Patrick’s favorability rating has dropped sharply over the past seven months, with just 36 percent of respondents holding a favorable opinion of him, and 52 percent viewing him unfavorably. As recently as December, 64 percent of voters viewed him favorably.
The governor’s job-approval rating, sampled after Patrick scored several major legislative victories but also approved $1 billion in new taxes, is even worse, with just 35 percent of respondents approving and 56 per cent disapproving of his performance. Just as ominously, 61 percent said the state is on the wrong track, compared with 31 percent who said it was headed in the right direction, down from 44 percent in December – numbers reminiscent of voters’ mood before Patrick captured the corner office from Republicans in 2006.
This part is nothing short of shocking:
Without Cahill in the race, the poll indicates, Patrick runs behind or even with the two potential Republican contenders. The newest GOP entrant, former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care chief executive Charles D. Baker, tops Patrick 41 percent to 35 percent in a head-to-head matchup. Baker beats Patrick even though more than six in 10 respondents said they knew little about the Republican.
The other Republican candidate, former Turnpike Authority board member Christy Mihos, runs about even, getting 41 percent to Patrick’s 40 percent, even though nearly two in five respondents said they viewed Mihos unfavorably.
Two out of five people view Mihos unfavorably, but two out of the remaining three are willing to vote for him?
No wonder the governor is holding so many town meetings.
One of the most damaging findings in the poll for Patrick was that most Massachusetts residents do not believe he has brought change to Beacon Hill, a core tenet of his 2006 gubernatorial race and a key aspect of his political persona.
This poll is almost too negative. Maybe a rainy June made people cranky.
Massachusetts residents also apparently believe that one-party rule on Beacon Hill has not worked. After 16 years of Republican governors, Patrick’s 2006 victory brought Democratic dominance to the State House. But a plurality of voters surveyed – 46 percent – prefer divided government; even 28 percent of Democrats said so.
One more tidbit that surprised me.
A majority of respondents – 57 percent – said they support Patrick’s plan for casino gambling in three locations in Massachusetts, a slight increase from previous Globe polls. The public overwhelmingly wants resort casinos, which Patrick has pushed, over slot machines at racetracks, which House Speaker Robert DeLeo strongly favors. Sixty percent of respondents favored resort-style casinos, compared with 12 percent preferring slots at racetracks.
The rainy June, again? I wish I had a casino to visit.
I have to assume this will make the governor think about his options.
As a supporter of Patrick, I certainly do not think this poll is good news. But, given that the other candidates are all largely unknown and unexposed to the public spotlight at this point, I don’t see these numbers as insurmountable for the governor.
Deval was the “who?” guy before and he came out on top, so don’t even think about getting comfortable just because, with the election a year out, the opposition is “who?” right now.
Certainly someone could run a smart campaign and make it a real race. I’m just saying that Baker, Cahill, and Mihos’ numbers will look different after a lot more public scrutiny. Different how? I don’t know, but they could go down as easily as up.
… for ‘who’ you really are. There’s nothing magic or intrinsically campaign-worthy about being the ‘who’ guy…
The poll didn’t go into the topic of education, but I believe it is a critical reason why Deval has lost support since his election.
<
p>When you are involved with K-12 education on a local level, you learn about the issues that resonate with the voters. You gain an acute sensitivity when you are elected as a school committee member.
<
p>From a very Deval-friendly community (shall we say, the heart of his 2006 base), here are the concerns:
<
p>- sharp increases in user fees for full-day kindergarten and sports.
– elimination of elementary librarians due to budget cuts.
– reduction in electives and increases in class size.
– lack of books, supplies, and technology in the classroom.
– teacher recruitment and retention. (Our salary scale is not competitive with neighboring communities, and just the threat of layoffs creates an exodus of our best young teachers.)
<
p>There is a sense that, since 2003, there has been a steady decline in the resources available for public schools that resulted in a decline in the quality of the schools. The gain in test scores run counter to the public perception of the quality of the schools.
<
p>Deval had the opportunity to capture this feeling through the Readiness Commission, but there was a structure built that effectively filtered out the grassroots in favor of the views of some of the folks at the top of the food chain. As a result, the governor’s current education initiatives are too much Paul Reville and not enough grassroots. Right now, we have groups organized as grassroots Readiness Committees organizing to oppose the governor’s education initiatives.
