I’ve been thinking about this for a long time(before Killer Coke and the latest polls). I am the prototypical Patrick supporter: very involved, active MA Democrat, as far left as you can get and a bit too idealistic about politics. But a funny thing happened along the way. I started wondering if he was Dean Revisited and if his support was vocal but not broad based. And now I’ve flipped and am supporting Gabrieli. So I was wondering…Is this happening a lot among Democrats in the Commonwealth?
UPDATE (by David): In the comments, the author explains her switch:
I’ll try to explain the switch. My support of Deval was automatic when I heard he was running, especially because he was running against Reilly. It was automatic because he’s not a typical politician, the thought of a minority shaking things up a bit at the State House and in MA politics was a selling point, and he seems like an honest, educated, thoughtful, and dynamic person.
But then I started resenting Patrick for the very thing I was doing when I decided to support him. He was getting all this grassroots support without much of a track record in MA and without much of a platform. So I started to feel like I was rooting for him just because he was the type of candidate(insurgent, grassroots, the anti Kerry Healey) that I as a far left liberal was supposed to be supportive of.
Maybe I was just following the progressive crowd without much thought. And as his bandwagon started filling up and as I read all the back and forth here I realized that it seemed like he had managed to win people over without much substance.
So now I’m a Gabrieli supporter because he is making his campaign about issues. Now it pains me to support a self funded candidate because I’m all about Clean Elections but Patrick is not much better in this regard and Reilly is not an option for me. I know that Deval has positions on all the issues but I want him to campaign using those issues and I haven’t seen that…yet.
By the way, I’ve never met any of the candidates and I do not support Gabrieli because I think that he has a better chance against Healey. In fact, I think they all stand a good chance if they present a clear direction and future for the voters based on concrete issues that affect our daily lives.
Wanna tell us what happened on the road to Damascus?
I’ll try to explain the switch. My support of Deval was automatic when I heard he was running, especially because he was running against Reilly. It was automatic because he’s not a typical politician, the thought of a minority shaking things up a bit at the State House and in MA politics was a selling point, and he seems like an honest, educated, thoughtful, and dynamic person.
<
p>
But then I started resenting Patrick for the very thing I was doing when I decided to support him. He was getting all this grassroots support without much of a track record in MA and without much of a platform. So I started to feel like I was rooting for him just because he was the type of candidate(insurgent, grassroots, the anti Kerry Healey) that I as a far left liberal was supposed to be supportive of.
<
p>
Maybe I was just following the progressive crowd without much thought. And as his bandwagon started filling up and as I read all the back and forth here I realized that it seemed like he had managed to win people over without much substance.
<
p>
So now I’m a Gabrieli supporter because he is making his campaign about issues. Now it pains me to support a self funded candidate because I’m all about Clean Elections but Patrick is not much better in this regard and Reilly is not an option for me. I know that Deval has positions on all the issues but I want him to campaign using those issues and I haven’t seen that…yet.
<
p>
By the way, I’ve never met any of the candidates and I do not support Gabrieli because I think that he has a better chance against Healey. In fact, I think they all stand a good chance if they present a clear direction and future for the voters based on concrete issues that affect our daily lives.
I’d be interested to hear your reasons. Did you switch because you think Patrick doesn’t have enough support to win – i.e., because of your perception of what others think? Or because you became disenchanted with Patrick himself, or found something really compelling about Gabrieli? A little more explanation gets you on the front page!
It seems that every time I get my heart set on a statewide or national race, it gets broken. I’m a local government kind of guy. Local firefighters, police, and EMTs were on the forefront of the war on terror on 9/11. Brave city employees died to rescue total strangers.
<
p>
Teachers across this nation are working in challeging conditions, regularly spending their own money for school supplies, and sometimes for clothes and food for kids in trouble.
<
p>
These are my heroes.
<
p>
I love local elections, because they revolve around these core services and our core New England values of local accountability. With the cut in local aid, and the constraints of Proposition 2.5, there are only a couple of municipalities that have enough money to do a credible job of providing services that are necessary and comparable to similar communities in other states.
<
p>
I am so fed up with this string of Weld – Cellucci – Swift – Romney that I want to elect the candidate that understands the world where I live. I want the candidate who understands what it is like to sit in Town Meeting and vote budgets that cut teachers, librarians, cops, and firefighters.
<
p>
Deval Patrick isn’t perfect, but he is the best of the lot. Tim Murray is my all-star. I think if we can put that ticket together, we can energize the progressives as well as the central Massachusetts voters who have been the core of the Republican governors vote totals.
<
p>
Please keep the faith, and let’s elect a REAL blue state governor.
but I would be very surprised if there were not some form of one-to-one contact between brownsville girl and Gabs. And I would also be surprised if the main thrust of the pitch were not Gabs having the “resources” to beat Kerry Healey.
This looks suspicious to me – no profile, just one other very brief (and similarly disingenuous) post four months ago. On the off chance that this is a genuine expression of your thinking, I would like to say three things:
<
p>
1) There is no single, “prototypical” Patrick supporter. Some of us like his experience solving problems in the private sector, others like his civil rights commitment; some are psyched about the Bill Clinton or Barak Obama connections, the education endorsements, the early candor on issues like Cape Wind. Many of us are excited by the way his mind works when he takes questions from prospective voters or learns about a new policy issue or describes an idea that matters to the Commonwealth.
<
p>
There are retired ministers, single moms, wealthy investors, kindergarten teachers, union activists, state employees, social workers, disabled people, little old ladies, owners of small businesses and a range of others working for Deval in this area.
<
p>
Some of us may be idealistic but others are seasoned veterans of many campaigns. Good for you for having a clear sense of who you are, but you haven’t seen too many of the diverse crowds at Patrick events if you think your description encompasses the “typical” supporter. There just isn’t one single description to describe the range.
<
p>
2) We are vocal and broad and deep! Were you at the convention (or did you watch the coverage)? From every corner of the Commonwealth, people went to a lot of trouble to give up their time at the caucuses, to pay their fees, make hotel reservations and travel to Worcester to show their support for Deval. He won the Democratic nomination fair and square with a smart, effective grassroots effort – no need for pleading, last-minute mailings to delegates or begging for crumbs from the legislative leadership. The grassroots momentum continues as the primary approaches. Canvassing and voter i.d. and voter education is continuing throughout the state. Ads have been on the air for a few days, and will be more visible as the primary nears.
