1. Where do you stand on abortion/choice?
2. Where do you stand on same-sex marriage?
3. Where do you stand on casinos and slot machines?
The answers to those three questions will tell us a lot about how viable Baker’s candidacy really is. Assuming he beats Christy Mihos in the primary, he’s obviously got to bring in a lot of independents and a decent number of unhappy Democrats to win. Cahill’s stand on slots (along with Governor Patrick’s stand on resort casinos) has given him a huge opportunity to do so — but the anti-gambling crowd won’t go with someone who they see as suspect on social issues.
I hope someone asks those questions at his presser later today. Wish I could attend myself!
CLARIFICATION: Apparently, I was less than clear about why I want to know the answer to these questions, as readers both here and elsewhere have misunderstood why I posed them. So let me be clear: I am not saying that these three issues are what is going to drive the election — they’re not. I am trying to figure out whether Charlie Baker can win. As sabutai has explained, the math is not easy for him as long as Tim Cahill stays in the race. But one possibility that occurs to me is for Baker to pick off some liberals who probably voted for Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary but who hate casinos. If Baker appears solid on hot-button social issues (liberals will not support someone suspect on those issues) but says he will oppose slot machines and casinos, all of a sudden he becomes the last best hope for the anti-casino crowd to keep casinos out of the state. That could let him cut into Deval’s base, and that could change the math that sabutai correctly notes is difficult as long as Cahill is viable.
The first one isn’t going to change in massachusetts, and the second one is so 2000-late.
<
p>What his view, and the view of the other candidates on number 3 is the only thing that will ever have an actual impact on Massachusetts citizens in the future.
I am a DLP-backer, and I’m happy to slam Baker on his Welducci record. But I don’t think screaming about social issues is wise, relevant, or fair. I feel like that was the O’Brien campaign strategy in 2002. We don’t need a retread of that.
…
<
p>As a leading figure in the healthcare industry, I’d like to know about his views, and what they say about him, regarding two issues, whole or in part, that are significantly tied to the issue of health care.
<
p>Personally, I see abortion as wholly a healthcare issue: It’s a medical procedure. And the marriage equality debate orbits around the abstracts of ‘benefits’ and ‘spouses’ both of which are integral to the issues he, presumably (as the head of a major health care conglomerate), deals with daily.
<
p>In the same way I was interested in Deval Patricks views as a lawyer, litigator and corporate, I’m interested in Bakers views as a health care industry leader. I very much think the questions, and his answers, are very much germane.
<
p>
<
p>Is cosmetic surgery a health care issue? I’m not talking about reconstruction after tragic accidents or diseases; I’m talking about “plastic surgery” in the Hollywood sense. Definitely a medical procedure, but only a health care issue in as much as we as a society want to ensure that those procedures aren’t overly dangerous.
<
p>In no way am I comparing an abortion to plastic surgery except to point out that nearly 100% of heart surgeries occur because a doctor says to the patient “you need this surgery.” This is distinctly different from both cosmetic surgery and from abortion, where the percent of “you need this procedure” is a far lower percentage of the total number of procedures. Areas where the doctor doesn’t say “you need this surgery” are far more complex, and may entail far more than simply calling it a medical procedure.
<
p>Safe, legal, rare. Sounds like we might be near the same page. In the panoply of medical procedures there are ‘elective’, ‘options’ and required procedures. The elective procedures are the ones you’re discussing. I think they form a small portion of the debate. ‘options’ are where several treatments might overlap or choices might have to be made based upon mitigating factors. But relegating the debate about health care to only those procedures required by the medical profession seems kinda loopy.
<
p>There are instances, too, where abortion is required: In the case of ectopic pregnancy, or other form of fetal defect, there is very often a case of a doctor saying “you need this medical procedure.” That’s why the debate, such as it is, circles around issues like ‘health of the mother,’ or ‘incest’ and other instances where a doctors expertise is germane.
<
p>I have very little to say about ‘abortion on demand’ as elective abortion is paraded, and parodied, by the pro-lifers. As far as I’m concerned, there hasn’t been a system devised by humans that wasn’t abused somehow, somewhere. But the perfect isn’t the enemy of the good.