<
p>There’s still time for Deval to turn this around. The best thing that can happen to Deval is for the legislature to quickly and humanely kill his education initiative, then reconnect with the voters before another candidate forges and articulates a position aligned with the voters view of public schools. Charlie Baker won’t, but Mihos and Cahill certainly can.
<
p>There’s still time. But not very much time.
Class size, school librarians, teacher pay, increased user fees, and classroom resources, how are any of these the fault of the Governor? Tax revenues are way down due to the economy, but by all accounts the Governor advocated for limiting the impact on local aid supporting education as much as possible, and he supported increased revenues and local options taxes to increase communities’ flexibility in dealing with fluctuations in local aid.
<
p>Imagine being in a state with a Governor opposed to additional revenues and what that would do to classrooms.
<
p>
<
p>We had that when Mitt Romney was governor.
<
p>We are policy wonks. The “at least he’s not Romney” line works for a while, but we are now 3.5 years into the term and we are comparing Deval to potential challengers, not Mitt.
<
p>The governor’s recent education proposals are tone-deaf to the perception of the needs in the community. For the governor to effectively connect with the voters, his education proposal must connect to the real and perceived needs in the Commonwealth.
<
p>The governor’s education policy doesn’t address the needs in the minds of the voters, and go against some of his core promises. If I were able to advise the governor, I would immediately:
<
p>* fulfill the promise to reform charter school funding. The people in Gloucester don’t know the governor cares about funding, class size, user fees, et al, because the governor’s appointees made the situation worse in a questionable approval process for a charter school.
<
p>* the governor failed to go all the way in reforming the state board of education. The prohibition on licensed educators serving on the board must go. Educator licensure and sanctions must be in the hands of a board that contains a majority of members of the profession, not excluding the profession from any say in its own standards.
<
p>* the governor needs to get some seasoned K-12 educators in his core advisers. The awful education proposal is a function of poor advisers, as much as anything else.
<
p>He also needs to do these things quickly, before one of his opponents decides to define himself on the issues of public education. If Deval loses a key element of his base, he’s history.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the education proposal has anything to do with the Governor’s current poll numbers. Who but a handful of activists even knows what’s in that proposal? And are the elements that bother you things that are problematic for teachers (more charter schools) or parents (many of whom want charter school options for their kids)?
“Who but a handful of activists even knows what’s in that proposal?”
<
p>Nearly every public school employee knows. That’s a lotta people.
Maybe it would get the endless rehash of Gatesgate off the frontpage.
<
p>What I’d to understand is whether the proposal just steps one of the teachers’ unions’ corns or whether it’s really problematic for kids.
I was saying that this proposal will have political impact because it is understood among a politically active group of significant numbers.
Charter school polling in MA (and nationally) is through the roof. It’s something like 3 to 1. It’s only gone up since the President began a full court press for more charters.
<
p>Of course many voters don’t really know what charters are.
<
p>They don’t know if MA charters are
<
p>Unimpressive schools which get more public money per kid and get the same results or worse results — with easier to educate kids — when they’re not “laughing all the way to the bank” and draining local coffers, per Sabutai and local/union officials
<
p>or
<
p>High-performing urban schools where, with less money per student than traditional schools, kids who win lottery admission significantly outperform the kids who don’t, in many cases closing the Achievement Gap, per the DOE study and the Boston Foundation study
<
p>* * *
<
p>Still, the polling is the polling. Few voters can explain a single thing about the various health care reform proposals but they have opinions. Same with charters.
<
p>Yes the public employees anchor the “1” in the 3-to-1 results, but not clear that’s a smart political move.
<
p>The only thing that polls higher than charters in education is merit pay to reward the best teachers.
The Boston Foundation study pamphlet is grasping at straws. The more I look at it, the more I wonder how seriously we can take a “study” carefully published with a doe-eyed picture of a sympathetic student on the cover. In terms of depth of time, rigor, and breadth of study, the Wisconsin Charter Schools Study is a superior academic project, and – big surprise! – shows no significant difference in performance between charters and public schools. This is a study that has much more impressive academic rigor and resulted in conclusions that the authors clearly did not want. Either charter co-ordinators are just stupider in Wisconsin than they are in Massachusetts, or the Boston Foundation study is an outlier based on a tiny dataset that merely found what everyone who arranged it were desperate to find.
<
p>It is a statement of fact that “charters drain local coffers”, not some he said/she said. That’s how they’re funded. And I haven’t seen anyone say they get more money per child, but rather the same amount for, as you accurately say, more money per child.
