First, and perhaps most important, a positive message that appeals to something far greater than a party or an individual, can trump anything, especially negative campaigning. In the gubernatorial, Deval Patrick stuck by his guns, responded to criticisms, and kept to a positive message of hope. In my campaign, we tried to do the same, although, obviously, not to the extent the Patrick did. A politics of hope is about far more than being optimistic; its about aspiring to create a better tomorrow, starting today. People are tired of politics as usual; they’re ready and eager to be challenged, so long as they know those for whom they cast their vote are working with their best interest in mind.
Second, the primary taught us that, no matter how hard fought they may be, contested primary elections are a good thing. Deval Patrick is a better candidate for the challenges AG Reilly and Chris Gabrieli laid down and I know I am a far better Democratic nominee for the 4 other candidates – Chris Hodgkins, Helen Sharron, Margie Ware, and John Zelazo – I faced off with throughout the summer. In the Berkshires, much like throughout the State, conservatives anoint their candidate and clear the field. Not only does this hurt their candidates, but it shows the true color of their party. Debate and dissent are discouraged, if not forbidden, and doors are closed to those looking less for a party and politicians and more for more leaders.
The final lesson of the primaries is that the conventional wisdom is, as was so wisely said, only conventional because it is convenient. In a world where its just as easy to turn off politics as it is to turn off a TV, the 2006 primary saw a great deal of disaffected voters “check back in.” This trend can be directly attributed to Deval Patrick, no matter how hard I try to claim some of it. Patrick ignored the conventional wisdom and went directly to the voters, with his message, ideas, and energy. In so doing, he changed the face of politics in this commonwealth, this party, and God willing, the future.
The next 7 weeks will be a battle – a battle for the soul of this great Commonwealth. We Democrats – candidates, organizers, and voters alike – would do well to remember the revolutionary spirit of this land. While the founding fathers poured their blood and sweat into the fight for freedom, we should do the same in the fight for a better tomorrow. As the greatest President this land has ever seen said, “Now begins another long journey taking me into your cities and towns … Give me your help, your hand, your voice, your vote. Recall with me the words of Isaiah: ‘They that wait up the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up the wings as Eagles; they shall run and not be weary.'”
Friends, denizens of BMG, and the like, we have won a great victory, but we are nowhere near finished. Let us come together and work to take back the soul of this Commonwealth, let us run and not be weary.
I am embroiled in the only recount in the state – the GOP primary for Fourth Barnstable. We had THREE GOP primaries down here on Cape – where is the annointing going on? I could use the rest!
You are in the midst of this silliness? Peter? Whose signs are you stealing anyway?
<
p>
was the punditry proclaiming that light turnout favored Patrick and/or Reilly, while heavier turnout favored Gabrieli. The theory was that a greater percentage of Gabrieli’s supporters were less solid than supporters of the other two, so if turnout went up, it would be more of those casual Gabrieli voters who showed up. There was absolutely no weight given to the possibility that the Deval Patrick candidacy may have inspired and motivated thousands of people to go to the polls who otherwise wouldn’t have.
<
p>
This may have something to do with the Howard Dean candidacy. Analysts who saw pundits burned by predicting Dean as the front-runner in Iowa and N.H. may be more leery and skeptical of believing in “people power” and the netroots.
<
p>
Conventional wisdom often applies the lessons of the last election to the current one, without understanding that the dynamics, and players, are very different. (Misunderstanding history is a common phenomenon. That’s why we ended up grossly misapplying lessons from WWII to Vietnam, lessons from Vietnam to the Balkans, and lessons from Bosnia to Iraq). 2006 is actually a very different time from 2004. And Deval Patrick is a different candidate, running a different kind of netroots-supported campaign, than Howard Dean.
My prediction was that both light turnout and heavy turnout would favor Patrick (catch-22? well, perhaps).
<
p>
In the 2004 presidential primaries, a consistent pattern was that Dean was overwhelmingly winning among voters who picked a candidate 3 weeks or more before their primary election day, and Edwards was overwhelmingly winning among voters who picked a candidate in the final 3 days. Kerry was winning because he had some following among both of those groups as well as the in-betweens, and with the early commitment and last-minute voters splitting between Dean and Edwards, he came out ahead.
<
p>
Deval Patrick has the Dean thing: committed early grassroots & netroots support, “people powered” campaign. He also has the Edwards thing: sounding the most hopeful and positive and inspiring of the candidates, if you only see a few ads or hear one speech or read a few articles in the final week. I expected Patrick to win a majority among both the early commitment voters and the last-minute voters, as well as be competitive with the in-betweens.
<
p>
Light turnout: The most committed voters predominate.
Heavy turnout: Candidate who last-minute voters break for gets advantage.
<
p>
Gabrieli & Reilly’s biggest chance, in my estimation, would have been a moderate turnout where voters who weren’t especially committed but not last-minute, were a majority. Though as it turns out, it seems Patrick would’ve won in that case also.
Thank you for posting here, Ben. When I heard Nuciforo was retiring, I remembered that he had been the lead sponsor of the Massachusetts civil liberties resolution, stepping up early for the ACLU. I wondered who would replace him, and ended up supporting Chris Hodgkins. But as the people from B4PC said, we had several great candidates in this race.
<
p>
Tuesday night, your race was one of the few I kept checking on boston.com, reloading it (along with governor, lt. governor, and secretary of state) when I had brief moments in between phone calls at the Chang-Diaz office. It was close, with different candidates winning different towns, though I realized even before the last “big” city (North Adams) reported in, that you were going to win narrowly. 7,574 to 7,333, wow, what a nailbiter.
<
p>
Please stick around Blue Mass Group. We’d like to know more about your campaign, and what sort of senator you’re going to be.
<
p>
And you’re right about contested primaries. May you have more, and more motivated, voters in November.