In no particular order:
- Polling works. It worked in 2006, and it worked this time too. Yes, there was some variation. Rasmussen, in particular, came out looking pretty bad in Massachusetts, as did the Globe’s pollster at UNH – both showed the Gov’s race much closer than it really was. (According to 538, Rasmussen looked bad elsewhere too.) Suffolk, in contrast, nailed it – kudos to David Paleologos and his team for getting the 2010 Gov’s race, as well as the Brown/Coakley race, pretty much exactly right.
But the point is that every independent poll showed Patrick ahead, most by something like the lead he actually ended up with on election day. Baker’s internals, of course, turned out to be a total joke. (Maybe Patrick’s did too – they never released them publicly.) So I do hope that we can finally dispense with this charade of internal polls being taken seriously by our mainstream media friends. Two Governor elections in which internal polls have been proven to be little more than optimistic press releases should be enough.
- The Boston Herald’s two hilariously self-contradictory editorials tell you a lot about how craven that editorial operation really is. The one about Massachusetts grudgingly congratulates Governor Patrick (while still implying that it was Tim Cahill’s fault, even though the results refute that), but then says that Patrick should promptly adopt most of what Charlie Baker campaigned on, because, you know, Baker had awesome ideas. The one about the national results, in contrast, says that last night’s election results were a clear message delivered by the American people, and that President Obama should listen to that message and change course.
Sorry, Herald, you can’t have it both ways. The people of Massachusetts had a pretty clear choice: Patrick’s approach, or Baker’s. They rejected what Baker was selling, and chose Patrick by a substantial margin. That’s the clear message delivered by the voters of Massachusetts. I believe Patrick when he says that he will look closely at ideas offered by his now-vanquished opponents – he did that last time, and it’s a good thing to do. But I hope and expect that he will also remain true to what he campaigned on.
- Schadenfreude isn’t all that attractive. Still, I have to say that I’m pleased that we could turn Howie Carr’s self-described “nightmare” into a reality. Just to refresh your recollection:
This is the nightmare:
It’s the morning of Nov. 3, the day after the election. You awaken to a Republican sweep from coast to coast. Everywhere but here, in Massachusetts, a tiny island of blue in a sea of red.
Yeah, pretty much. And then there’s this:
Oh sure, we savor a handful of scattered local victories – Jeff Perry, Mary Z. Connaughton, one or two others….
Well, not so much on Jeff and Mary, Howie. It’s actually worse than you had dared to dream.
Michael Graham had a similar “nightmare scenario” column last week. Same notation there. And I’m not even going to bother with Howie’s typically small-minded column today. But if you want to read a thoughtful discussion from the other side of the aisle of what went wrong for them and how they might avoid it next time, head over to RMG.
Your thoughts? Open thread on what happened last night in the comments.