<
p>Obama, Deval and Arne Duncan are playing fast and loose with the truth about charters, and their legal and funding frameworks. No wonder support for charters is going up — advocates seem to care little for honesty on the subject. Remember when everyone thought George W Bush was a great president, and that we should invade Iraq? Popularity is such a good indicator of truth, wouldn’t you say?
<
p>PS: More cold, hard reality from the Upper Midwest — charters in Minnesota resemble Ponzi schemes more and more…
You prefer a study from 2004 on Wisconsin schools without any sort of empirical controls for selection bias (which you’ve previously raised concerns over)
<
p>to a 2008 study of Massachusetts schools with an almost perfect design of comparing the charter lottery winners versus losers, to entirely control for issues of whether “the good kids” go to charters, and simply leaving the question of what happens among identical kids who attend charters?
<
p>Let me ask you this question.
<
p>If I can get the author of the Wisconsin study you cite, to comment specifically on the Boston Foundation study, and say that he believes the Boston Foundation study has a better design than his own, will you concede the validity of that study once and for all?
I’m not so sure the comparison is fair, even though it tried to compare lottery winners vs. losers, because I think it makes perfect sense that if you take a kid who has expressed interest in learning (or whose parents have) and take him from a school with a lot of kids who don’t have that desire, and place him with others who have similar desires, he will probably fare better.
<
p>Now when you consider that the funding that charter schools receives is based on the district-wide average — factoring in both easy-to-educate and hard-to-educate kids — it also makes sense that the charter kids are having more money spent on them from a per-need perspective.
<
p>Consequently, since the resources are being taken from the kids left behind — those whose parents didn’t choose charters — those kids are getting less money spent on them from a per-need perspective.
<
p>I don’t deny that charter schools benefit individual kids. It’s just that they harm other kids in two ways — one, by reducing the funding available to those left behind, and two, by concentrating the hard-to-educate kids to the point where they can’t be easily educated. And if the public ever decides to try and spend more money on the public school kids (who need it, since they are all concentrated in the same place), the charter schools really make out, because any additional money they get is gravy.
Nice two-step there, Goldstein. I merely note that the study shows that charters have no effect even though it was set up with empirical conditions to favor charters. The study was stacked against it, yet the dataset of minimal improvement withstood these errors. On the other hand, there is a “study” coordinated by pro-charter people from top to bottom that stands against the mass of scholarship on the issue.
<
p>What about Standford‘s new study based on 2,403 charter schools? Were you hoping I wouldn’t mention that one either?
<
p>The Boston Foundation study had a better design. That doesn’t mean it is a perfect one.
are part of the “just don’t stand there – do something” kind of response to the challenges of education. Rather than actually find solutions to sticky problems, government officials are creating a “separate, but equal” system that drains tax dollars from public school systems, cherrypicks the best students, and leaves the disabled and disenfranchised at the doorstep of the town/city schools with which to deal. This is not innovation in education. This is the same old, same old elitist BS that has been repackaged and resold to a populace that is desperate for a solution.
<
p>Why is it elitist? Because the town’s elite (the children of the politicians, chamber of commerce, etc.) are the first ones through the door. Because the disabled and tougher kids to manage are coerced into leaving. Because there’s no oversight – there’s no accountability to the people who are footing the damned bill. Trustees are often family members of the people employed at the school, far from the independent observers they need to be. Some of these charters are incestuous little pools….where the big fish prowl and the little fish get nothing.
<
p>
What do you see there that has any attraction for someone concerned about education? Cahill opposed new revenues. I assume the Republicans will take that stance as well.
<
p>3.5 years…
<
p>Elected Nov 2006.
<
p>Took office Jan 2007
<
p>It is now July 2009.
<
p>I count 2.5 years… or slightly more than halfway…
The wrong number flew off my fingertips, and when it settled into BMG it became forever fixed 1.0 over the actual value. I wish I could have edited the post to fix it.
I suspect many of you got the same email I did today from the Patrick campaign with their take on these numbers.
Here’s the talking points.
“Keeping our commitment to public education.” In order to be effective, talking points need to align with the reality of the voter. This is a tough sell.
A “needs work” for the talking points. “Entrenched interests” can swing a poll? I don’t think so.
<
p>But they are right that there is plenty of time. And I need hardly say that that is a double-edged sword.
I’ve done some research and the following claim by Doug Rubin is not supported by the facts.
