a specific detailed plan to (a) provide at least that much in alternate tax reductions (since the voters made it clear last time they were asked that they do want some tax cuts), and (b) how they are also going to improve services. I’ve beean reading the candidate position papers pretty carefully, and I haven’t seen anything specific yet (but if someone knows where it can be found, I’d be glad to know). Otherwise, we’ve left a big hole open for the regressives.
frankskeffingtonsays
Now if we can get 2 million voters reading the position papers of all the candidates we’ll elect the best candidate. Bob, it was real late when you wrote that right?
<
p>
With the clarity of the day, you realize that position paers have very little to do with the last week before an election when all the undecideds start focusing on the election.
jimcaralissays
We still need to do a better job linking closed schools, fire, police etc… to Republicans before we can attack on it.
<
p>
They are going to be tough to link in the mind of average voters as they associate these issues with local governments (as well as real estate taxes).
The needle stuff is not the kind of thing that decides elections. It’s infuriating because the reasons to oppose it are not grounded in reality. Keep in mind, though, that more people favor Cape Wind than oppose needle sales.
<
p>
By the way — issue polling does change. The Bay State Poll in March had Health Care as the number one issue facing the state. Guess what dominated the news during that time? The health care debate.
<
p>
What’s been on the news lately? The budget. People are thinking about their taxes because they don’t want to pay for a theatre renovation in Melrose, etc etc (though, they never complain about state dollars coming to their town)
<
p>
That’s not to say that taxes are not a serious issue. But don’t forget that taxes are more than just the income tax. It’s the property tax that is really hurting people.
happened before the great “love-in” we had with so-called health care reform. That issue is no longer a hot button because it was “fixed” or at least until after the November election.
WHY are we ALL paying to subsidize the MWRA water rates by paying the debt service on the outfall pipe?
<
p>
Why is the FAIR Plan, by legislative statute, set at $10 per hundred in Boston, but $25 per hundred on Cape Cod, when the Cape drivers pay more to subsidize the Boston drivers than any other area in the state?
<
p>
Why did the Boston Symphony Orchestra get $200,000 in the Conference Report, twice as much as the ONLY battered women’s shelter on Cape Cod?
<
p>
Why does Boston get so much school aid from the state that one year they actually couldn’t spend it all, and gave raises to the Boston City council and the Mayor instead?
<
p>
Why in the name of all that is wonderful would we ever trust the state legislature to be good, and restrain itself, if there was a Democrat Governor who might not be able to give Sal and Trav a hard time if he wanted to be reelected?
hoyapaulsays
More comments about fretting about how “Democrats keep on losing!” and “what are we going to do?” in a state that is the most Democratic in the nation. No wonder Dems and liberals are thought of as self-defeating. Talk about not being reality-based.
<
p>
The best way to beat the Republicans is simple. It is not particular issues per se or getting more or less liberal. Instead, it’s all about LINKING THEM TO THE NATIONAL REPUBLICANS.
<
p>
Every time Republicans have been successful in this state, it’s because they separate themselves from the national Republicans. Whenever they are associated with the national GOP, however, they start sinking, like the Newt/Blute connection and with Romney’s sinking numbers as he puts an eye to the national stage. It doesn’t matter how moderate they might be in reality, it’s all about that linkage.
<
p>
Healey will likely run on taxes, maybe on immigration, and certainly on presenting herself as a “check” on the Legislature. But most importantly she will attempt to articulate why she is DIFFERENT than the Republicans Massachusetts voters know and hate on the national level.
<
p>
THAT is where the focus needs to be. She is “just another Republican” who is joined at the hip to Romney. She might talk the talk, but in the end she’ll walk the Republican walk along with George Bush, Tom DeLay, and the rest of the radical Republicans.
<
p>
Maybe Healey’s PR machine will be able to counter this image. But if we don’t start soon in earnest to paint her a certain way, that maybe will be a certainty.
<
p>
Please people — the most important thing to realize is that we live in a very, very strongly DEMOCRATIC state. People are (to say the least) wary of Republicans and we need to remind people just what Healey is, and what that means. No more self-defeatism, please.
frankskeffingtonsays
…is a lot tougher than nationalizing a congressioanl election. I think it is part of the mix and Healey plays the part of an uncaring rich person (gee I wish I could find a rhyme there). As you point out, it keeps her on the defense and focrsing her is disown key elements in her party. But it could back fire, if people believe she is not a mean Rep.
<
p>
But even if it worked, we need more than that. And listen to a little talk radio around Boston and see if you think we’re that STRONGLY Democratic.
hoyapaulsays
We do need more than just that strategy — it is necessary but not sufficent.
<
p>
As far as talk radio goes, well — yeah, talk radio tends to be more right-wing everywhere. But if we can’t recognize that a state that 1) consistenly elects massive majorities in the State House, 2) has a 100% Dem Congressional delegation, and 3) routinely gives well over 60% of its Presidential vote to the Democrat is a STRONGLY Democratic state, then that’s simply not being realistic.
centralmassdadsays
This suggestion resonates with me.