<
p>
3) We would love to win you back. If, as David suggests, you can clarify your thinking, perhaps you will realize that Deval Patrick is the candidate with the best message and qualifications, the best network of support and the person who would do the best job of leading the Commonwealth in the post-Big Dig era. The big, broad, deep and vocal grassroots network supporting Deval would welcome you back.
<
p>
Let’s face the facts, please. Deval Patrick stepped into a VOID at the caucuses for the most part. This is because Reilly really didn’t organize for the Caucuses. Good for Deval for taking advantage of the situation. But please, at my caucus, there wasn’t even a Reilly voter, never mind an opposition “slate”.
<
p>
Yes those that ran there deserve credit but they were up against for the most part… nothing.
<
p>
So let’s call it what it was, a peice of good luck for Deval and bad decision making/organizing by Reilly, his only opponent at the time.
Deval honestly should have done better at the convention given the shape of the race in February. Deval was the only game in town in February and Reilly was non-existant on the North Shore at least.
<
p>
Further the Patrick staff and supporters were ruthless and miserable at the Convention and I was voting for the guy at the Convention. Also another huge reason I jumped ship. His staff and supporters was so snakelike at the Convention trying to make sure he remained the only game in town. How Democratic is that??? To use a procedural maneuver to keep a good candidate off the ballot??? Seems real progressive of Deval!!!
You mean, when the Deval forces were going to the people who were elected as Deval delegates… you know, the delegates who stood before a caucus filled with people who came for the purpose of electing delegates for Deval, and reminding them of that fact?
<
p>
My town’s delegates fulfilled their commitments to the people who elected them. I think anyone elected with a commitment to Deval who was flirting with another candidate needed a reminder of WHY they were sent to Worcester.
<
p>
The Deval people over played their hand. That’s why they lost me.
No I was talking about people who were elected but not committed and ExOfficio Delegates. Further, I had EVERY intention of voting for Deval at the Convention and made no mention of my promised defection to Gabrieli the following day. I still felt his people rude and dealt with thd convention goers (democratic activists that are needed to win elections) rudely. I know several people that were undecided up until the vote and went with Gabrieli after Devals camp started challenging delegates and delayed what would have been a smooth convention. He knew he was going to win the nomination.
<
p>
His trechourous behavoir lost him a lot popularity points in my Senate District for sure!
<
p>
But your insight about honor and keeping your word I completely agree with. I would not have considered doing anything but what I was sent to Worcester to do. We are nothing without our word!
Sorry about not having more of a posting history. I thought I would try to get more involved and write more so that is why I wrote this.
<
p>
Thanks for the welcome mat and thanks for offering to welcome back a suspicious and disingenuous type like myself. Remember we will all be on the same team after the primary.
Began volunteering at the Gabrieli Headquaters the next day. Unfortunately during the caucuses, which is where Devals broad and deep support was being developed to be showcased at the convention, Chris was stil fresh off of being screwed by Tom Reilly. Tom Reilly was just fresh off of being screwed by Marie St. Fleur and Deval was the only game in town. Of course that is why Deval, the only candidate that orginized for the caucuses won the Convention.
<
p>
I did what I said I would do at the convention. I held my nose and voted for Deval. I wish I could have voted for Chris but I was elected on a slate and did what I was sent to Worcester to do. Deval is a good candidate and if he wins the primary so be it, we will all work hard for him in the General.
<
p>
I have watched Chris work to make Mass. a better place and have been beyond impressed with Chris’ dedication to this campaign and his desire to help and make the world and Mass. a better place to live. A lot of people in Massachusetts have made BOAT LOADS of money, but not of all of them are giving back. Chris is a great man who has dedicated himself to educating children and ensuring that eveyone has the OPPORTUNITY to learn. Chris has vision, knowledge and plans to make Mass. the best place it can be.
<
p>
I jumped ship and I am glad I did.
If you’re a progressive activist, it’s hard for me to see how you’d find Gabrieli a more appealing candidate or think of him as someone who’d make a better Governor. And, not surprisingly, nothing you say indicates that you do think that. You make it clear that Gabrieli is less who you’d want as Governor than who you think you can win with. Personally, I think it would more sensible, as well as satisfying, for you to fight in the primary for candidate who actually like best and whose values and vision you most share. Sounds to me as if that’s Deval Patrick. Why back someone else?
<
p>
I’m not feigning naivete. As a political scientist, I certainly recognize that there’s a strategic dimension to primary voting. Obviously, there are candidates who one can’t support because they don’t have a prayer. But this isn’t one of those times. Especially with Mihos in the race, we Democrats are well positioned to win this one in November. I happen to think Patrick is especially well positioned, but that’s not the burden of my argument here. In all honesty, I can see plausible cases for the strategic merits of one or the other, cases turning, say, on Gabrieli’s money and putative centrism, or Patrick’s charisma, field organization, and invulnerability to the charge of being a “Beacon Hill insider.” I think either SHOULD win. I also recognize that politics is unpredictable and elections can always be turned by a major misstep or the kind of unforseen event about which nobody can strategize in advance. What I know for sure is which one of these two candidates I think would make not just a better, but an exceptional Governor. So, for what it’s worth, my advice is: seize the chance to support someone who not only has a good chance of winning office but speaks to our best political hopes. In our time these chances are rare; I’m not squandering mine.
Nice try, Chris. But you don’t need to pretend to be a blogger, you’ve got millions to spend, remember?!?
</blockquoteAnd now I've flipped and am supporting Gabrieli. So I was wondering…Is this happening a lot among Democrats in the Commonwealth?
So now you’ve “flipped” and decided to support another candidate? Sounds like you decided to get the turkey club instead of the reuben. How…off-key.
Seriously, though, no, I don’t think a lot of Democrats are “flipping” to Gabrieli.
I will be voting for Deval Patrick in September.
<
p>
I initially became interested in Patrick when I read an article published in the Valley Advocate in 2005. . The article spoke of this person someone not before involved in politics in Massachusetts before who spoke in terms of both economics and social justice issues. I was intrigued.