<
p>
<
p>Sienna College which polled registered voters, in July, showed David Patterson’s numbers at 36% approve 56% unfavorable.
<
p>Governor Strickland of Ohio has a 46% approval rating amongst Registered Voters according to Quinnipiac as of early July.
<
p>Charlie Crist of Florida has a 57% favorable to 36% unfavorable rating according to Rasmussen Reports interviews of 500 likely voters.
<
p>Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania has an approval rating of 39%A – 53%D according to Quinnipiac in late July.
<
p>Governor Corzine of NJ has a RCP average of 36% approve 55.5% disapprove.
<
p>Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire has an favorability rating of 62% favorable to 24% unfavorable according to UNH.
<
p>Public Policy Polling group shows North Carolina Governor Bev Purdue with 25% approval 56% disapproval rating.
<
p>Quinnipiac has Governor Jodi Rell of Connecticut recently at a 65% approval, 30% disapproval rating.
<
p>Public Policy Polling shows Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana with a job approval rating of 55% approve to 38% disapprove. This poll was taken last week.
<
p>Tarrance shows Colorado Governor Ritter with a 44% approve to 45% disapprove rating. This poll was taken in late June.
<
p>Survey USA has a list of monthly tracking polls that they release. Below you will find the results of these surveys of adults as of 6/23/2009.
<
p>Alabama Approval Rating Governor Bob Riley – 59% approve – 37% disapprove
California Approval Rating Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger – 24% approve – 73% disapprove
Iowa Approval Rating Governor Chet Culver – 42% approve – 51% disapprove
Kansas Approval Rating Governor Mark Parkinson – 46% approve – 36% disapprove
Kentucky Approval Rating Governor Steve Beshear – 48% approve – 46% disapprove
Minnesota Approval Rating Governor Tim Pawlenty – 47% approve – 50% disapprove
Missouri Approval Rating Governor Jay Nixon – 55% approve – 36% disapprove
New Mexico Approval Rating Governor Bill Richardson – 48% approve – 47% disapprove
New York Approval Rating Governor David Paterson – 18% approve – 75% disapprove.
Oregon Approval Rating Governor Ted Kulongoski – 39% approve – 56% disapprove
Virginia Approval Rating Governor Tim Kaine – 53% approve – 40% disapprove
Washington Approval Rating Governor Christine Gregoire – 37% approve – 55% disapprove
Wisconsin Approval Rating Governor Jim Doyle – 33% – 61%
<
p>I quickly found a representative sample of 22 governors’ polls that are readily found on the internet. With Governor Patrick’s poll from The Boston Globe that makes 23 polls.
<
p>Of the 23 total polls using Governor Patrick’s 36% approval number, 5 other Governor’s have the same or lower approval than Governor Patrick, one has a point higher, and 17 are significantly higher than Governor Patrick’s. Perhaps Doug Rubin would like to share the other 21 polls that show other governor’s at or below Patrick’s numbers. This would allow him to use the word most.
<
p>I have found no other polling data from either RealClearPolitics or Pollster.com or through google searches for any other governor than those listed.
in the same comment you have Patterson with 18% approval and 36% approval, pretty significant difference.
I doubt Patrick’s numbers have nearly as much to do with casinos or education policy as they do with the simple fact that the economy (and the state’s budget situation) is terrible. Much of this is beyond the Governor’s control, but whether or not it is fair, people want to take out their frustrations on somebody.
<
p>The unfortunate thing for Patrick is that there is little that he can do at this point — he simply has to hope that the national economy (which he has no control over) rebounds. That he is losing or equal in this poll with someone most people don’t know (Baker) or a buffoonish-like character in Mihos months before the election is a terrible sign for the incumbent. Does this mean Patrick will lose? Not necessarily. But incumbents polling well below 50% and even behind unknown challengers at this stage usually spells defeat for the incumbent. It is safe to say that Patrick is considerably more than an even-money bet to lose next fall, particularly if the economy doesn’t markedly improve.
One more factor that may contribute here.
<
p>We like to talk about state politics, but most voters don’t follow it that closely.
<
p>Most voters conflate federal and state concerns (except about defense). So what’s happened in the last 7 months of the Gov’s falling numbers?
<
p>Over the past 7 months is when President Obama rolled out the stimulus.
<
p>Nationally….
<
p>*There’s some slippage in support for the $787 b stimulus.
<
p>*Combine that with expensive health care proposals, with numbers like $100 b per year.