There are certainly comparisons to make in areas like availability of insurance benefits.
<
p>Just as few doctors know how important “cosmetic” surgery is to a particular patient from an emotional or psychological perspective, so also do few doctors have much insight or wisdom into the full set of issues and concerns around pregnancy and abortion beyond immediate questions of medical impact.
<
p>The national GOP is ratcheting up its pandering to rightwing anti-abortion zealots with every passing day. Extremist rightwing anti-abortion groups are ratcheting up both their rhetoric and their violence with every passing week. I think that the GOP gubernatorial candidate absolutely must address his or her stance on question (1) to have a prayer in this state.
<
p>Meanwhile, let’s not forget that Mitt Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life (1:26-50):
<
p>I am old enough to remember Spiro Agnew running for Governor as a “moderate” Republican in heavily-Democratic Maryland against a racist Democrat named George Mahoney (whose campaign slogan against fair-housing laws was “your home is your castle”).
<
p>I think all three questions are legitimate and important — for every candidate, for every office.
but nobody is trying to ensure that it’s covered in a national health care plan either.
should have zero impact on health care.
People have little money for anything other than necessities and soon may have no money—but slots and gambling will save Massachusetts? Are there any sane people remaining? Does anyone thing that abortion and gay marriage will matter a whit to anyone if there are food riots? You had better wake up. If people start starving or freezing—-people will be looking for someone to blame and revenge—ya know—like Europe in 1925.
His answers will be the same as Gov Patrick’s, and Mihos, and Cahill. Except with regards to #3 and Baker won’t likely endorse the 3 casino central planning of Gov Patrick.
<
p>Not a terribly distinguishing set of questions.
Only if you’re right that his answers are the same as the other guys. That’s why I’m asking! Baker has been very cagey over the years on his views on social issues. Time for him to ‘fess up.
Gee Mr. A&F secretary, how’d we end up with this $15 billion Big Dig thing?
<
p>Gee Mr. Gubernatorial Candidate, how are you going to pay for it now?
<
p>Gee Mr. HMO CEO, how are you going to keep health care premiums down?
<
p>Gee Mr. Republican, how are you going to get anything you want with the legislature?
<
p>Gee Mr. Conservative, how would you plug a $5 billion budget gap — without raising taxes, of course?
<
p>Oh, we got questions.
The three I posted are a basic test of viability. If he flunks those, the rest are interesting but not game-changers.
Source
<
p>2. That is a question for all candidates. Mr. Baker at least has a track record of turning around a failing company. Mr. Patrick, not so much.
<
p>3. How refreshing to be able to ask someone who might know the answers. HPHC’s track recent track record: Lowered premiums for seniors in 2004. No change in rates for BC. More innovation for competitive premium pricing in 2009.
<
p>4. The same way as past R governors. Based on Mr. Patrick’s record, being a D isn’t all that helpful to the governor.
<
p>5. That is the question, but why should only Mr. Baker have the constraint of not raising taxes? Afterall, it was Mr. Patrick who campaigned on the unfulfilled promise of lower property taxes.
<
p>As a side note, I think your tone detracted from your post of otherwise interesting questions.
It wasn’t my fault it was Bechtel.
It’s dealing with reality.
<
p>If an office doesn’t have authority over a project, that is a problem in an of itself that needs to be solved.
<
p>If anything you are trying to pass blame for something that was out of the scope of the office. Let’s get real.
Weld/Cellucci turned the Big Dig keys over to the mob, more or less. Maybe Charlie should of used his business smarts to find $700,000 for Celluci to pay off the bookies. it would have been alot cheaper than the billions they stole from the Big Dig.
<
p>Really, the Big Dig buck stopped at the Governor’s office.
<
p>Baker has much splainin to do.
<
p>Remeber, Weld is quoted as saying Baker is the heart and soul of the Weld/Celluci administration.
<
p>Sort of Like Tom Hagan was to the Coreleones.
It’s my blog. I get to be snarky 😀
<
p>4. Actually, I’d say that between the big three reforms this year, and the legislative accomplishments of the past two years, Patrick will definitely have something to run on that no Republican governor did.
