Kim sez Reilly is bleeding supporters; this time it’s Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera of Springfield. From Gabs’ press release:
Rivera had been supporting Tom Reilly, but she is now throwing her support behind Gabrieli.
I am convinced that Chris Gabrieli is the candidate with plans to create jobs and improve the economy that will put Massachusetts back on the map, Rivera said. Chris is the only candidate in this race with a responsible plan to roll back taxes, and he understands what we need in Springfield and Western Massachusetts.
And Kim adds:
She joins other lawmakers who have switched from Reillys camp to Gabrielis, including Reps. Colleen Garry [Dracut] and David Nangle [Lowell] and Sen. Richard Moore.
Interesting dynamic, but about what you’d expect given the state of Reilly’s campaign. And it’s a little amusing that Rivera would wait so long.
But it’s also interesting to note in today’s new polls the recipient of Reilly’s, uh, electoral largesse: It’s Patrick. Based on supposed ideological “positioning”, you might expect them to go to Gabrieli.
But you have to imagine that at least some of the former Reilly folks were soft supporters, based on name recognition; and that folks are drawn to Patrick’s charisma over Gabrieli’s earnestness. Or perhaps they were impressed by Patrick’s performance in the debate.
Either way, I think it may well be proof that people are attracted to a candidate with a bold profile, with a message based on broadly shared and easily understood values. I like Gabrieli’s emphasis on a functional government that “gets results” — and we will surely demand results regardless of who’s elected — but Patrick’s approach gives the voter much more of a sense of his true north. I suspect that now that folks are paying attention, they’ll respond well to that.
All caveats to the fluidity of the race are in effect, but it’s getting to the 9th inning, and Patrick’s campaign is looking strong. Can they close?
Update: Changed headline to something more respectful. No offense intended.
Stick with your candidate ’til the end. There is support and there is SUPPORT! Reilly hasn’t been to bed with a kive boy or dead woman. This says more about the turncoats than Reilly.
I disagree. If someone preferred Reilly but thinks Reilly’s gonna come third, and has a strong preference between Patrick & Gabrieli, then continuing to support Reilly could seem like a waste to them. They want to affect the decision that matters. It’s just like a voter who votes for their second choice candidate because they think their first choice candidate doesn’t have a chance, and it matters to them to help their second choice win.
<
p>
It does suck that people have to make strategic choices like this based on their guesses about how other people are thinking. It sometimes twists results in very strange ways. The solution is instant runoff voting – then you can keep backing your Reilly, and recommend a #2 vote for the Patrick or Gabrieli of your preference.
My thoughts exactly, Cos. IRV is item 4 in Bonifaz’s Voters’ Bill of Rights.
<
p>
I hope that whoever wins next Tuesday does so with a resounding majority and a nice burst of energy going into the general. It’ll be awfully disappointing to end up with another nominee who wins even though 2/3 of the party voted for someone else (as was the case with O’Brien in ’02).
<
p>
With IRV, the nominee is the one with the broadest support within the party and therefore most likely to do well in the general. In fact, I wonder if the absence of IRV is the reason the Republicans keep winning: Dems are so split between so many candidates that the result is a weak nominee.
<
p>
The solution is not to have fewer candidates. That’s anti-democratic. The best solution is to make sure the winner is the one who actually has majority support, and the only way to do that is with IRV.
<
p>
I think Reich would have beaten Romney. At the very least, the debates would have been much more entertaining.
<
p>
And I’m DELIGHTED to see the eds endorsement of Bonifaz.
A person’r word should mean something. Some of those pols that switched have a history of trouble with keeping their word.
…but these representatives are moving from a leaky rowboat in the harbor onto the Titanic.
“Minimax” is the game theory strategy of minimizing the maximum posible loss. It is the safe choice of most politicians.
<
p>
With that in mind, this is a no-brainer, since Gabrielli can reward his supporters even if he loses.
<
p>
Blather about the dynamic results-oriented etcetera is part of the package.
They won’t get much from Gabs. He probably doesn’t have much respect for them
I got a letter from Sen. Therese Murray, on campaign letterhead, asking me to support Tom Reilly.
<
p>
Some people remain loyal.
but I wonder if some of these politicians understand loyalty.