<
p>
We have an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature in Massachusetts, yet our state hardly embraces Democratic ideals. Sure, theres a lot of lip service out there, but at the end of the day the fiscal conservative, social liberal sets the agenda. And the agenda is usually you can do whatever you want, as long as I can live in my exclusive segregated community and youre lowering my taxes, not spending money on people who don’t deserve it.
<
p>
The opposite of that is not someone who is free spending. The opposite of that position is someone who believes in economic equality, someone who believes that we live in a society and that all people are equal and deserve equal chances. The opposite of that is a person who realizes that rationing services such as education or public safety is a suicidal path for our state.
<
p>
I think that because of the economic segregation, because of the intense focus on resisting any changes that might possibly in some way improve our state (like by opposing any and all development), our state is in trouble. I dont see it as a place my daughter will be able to find a job in 20 or so years. And I dont like that.
<
p>
I will not be voting for Tom Reilly in the primary even though Im from Springfield because I think that he is the most conservative of all the Democratic candidates. Hes almost a Healey-lite. He does not seem too concerned about economic justice; he is more concerned about putting an extra $3 in everyones weekly paycheck than he is concerned about trying to solve some of the significant challenges that this state faces. Im also put off by his campaign tactics I think they show just how much a politician he is. I think that voting for him would be just “politics as usual”. He’s clearly the candidate the powers-that-be in the legislature wants the most.
<
p>
I will not be voting for Chris Gabrielli although I like him more than Reilly because I think that he doesnt see the big picture. An obvious example to me is his support of casinos. The wealthy people in this state arent the ones going to casinos; the poor, fixed-income people are the ones going there.
<
p>
Casinos arent likely to spring up in Wellesley; theyre more likely going to pop up in cash-strapped (read: poor) communities. Thats like storing the gasoline next to the matches. That tells me that Gabrielli just doesnt get it he sees the money being spent in Connecticut, but he doesnt see the people who are spending it. Plus, I dont see the fire in his eyes. Hes a technocratic policy wonk not that theres anything wrong with that, but I dont think wed be better off with him in the corner office.
<
p>
No, Ill be pulling the lever for Deval Patrick because he speaks to my heart. He inspires me to be better. He gives me hope and not just in a fuzzy way; he has concrete plans to improve the economy of this state, to devote resources (such as police) by need, rather than by political pull.
<
p>
I think that Deval Patrick understands those issues the most, and that he will be the most effective in leading the Democratic legislature to move this state in the right direction. I believe that Patrick wont be content to see that, except for the urban areas, our students are doing pretty well in school. I think that he wont be happy until everyone is doing well.
<
p>
Since Patrick has such a broad base of support across the state Im seeing more people involved than ever in politics I think hes got a great chance of both getting elected and enjoying support afterwards.
<
p>
And since Patrick gives me hope, since he inspires me, I expect he will give the rest of this state some hope too, and will inspire both residents and our legislature to move us forward. I expect that he will convince people to look a little beyond their safe lives, to take some risks in order to get bigger rewards.
<
p>
I expect Patrick to make this state more progressive, and I think thats exactly what we need to do so that my daughter can find a job here, instead of somewhere in the Southwest, in twenty years — and that will allow me to get to know my grandchildren someday.
But what’s weird about it is that you seem concerned that Patrick doesn’t have “much of a platform,” and is a candidate “without much substance,” yet it really is indisputable that Patrick’s positions on the issues were released earlier, cover more topics, and are more detailed than those of any other candidate.
<
p>
So I don’t quite see the problem there. Is there something else?
I know more about Patrick’s stance on issues than any other candidate. Just listening to his answers at the Chelmsford Town Hall I learned so much about his stances. Never mind his detailed and early position papers. How unconventional, a candidate who talks about the issues.
<
p>
He’s also not afraid to take an out-there leadership position before the polls are there to back him up, like on Cape Wind. No offense to Gabs, who probably did arrive at the same conclusion for the right reasons, but it looks like he waited until the polls came out on the issue which went his way to make a stand. (It partly has to do with how freaking late he got in the race, which is another thing that annoys me. How are we supposed to build our party back up if people keep coasting/buying their way into the race??)
<
p>
I find Gabrieli’s stance on many issues to be wishy washy – like the tax rollback. I think he understands perfectly well that it’d be irresponsible to roll it back but he takes the position that it’ll be OK after he gets in office cuz he’ll make the economy better and the revenue will increase. Great. How exactly is he gonna do that? All I’ve seen him talk about (at great length) is stem cell research money. Laudable, but hardly going to put the whole state back to work.
I have noted, in the last few days, that the “grassroots” nature of the Patrick campaign gives the whole endeavor a strong whiff of a fringe candidacy. You call it Dean revisted, which is as good a description as any of what I’m getting at. In short, a whole lot of voters’ first impression of Mr. Patrick at this point comes from the guy who wants the local zoning board or Town Meeting to adopt a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a good way to make a first impression, and I supose it remains to be seen if “the justice in his voice” ads can grab the middle.
<
p>
The strategy is mystifying to me because it is clear to me, having paid attention via this nifty blog, that Mr. Patrick could make a strong play for the more centrist voter. If I weren’t a reader of this blog, I suspect I would view the Patrick campaign as I once viewed the Kucinich campaign. So I don’t know why he seems to be ceding the middle.
<
p>
The comments elsewhere in this thread suggest to me that there is an echo chamber among the Patrick supporters. “Our support is strong and deep– just look at the support at the convention” as if the attendees of the convention were not, almost by definition, more activist than the primary electorate. That type of response does not appear to be “reality-based,” as the saying goes.
You make two distinct points that are folded into one.
<
p>
1. Echo chamber problem? It’s true that some DP supporters on this site could be described that way. Where’s the evidence of that in the DP campaign itself?
<
p>
Echo chamber is when you don’t really know what’s going on. I think DP and his folks DO know what’s going on and have proven themselves savvy.
<
p>
2. I tend to agree with you that he COULD have made a strong pitch to the centrist voter, knowing that his left-most wing would complain on BMG and elsewhere but still turn out for him. He COULD have emphasized his Clinton centrist credentials, and picked a few policy fights with the hard left.