<
p>Oh by the way, I forgot …
<
p>Gee Mr. A&F Secretary, why did the Carmen’s contract seem like such a great idea back in 1998?
and not just Democrats. If I remember, we have one in the corner office and a hegemony in the lege, and I would say all of them should be putting their thinking caps on to answer all those.
… ought to be sufficient to demonstrate the distinct lack of ‘hegemony’ in this state.
<
p>Honestly, this is just sad. Only Republicans think that party == lockstep. Only Republicans practice the ’11th commandment’. Here in the future America, Democrats feel free to disagree and be fractious.
<
p>Once upon a time, Republicans believed that too… before they became fascists.
Words associated with fascism (courtesy Merriam-Webster):
1. Centralized: democrats run everything.
2. Autocratic: have you noticed the governor hiring his friends?
3. Dictatorial Leader: see above.
4. Severe economic and social regimentation: 25% sales tax hike.
5. Forcible suppression of opposition: ok, you got me there.
<
p> Now for democrats try: Totalitarian, and Social Darwinist on for size.
Governors have been meaningless for almost twenty years.
If he tries to swim against the tide on 1 and 2 (unless he has already taken a position publicly on those issues). I’ll be interested to see where he is on 3. I don’t think he needs to be anti-gambling to win (unless only BMGers are allowed to vote).
<
p>And not to nitpick, but isn’t gambling a social issue?
It can be a social issue. It’s also an economic issue. Many small businesses, for example, would go under. It would also greatly eat into state lottery funds, which are far more profitable to the state than the 25% “cut” we’d get in the casino biz.
When we talk about the impact of gambling addition, is that not a social issue? Clearly there are economic issues as well, but this seems more like a debate about how gambling impacts us as a society, not whether it makes sense on a strictly fiscal basis.
<
p>Insofar as Deval Patrick is concerned, gambling is an economic issue with social repercussions that aren’t, he says, going to be of impact. It’s being ‘framed’ (or ‘sold’) as a revenue generating mechanism with acknowledged, but minimal (ha) side effects.
<
p>Personally, as I’ve posted here plenty about, I think gambling is a disaster on all levels: political, ethical, social and moral. There is no upside.
We have each said our peace on this matter, although I can’t resist pointing out your reference to gambling as opposed to casinos and noting (yet again) the 7,500 800 pound gorillas in convenience stores across the state.
<
p>I did find it interesting that Ryan was concerned about how casinos might infringe on lottery revenues. He certainly doesn’t see the social ills you do.
I don’t think it’s feasible to ban all gambling. People will gamble. It’s rather sensible that we would, however, ban the worst forms of gambling. We’ve banned slots because they’re by far the most addictive and worst for small businesses. We banned dog racing because it was horrible to dogs.
<
p>I think we can also look at the lengths we go to advertise and ‘push’ people to play the state lottery. I think there’s room to alter how we sell scratch tickets and employ Keno, but I don’t think it’s feasible to completely ban them. Banning all gambling would just drive it underground.
<
p>I simply pointed out how the lottery would be impacted because, if it were to take a hit from slot machines (and it would, big time, if we legalize them), then we’re going to have to make up that money somehow. Know where it’s going to come from? Almost inevitably from cuts to services and legalizing more slot machines. Remember, there’s a reason why Cahill’s slot plan included privatizing the state lottery, taking a big lump sum when we could – and it wasn’t because he thought the state lottery would do just fantastic with slots in the hood.
Are gamblers authorized to use State of California notes of credit ?
<
p>I just want to know when the tsunami is about to strike—because strike it will.
Gay Marriage, abortion. Who gives a shit. The next gov can’t do anything about it.
<
p>Jesus Christ. Abortion and gay marriage should be at the bottom of the list.
<
p>WTF
<
p>But i guess if we want to sit at the cool kids table we have to be all about abortion rights and gay marriage and nothing else matters.
<
p>Get real!
Gay marriage and abortion are resolved issues in this state.
<
p>I wouldn’t even put gambling at the top of the list. I find it to be more symbolic than anything.
