p>I know many folks won’t agree with me that this is a shame. I know many folks talk the talk of the big tent, but have no patience for Tim Cahill or the thousands of Democrats who share his point of view. However, as a person who will still vote for Deval Patrick over Tim Cahill next year, I think this decision is in many ways a loss for the Democratic Party as well as Cahill.
<
p>For all the noise of his echo chamber, Deval Patrick has nothing resembling a monopoly on the beliefs of the rank and file of our party — that much was evident in the reaction to his effort to dumb down the party platform. I am not saying that Patrick + Cahill represent all of the party’s spectrum, either — there really is little leadership in the party for people who oppose predatory gambling, who support labor rights, or favor a preserving our current model of public education which leads the nation on any number of standardized test regimes.
<
p>However, Cahill did represent a loud and different voice within the party. It was a voice not trapped in procedural skirmishes over fiefdoms as DeLeo’s and Murray’s have been, but a voice more clearly linked to policy and political differences. Cahill represents something older than Deval’s message, and with deeper roots within the party — suspicion of government beyond traditional issues, a wariness of picking winners in the state economy, a vision of the government that consisted of setting conditions for you to have enough to eat and leaving you alone beyond that. Cahill was doing more in his own way to force a debate within the Democratic Party than anyone else. He represented the lunch-bucket Democratic tradition suspicious of post-industrial spending and projects, a tradition so often reviled by followers of the Gospel of Axelrod, even though it is essential to the longterm health of the party in the Commonwealth.
<
p>More immediately, people who aren’t comfortable with Deval’s concept of politics, policy, or the Democratic Party now have a place to go. And those people are being pushed on one end, pull on the other. Tim Cahill’s followers will form a pull to complement the push of Deval Patrick’s followers. While those same Axelrodian acolytes practice the purge of the new believer, Tim Cahill’s campaign will offer them a kinda-Democratic home. He will pull many people out of the Democratic Party that this chorus of new arbiters is pushing out.
<
p>In the long run, I don’t think Independent Tim becomes governor, not least of all because he looks like a wuss for bailing on a primary fight. But I do think that when the votes are counted, people who supported him will have a much thinner connection to the Democratic Party, especially after the bitter fires of a campaign have burned them with vitriol. The debate within our party will narrow even more, the number of persuadable voters will rise and the window of opportunity for a competent Republican Party will be wider than any time in many years.
frankskeffingtonsays
…but I think you’re giving Tim Cahill way to much credit. Cahill is more a hack with an ego, then the balancing crusader you make him out to be. I agree with your post, but I’ll insert a mythical character every time you wrote “Cahill”.
He hasn’t fully taken advantage of that space yet, but the sad fact is that he has more than anyone else.
lynpbsays
If Cahill runs, it will be much more about his narcissism than about offering an alternative vision for the Commonwealth.
jimcsays
Cahill’s fights have felt more opportunistic than ideological. I agree with you that he could represent a certain point of view — Clintonism, if you will — but he hasn’t really delivered, in my view. He just seemed impatient with being treasurer.
amberpawsays
But Cahill didn’t miss out on being elected as a Democratic National Committeeman, in my opinion, because of who he did or did not endorse for president [admission, yeah, I voted for Cahill for Democratic National Committeeman].
<
p>Cahill lost to Arthur Powell simply because more of the State Democratic Committee knows Arthur because he writes a newsletter to the SDC most months, sometimes more than once a month, and is a work horse everyone on the SDC knows personally.
<
p>Nothing against Arthur, but I voted for Cahill based on other factors then how much SDC work Arthur did vs. Cahill.
<
p>Any politician who wants support from within the SDC needs to show up at the SDC and communicate, FYI.
christophersays
I’m pretty sure the Powell/Cahill race was for unpledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention rather than for a seat on the Democratic National Committee.
christophersays
Who’s going to seek the Democratic nomination to be the next Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth?
kthikersays
Sheriff Mike Belotti
Sheriff Guy Glodis
Senator Mark Montigny
Rep. Tom Conroy
is my State Representative and has done a superb job in the limited time he has served (he is now in his second term). He has a strong background in economics (MBA from Boston University), and wrote a financial analysis of Deval’s casino proposals. He showed that the casinos would not deliver the promised revenue benefits.