<
p>
I have repeatedly voted Republican for Governor of Massachusetts for “balance” reasons. It is my belief that Massachusetts would be far, far better governed if there were an effective opposition party. I would prefer that it exist in the General Court, but have settled for the corner office because of the state GOP’s repeated ineffectiveness at the local level, the efforts of Porcupines notwithstanding. I have been comfortable voting for these Republicans because they come from a different tradition of Republicanism– a more libertarian one– than that which dominates the national GOP today. I liked Weld because he was not a Massachusetts Democrat and because he was loathed by Jesse Helms.
<
p>
Governor Romney has failed to observe the distinction between New England Republicanism and the strain of Republicanism centered on socially conservative evangelical churches. Although his sops to the social conservatives might be essential to his hopes for 2008, I believe that his lurch to the right– and in particular his hysterical reaction to Goodridge, have played a large role in his declining popularity here in Massachusetts. Indeed, his failure to be more of an old-time New England Republican are in no small measure why I will likely vote for the Democratic candidate in November.
<
p>
Romney’s move to the right on social issues presents a real opportunity for the Democrats this year. In the past, an attempt to link a Massachusetts Republican with the hyper-conservative politics of the national GOP would have been laughable. This year, maybe not so much. Romney has done much of the work for you already. Perhaps the Democratic candidate should run against the Romney who is running for President, rather than the Healy who is running for Governor.
<
p>
This is why I think that if Healy runs against “queers” as has been suggested above, she’s dead.
<
p>
Democrats have made some half-hearted attempts at this so far, but I think that these shots have missed the mark because they focus on trivialities.
<
p>
First, there is the “absentee governor” thing, which alerts us all to the number of days that he has been away while in office. I’ll bet that one of these shots happen today, after the tunnel collapse, because he was apparently vacationing in New Hampshire today. ZZZZZZZ. I think this line of attack is silly because people understand that in 2006, we have computers, e-mail, balckberrys, cell phones, and other technology to keep in touch with work all of the time, and because people don’t necessarily care if the goveror is hard at work in policy meetings all the time.
<
p>
Second, there have been the complaints that Romney has made fun of Massachusetts while speaking to national Republicans. This line of attack is even more useless than the first because it makes the Democrats look like whiny, sniveling, humorless weenies. Wah! He made fun of us and hurt our feelings! Nice image for politicians.
<
p>
Romney has been making substantive overtures to the far right of the national GOP for quite awhile now. I believe that these moves have been on more fronts than gay marriage. There is abortion. Immigration. The war. Find this stuff. Use it, along with some significant assurance that the candidate is not behoolden to, or anything like, the more hacklike (and maybe, to a lesser extent, moonbatish) Democrats in the legislature. I realize that I am simply extrapolating from my own views, but this strategy would be effective for me.
renaissance-mansays
I appreciate your taking the time to write this comment. I think it helps to understand your perspective and what had influenced you and what does not resonate with you. All very important. I would be interested to hear your take on Cellucci and Swift also, just so I understand how we ended up with the Romney Dynasty (or may end up with) the Healey Dynasty…
This is the GWB Hate Factor written small. As long as the National Dems campaign against a man who is not running for reelection,they are losers.
<
p>
Kerry is – and has always been – more moderate than Mitt. Part of the reason I was a Healey delegate in 2002 is that I TRIED to picture Jim Rappaport keeping his mouth shut when the GOVERNOR did something he disagreed with and I failed. the Lt. Gov. must bak the gov. when the decision has been made, regardless of what advocacy takes place beforehand.
<
p>
For instance, Kerry is pro-choice, endorsed by the WISH List, etc. But when Mitt made decision, she stayed mum – as was her job IN THE ADMINISTRATION. NOW, as a candidate, she can reveal her own stances in a way that would have been inappropriate before. And Mitt is NOT running for reelection.
<
p>
And trying to link her to Tom DeLay is just a big loozah.
centralmassdadsays
I understand that she was doing her job as LG. I don’t know if she will be effctive at distancing herself from Romney, especially if the more-conservative-than-Massachusetts-conservative idea is well planted before she ramps up.
<
p>
And it is a time honored tradition to run against someone or something who isn’t running. Truman ran against his own Congress. Carter ran against Nixon. GWB ran against Clinton. Weld ran against Dukakis (though he won only because Silber was a &$*&^%). Every one of the Republican governors since have run either against the ghost of Dukakis or against the ghost of Bulger.
<
p>
When one is the #2 in an administration, one gets to answer for that administration, even if one quietly disagreed with #1. Gore had to contend with “returning honor to the white house” even though it would have been extremely out of character for him to be shtupping the help. Healy has been dragged to the right, to her potential misfortune.
hoyapaulsays
The type of response that the Healey campaign will try to build up. Take a good look, folks, because if the above is what voters think of when they think of Healey (i.e. a good, moderate, pro-choice semi-Republican!), then we are DEAD in this election. I can just about guarantee it.