<
p>Here’s what I think will be the most important campaign “issues”. They are in order of electoral importance, not level of distinction between candidates.
<
p>1.Economy/taxes
2.Health care (driven by national debate and local progress)
3.Charisma (ongoing levels, not fixed in 2006)
4.Education
5.Administrative management/responsiveness
6.Transportation/infrastructure
<
p>Wild card–a ballot question(s) that catch fire could climb the charts quickly.
not hope?
I want to know how many indies and disaffected Dems Baker can get. If he’s reliable on 1 & 2 (i.e., pro-choice and pro-gay marriage), and gives anti-casino Dems some hope on 3, then all of a sudden Baker is not only bringing in the half-dozen or so Republican voters left in this state, he’s bringing in a lot of anti-Deval indies plus some lefties who hate casinos and who see an anti-casino Governor as their last best hope. That becomes a serious threat.
<
p>If, on the other hand, he goes all Romney on us re social issues, forget it. He won’t clear 40%, so with Cahill getting 15%, Deval wins.
Can get a lot of them. You folks aren’t choosing this candidate, Republicans are! The Ogo days are over!
I don’t understand what you mean by that. Can you clarify?
1: Together, can we?
2: Is a 1.8% budget cut from 2009 to 2010, “ugly, ugly”, “ugly” or 1/5th of what we really need?
3: Harvard Graduate. Another?
Not true, but an Ogo/Mihos/Baker three ring circus would be entertaining. I might even watch the debate.
Baker 50%
Mihos 49%
Ogo 1%
<
p>Mihos then runs as an independent!
I don’t think it’s possible to pull a “Lieberman” in MA, i.e., run as an independent after you lose the primary. (Example: Joe Moakley’s first election for congress, where he chose to bypass the primary, which Louise Day Hicks won IIRC, and run as an independent. Wouldn’t he have taken shots at both the orimary and general if that had been legal?) But someone correct me if I’m wrong…
Massachusetts election law says that non-party candidates cannot be enrolled in any political party in order to qualify to have their name printed directly on the general election ballot. This requirement kicks in in the Spring. Furthermore,all candidates must chose and submit nomination papers to appear on either the primary ballots (for D’s and R’s only – due in late May 2010) or directly on the general ballot (non-party candidates – due late August 2010). Primary qinners get on the general election ballot but it would be too late after the September primary for anyone to get on the general election ballot.
because he’s not on the ballot and it’s all write-ins?
He’ll come in on all three of these the same way Weld did… Pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-casino.
<
p>As said above, those will not be the issue of this election. The issue will be size and scope of government.
I mean correct
Well, at least the first two in terms of blunting efforts to paint Baker as more a Romney than a Weld. The last poster hit it right on the head: the race will be about the size and scope of government. Which is the only way Republicans win in this state. And the only way to make the race about that is to take social issues right off the table.
<
p>In fact, it’s in Deval’s interest to make this race about gay marriage and other “social tolerance” issues; otherwise in a choice between two socially tolerant, socially liberal guys who starts to look more competent…..
Baker will crush the farcical Christy Mihos in the primary. Then, I’m sorry to report, the Governor’s best shot lies with his good friend Timmy Cahill siphoning off Baker votes, thereby allowing Deval a second term. It sure will be interesting what kind of fundraising numbers Baker can put up.
I mean Republican. It was a typo but it looks good. The dem days of picking the Republican lamb are over.
…that Baker is seeking the REPUBLICAN nomination. I find it interesting that the BMG editors think we’re the ones in a position to judge viability from that side. Also, is nobody else concerned that since Cahill was a Democrat it will be he and Patrick spliting votes thus delivering the victory to the Republican?
GOP party registration in this state is about 12%, IIRC. To win, a GOP candidate needs a ton of indies and some disaffected Dems. You can’t get those with national GOP-style views on hot-button social issues. That’s why I want to know where he is — because it will tell me a lot about whether he can win next November.
<
p>To your second question, no. Deval is running as an incumbent. There are pro- and anti-incumbent voters. If the anti-‘s are split, that helps Deval.