<
p>
Just as one example, he could have said “Listen suburban folks, we’ve got a rising murder rate in inner-cities, we need more cops and better prosecutors to lock up these guys, the state has to step up here.” That would have pissed off the “infinite after-school programs to solve crime” crowd but not lost their votes.
<
p>
Or he could have pushed charters. Or state income tax cuts. Or teacher merit pay. Or massive toll increases for anyone who doesn’t get a Fast Lane thingie, and then fire tons of the toll collectors to finance road improvements. Or, as Joan Venocchi said, alienate SOME left wing constituency or hackocracy.
<
p>
But that would have been a GAMBLE. A wise gamble in my mind and yours, to tack centrist. I think he’d be at 55%. Why would you or Scot Lehigh consider Gabs if you had a more charismatic guy with same policies?
<
p>
Instead, he made a REASONABLE calculation to stay left. In a 3-way race, hey, he’s in decent shape right now. No echo chamber there.
Patrick has called for 1,000 more cops, and for new tools for prosecutors, and generally to return to the crime reduction strategies that worked so well in the 1990s. And he’s called for “whole school” merit pay.
<
p>
Here DP has a centrist view – “Crime response above all must be firm…let’s get more cops.” That can sell to moderates as a way to position Deval, particularly if he is careful to avoid the emphasis on “so they can build relationships” and instead “so they can deter criminals and arrest more of them.”
<
p>
If that were his TV ad, instead of the schools thing, I think he’d peel off centrists without losing his base. The point is not that they care much about crime – many are safe in the burbs. The point is that a single centrist position is often extrapolated to cover other areas.
<
p>
Instead, even me, someone who reads this site – and who has read DP’s site – had no idea of this policy! Granted, I’m not such a strong reader, but still.
<
p>
2. The “school merit pay” was widely reported as a fig leaf on his retreat from the “teacher merit pay” thing. Furthermore, it was folded into the teachers union endorsement.
<
p>
Don’t you think that the combined signal to moderates in that particular news cycle was “He’s left”?
is a great idea. Have him in the affected communities talking about the stuff that worked before, and under his leadership will work again. Target it appropriately. Could do him a world of good.
you’re probably right about how it played in that particular news cycle. But that was a long time ago, and the school merit pay thing actually seems like a pretty decent idea to me. Why couldn’t he spin it now as a progressive means of providing “accountability” in schools? Wouldn’t that appeal both to centrists who want to see excellence rewarded, without alienating the so-called “base” that is scared about individual merit pay (for whatever reason)?
if Patrick won the nomination is what just about any reasonable candidate would do when faced with a general election — start stressing centrism, pragmatic solutions, and (in DP’s case) experience and success in the private sector. I say “reasonable” because someone like Kucinich obviously wasn’t, and thus I don’t think it’s really an apt anaology. Kucinich had no chance of winning, he knew it, and thus did not present/build up any opportunity to offer a broader message outside of the his hard-core group of idealisic supporters. Patrick HAS courted the left more than the other two, but it seems to me that his policies and background are such that he can (and would) broaden the message after the primaries.
<
p>
I agree with the general tenor of your comment, however. Many blog commenters, here and elsewhere, seem to work themselves in such a fury about their particular candidates that they are the ones losing sight of the bigger picture. Not everything is a black/white battle of epic proportions. Democrats won’t have sold out if Reilly gets the nomination, and believe it or not Gabs is about a lot more than simply his checkbook.
<
p>
Sometimes it appears to me that the echo chamber you speak of creates the impression for everyone in it that Patrick is this gubernatorial savior that will save us from the “corrupt, conservative(?!?) legislature” and is head and shoulders above Reilly and Gabreili. Nope. He’s just a charasmatic, relatively moderate-liberal guy that probably would be a good Governor. Same with Gabs and Reilly.
<
p>
If Mr. Patrick is a moderate-liberal, who, by your measure, is a Liberal?
Dennis Kucinich, who I referenced in my post? Or Al Sharpton?
<
p>
And if Patrick is not a moderate-liberal, who, by your measure, is a “moderate”?
Hillary Clinton
Pretty surprised that you’d consider Hillary Clinton a moderate, I must say. On the other hand, I can’t seem to find the ideological gulf between “moderate” Clinton and “Liberal” Patrick.
Hilary is no more moderate than I am a turtle.
<
p>
She’s far further right than her husband ever was. And Clinton moved hard right in the 90s (“free” trade, etc).
<
p>
Hilary is not moderate. She’s pro-corporate. That’s fiscally closer to the current crop of Republicans than Democrats (even moderate ones).
I’ll ask you: if Hilary Clinton is “far right”, who do you consider “moderate-left”?
It’s his training as an economist that keeps him from the far left.
I always thought Liberals favor equality over liberty and Conservatives favor liberty over equality.
<
p>
To achieve equality, Liberals seek out more government, and its rules, laws, programs and complexities, all generally designed for better allocation of wealth.
<
p>
Conservatives don’t care so much for government. They tend to favor individual decision making and believe that it’s easy to foolishly spend other people’s money. The complexities and laws that representatives create are wasteful and worse still, create unintended consequences. So, the Conservative solution is to keep a short leash on politician and their spending and rule-making and allow individuals to prosper–or not.
<
p>
It’s really tough for me to configure either of the Clintons as anything other than moderate: Supportive of Affirmative Action, yet only to a point; Supportive of NAFTA and free-trade yet supportive of minimum wage and of a highly progressive tax system.
<
p>
It’s tough for me to see Mr. Patrick as anything other than a Liberal: stong Affirmative Action; reluctant to consider tax cuts because he thinks that the State can take care of problems better than individuals could if the tax cut money were left in their pocket.
<
p>
Progressive. There’s a new-old label. I always thought Progressive was Teddy Roosevelt.
Republicans are for individual decision making?
<
p>
Like by making it illegal for a town to set up municipal wireless?
<
p>
Like by making it illegal to burn a flag in protest?
<
p>
Like by making it illegal for more and more workers to organize into unions?
<
p>
Like by supporting an economic climate that rewards oligopolies and monopolies — the very antithesis of decision making?
<
p>
Like by opposing laws that require companies to disclose information (such as nutrition information) that makes it easier for people to make decisions?