<
p>*Combine with no obvious savings in other areas (7 fighter jets just symbolic, no downsizing of military as Iraq troops move to Afghanistan).
<
p>So voters combine broad anxiety about jobs with anxiety about deficits.
<
p>Whatever the causes for the Gov’s decline, I wonder if an “it’s the economy stupid” Clinton-like focus is the way to shore up support among independents.
<
p>
The bad economy is hitting all governors equally, including the once-untouchable Jodi Rell in Connecticut. However, as pointed out elsewhere, he is actively pushing people away on issues such as gambling and education, and that has little to do with the education.
<
p>If Cahill and Baker can self-define, rather than be defined, they have a good shot. Looking far ahead though, I can picture a scenario where all three are in the high 20s, then either Cahill or Baker start to stumble, and start bleeding some support from one to the other.
Some people I talk to blame the governor for everything. They blame him for the sales tax hike even though that’s not what Gov Patrick was hoping for. Either no one knows about or finds little importance in the governors fight for reform, because no one ever talks about it.
<
p>It seems people don’t get the huge role the legislature plays in making these decisions.
<
p>The people I’m talking about are people who vote, but are not active in politics. They hear and see news clips here and there. They get together and hash over inaccurate information. They have selective hearing and vision. They hear “tax hike” and all sense of reason ends there. They never know the underlying story, the effort an elected official may have put forth to effect change.
<
p>These people have to be taken seriously. They vote lacking the information they need to make a good choice.
<
p>The only thing the governor can do is get out there and talk, talk, talk. Send out press releases. Send out flyers. Explain his reform before revenue stance. This showed strength and resolve to fight for better government. Not too many people even know he did that.
<
p>So let’s here it Governor Patrick. I know you’ve been trying. You’ve been to Western Ma quite a few times lately. You’re reaching poor areas and schools. You’re forgetting about the middle class. Come and visit a few small towns
in Western MA for a special event. Just “pop in” to a restaurant for lunch. The local news would be there in minutes. You could talk about all of the efforts you made at making Massachusetts a better place. You wouldn’t believe what a difference that would make. It would be huge.
It seems like Deval Patrick is getting it from both ends – at least the articles (and their accompanying comments) portray it that way.
<
p>People who don’t want to pay more taxes are complaining about the sales tax increase. People who don’t want services cut are complaining about the reductions in services.
<
p>The challenge for Deval Patrick is to convince the voters who were with him in 2006 that the choices he made were the best available. He’s never going to attract the voters who call him “Devil”, “Cadillac Deval”, or even the 7% who listed him as this state’s biggest problem. He never had those voters on his side.
<
p>Christy Mihos says “when people are hurting, you never increase taxes”. That should be pretty easy to rebut in a debate — “So, what would you have done, Christy? What services would you have reduced or eliminated?”
<
p>If his opponent makes this election about the recent past, then Deval Patrick has to get his opponents to commit to what pain they would have inflicted. Let the public know what would have happened under a different set of philosophies — because it’s pretty obvious to me that there was no magic bullet that Patrick missed.
<
p>He can’t let them speak only in the generalities that are so common — like Tim Cahill saying “I would have cut more from the budget”. What would you have cut, Tim? Cops? Teachers? Local Aid? Library Funding? UMass? Nearly every cut affects someone in some way.
<
p>Deval Patrick needs to point out the stark philosophical differences between himself and a Republican. He needs to remind voters of his priorities, both when times are good and times are bad. He needs to point out that when the economy does recover, his opponents won’t do the same things he will do.
<
p>It’s easy to knock a sitting governor when the economy tanks. It’s easy for voters to complain when asked “are you happy?” However, given the available opponents, I know that Deval Patrick is a far better match to my political philosophies than Christy Mihos, Tim Cahill, or Charlie Baker, because those candidates have one arrow in their quiver — “taxes” — and while I think that taxes should be kept as low as possible, and that lowering taxes can occasionally stimulate the economy, I’m not stupid enough to believe in the idea that cutting taxes magically raises state revenue.
<
p>Bottom line is that without the tax increase that was taken, we’d all be faced with reduced local services because Local Aid has always been one of the first items on the chopping block with Republicans in office.
<
p>I thought it was conventional wisdom that much of the general public in Massachusetts views the Legislature in “low esteem”.