<
p>
Instead WE have to take the initiative here. This is another point where we give up on any attack because we quabble amounst ourselves that it will never work. “She’s too moderate — it will never work” we say.
<
p>
This is WRONG! Peter Blute was certainly a more moderate Republican, yet once the Newt connection was made (easier because he was in Congress, though), he was finished. We can do the same to Healey, regardless of the positions she says she has.
<
p>
Just remind people of what Romney has become (basically, a crazy national Republican, rather than a good ‘ol RINO), and how closely Healey stood with him all those years. She might repond “Well, I was LG so that was my job”.
<
p>
GREAT! That’s what we want to do — put her on the defensive. Let her use the legalistic responses like “that was my job to stand by Romney”. Whenever you have a raw emotional connection (i.e. linkage between the national Republicans and Healey) versus legalistic responses, the former will win out in people’s minds every time.
<
p>
The Republicans have been using this technique against us for years, while we keep thinking stuff like “Well Kerry was a war hero, so of course these attacks won’t work!”. Time to start thinking differently.
jimcaralissays
I know on the surface referencing Eminem and 8 Mile may seem ridiculous but if you have seen the movie, then you know how effective stealing your opponentâs thunder (or in this case, talking points) can be.
<
p>
One way to steal Healey’s thunder is to strike first. Start by detailing Healeyâs talking points.
<
p>
Possible Dem opening statement in debate (yes it needs polishâ¦)
<
p>
âMy opponent is going to tell you that I’m going to:”
<
p>
(from centralmassdad)
<
p>
⢠Spend out of control.
⢠Raise your taxes.
⢠Allow illegal immigrants to take your job.
⢠Hand out needles to junkies.
⢠Destroy the sanctity of marriage.
⢠And probably kill your favorite pet.
<
p>
Then link here to National Republicans (ala Hoyapaul).
<
p>
âAnd then sheâs going to tell you how she is not your typical Republican. She’s going to tell you she is a fiscally conservative Republican, but she is compassionate. Well we have seen how compassionate George Bush and Mitt Romney have been and you can expect more of the same compassionate conservatism from Kerry Healey. Any time you have to put the word compassionate in front of your ideology you know you are having image problemsâ¦â
<
p>
âNow Iâm going to talk about my vision â¦â (dispell her talking points and insert your candidates vision). Any one want to take it from here?
<
p>
If done correctly it can make Healey look transparent.
centralmassdadsays
Thanks, but I disclaim any argument about the sanctity of marriage. I have noted that the means of acheiving the worthy goal of SSM was not ideal; a political process would have been preferable. I certainly have never made or countenanced “sanctity of marriage” as a meaningful argument. And as I noted above, I think that if Healy campaigns on “sanctity of marriage” she will lose.
<
p>
That said, I do fear that Governor Patrick will confiscate my pet labrador retriever and try to force me to replace him with a cat.
<
p>
That, and my pet assault rifle.
bostonshepherdsays
about:
<
p>
more “investment” in jobs, schools, etc., i.e., the usual litany of liberal pet projects?
not rolling back income tax to 5.0%, more symbolically than fiscally important because it’s a broken promise?
enforcing existing laws against employing illegals?
is the needle issue even on the voters radar screen? Why bring it up?
who’s against voting on the gay marraige issue? But not supporting the voters’ will is another thing.
what’s Mitt and GWB have to do with Kerry Healey? It’s smells of “Bush hatred.” That works for the 35% Dem voters, but not the other 65% indy’s and R’s. Tin ear at work.
<
p>
Taxes, illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility, and, yes, same-sex marriage all are legitimate voter concerns.
<
p>
Why do liberals ALWAYS whine about negative advertising — the “smears, fears, and queers” retort — when your pet issues are challenged?
<
p>
Hey, plenty of people think a needle exchange program actually does hand out needles to junkies! Doesn’t it?
<
p>
Why accuse anyone of “smearing” when legitimate objections are raised?
jimcaralissays
First – good point on needles. It doesn’t need to be brought up.
<
p>
What did not come across in my post was tone. Those words are not to be said with a tone that indicates you are upset by the Republican talking points, but with a sarcastic smile that belies the absurdity of their claims. I can see Deval doing a great job doing this.
<
p>
Healey now has two choices (although Iâm sure Mr Porcupine would falsely claim superior ground on substance); parrot her talking points which have already been framed (if done effectively) as absurd to non-republican undecided voters or talk about issues. We need to get them out of their comfort zone (talking points) and onto a field (substance) Dems feel more comfortable.
<
p>
The comparison to Romney/Bush is to show how they changed their stripes once elected and that you should expect the same from Healey.