<
p>
You may be confusing Republicans with Libratarians. Although I don’t agree with Libratarians, I at least respect the fact that their positions are generally transparent. I think the only reason Republicans speak about “limited government” is because they want to eliminate the referee between business and the general public, between the big guy and the little guy.
<
p>
I’d have no problem with the Conservative “allow individuals to prosper — or not” philosophy if the rules of the game weren’t so stacked in favor of those who are already prosperous. And I believe that the way to make our country better is via changing those rules rather than implementing new rules to try to take care of those left in the cold by the existing rules.
<
p>
I believe that Deval Patrick understands this, and will act accordingly when it comes to people in this state.
That is the point.
<
p>
So he has moderate policy points posted on his website. 99.998% of the electorate will not see them. For them, the impression could be hardening that he is the Moonbat candidate. That impression doesn’t just go away after September 19, and it seems to me to be at least potentially a gift in the making for one K. Healy.
<
p>
As far as the echo chamber, I agree with whomever pointed it out that the comments of the BMG community do not necessarily reflect those of the Patrick campaign.
<
p>
As for the “savvy” of that campaign, I haven’t seen it yet. They were very savvy in the achievement of securing the endorsement of the convention, which, though it may be a document suitable for framing, doesn’t mean much when there is a primary election anyway. After that glorious acheivement, it seems that they went on vacation. I will happily admit their brilliance if they get through September 19 with their powder dry, but for now, it seems like they forgot their are other candidates on the ballot for September 19, and that there is a general election coming in November.
Why? Because Howie Carr says so? Because Patrick worked for the NAACP – before he worked for big bad Coke and Texaco? Because his positions on the issues are generally, well, somewhat but not really all that far left of center, and are in most cases indistinguishable from those of Chris Gabrieli and even Tom Reilly in many cases?
<
p>
Honestly, where does this “moonbat” crap come from? If you can point me to something that really makes that case, I’m listening. But I’ve looked pretty hard, and I don’t see it.
<
p>
Any voter who writes off Patrick – or anyone else – as the “moonbat” candidate because Howie Carr tells them to deserves what they get. Honest to God.
Maybe Moonbat comes from all of the various conspiracy theory’s being espoused by Deval supporters on BMG?
————————–
False Poll Conspiracy
False Flag Conspiracy
Big Dig Political Contribution Conspiracy
Gabrieli Grassroots Conspiracy
Gabrieli part of the VLWC Conspiracy
Killer Coke Conspiracy
Convention 15% rules change Conspiracy
Gabrieli Convention Conspiracy #1
Gabrieli Poaching Delegates Conspiracy
Convention Insider Conspiracy
Gabrieli Public Financing Conspiracy
Convention First Ballot “Trick” Conspiracy
Reilly Killer Coke Conspiracy
Gabrieli Convention Math Conspiracy
Gabrieli Words and Deeds Conspiracy
Gabrieli Convention Shenanigans Voting Conspiracy
Gabrieli Big Dig Connection Conspiracy
and the list goes on and on…
Your list of links is junk.
<
p>
Second is Ernie’s plainly tongue-in-cheek post questioning brownsville girl.
<
p>
Third is a link to an article which correctly states that Reilly and Gabrieli have taken contributions from employees of Big Dig contractors. Not exactly tin-foil-hat territory, either.
<
p>
The link that reads “Killer Coke” is anti-conspiracy theory.
<
p>
etc. Those are just the ones I clicked. I don’t care to wade through the rest of the rubbish.
You’re better than that. Or I thought you were, anyway. As Charley says, none of this is “conspiracy” stuff. Nor have you linked to similar “conspiracies” floated by Reilly and Gabrieli backers, of which there is no shortage.
the point was that whether the link was talking for or against the particular “conspiracy”, someone had been promoting it somewhere.
<
p>
And I’m not saying the other camps haven’t come up with their own. Everybody has them.
<
p>
But I have to say, that the “Foul Play” Suffolk Poll post in particular, is a good example, whenever bad news arrives, there is almost a knee-jerk reaction to find some conspiracy underfoot to explain away the discrepancy from “BMG reality based reality” and real world events.
<
p>
And yes I agree with your criticism that quality is better than quantity, but the point I was making was that, because this is a primarily “Pro-Deval” blog, chances are that an independent sample of the various “conspiracies” on all sides would probably come up with more pro Deval Patrick supporters who promote “Anti-Gabrieli and Anti-Reilly” conspiracies.
<
p>
In other words I don’t see much “critical thinking” going on by the pre Deval crowd. But to say “no
<
p>
<
p>
is a stretch………
OK, I’ll give you that one! 😉
I’m just damn amazed the RM found all those postig with conspiracy in it. He’s either a lot smarter than me or has way to much more time on his hands.
I don’t read Mr. Carr; I take umbrage at your insinuation that I do. No, I get my information from the O’Reilly factor and the morning show on WEEI. Ha, ha.
<
p>
I know that DP is not a flake from the left-most wing of the Democratic Party. That is almost 100% because I regularly read your blog, David.
<
p>
But if I did not read this blog, and most people do not, even if the hit counts skyrocket, my impression of the Deval Patrick for Governor campaign would be formed by (i) the campaign sign worn-like a sandwich sign- by the poor soul who spends almost every weekend, rain or shine, on a street corner near my house holding a home-made sign showing the latest tally of US soldiers killed in Iraq over a slogan “End it Now”; (ii) a short conversation with someone– a self-described activist, and not for the Club for Growth– in the checkout line at Whole Foods; and (iii) noticing that he seems very popular in Amherst. All earnest and commited people, but all tending to reinforce the notion that this guy Patrick is indeed, a moonbat candidate. He is a great candidate, for those that do the digging and search him out. But that is a tough way to run a campaign, no?
<
p>
All I am saying is that –true or not– Patrick’s image has been being defined by his opponents for several months, and that, to date, the response of his campaign seems to be “restraint.”
Thanks. I was mainly expressing frustration about something that I agree is a real concern and yet has no basis in reality. Welcome to politics, I guess.
should be considered an endorsement.