While I agree with you that the math, conventional wisdom, and the likely fact that both alternative candidates will target the incumbent with their ads, all bode well for Deval if Cahill and Baker run in the general election. That said Cahill could take away votes for Deval.
<
p>My mother and father (and I) were all big Deval supporters back in 06, but they are both leaning towards Cahill now. Relatives of ours up on the North Shore are also headed in that direction. For them Republicans are still associated with Dubya whom they abhor and Weld who they felt betrayed them and the state. Now this is certainly not scientific evidence, but previous polling suggests that Deval’s support within the Democratic party is weak (40% disapproval according to the last SurveyUSA poll), not to mention that the majority of primary voters in 06′ voted for one of his opponents, demonstrates that a Cahill candidacy could draw a lot of anti-Deval voters who hate voting for R candidates.
<
p>A year makes a big differences and its likely Baker, if he is perceived as more electable, eats into that vote as well. But outside of BMG and the solidly liberal parts of the party, I do not think democratic loyalty to Deval should be assumed or assured, and having Tim run outside the primary might end up hurting rather than helping Deval.
This is DP kool-aid land. 🙁
You guys did try designating Ogo as the opponent of choice vs, Kerry. He just couldn’t get 10,000 signatures at the Chelmsford market Basket.
So, a sneak-around of the question :
“Are you willing to allow hot-button social-issues become important in this election?”
<
p>Of course, the hope is that “NO” means that Baker loses to primary, and “YES” means that Baker loses the general.
<
p>What if he says “NO” and wins the primary? That’s the only reason Deval would have to worry.
What are you talking about? I’m asking the questions as straightforwardly as I can, because I’m interested in how many indie and Dem voters Baker can get. The answers to those questions will tell me a lot about that.
We can’t ask Baker outright “Are you willing to allow hot-button social-issues become important in this election?” so we sneak around the question by asking about those hot-button issues.
John McCain’s cockamamie idea of taxing employer paid health benefits, I’ll do everything in my power to ensure that everyone in this region knows exactly what that means, and it’s implications.
<
p>I will be floored if Democrats vote for a Rebublican simply because of the casino issue.
<
p>Unenrolled voters are the ones to be concerned about.
<
p>Most recent enrollment figures from 2004
<
p>Total registered voters 4,098,634
Democrats 1,526,711
Republicans 532,319
Unenrolled 2,000,062
<
p>Who are these people and what is important to them?
<
p>
frankly, in a state where gay marriage and abortion, are for now settled law, it’s pretty irrelevant. The casino factor will actually affect people, so it’s something votes will be decided on, among other factors.
… where the Massachusetts State AG is suing the FED due to discrepancies between settled law in MA (SSM) and settled Fed law (DOMA).
<
p>
<
p>I don’t think marriage equality is settled so long is it conflicts with Fed law. That’s part of the ‘settling’ process, I should think. I’d want to know where the Gov might come out if the Fed gives pushback on this…
There are more recent ones available (PDF)
<
p>From October 2008:
<
p>Statewide Total: 4,220,488 registered voters
Democrats: 1,559,464 (37.0%)
Republicans: 490,259 (11.6%)
Unenrolled: 2,141,878 (50.8%)
Baker as complicit in the Big Dig fiasco through his work in the Weld/Cellucci administrations. I know he fixed his insurance company, but where was he when the Big Hole was being dug? That doesn’t give me any confidence that he even has the right attitude about what state government should be doing, much less how to manage it. Speaking of his insurance company, with the mess that health care is in this country, I don’t see making a bundle of money in a health insurance organization as anything to convince me to vote for him.
<
p>As for Christy Mihos, he was an embarrassment in his debate performances, and his interviews were nothing to be proud of either. He may be fun to listen to, but as a candidate for governor, he’s still not up to it. I don’t care what the polls are saying about his strength.
Come on, don’t pretend those questions are about votes – they are about donations. An anti-marriage candidate would get about fifty bucks each from a few hundred blue collar people and that’s it, while his opponents will receive a few million dollars flown in from around the country. In fact, if they were smart, they’d hire someone to be an anti-marriage candidate, just to activate the Tim Gill donation robot.