<
p>I have always assumed that that particular conventional wisdom has been documented by many public opinion polls over the years. Hence candidates for Governor run “against” the legislative leadership als Weld, Romney or reform Governors organize a public campaign for their reform aganda “against” the unreformed legislature ala Dukakis in his first term and Patrick.
<
p>So is this conventional wisdom or not. Is is documented in Polls over the years? So is it significan that more of the people in Massachusetts view our Legislative body as more capable of dealing with managing the state budget crisis than they do the Governor?
<
p>I think policy change wonks find that piece of data much more interesting than the who are you going to vote for results. And it will certainly inform the strategies of advocates and legislators as over rides are considered next week.
According to the tag that appeared with it the paper. I wonder if anti-incumbent sentiment is greater in that type of sample – if the results would look a little better for the Governor if likely voters or registered voters were polled.
<
p>I agree with those who see the economy as a key factor in the numbers. With nearly 9% unemployment in Massachusetts, a lot of people are hurting. It’s grossly unfair to hold a state Governor at fault for a national recession spurred by a Republican president’s military adventurism and fiscal imprudence, but the reality is that people will – whoever holds office when times are tough will come in for a share of voter anger.
<
p>I hope Patrick can turn around public perception, though. He’s actually done a decent job in a difficult situation.
I happily voted for Patrick in the 2006 Democratic primary and the general election. I was enthusiastic about his candidacy and looked forward to his governship.
<
p>I think he has done OK as governor and has had the misfortune of being elected right before a major economic slowdown. I don’t that he ever really recovered from the negative press stories after his inauguration. Also, by not completely distancing himself from DiMasi around the time he was re-elected Speaker, he is now viewed as just another Democratic establishment figure to a good deal of voters. Deval Patrick is starting to look like damaged goods at this point in time.
<
p>BUT – it is still early. Even though I might vote for another candidate next time around, they are going to have to really prove to me they can do a better job than Patrick.
<
p>AND – the only people I would support against him would be someone in a Democratic primary or the Green-Rainbow candidate in the general election. If it’s a Patrick-Baker-Cahill election, then I just might give my support to the Greens and help elevate their status and policy proposals here in the state.
<
p>One party states are never good. No matter the party.
but you’d consider voting for someone other than Patrick if they prove they can do a better job, why would you vote for the Greens? If an issue you have is one party control, the only vote you can make to eliminate 1 party control would be to vote for the Republican candidate.
Republican philosophy of governance – or rather, the lack of philosophy – is repugnant. Why would someone who would vote Green or Dem on the principles supported by those parties EVER vote Republican?
<
p>Sorry, that’s a no brainer. Absolutely silly.
I don’t support a lot of Republican policies, especially on the federal level, so I don’t see myself supporting Baker or Mihos.
<
p>I think Patrick still has a shot at further reforms in ethics rules, transparency, and basically distancing himself from the Beacon Hill power structure. DiMasi and Deleo are cut from the same cloth, IMO. Patrick still has time left in his first term to impress me and gain my support. I do think a principled, reformist Democratic governor can be “independent” from the party establishment. That also prevents one party rule in a way.
<
p>I have supported a lot of Greens in the past (Jill Stein for Governor in ’02, David Cobb for president in ’04, James O’Keefe for Treasurer in ’02 and ’06, among others) and find their 10 Key Values much more in line with my own beliefs than the Democrats. However, they have not grown in the way I expected them to after Nader’s run in 2000.
<
p>I’m currently registered Green-Rainbow as well.
Those two facts – “we” who read BMG, and attend events like today’s 3rd Middlesex Area Democrats picnic are the worker bees of the party. I note that Lt. Gov. Murray, Sen. Eldridge, “the” Kate Donoghue [well it was how she was introduced albeit over her protects], Ways and Means Chair Charles Murphy, etc. were there – as well as the heads of so many town Democratic Committees I lost count.
<
p>We in the BMG community [whether progressives, centerleft, moderate, or even our Republican minority] tend to follow issues, read newspapers as well as blogs, and even major studies of matters of policy.
<
p>Many of us are the “go to people” on issues not just for other Democrats in our towns, but for independents.
<
p>As to random polled residents of Massachusetts – some of whom may not even be registered to vote, I am predicting a poll of BMG account holders would be different in its result – but not representative really.
<
p>What forms the opinion of that “general electorate” that these polls allege they depict? I am wondering if any of you regulars can answer that question.
<
p>In reading Delores Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals which I heartily recomment to one and all – according to Kearns Goodwin, Abraham Lincoln was able to mold public opinion and get a copy of a letter he had written into 10,000,000 [that is right, ten million, not a typo]American homes. In hard copy.