Back in May when I made this balance of power argument in a comment it was put down as “silly” the counter argument that we lost was we haven’t run quality candidates…
…I think of that very poster who was so dismissive of your point.
To echo what I just posted in response to the “why we keep losing” diary, I think the balance of power threat is a real one, but I think the underlying cause of that concern is that people see elected Democrats in this state as a bunch of hacks who need to be reined (sp?) in. I think that if our candidate can successfully create an identity for himself as someone authentically apart from the run-of-the-mill hacks, and not just on policy issues (like rejecting the Ruane deal) but in style as well, then he can beat the balance-of-power argument. I think Romney won last time because he seemed fresh, new, different, a “reformer” and just looked good on TV. We need the same kind of candidate. I happen to think Patrick is that kind of candidate, which is why I’m less nervous about that particular balance-of-power statistic than some.
<
p>
Not sure about the tax thing, yet. Will think more.
I don’t claim to have all the answers…
<
p>
But I think I know what some of the questions are.
<
p>
I pointed to that old post to validate what you’re talking about, but to also show that some people don’t think this is a question worthy of discussion. I think the answer will come by dissecting the issue, researching the republican premise and blowing them out of the water with the facts. I think it has been and it is the principle strategy the Republicans have used for the last 16 years. Republicans have also been helped by a fractured party subsquent to the primary, although there was less of that the last cycle. Lesson from 4 years ago, unity breakfasts aren’t enough. The party needs a devastating comeback to counter the “balance of power” argument.
<
p>
But I see that as a process that needs the input of the BMG to succeed… Thoughts?
I posted this on a different thread in response to Frank’s comments, but it seems to belong here. My appologies if I’m not supposed to re-post like that… though I’m assuming it’s appropriate.
<
p>
First of all, taxes was picked by 19% (and 27% of Republicans) as the most important issue. The next on the list – education, healthcare, the economy, housing, jobs — are all good Democratic issues and together add up to WAY more than 19%.
<
p>
Even just looking at the unerolled responses on taxes vs. Education: if the unenrolled voters broke such that most taxes voters end up voting R and most education voters end up voting D, we win. By a lot actually.
<
p>
Also, If respondents were given second choices of issues, or allowed to rate the importance of EACH of a list of issues, we would see very different results. And polling of the general electorate on whether we should cut the tax rate to 5.0% show that they are pretty evenly split. The other issues, in total, matter much more.
<
p>
Second, relax about two-thirds saying that it is very or somewhat important that the Governor is from a different party from the legislative majority. The first goverment specific issue on the big list only had 3.4% naming it. It’s just not what people are thinking about when they vote. When other issues are tested in the same way — increasing funds for education, for example — their are FAR more people saying that they are VERY important. The party issue fails in comparison.
<
p>
Only 27% of unenrolled voters said the issue is “very” important. I am sure that there are about 20 issues that would have double that number if they were tested, but they weren’t. People who said it was somewhat important, I might add, were saying that is is NOT very important.
<
p>
Finally, even if these issue responses were as bad as you suggest, the election question is right there for you to see. The Dems are up from 5 to 10 percent against Healy depending on which Dem. Unenrolled voters are split evenly between Reilly (the worst in the general) and Healy — which again, would mean a big win for us. When, and only when, those numbers change, you can talk about your theories of why we keep losing.
<
p>
You are right that it doesn’t do us any good to try to educate the voters about tax rates and so forth. It’s too hard, and it means trying to fight on the Republicans’ turf.
<
p>
But your concern about where the voters are just doesn’t match what this poll says is the case.
On Saturday morning I was canvassing for Deval and met a woman whose top concern was taxes: real estate taxes. She is desperately trying to hold on to her family’s (multi-generation) historic house, is still working full-time at age 64 with no end in site and was out doing yard work, falling way behind on what had once been really nice landscaping, because she cannot afford any help. I asked if rolling the income tax rate back to 5% from 5.3% would help and she laughed. When I explained Deval’s approach to the tax issue she volunteered to help with the campaign.
<
p>
The fact that people say they are concerned about taxes does NOT necessarily mean that rolling the income tax rate back to 5% is their top issue.
<
p>
I am concerned about taxes, specifically the unfairness of our current tax system. I would rate that concern pretty high, since the unfairness skews so much else in the public policy arena.
<
p>
Andrea Silbert told me that she hears from many “blue collar” people that they are making the connection between cutting taxes and cuts in services they need.
<
p>
It takes leadership to engage the public effectively in a conversation about taxes: how we pay for the things we do together. One of the many reasons I am supporting Deval Patrick is his willingness to lead that conversation.
That is a great point, that I missed in my analysis. Thanks!
The issue numbers are close and taxes do not overwhelm the poll. One reason I “sounded the alarm” is so many folks on this site dismiss taxes totally and think voters won’t be swayed by a 10 million dollar ad blitz. They will and taxes are a big issue–the poll does indicate that (as does history).