<
p>His integrity is unquestioned. He turned out the most recent legislative pay raise and has played a leadership role in passage of the reforms demanded by Gov. Patrick, especially pension reform.
<
p>Prior to serving as a State Representative, he had extensive experience both in the public and private sectors. From his website (http://www.tomconroy.org):
<
p>”He worked in the public sector for nearly ten years, where he managed a refugee resettlement program in Southeast Asia for the U.S. State Department, conducted military budget analyses for a Washington think tank, helped write speeches for Senator Gary Hart (D-CO), and served as a foreign policy and national security assistant for Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).”
<
p>While it is highly unusual for a second term legislator (with limited name recognition outside his district) to run for statewide office, and Tom has not indicated interest in doing so, I can imagine him as Treasurer playing a major role in addressing the inefficiencies and corruption that have plagued our state.
<
p>I want to emphasize that I have not been in touch with Tom since Cahill’s move. He has not encouraged this posting and is not aware of it.
<
p>Michael Bate
<
p>
cater68says
Tim Murray might be looking for an exit strategy. The guy is slowly suffocating. Maybe he’ll seek to ride out the Baker years in the Treasurer’s office.
I hear Deval is not long for Mass. and Timmy is teeing up a run for Gov…
jhgsays
from the link in the post to today’s Globe story:
<
p>
Cahill, a fiscal conservative, has told supporters he feels estranged from the Massachusetts Democratic party, whose tax and spend philosophy, he says, is more liberal than his own.
<
p>In other states, people with this point of view would be Republicans. We can argue over types of taxes, types of Government solutions, where cuts should be made and where there should be more spending. But if you don’t believe in using Government to solve problems, why be a Democrat?
kbuschsays
Yes, they would be Republicans if the teams were divided more evenly.
<
p>No, they should not be Republicans as the Republicans have gone nuts.
If it’s nutty Mihos then that’s fine, but this probably got Baker’s attention as Cahill will peel away Patrick voters. No chance Cahill wins but he could hurt Patrick.
If Baker or another Republican is going to win, he needs the mass of people who are registered Independent, right? And isn’t that where Cahill’s support starts?
<
p>My initial betting is on Patrick in a Patrick-Cahill-Baker three-way. With those two opponents, a lot of his very effective 2006 campaign organization will show up again, and 40% might be enough to win.
That’s the Cahill campaign in my book. Where’s the organization going to come from? His committee website hasn’t had a working email address in six months.
Very few people who would otherwise have voted for Patrick will say, “hey great, Cahill’s running as an indie, I’ll vote for him instead.” There are basically two kinds of voters for 2010: pro-Deval, and anti-Deval. Cahill will split the anti-Deval vote, thereby making it much easier for Deval to win reelection.
johnksays
(we know it the recession) but Patrick is still the Gov. Some Dems could be upset, they don’t vote Republican but they vote Cahill. There are a lot of shades of blue here in MA. A Dem is not a Dem, just too many around here. Cahill will stammer around saying that he’s a fiscal conservative, blah, blah, I see it as plausible.
ed-poonsays
I think this is spot-on. 2010 will be largely a referendum on Patrick. Any division of the “anti-Patrick” voting bloc will bolster his chances of winning re-election. I would bet that Rubin, Plouffe, etc., are toasting Timmy today.
<
p>Also, how many hypo Cahill voters do you think pulled the lever for Deval in 2006? I obviously haven’t seen polling on this, but my suspicion is that he draws a lot of 2006 Mihos voters: South Shore independents who don’t like Deval but can’t quite bring themselves to vote for a Republican (esp. an aristocratic one like Muffy).
fdr08says
Deval will be OK. He showed some leadership during the budget debate (not much before that). If he continues in leadership mode and avoids hackery (appointing friends and supporters to high paying positions)and the economy improves re-election is assured.
