MassINC’s post-election poll (PDF) seems to have put the nail in the coffin of the tired idea (still pushed by Howie Carr & Co.) that Charlie Baker would be Governor-elect today, if it weren’t for that blasted Tim Cahill.
The numbers say different. MassINC asked voters if they had ever intended to vote for someone else. Of those who said they once intended to vote for Cahill, only 54% ended up with Charlie Baker. Almost all the rest (45%) went to Patrick. That certainly suggests that Cahill’s appeal was not limited to folks who wanted Deval out of office.
Also of interest is that almost equal numbers of Coakley and Scott Brown voters ended up supporting Cahill. That, too, suggests that Cahill’s absence in the race would not have uniformly boosted Baker at Patrick’s expense.
The caveat is that since not all that many people voted for Cahill, or even considered doing so, the sample sizes we’re dealing with on these questions are quite small. Still, this is still more solid evidence that Cahill was drawing voters from both Patrick and Baker, and that his absence from the race might not have affected the final margin very much. Suffolk, the big winner in this year’s polling sweepstakes, in its final poll (see p. 95 of the big PDF) showed the second choice of Cahill voters nearly evenly divided between Patrick and Baker.
Of course, Cahill’s absence would have avoided Loscocco-gate. So there’s that. đ
Cahill’s presence in the race caused Baker to miscalculate wildly. Buying into the “kneecap Cahill” strategy early, he spent money and time attacking Cahill that could have been better spent building himself up. In both his early ads and in the early debates his belligerence toward Cahill turned many voters off, even as he peeled away some of Cahill’s support.
<
p>So, in a way, Cahill’s presence cost Baker dearly, though it wasn’t Cahill’s “fault”.
It’s of course possible – indeed, considering the rocket scientists who were running the show over there, I’d say probable – that absent Cahill, some other catastrophic miscalculations would have ensued.
<
p>Also, the Cahill thing was a sort of test of character. Like the Kobayashi Maru. How you respond tells people about who you are and how you deal with difficult situations. In this case, well, yeah.
Third-party voting share often evaporates right around Election Day (Alaska Senate Democrat Scott McAdams, for instance). The fact that 8% stuck with Cahill means that a large number felt the need to go down with Cahill. What inspired that devotion? I suspect it was Baker’s attacks.
The Governor got 49% of the vote. That means that Baker would have needed essentially all of Cahill’s votes. Any bleed from Cahill to Deval puts him over the 50% mark. And then there is Jill Stein. If we are talking about “What if it were a 2 person race?” then we should be fair and give some of Stein’s voes to Deval. Again, he only needed another 1% of the vote to hit 50%