<
p>
But, with the right strategy and an understanding that we are playing with fire (the tax issue) we can neutralize it. But we need to be smart. We need to beat the Reps at what they have proven so good at: controlling the message agenda of a campaign.
<
p>
As I said a few weeks ago, if the press is asking about taxe cuts and positions on immigration during the General–we lose. But if they are asking questions about teacher layoffs and flood-damaged bridges that still aren’t fixed–we win.
<
p>
Yes, the issue numbers are not way out of whack–I agree. But if the Reps control the message agenda in the Fall, they have issues they can run on–and we lose again.
(This was also in response to Frank on the other post, so we’re in the same boat, FactCheck.)
<
p>
Frank’s right. Healey’s poll numbers are crap right now because she hasn’t been campaigning much, though the sleeping GOP giant is starting to wake. Once she hits it full-steam with her “law & order” running mate, she’ll be taking the Republican message of doom and gloom to the people through clever and pricey campaign ads and high-profile public engagements. Then watch her poll numbers rise.
This is a likely attack against the Dems as a party:
<
p>
1. The Dems spend out of control.
<
p>
2. The Dems won’t cut your taxes like you demanded and are going to raise them.
<
p>
3. The Dems are going to open our state to a flood of illegal immigrants.
<
p>
4. The Dems want to give needles to junkies and little kids.
<
p>
5. The Dems are going to destroy the sanctity of marriage by letting gays wed.
<
p>
Etc, etc, etc… You can’t trust them to have the Corner Office as well. Keep a Republican as your governor.—
<
p>
Again, this is how they’re going to hit us. As Al Franken put it, “smears, fears, and queers.” Massachusetts isn’t as liberal as people think it is, especially Central and Western MA. So we need to fight back. We know we have the facts right and we know that we’ll do better. But we need to listen to Frank’s advice and find ways of countering with our own “emotional” tactics.
<
p>
Off the top of my head, Republicans have closed your schools, they’ve cut your police and fire departments down, made you less safe, put your kids’ futures in danger, created a “giant sucking sound” (a la Perot) of jobs and residents fleeing from our state, created the pothole that popped your tire…
<
p>
It’s late and I’ve tried to inject a little humor to this discussion, but we can fight back standing firm on our core values but presenting them in a way that instills a sense of urgency to our cause and disgust towards the GOP.
<
p>
<
p>
I’d also add that Romney won because he spent a ton of money, much of it his own, to beat his message into the brain of the public, a message that was adeptly crafted. O’Brien was competitive in part because of the strong financial backing of her running mate, Chris Gabrieli. We’re looking at Healey throwing down tens of millions to also hammer away another set of adeptly crafted ads and mailings. Deval has been unwilling thus far to invest his own fortune in this race, Reilly can’t throw in any more than he can raise, which leaves Gabrieli. If the Democratic nominee lacks the finanical firepower to fight the war over the airwaves, victory relying on the grassroots to get out the message is going to be extremely difficult.
…in a really sad and disturbing way. I hope they can’t say it as well–but I think they will. They confuse facts and truthes about issues with emotional crap like you just came up with. My thoughts:
<
p>
First we need a real “outsider” as the nominee. Sorry MavDem, that ain’t a guy that has been winning elections for the last 16 years–no matter how “independent” Tom really is. I’m a Gabreili supporter partially because he paints a much smaller “tax and spend liberal” target on his back. I also like the fact that Chris can be on TV with huge buy the day after the primary, instead of having to catch his breath and raise money. But Deval is a fighter and has mojo that makes me feel “ok”. As previous postings have mentioned, all three Dems need to be running against the Leg as much as Healey and Sal and Trav have got to suck it up.
<
p>
But most importantly, we need the use emotional buttons like the Reps.
<
p>
Run ads that talk about the shell games the Reps play, with Kerry as a carnival barker promising TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS and all the person gets is higher property taxes and/or no services.
<
p>
Or a tongue and cheek “person on the street” ad having people say what they’ll do for a $200 income tax—like a mother with kids saying, “my kids don’t need teachers–I want my $200” or a guy saying, “Hi, what do we need fire fighters for, I want my $200 bucks”
<
p>
In a previous posting on the Dem/Leg issue, someone brought up the point that Rep. Gov. hasn’t been the answer, they’ve proven themselves to be as much of the problem.
<
p>
With that in mind, another ad that opens with a Wizard of Oz like scene where the great and mighty Oz warns against to much Dem control and Toto pulls the curtain away and there are Weld, Celleci(sp) and Romney look alikes with their bags packed telling a Healey look alike to “just pull the strings, you’ll be elected and you can get a much better job real soon”
<
p>
Charley had a great line a while back that we Dems should be using, it was “the Big Dig culture on Cronyism on Beacon Hill” (I did it from memory–to late to do the research–but it struck me as such a great line that I’ll bet I recalled it exactly right).