<
p>If the economy remains in the tank or double dips (like 1980 & 1982) all incumbents will be vulnerable.
stomvsays
But, he won’t have much of a mandate with 43% of the vote as a lame-duck governor with a legislature far more interested in protecting their job and personal interest by minimizing “tough votes”.
ed-poonsays
a legislature far more interested in protecting their job and personal interest
Deval Patrick was elected in 2006 with a lower percentage than any other successful Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the country save for Jim Doyle. He acted as if he had a huge mandate, and folks on this site claimed one for him as well. I don’t see Deval hesitating to implement his idea of Democratic governance based on vote totals, as he hasn’t before.
stomvsays
Deval Patrick won 55-35 (20 point spread)
<
p>AL: R 58-42 (16 point spread)
AK: R 49-41 (8 point spread) AR: D 55-41 (14 point spread)
CA: R 56-39 (17 point spread)
CO: D 56-41 (15 point spread)
CT: R 63-35 (28 point spread)
FL: R 52-45 (7 point spread) IL: D 50-40 (10 point spread) IA: D 54-44 (10 point spread) ME: D 38-30 (8 point spread) MD: D 53-46 (7 point spread)
MI: D 56-42 (14 point spread)
MN: R 47-46 (1 point spread)
NV: R 48-44 (4 point spread)
NY: D 69-29 (40 point spread)
OH: D 60-37 (23 point spread) OR: D 51-43 (8 point spread)
PA: D 60-40 (20 point spread)
RI: R 51-49 (2 point spread)
TX: R 39-30 (9 point spread) WI: D 53-45 (8 point spread) (Jim Doyle)
<
p>Soo… wrong? Yip. In addition to the Wisconsin caveat, he isn’t lower than Maine, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon.
<
p>Not helpful? Yip. For one thing, to just consider D wins instead of all governor wins when talking “mandate” doesn’t make sense. Of the 22 races, Patrick came in T-9. In terms of spread, Patrick came in T-4. To me, that’s a strong win.
I’m not trying to seem snarky, but I looked at the numbers back after the election so I wouldn’t mind seeing an update — are these all 2006 numbers?
<
p>I find absolute total more useful than spread because all a spread says (as in Maine ’06 or Vermont ’10) is how divided the opposition is. Patrick had a divided opposition in 2006, and may have a divided opposition in 2010, depending on what you think of Cahill.
stomvsays
google for 2006 election results. Any major national newspaper will have them all. Or, you could look up any given race using the state and check each one.
<
p>As for totals — they’re meaningless. The spread matters. When the spread doesn’t add up to 98+, you know there was a split race.
<
p>Interestingly, there were quite a few races that added up to 90- in 2006: AK, IL, MA, ME, and TX.
(source of announcement)
<
p>I know many folks won’t agree with me that this is a shame. I know many folks talk the talk of the big tent, but have no patience for Tim Cahill or the thousands of Democrats who share his point of view. However, as a person who will still vote for Deval Patrick over Tim Cahill next year, I think this decision is in many ways a loss for the Democratic Party as well as Cahill.
<
p>For all the noise of his echo chamber, Deval Patrick has nothing resembling a monopoly on the beliefs of the rank and file of our party — that much was evident in the reaction to his effort to dumb down the party platform. I am not saying that Patrick + Cahill represent all of the party’s spectrum, either — there really is little leadership in the party for people who oppose predatory gambling, who support labor rights, or favor a preserving our current model of public education which leads the nation on any number of standardized test regimes.
<
p>However, Cahill did represent a loud and different voice within the party. It was a voice not trapped in procedural skirmishes over fiefdoms as DeLeo’s and Murray’s have been, but a voice more clearly linked to policy and political differences. Cahill represents something older than Deval’s message, and with deeper roots within the party — suspicion of government beyond traditional issues, a wariness of picking winners in the state economy, a vision of the government that consisted of setting conditions for you to have enough to eat and leaving you alone beyond that. Cahill was doing more in his own way to force a debate within the Democratic Party than anyone else. He represented the lunch-bucket Democratic tradition suspicious of post-industrial spending and projects, a tradition so often reviled by followers of the Gospel of Axelrod, even though it is essential to the longterm health of the party in the Commonwealth.
<
p>More immediately, people who aren’t comfortable with Deval’s concept of politics, policy, or the Democratic Party now have a place to go. And those people are being pushed on one end, pull on the other. Tim Cahill’s followers will form a pull to complement the push of Deval Patrick’s followers. While those same Axelrodian acolytes practice the purge of the new believer, Tim Cahill’s campaign will offer them a kinda-Democratic home. He will pull many people out of the Democratic Party that this chorus of new arbiters is pushing out.