<
p>Can Governor Patrick do that?
I demand some affirmative action for my minority status. Say…an exta 5 votes in such a poll?
Few know Baker or Cahill. The more they learn, the more likely it is I think Patrick will be just fine.
Nobody knows Baker or Cahill. If they define themselves, they have a decent shot. If Deval defines them, or it’s a wash, I think Deval wins.
Though your argument may work better for Baker than Cahill, because Baker is less well known. At least in this poll, about 65% of the respondents had an opinion of Cahill one way or another. Although I didn’t think so at first, I think Cahill actually has a legitimate shot at winning (particularly if several unions endorse him).
He’s liked across Dems, GOP, and Independents in the poll…GOP more than anywhere else. Some guys I know from Quincy said he was reviled by the unions there, so I’m not holding out much hope for those endorsements though.
I was thinking about the finding that Cahill creates a three-way tie if he runs, which means, if correct, that I have to admit that I was wrong. I hate that.
<
p>So here is the comment I’ll be retracting next month (gotta get back on that horse):
<
p>
<
p>
http://www.google.com/musicl?l…
My favorite is “King of the Hill,” which many Minutemen fans would diss me for. Double Nickels? No thanks.
I said back then as I say now that Cahill should poll about 20-30% in a general election pulling away DEMOCRATS who don’t like Deval, the last Survey USA poll showed that was around 50-60% of DEMOCRATS, who don’t want to vote for a Republican because of guilt by association with Bush. Frankly, Baker isn’t helping himself appeal to anti-Deval democrats by calling himself a Weld Republican since many people don’t remember Weld too fondly.
<
p>My parents and most of my extended family at a July 4th party all said they liked Cahill. Their experience was based on the Tim for Treasurer ads, their dislike of Deval, and their fear of voting for any Republicans again. This was a good cross section of people from the North Shore, Cambridge, Arlington and Chelmsford among other places.
<
p>Frankly I think if Cahill had gotten on the ballot he would’ve beaten Deval and given the Democrats one last chance to keep the Corner Office. But he knew he wouldn’t get 15% at John Walsh’s convention, now he plays spoiler and keeps Deval in second maybe even third place on the general ballot.
<
p>Like I said, he is now a third option for people that would have held their noses for Deval cause they hate the Republicans.
62% of respondents think that program cuts are the key to resolving the fiscal crisis and, yet, 59% are opposed to the cuts to the zoo budget.
<
p>This is obviously just one program, but far too many people truly believe that there are $1Bil worth of friends and relatives on the state payroll- that we can balance the budget tomorrow simply by hacking waste with no actual cuts to the services people want.
<
p>If we can have an honest discussion of the costs of services, the Governor will be re-elected. If not, he has his work cut out for him.
<
p>Why is that?
<
p>
<
p>Because an honest discussion of the costs of services will show A) just how constrained the governor is by circumstances and 2) not allow other candidates to position themselves as somehow ‘better’ by ignoring the constraints that they’ll be operating under as well…
Who is impeding this honest discussion?
I don’t think anyone’s impeding this conversation, per se, but my point is the Governor needs to lead with it. Every time Mihos,et al talk about cuts, he need to reply “Show me the money.”
<
p>The Globe did a series of sexy exposes on pension abuse, but where was the context, the dollar amounts compared to, for example, the cost of paving 128? The Taxachusetts crowd doesn’t want to talk about that, because it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, so the Governor has to emphasize it himself or else he’s going to be fighting on their turf and if the debate is about drapes and Marian Walsh, it’s already over.
No one is in a better position than the governor to drive the discussion.
NM
Since it will require him to admit he will raise taxes and that will kill his chances.
<
p>…and any opponent he has will be able to lie and say they won’t raise taxes…
<
p>Makes perfect sense… in bizzaro world.
<
p>The entire Democratic establishment in the CommonWealth, minus Tim Cahill, has already had the debate about raising taxes and we have a new sales tax rate as a result. Unless you’re suggesting we hire a Republican superhero in the Schwarzenneger mold, that is someone to mindlessly parrot a poorly translated ideology in stubborn opposition to Democratic initiatives, then the Republican alternative will be required to admit also that he may raise taxes…
Cahill initially just said that he would not have raised taxes. Of course, that article was heavy on the tax criticism, and devoid of alternatives, letting his quotes go through unchallenged, like “We cannot continue to go back to the taxpayers for more money. We cannot expect to grow our way out of a recession in a consumer-based economy by going and adding more taxes to consumer spending”. Great journalism. Not.