<
p>
That line is perfect. It rolls all the perceived shenagians (sp) voters (correctly) believe are going on on Beacon Hill and mixes the Republicans in the same mud pit with the Dem Leg. That is worth an ad–let’s elect an outsider–Chris or Deval–and stop the Big Dig culture on Cronyism on Beacon Hill. What a great line.
<
p>
So those are some late night thoughts. No charts, no jargon about per capita–just emotional images that are designed to counteract the emotional lies the Republicans are sure to use.
<
p>
Thank you for all that made it to this point. It’s late and proofing is not my strength.
Why can’t the Democrats do that, if they are so smart. Kerry Healey says she can.” This is a question that has to be addressed head-on. Personally, I think all of the Democratic candidates should support the roll-back to 5.0, but if they are not going to do that they better damn well have a specific detailed plan to (a) provide at least that much in alternate tax reductions (since the voters made it clear last time they were asked that they do want some tax cuts), and (b) how they are also going to improve services. I’ve beean reading the candidate position papers pretty carefully, and I haven’t seen anything specific yet (but if someone knows where it can be found, I’d be glad to know). Otherwise, we’ve left a big hole open for the regressives.
Now if we can get 2 million voters reading the position papers of all the candidates we’ll elect the best candidate. Bob, it was real late when you wrote that right?
<
p>
With the clarity of the day, you realize that position paers have very little to do with the last week before an election when all the undecideds start focusing on the election.
We still need to do a better job linking closed schools, fire, police etc… to Republicans before we can attack on it.
<
p>
They are going to be tough to link in the mind of average voters as they associate these issues with local governments (as well as real estate taxes).
The needle stuff is not the kind of thing that decides elections. It’s infuriating because the reasons to oppose it are not grounded in reality. Keep in mind, though, that more people favor Cape Wind than oppose needle sales.
<
p>
By the way — issue polling does change. The Bay State Poll in March had Health Care as the number one issue facing the state. Guess what dominated the news during that time? The health care debate.
<
p>
What’s been on the news lately? The budget. People are thinking about their taxes because they don’t want to pay for a theatre renovation in Melrose, etc etc (though, they never complain about state dollars coming to their town)
<
p>
That’s not to say that taxes are not a serious issue. But don’t forget that taxes are more than just the income tax. It’s the property tax that is really hurting people.
I’m gonna print me up some bumper stickers saying that! 😉
happened before the great “love-in” we had with so-called health care reform. That issue is no longer a hot button because it was “fixed” or at least until after the November election.
My point is that people’s concerns are not static and are driven by events that happen during the time the polls are taken.
WHY are we ALL paying to subsidize the MWRA water rates by paying the debt service on the outfall pipe?
<
p>
Why is the FAIR Plan, by legislative statute, set at $10 per hundred in Boston, but $25 per hundred on Cape Cod, when the Cape drivers pay more to subsidize the Boston drivers than any other area in the state?
<
p>
Why did the Boston Symphony Orchestra get $200,000 in the Conference Report, twice as much as the ONLY battered women’s shelter on Cape Cod?
<
p>
Why does Boston get so much school aid from the state that one year they actually couldn’t spend it all, and gave raises to the Boston City council and the Mayor instead?
<
p>
Why in the name of all that is wonderful would we ever trust the state legislature to be good, and restrain itself, if there was a Democrat Governor who might not be able to give Sal and Trav a hard time if he wanted to be reelected?
More comments about fretting about how “Democrats keep on losing!” and “what are we going to do?” in a state that is the most Democratic in the nation. No wonder Dems and liberals are thought of as self-defeating. Talk about not being reality-based.
<
p>
The best way to beat the Republicans is simple. It is not particular issues per se or getting more or less liberal. Instead, it’s all about LINKING THEM TO THE NATIONAL REPUBLICANS.
<
p>
Every time Republicans have been successful in this state, it’s because they separate themselves from the national Republicans. Whenever they are associated with the national GOP, however, they start sinking, like the Newt/Blute connection and with Romney’s sinking numbers as he puts an eye to the national stage. It doesn’t matter how moderate they might be in reality, it’s all about that linkage.
<
p>
Healey will likely run on taxes, maybe on immigration, and certainly on presenting herself as a “check” on the Legislature. But most importantly she will attempt to articulate why she is DIFFERENT than the Republicans Massachusetts voters know and hate on the national level.
<
p>
THAT is where the focus needs to be. She is “just another Republican” who is joined at the hip to Romney. She might talk the talk, but in the end she’ll walk the Republican walk along with George Bush, Tom DeLay, and the rest of the radical Republicans.
<
p>
Maybe Healey’s PR machine will be able to counter this image. But if we don’t start soon in earnest to paint her a certain way, that maybe will be a certainty.
<
p>
Please people — the most important thing to realize is that we live in a very, very strongly DEMOCRATIC state. People are (to say the least) wary of Republicans and we need to remind people just what Healey is, and what that means. No more self-defeatism, please.