<
p>
( of course it puts the ashmont by way of wellesley vote on a lttle shakier ground )
At this point in the race, all I really know about Deval is that he is “for hope.” Oh yeah, I think I heard he grew up in Chicago, too.
<
p>
Seriously, though, I have seen Deval speak (between debates, forums, Party events, and other venues) probably a dozen or so times. And, in aggregate, he has been (it seems) roughly 75% bio, 25% issues and ideas.
<
p>
He grew up in a tough neighborhood in Chicago. He can “hope for the best and work for it.” So what? What does that mean or matter?
<
p>
It’s great that Deval hopes a lot and that he wants to end cynicism. It elates me. But Deval’s campaign, even more so than Reilly campaign, is still just a campaign of slogans. It really is.
<
p>
It’s not shocking that somebody could flip from Deval to Gabrieli. (I lost count of the number of Deval delegates at the convention who said that they were honoring their caucus commitment but would have been with Gabrieli if he got in earlier.) Gabrieli is occassionally criticzed for being “too wonkish” – criticize away, but it just indicates how substantive and policy- and goal-oriented Gabrieli is.
<
p>
Deval has the most oratorical flair of any gubernatorial candidate in recent memory. And, with Reilly’s January implosion, Deval was strong at the caucuses – both for his organizing AND Reilly’s implosion.
<
p>
But Gabrieli has the policy background, has been vetted thoroughly and has no skeletons, has been nominated statewide, IS PROGRESSIVE, is correct on the issues we care about, WOULD ACTUALLY BE A GREAT GOVERNOR, and has the resources to go the distance. Whether or not Gabrieli is your guy, you have to agree that he is an attractive candidate and that it is very reasonable to understand how someone could migrate toward his campaign.
<
p>
To me, that phrase symbolizes the most imporant theme of the campaign and the progressive ideology: pragmatic idealism. Setting a goal for greatness, and then “getting results”.
You can count me in the category of switching from Patrick to Gabrieli, or at least from “Leans Patrick” to “Leans Gabrieli.” But I’m probably not typical of many MA voters…
<
p>
For one thing, I am much more passionate and involved with national and international politics; state and local politics have just have never inspired my ongoing interest, with the exception of a few issue campaigns (like utility deregulation).
<
p>
I’ve been watching the MA governor’s race with one eye –mostly hoping that every trace of Pretty Mitt will be scrubbed from the state house– but also because I know a lot of folks involved in the Patrick & Reilly campaigns.
<
p>
My friends who are Patrick supporters have been genuinely passionate and likeable, eager to enlist my support, and so I was mostly swept-up in their enthusiasm. My Reilly-supporter friends have been less enthused, more dutiful and comparatively boring in the old-school machine politicking tradition. If the primary were held a month or two ago, I would have said, “yeah, put me down for Patrick, although I’ll eagerly support whoever wins the Dem primary.”
<
p>
Still, I’ve never climbed fully onto the Patrick bandwagon (e.g. put a bumper sticker or sign up or made a donation when asked) because I haven’t been totally convinced that Deval isn’t a bit of an empty suit (or rather, not such a full suit). I’ve met him twice at house parties and heard him speak in another venue in JP. He was good, but not great.
<
p>
On the other hand, I’ve felt Gabrieli is a deeper thinker, and probably would be a more capable governor than Patrick, but I was never convinced he had a chance given his late entry. I was also surprised to learn from a neighbor who drives a bus for the MBTA that his union voted to endorse Gabrieli.
<
p>
Now, however, the polls show Chris right in the mix (ahead in the latest Suffolk Poll). What pushes me over the top into Gabrieli’s column, though, is what makes me most unlike other MA voters: like Gabrieli, I’m originally from Buffalo, so I have a soft spot for the guy.
<
p>
If the vote were today, I’d vote for Gabrieli.
Although I’ve been married to a Buffalonian for over 20 years, and just got back two days ago from a lovely visit there–though, that is, I know up close and personal the loyalty the city inspires–I’d not endorse a Buffalo-based litmus test for the election. But if that is your criterion: were you at the 2002 convention? I was, and remember vividly how Lt. Governor candidate Gabrieli sought to win his audience over by larding his speech with jokes making fun of…Buffalo (you know, how lucky he is to be here, since he’s from there & etc.) Just thought you should know.
<
p>
P.S. My wife and her brothers went to school with Gabrieli. She remembers him as the smart and decent guy he still seems to be. But…she has no hesitation about her support for Deval over Chris–she says there’s no doubt which one is the more impressive candidate.
Predate Howard Dean by many years, Mike Dukakis built an amazing political infrastructure in this state that carried him to his original victory in 1974. Somewhere along the line, he lost touch with that organization and lost in 78 but put it back together for wins in 82 and 86.
<
p>
Oh yeah, he was the last Democrat to win the Governor’s office.
Dukakis won in ’74 on the strength of his “grassroots campaign” (never mind he was a MA legislator first, which for some nowadays means that one is outside the “grassroots”), and of course the reason he lost in ’78 was because he “lost touch” with that organization, only to find it again in the ’80s.
<
p>
Sounds like I could use anything in place of “grassroots support” in your paragraph to prove whatever point I wanted.
<
p>
See, Dukakis relied upon “institutional support” to carry him to victory in ’74, but of course once he lost that support in ’78, he lost to King. But, luckily for him he found it again in ’82 and won. The demonstrates the rich meaning and importance of having “institutional support”.
Deval Patrick has more information on his issues than anyone else running. Period.
<
p>
Apparently you need to go visit his website again.
<
p>
http://www.devalpatrick.com
<
p>
It’s all there to see, but you have to be willing to actually see it. If you’re willing to write a journal entry on BMG, one would think you’d be willing to be informed as well. Oh well.
Ryepower – This is, in part, what bothered me about Dean supporters, too. The mentality of “if you don’t agree with us, obviously you’re missing something.
<
p>
Deval has the most “text” on his site about issues – it doesn’t mean he has the most “information.” Much of it is just stuff from previous candidates and current advocacy groups, with Deval pointing to it and saying, “Hey, I’m for all that.” And some of it includes either unfeasible, undoable, process-ignorant, or just ridiculous things like “eliminating earmarks from the state budget.” Deval does have the most text, but that does not mean he is saying the most. He does, however, go on and on about how much he supports hope.