<
p>Kudos to Cahill for later getting more specific — he later said that he would prefer “deep cuts in the state’s landmark effort at universal healthcare, calling it a luxury taxpayers can no longer afford.” Of course, the math doesn’t quite add up. $1 billion in tax increases isn’t offset by $88 million in healthcare [a number produced by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foudnation, a business-funded group that advocated for the healthcare law].
<
p>People who advocate for spending cuts rarely tell the public what they want to cut — and the press (and other candidates) let them get away with it far too often. Get Cahill (and Mihos and Baker) to tell the public specifically what they would eliminate, get them to make their numbers add up, and then let the public decide.
<
p>When faced with closing zoos, libraries, parks, laying off police, firefighters, extending the wait at the RMV (I waited 45 minutes to renew my license — something I had to do in person because I needed a new photo), the extra $1.50 on a $100 purchase may not seem so bad. Problem is, most people believe that the $1 billion is just going to buy lobster for a bunch of welfare queen illegal immigrants who then get into their Escalade to get their nails done before catching some pay-per-view movies on their HDTV.
If I recall one candidate said he would raise taxes and be honest, the other said he would not even though the experts said he would have too to balance the budget. Guess which candidate lost 49 states?
<
p>yes it was the honest one, his name was Walter Mondale.
<
p>In case you didn’t notice the voters are willing to elect Republican superheroes from Ahnuld to the Gipper if it means not having to pay taxes. If Baker is smart, politically, then he will oppose all tax increases and say he will cut before taxing, and then ride a nice wave into the Corner Office.
<
p>You are living in bizarro world if you think honesty with the voters about taxes is a winning political strategy.
who refused to pledge to NOT raise taxes. Moderate-to-liberal voters will respond well to a thoughtful discussion about raising taxes.
I said Deval was done way back in February. That Baker is leading doesn’t surprise me, that Cahill leads in a three-way race doesn’t surprise me either. The majority of the voters are in an ‘anybody but Deval’ mood and anyone who bothered to spend anytime with voters outside of the immediate Boston area would know that Deval is toast. Anyone who spent anytime reading anything about the state outside of the BMG bubble would know.
<
p>That someone is surprised by either of these polls, or the high polling by Cahill who I consistently have said will draw more Democratic votes from Deval and actually help Baker which this poll proves, demonstrates how the ‘reality based’ moniker is really misplaced on this website sometimes.
<
p>Brace yourself, Deval is going to lose.
Before we get into the serious handwringing, let me ask if anybody else is thoroughly mystified by the poll results…?
<
p>Specifically, the questions on “Who do you trust more to handle the states budget crisis” and “Do you agree or disagree with the statement Deval Patrick has brought reform to Beacon Hill.” which breaks down thusly:
<
p>Whom do you trust on budget:
Deval Patrick 23%
State Legislature 40%
Both equally 5%
Neither 27%
Don’t Know 4%
<
p>Has Deval brought reform:
<
p> Strongly agree 6%
agree somewhat 19%
neutral 4%
disagree somwhat 21%
strongly disagree 41%
do not know 8%
<
p>Which, on the face of it, seems pretty straightforward. But wait… Here’s what those polled had to say in response to two OTHER, extremely relevant, questions:
<
p>”Please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of this person, or if you have never heard of him or her:
<
p>Speaker of the House Robert Deleo
<
p> Favorable 18%
Neutral 11%
Unfavorable 22%
Do not know 49%
<
p>Senate President Therese Murray
<
p> Favorable 20%
Neutral 7%
Unfavorable 19%
Do not know 54%
<
p>So, 40% say that they trust the legislature (that they know little about) to take care of the budget over Patrick: in both questions regarding DeLeo and Murray, the “Don’t know” plus “unfavorables” is a great deal larger than the favorables… and a great deal larger than similar ratios for Deval Patrick.
<
p>In fact, if you use the favorable/unfavorables on Murray and DeLeo to extrapolate whom they might trust to do a better job on the Budget you’d come to the conclusion that they trust Deval Patrick more… So there’s a contradiction here.
<
p>And you’d be hard pressed to take seriously the notion that they know anything about reform on Beacon Bill, though they say they do, if they don’t know anything about who’s running Beacon Hill…