…is a lot tougher than nationalizing a congressioanl election. I think it is part of the mix and Healey plays the part of an uncaring rich person (gee I wish I could find a rhyme there). As you point out, it keeps her on the defense and focrsing her is disown key elements in her party. But it could back fire, if people believe she is not a mean Rep.
<
p>
But even if it worked, we need more than that. And listen to a little talk radio around Boston and see if you think we’re that STRONGLY Democratic.
We do need more than just that strategy — it is necessary but not sufficent.
<
p>
As far as talk radio goes, well — yeah, talk radio tends to be more right-wing everywhere. But if we can’t recognize that a state that 1) consistenly elects massive majorities in the State House, 2) has a 100% Dem Congressional delegation, and 3) routinely gives well over 60% of its Presidential vote to the Democrat is a STRONGLY Democratic state, then that’s simply not being realistic.
This suggestion resonates with me.
<
p>
I have repeatedly voted Republican for Governor of Massachusetts for “balance” reasons. It is my belief that Massachusetts would be far, far better governed if there were an effective opposition party. I would prefer that it exist in the General Court, but have settled for the corner office because of the state GOP’s repeated ineffectiveness at the local level, the efforts of Porcupines notwithstanding. I have been comfortable voting for these Republicans because they come from a different tradition of Republicanism– a more libertarian one– than that which dominates the national GOP today. I liked Weld because he was not a Massachusetts Democrat and because he was loathed by Jesse Helms.
<
p>
Governor Romney has failed to observe the distinction between New England Republicanism and the strain of Republicanism centered on socially conservative evangelical churches. Although his sops to the social conservatives might be essential to his hopes for 2008, I believe that his lurch to the right– and in particular his hysterical reaction to Goodridge, have played a large role in his declining popularity here in Massachusetts. Indeed, his failure to be more of an old-time New England Republican are in no small measure why I will likely vote for the Democratic candidate in November.
<
p>
Romney’s move to the right on social issues presents a real opportunity for the Democrats this year. In the past, an attempt to link a Massachusetts Republican with the hyper-conservative politics of the national GOP would have been laughable. This year, maybe not so much. Romney has done much of the work for you already. Perhaps the Democratic candidate should run against the Romney who is running for President, rather than the Healy who is running for Governor.
<
p>
This is why I think that if Healy runs against “queers” as has been suggested above, she’s dead.
<
p>
Democrats have made some half-hearted attempts at this so far, but I think that these shots have missed the mark because they focus on trivialities.
<
p>
First, there is the “absentee governor” thing, which alerts us all to the number of days that he has been away while in office. I’ll bet that one of these shots happen today, after the tunnel collapse, because he was apparently vacationing in New Hampshire today. ZZZZZZZ. I think this line of attack is silly because people understand that in 2006, we have computers, e-mail, balckberrys, cell phones, and other technology to keep in touch with work all of the time, and because people don’t necessarily care if the goveror is hard at work in policy meetings all the time.
<
p>
Second, there have been the complaints that Romney has made fun of Massachusetts while speaking to national Republicans. This line of attack is even more useless than the first because it makes the Democrats look like whiny, sniveling, humorless weenies. Wah! He made fun of us and hurt our feelings! Nice image for politicians.
<
p>
Romney has been making substantive overtures to the far right of the national GOP for quite awhile now. I believe that these moves have been on more fronts than gay marriage. There is abortion. Immigration. The war. Find this stuff. Use it, along with some significant assurance that the candidate is not behoolden to, or anything like, the more hacklike (and maybe, to a lesser extent, moonbatish) Democrats in the legislature. I realize that I am simply extrapolating from my own views, but this strategy would be effective for me.
I appreciate your taking the time to write this comment. I think it helps to understand your perspective and what had influenced you and what does not resonate with you. All very important. I would be interested to hear your take on Cellucci and Swift also, just so I understand how we ended up with the Romney Dynasty (or may end up with) the Healey Dynasty…
Thank God not a Kennedy dynasty. Oh, wait …
This is the GWB Hate Factor written small. As long as the National Dems campaign against a man who is not running for reelection,they are losers.
<
p>
Kerry is – and has always been – more moderate than Mitt. Part of the reason I was a Healey delegate in 2002 is that I TRIED to picture Jim Rappaport keeping his mouth shut when the GOVERNOR did something he disagreed with and I failed. the Lt. Gov. must bak the gov. when the decision has been made, regardless of what advocacy takes place beforehand.
<
p>
For instance, Kerry is pro-choice, endorsed by the WISH List, etc. But when Mitt made decision, she stayed mum – as was her job IN THE ADMINISTRATION. NOW, as a candidate, she can reveal her own stances in a way that would have been inappropriate before. And Mitt is NOT running for reelection.
<
p>
And trying to link her to Tom DeLay is just a big loozah.
I understand that she was doing her job as LG. I don’t know if she will be effctive at distancing herself from Romney, especially if the more-conservative-than-Massachusetts-conservative idea is well planted before she ramps up.