<
p>
And take note of Ryepower’s tone: “one would think you’d be willing to be informed as well. Oh well.” That is pretty rife with hostility. Ryepower, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Y’gotta wonder if Deval has hit his peak, with ambassadors like ryepower recruiting supporters with a warm, inviting attitude.
<
p>
Sorry to single you out, Ryepower, but your brief post kinda illuminates one point and proves another.
And, on this point, I wouldn’t bother apologizing to Ryepower. His response is typical of the offensive “you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with me” mentality so prevalent in some parts.
<
p>
Gabs, Reilly, and Patrick would all be good nominees. Period. I’m leaning to Gabs because I’ve been most impressed with his level of detail on policy matters, as well as his excellent work in MA. But all three candidates have roughly the same philosophy, and believe me, none of them want to be a toady to the legislature like some assume Reilly or Gabrieli would be. What is more important is that they have good ideas and be able to convince voters and the legislature alike that they are worth pursuing. Gabs does best on this score, IMO.
“You’re an idiot if you complain you don’t have the facts when the facts are readily available.” If you have a problem with his detailed position papers, that’s one thing. Critique them and show why they’re inferior to Deval’s opponents. But, you didn’t do that.
<
p>
If I appear hostile, I apologize. Perhaps I’m sick of trolls on BMG saying things that clearly aren’t true on an almost everyday basis.
<
p>
In other avenues, I try to be as kind and welcoming as Deval was when he visited UMASS.
…is tied up for me in this discussion.
<
p>
I’ve liked Deval from the beginning and nothing that Chris Gabrieli has said or done has swayed me, not even a little bit. Having said that, I understand that CG is a smart, decent, progressive guy and I would strongly support him if he wins the nomination.
<
p>
What stirs up my mid-life political angst is the “leadership” question. Deval inspires people, including me; the other two candidates fall short. We can talk until the cows come home about whether Deval is an empty suit, overplays his resume, has enough policy details, etc. — and the man is far from perfect — but he has leadership qualities that truly stand out.
<
p>
The strongest arguments being advanced for swaying Patrick voters to Gabrieli is that he’s a known quantity, more electable, less risky. Maybe all true. Is that the future of progressive democratic values in Massachusetts?
<
p>
We soundly defeated a tax cut referendum in 1990 because of leadership: there were strong, substantive voices of opposition within the democratic party with solid backing from within the Dukakis Administration. We failed in 2000 because the democrats had been reduced to warring tribes (remember Tom Finneran?) and now we’re fighting a defensive battle on taxes and government even though we have one of the lower state/local tax burdens in the U.S.
<
p>
I just have trouble seeing Chris Gabrieli appealing to public sensibility and turning this negative spiral around in any meaningful way. He’s already talking about casinos to avoid straight talk about taxes and I worry that he’s too beholden to the legislative leaders who got him on the ballot. His position on the Ruane pension is Exhibit A. The legislative process in this state is a complete joke. Despite CG’s noble intentions we’ll never make progress on the big issues (jobs, healthcare, housing) unless we have a progressive governor who sets the agenda and can stand up to the legislature from time to time with the public behind him.
<
p>
I hope that Chris Gabrieli and I both get the recognition we deserve in the Policy Wonk Hall of Fame. In the meantime, I’d like Deval Patrick to be my governor.
I really like this response. Well said!
lateboomer – I respectfully disagree with your premises that A) Gabrieli hasn’t shown leadership and that B) the strongest argument for Gabrieli is that he’s more electable (though he is – it’s just not the strongest point).
<
p>
On leadership, though the dynamics were not widely covered in the press, he worked with State Senate President Travaglini to lead the charge on stem cell research. Not solely the statewide media angle, but also looking at specific legislators that are otherwise-moderate but conservative on religiously-tinged issues and focusing on those districts to turn out supporters to lobby their legislators to come around on stem cells. Gabrieli led that charge and got the right thing done. Gabrieli worked with the Legislature and got legislators who were on the wrong-in-my-opinion side of the fence to come around.
<
p>
On arguments for Gabrieli, though I’ve listed these ad nauseum:
<
p>
-If you’re the type that votes for the most likely to beat the Republican, it’s Gabrieli because he routinely has the largest margin (by far!) in the polls over Healey compared to other Dems; and, yes, he has the personal bankroll to compete with Healey
<
p>
-If you’re looking for the “safest” then that is Gabrieli, too. Reilly has been a political debacle. Deval has terms like Ameriquest and Killer Coke and Boards of Directors and Labor Abuses and private Harvard social clubs swirling around. The Killer Coke stuff is bogus; the Ameriquest stuff is a bit more questionable; the private Harvard club is old hack. But it’s there for Healey to dangle in front of undecided and uninformed voters. Meanwhile, Gabrieli has been thoroughly vetted and there are NO skeletons.
<
p>
-If you’re looking for the policy wonk, it’s Gabrieli. Between his leadership of MassINC and his leadership of Mass2020, no one can deny he is the strong policy analyst of any of the candidates.
<
p>
-If you’re looking for private sector experience, it’s Gabrieli. Reilly has been a committed public servant. Deval has a lot of private sector experience, but that comes with the baggage of the skeletons. Gabrieli’s private sector experience wasn’t defending Ameriquest and Coke from litigation, but helping build companies and create jobs. A pretty easy spin there.
<
p>
-Most general election voters tend to go with the outsider over the insider when possible (see Romney v. O’Brien, 2002). While Reilly has been a terrific DA and a sound AG, he is an insider. Gabrieli and Deval are outsiders.
<
p>
-And if you’re looking for leadership, I’d say Gabrieli is as strong as Deval, if not strong. This is just judgment call. I can point to the stem cell scenario. I can point to a young Gabrieli leaving med school to help the family business. I can point to Gabrieli founding and leading Mass2020. What can Deval point to before 2005?
<
p>
I’ll give you that Deval is oratorically the best – but he also muddles stuff. See taxes. While Gabrieli has carved out a terrific, policy-perfect niche of 5.3 to 5.0 when economic indicators say it is viable to do so (yes, it pleases both sides of the fence, but it is also coincidentally the right thing to do), Deval has said a hard no to 5.0 leaving open questions in the mind of uninformed voters that he doesn’t want to “lower” taxes, so he must want to raise them. At least, that’s how Healey and her 5.0-tomorrow stance will frame it. Which do you think undecided moderate voters will find more appealing?