<
p>In the long run, I don’t think Independent Tim becomes governor, not least of all because he looks like a wuss for bailing on a primary fight. But I do think that when the votes are counted, people who supported him will have a much thinner connection to the Democratic Party, especially after the bitter fires of a campaign have burned them with vitriol. The debate within our party will narrow even more, the number of persuadable voters will rise and the window of opportunity for a competent Republican Party will be wider than any time in many years.
…but I think you’re giving Tim Cahill way to much credit. Cahill is more a hack with an ego, then the balancing crusader you make him out to be. I agree with your post, but I’ll insert a mythical character every time you wrote “Cahill”.
He hasn’t fully taken advantage of that space yet, but the sad fact is that he has more than anyone else.
If Cahill runs, it will be much more about his narcissism than about offering an alternative vision for the Commonwealth.
Cahill’s fights have felt more opportunistic than ideological. I agree with you that he could represent a certain point of view — Clintonism, if you will — but he hasn’t really delivered, in my view. He just seemed impatient with being treasurer.
But Cahill didn’t miss out on being elected as a Democratic National Committeeman, in my opinion, because of who he did or did not endorse for president [admission, yeah, I voted for Cahill for Democratic National Committeeman].
<
p>Cahill lost to Arthur Powell simply because more of the State Democratic Committee knows Arthur because he writes a newsletter to the SDC most months, sometimes more than once a month, and is a work horse everyone on the SDC knows personally.
<
p>Nothing against Arthur, but I voted for Cahill based on other factors then how much SDC work Arthur did vs. Cahill.
<
p>Any politician who wants support from within the SDC needs to show up at the SDC and communicate, FYI.
I’m pretty sure the Powell/Cahill race was for unpledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention rather than for a seat on the Democratic National Committee.
Who’s going to seek the Democratic nomination to be the next Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth?
Sheriff Mike Belotti
Sheriff Guy Glodis
Senator Mark Montigny
Rep. Tom Conroy
He’s more redass than the GOP.
is my State Representative and has done a superb job in the limited time he has served (he is now in his second term). He has a strong background in economics (MBA from Boston University), and wrote a financial analysis of Deval’s casino proposals. He showed that the casinos would not deliver the promised revenue benefits.
<
p>His integrity is unquestioned. He turned out the most recent legislative pay raise and has played a leadership role in passage of the reforms demanded by Gov. Patrick, especially pension reform.
<
p>Prior to serving as a State Representative, he had extensive experience both in the public and private sectors. From his website (http://www.tomconroy.org):
<
p>”He worked in the public sector for nearly ten years, where he managed a refugee resettlement program in Southeast Asia for the U.S. State Department, conducted military budget analyses for a Washington think tank, helped write speeches for Senator Gary Hart (D-CO), and served as a foreign policy and national security assistant for Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).”
<
p>While it is highly unusual for a second term legislator (with limited name recognition outside his district) to run for statewide office, and Tom has not indicated interest in doing so, I can imagine him as Treasurer playing a major role in addressing the inefficiencies and corruption that have plagued our state.
<
p>I want to emphasize that I have not been in touch with Tom since Cahill’s move. He has not encouraged this posting and is not aware of it.
<
p>Michael Bate
<
p>
Tim Murray might be looking for an exit strategy. The guy is slowly suffocating. Maybe he’ll seek to ride out the Baker years in the Treasurer’s office.
I hear Deval is not long for Mass. and Timmy is teeing up a run for Gov…
from the link in the post to today’s Globe story:
<
p>
<
p>In other states, people with this point of view would be Republicans. We can argue over types of taxes, types of Government solutions, where cuts should be made and where there should be more spending. But if you don’t believe in using Government to solve problems, why be a Democrat?
Yes, they would be Republicans if the teams were divided more evenly.
<
p>No, they should not be Republicans as the Republicans have gone nuts.
đŸ˜‰
If it’s nutty Mihos then that’s fine, but this probably got Baker’s attention as Cahill will peel away Patrick voters. No chance Cahill wins but he could hurt Patrick.
If Baker or another Republican is going to win, he needs the mass of people who are registered Independent, right? And isn’t that where Cahill’s support starts?
<
p>My initial betting is on Patrick in a Patrick-Cahill-Baker three-way. With those two opponents, a lot of his very effective 2006 campaign organization will show up again, and 40% might be enough to win.