<
p>
And it is a time honored tradition to run against someone or something who isn’t running. Truman ran against his own Congress. Carter ran against Nixon. GWB ran against Clinton. Weld ran against Dukakis (though he won only because Silber was a &$*&^%). Every one of the Republican governors since have run either against the ghost of Dukakis or against the ghost of Bulger.
<
p>
When one is the #2 in an administration, one gets to answer for that administration, even if one quietly disagreed with #1. Gore had to contend with “returning honor to the white house” even though it would have been extremely out of character for him to be shtupping the help. Healy has been dragged to the right, to her potential misfortune.
The type of response that the Healey campaign will try to build up. Take a good look, folks, because if the above is what voters think of when they think of Healey (i.e. a good, moderate, pro-choice semi-Republican!), then we are DEAD in this election. I can just about guarantee it.
<
p>
Instead WE have to take the initiative here. This is another point where we give up on any attack because we quabble amounst ourselves that it will never work. “She’s too moderate — it will never work” we say.
<
p>
This is WRONG! Peter Blute was certainly a more moderate Republican, yet once the Newt connection was made (easier because he was in Congress, though), he was finished. We can do the same to Healey, regardless of the positions she says she has.
<
p>
Just remind people of what Romney has become (basically, a crazy national Republican, rather than a good ‘ol RINO), and how closely Healey stood with him all those years. She might repond “Well, I was LG so that was my job”.
<
p>
GREAT! That’s what we want to do — put her on the defensive. Let her use the legalistic responses like “that was my job to stand by Romney”. Whenever you have a raw emotional connection (i.e. linkage between the national Republicans and Healey) versus legalistic responses, the former will win out in people’s minds every time.
<
p>
The Republicans have been using this technique against us for years, while we keep thinking stuff like “Well Kerry was a war hero, so of course these attacks won’t work!”. Time to start thinking differently.
I know on the surface referencing Eminem and 8 Mile may seem ridiculous but if you have seen the movie, then you know how effective stealing your opponentâs thunder (or in this case, talking points) can be.
<
p>
One way to steal Healey’s thunder is to strike first. Start by detailing Healeyâs talking points.
<
p>
Possible Dem opening statement in debate (yes it needs polishâ¦)
<
p>
âMy opponent is going to tell you that I’m going to:”
<
p>
(from centralmassdad)
<
p>
⢠Spend out of control.
⢠Raise your taxes.
⢠Allow illegal immigrants to take your job.
⢠Hand out needles to junkies.
⢠Destroy the sanctity of marriage.
⢠And probably kill your favorite pet.
<
p>
Then link here to National Republicans (ala Hoyapaul).
<
p>
âAnd then sheâs going to tell you how she is not your typical Republican. She’s going to tell you she is a fiscally conservative Republican, but she is compassionate. Well we have seen how compassionate George Bush and Mitt Romney have been and you can expect more of the same compassionate conservatism from Kerry Healey. Any time you have to put the word compassionate in front of your ideology you know you are having image problemsâ¦â
<
p>
âNow Iâm going to talk about my vision â¦â (dispell her talking points and insert your candidates vision). Any one want to take it from here?
<
p>
If done correctly it can make Healey look transparent.
Thanks, but I disclaim any argument about the sanctity of marriage. I have noted that the means of acheiving the worthy goal of SSM was not ideal; a political process would have been preferable. I certainly have never made or countenanced “sanctity of marriage” as a meaningful argument. And as I noted above, I think that if Healy campaigns on “sanctity of marriage” she will lose.
<
p>
That said, I do fear that Governor Patrick will confiscate my pet labrador retriever and try to force me to replace him with a cat.
<
p>
That, and my pet assault rifle.
about:
<
p>
<
p>
Taxes, illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility, and, yes, same-sex marriage all are legitimate voter concerns.
<
p>
Why do liberals ALWAYS whine about negative advertising — the “smears, fears, and queers” retort — when your pet issues are challenged?
<
p>
Hey, plenty of people think a needle exchange program actually does hand out needles to junkies! Doesn’t it?
<
p>
Why accuse anyone of “smearing” when legitimate objections are raised?
First – good point on needles. It doesn’t need to be brought up.
<
p>
What did not come across in my post was tone. Those words are not to be said with a tone that indicates you are upset by the Republican talking points, but with a sarcastic smile that belies the absurdity of their claims. I can see Deval doing a great job doing this.
<
p>
Healey now has two choices (although Iâm sure Mr Porcupine would falsely claim superior ground on substance); parrot her talking points which have already been framed (if done effectively) as absurd to non-republican undecided voters or talk about issues. We need to get them out of their comfort zone (talking points) and onto a field (substance) Dems feel more comfortable.
<
p>
The comparison to Romney/Bush is to show how they changed their stripes once elected and that you should expect the same from Healey.