<
p>
Is Deval an empty suit? No. He has a good amount of what football analysts call intangibles. Style, flair, some leadership. But there hasn’t been demonstrated a critical mass of policy analysis substance and independent thought to make me say that would be as effective a Governor as Gabrieli.
“But there hasn’t been demonstrated a critical mass of policy analysis substance and independent thought to make me say that would be as effective a Governor as Gabrieli.”
<
p>
I know it’s hard to prove a negative, but what exactly is Patrick missing? Be specific.
<
p>
To be honest, I don’t think you can back up that point. Compare the discussion on health care on the two candidates’ websites. Patrick’s is comprehensive, Gabrieli’s is perfunctory. That’s just the nastiest, thorniest issue out there, and Patrick was out front, comprehensive, and bold on that issue, just as he was with Cape Wind — before we were all able to stare down Teddy Kennedy.
<
p>
This business about Patrick as an empty suit is just crap. He has done everything you could ask a candidate to do in terms of substance.
but you’re not swaying me!
<
p>
The stem cell example is classic inside baseball. (Sorry about the untimely baseball reference.) I fully appreciate that Chris Gabrieli is well known and respected and knows how to operate in that world.
<
p>
We have enough inside players in this state. Sometimes it feels like that’s ALL we have. I want somebody who can connect with the public and get us off the dime. I think a lot of other people feel the same way.
How about:
<
p>
<
p>
According to the Globe“Taking a closer look” at CG’s claims in June 2006.
How many Deval supporters will turn and vote for anyone OTHER than Gabrieli should he win the primary?
<
p>
Coastal Dem is mad because she was too late getting in on the Deval bandwagon – she had no choice but to go to Gabrieli to feel “wanted”. Give me a break CD
<
p>
RM – you’ll say anything to piss people off. You’re on the Gabs bandwagon for the same reason – you felt you were too late to the Deval table. You’re part of the machine politics in this state as far as I can tell by your posts….
<
p>
And WHO said that Deval lucked out at the CAUCUSES?
<
p>
LUCKED OUT? The guy had been working his ass off for over a year building the grassroots org that got him that nomination. Lucked out? *&$#)()_@# !
<
p>
There is so much disinformation in half these posts my eyes are bleeding…
<
p>
I think those were the early days. I regret to inform you but your assertions are way off base.
<
p>
I think Chris is a far superior candidate. Chris has accomplished things in both his professional (ie Corporate) and his personal (ie philanthropic) life that have showed his abilities to succeed and further his dedcication to Massachusetts. When I began supporting Deval, there was no Chris.
<
p>
In the early days it was just Deval, Bill Galvin (yawn and created his own problems wiht Bonifaz by flirting with running for Governor again and then backing out) and Tom Reilly (Kerry Healey is honestly better than him). So thus stuck with Deval. He seemed good enough and must have hired his speach writer from a castaway from the West Wing. But the more I listened the more I heard the same rhetoric and no substance. Then came the dreadful January two day period when Tom Reilly lost himself a race, Deval won the party endorsement at the Convention and Chris began to flirt with running by himself. While at this point I was already pretty involved in the Deval Campaign. But Chris threw his hat in the ring, got through the convention without my help and now I was free to support him without fear of daggers in my back for even speaking with Chris at the Convention.
<
p>
Unfortunately, you are blinded by your support for your candidate as to not be able to see that others in this community can make educated, rational and fact based decisions to the detriment of your annointed candidate. It happens and I have a feeling a lot of average voters that don’t read BMG will be making the same decisions to your candidates detriment. How ever will the DP find them all and question their patriotism and progressiveness for going against God’s gift to Massachuesetts Deval.
I’ve always been with who I consider the “best” candidate for Massachusetts, which means I was with Deval Patrick after hearing him and Reilly speak in January 2006.
<
p>
<
p>
The problems (for the Deval campaign) came when I decided to help Chris get on the ballot because I thought his voice should be heard and not silenced. Apparently that was too much for the Patrick campaign and the pressure started to mount. Finally I said, the hell with it I’m sticking with Chris, at least you can talk to him without having talking points mindlessly repeated to you as a persuasion technique.
<
p>
——————–
As far as saying anything to piss people off, I look at it the way Harry Truman did:
<
p>
<
p>
And finally to address your last question:
<
p>
<
p>
I said it, because he was “unchallenged” at my caucus and many others. Ask anyone who’s been around state politics for a while, and I think you’ll get a fair assessment that Deval deserves credit for fielding delegate slates, but basically they were unopposed at the caucuses. I heard enough of similar evidence to be convinced that what I saw at my causcus was a common occurance that day. So, ya, I say lucked out, because had Reilly mounted the tradidtional effort, we wouldn’t be hearing so much about this “massive grassroots” field organization.
The point where Brownsville Girl lost me was when she claimed Deval was ‘winning people over without much substance’. She couldn’t be more wrong. The night I decided I was going to support Deval was when he came and spoke at the Stoneham Theater back in April. He gave a prepared speech for about 10 minutes and then opened the floor up for questions. He had a thoughtful, honest, reasoned answer for every issue that was brought up that night and I came away convinced that this was the real deal. Its been a long time since a politician told me something I didn’t think I already knew, but Deval taught me some things that night. Running an issues based campaign involves more than blanketing the air waves with 60 second TV spots that can’t begin to address the complexities and tradeoffs that will impact the agenda of the next governor of this state. If you’re really looking for substance, Deval’s your guy.
<
p>
The other point that I think the original post misses is the role that leadership plays in governing. You can believe in all the right issues, you can even have some great ideas about how to solve problems, but if you can’t persuade and inspire people to support you you’re doomed to fail. How is it a bad thing that Deval is inspiring so many of Brownsville Girl’s progressive friends to support him, work for him, and donate to his campaign? By contrast, what does it say about Chris Gabrieli’s leadership skills that virtually all of his campaign financing is coming out of his own pocket? Sure he’s got some good ideas, but nobody is following him into battle.