That’s the Cahill campaign in my book. Where’s the organization going to come from? His committee website hasn’t had a working email address in six months.
A debate with Cahill, Patrick, and Mihos? Wow! That would be a fun time….
Patrick D 51%
Cahill I 25%
Mihos C (crazy) 24%
Very few people who would otherwise have voted for Patrick will say, “hey great, Cahill’s running as an indie, I’ll vote for him instead.” There are basically two kinds of voters for 2010: pro-Deval, and anti-Deval. Cahill will split the anti-Deval vote, thereby making it much easier for Deval to win reelection.
(we know it the recession) but Patrick is still the Gov. Some Dems could be upset, they don’t vote Republican but they vote Cahill. There are a lot of shades of blue here in MA. A Dem is not a Dem, just too many around here. Cahill will stammer around saying that he’s a fiscal conservative, blah, blah, I see it as plausible.
I think this is spot-on. 2010 will be largely a referendum on Patrick. Any division of the “anti-Patrick” voting bloc will bolster his chances of winning re-election. I would bet that Rubin, Plouffe, etc., are toasting Timmy today.
<
p>Also, how many hypo Cahill voters do you think pulled the lever for Deval in 2006? I obviously haven’t seen polling on this, but my suspicion is that he draws a lot of 2006 Mihos voters: South Shore independents who don’t like Deval but can’t quite bring themselves to vote for a Republican (esp. an aristocratic one like Muffy).
Deval will be OK. He showed some leadership during the budget debate (not much before that). If he continues in leadership mode and avoids hackery (appointing friends and supporters to high paying positions)and the economy improves re-election is assured.
<
p>If the economy remains in the tank or double dips (like 1980 & 1982) all incumbents will be vulnerable.
But, he won’t have much of a mandate with 43% of the vote as a lame-duck governor with a legislature far more interested in protecting their job and personal interest by minimizing “tough votes”.
“far more”? Is that really possible?
Deval Patrick was elected in 2006 with a lower percentage than any other successful Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the country save for Jim Doyle. He acted as if he had a huge mandate, and folks on this site claimed one for him as well. I don’t see Deval hesitating to implement his idea of Democratic governance based on vote totals, as he hasn’t before.
Deval Patrick won 55-35 (20 point spread)
<
p>AL: R 58-42 (16 point spread)
AK: R 49-41 (8 point spread)
AR: D 55-41 (14 point spread)
CA: R 56-39 (17 point spread)
CO: D 56-41 (15 point spread)
CT: R 63-35 (28 point spread)
FL: R 52-45 (7 point spread)
IL: D 50-40 (10 point spread)
IA: D 54-44 (10 point spread)
ME: D 38-30 (8 point spread)
MD: D 53-46 (7 point spread)
MI: D 56-42 (14 point spread)
MN: R 47-46 (1 point spread)
NV: R 48-44 (4 point spread)
NY: D 69-29 (40 point spread)
OH: D 60-37 (23 point spread)
OR: D 51-43 (8 point spread)
PA: D 60-40 (20 point spread)
RI: R 51-49 (2 point spread)
TX: R 39-30 (9 point spread)
WI: D 53-45 (8 point spread) (Jim Doyle)
<
p>Soo… wrong? Yip. In addition to the Wisconsin caveat, he isn’t lower than Maine, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon.
<
p>Not helpful? Yip. For one thing, to just consider D wins instead of all governor wins when talking “mandate” doesn’t make sense. Of the 22 races, Patrick came in T-9. In terms of spread, Patrick came in T-4. To me, that’s a strong win.
I’m not trying to seem snarky, but I looked at the numbers back after the election so I wouldn’t mind seeing an update — are these all 2006 numbers?
<
p>I find absolute total more useful than spread because all a spread says (as in Maine ’06 or Vermont ’10) is how divided the opposition is. Patrick had a divided opposition in 2006, and may have a divided opposition in 2010, depending on what you think of Cahill.
google for 2006 election results. Any major national newspaper will have them all. Or, you could look up any given race using the state and check each one.
<
p>As for totals — they’re meaningless. The spread matters. When the spread doesn’t add up to 98+, you know there was a split race.
<
p>Interestingly, there were quite a few races that added up to 90- in 2006: AK, IL, MA, ME, and TX.