It wasn’t a clean and definitive win for Charlie Baker. Yet as far as the MA GOP bigs are concerned, he cleared the field of his single primary opponent, Mark Fisher.
A few more days may pass until we’re positive that, unlike the Dems, the GOP’ers will have an uncontested race at the very top of the ticket. The debate includes how real the 14.765% of yesterday’s convention ballot was. Fisher needs 15% to get on the primary ballot.
Complicating it is that the rules say blank ballots don’t count. The party tabulators did instead tally 64 blanks, knocking Fisher down below 15% (as in Baker at 2,095 to Fisher at 394 and Fisher at 15.829 without blanks).
Fisher and I had a good chat at Left Ahead last week. I’ll stick in his half-hour show below. He also graciously called me before the convention to thank me for being reasonable and respectful to him, as he was to me despite our political disparities. I can’t run a Baker show; neither his campaign manager nor his communications director has responded to numerous requests.
Today, Fisher’s FB feed includes:
Dear Friends,Thank you for your support over the last 5 months. I am currently speaking with lawyers about being jobbed out by Kirsten Hughes at the Massachusetts Republican Party “Kangaroo Convention”. There were improprieties in the counting of the ‘blank’ vote that occurred which were not allowed to be challenged and no re-count was allowed. I will let you know our plans in the coming days.
He certainly has every right to feel cheated and to fight.
I don’t know anyone who thinks Fisher would win a primary election against Baker. Yet we simple folk who took civics classes cling stubbornly to rudimentary concepts of democracy and fairness.
Conventional wisdom on this is that an uncontested primary is far better for the candidate than spending money and energy before a general election, all the while getting prodded and exposed by another party member.
Today’s Globe has a pretty good piece on the convention results. They include a contrarian of moment, former Gov. Bill Weld, among the several saying how great it will be for Baker if he goes unprimaried. Weld says a Fisher challenge would help Baker interest unenrolled voters. As we all note here in MA, with 53% of voters unenrolled, that is where elections are won.
For analysis of uncontested MA primaries, you can try your own tabulation. Instead, look at the stats compiled and analyzed over at the Mass. Numbers blog. Over there in Nov. 2012, Bret Benson admitted the samples are small and Dems rarely have top seats without primaries. However, he concludes that most times, it works solidly in the GOP’s advantage to clear the field for governor.
I note and admire the relentless optimism of the MA GOP leaders. I’ve heard the shouts of the party chairs from the carousel that seems to spin them off so quickly. This election will be different, like Weld or Mitt Romney and such. This is the right candidate at the right time. Then again, they insisted that when Baker went against Deval Patrick.
They would be foolish to turn down real or perceived advantages. Moreover, we have a long if irrational history here of the unenrolled claiming that voting for Republican governors to keep a check on the monolithic Dems. The wide disparity from one Dem legislator to another is plenty of restraint, more than a single chief executive could impose.
So it comes down to Baker. He’s trimmed down and comes across a lot more human than in his last run. It may be long enough from his slash-and-burn at Harvard Pilgrim and his Big Dig associations that he can run pretty clean.
We in MA also are quite forgiving and don’t burn an L for loser in the foreheads of unsuccessful politicians. Two or three goes at a high office are OK around here. Baker too has the plus of two full terms of a Dem governor. Those many voters who like that fairy tale of the magic of balance only a GOP can bring will certainly want a change on that alone.
Instead, I like the agon, when a governorship or presidency is the prize. Surprisingly, I find myself on Weld’s side here. Whoever ends up as the Dem candidate will emerge well defined and with clear positions and personality traits for voters to see. For the other side, wouldn’t it be swell to have the same?
Cross-Post: This will appear also at Marry in Massachusetts.
That is also a settled principle of parliamentary law, so if the party rules are clear it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
The exact wording is, “Only candidates who receive 15% or greater of
the Convention vote on any ballot for a particular office may
challenge the Convention endorsement for that office in the state
primary election.” I agree that the default parliamentary law is that blanks don’t count toward the total, and I showed the math in my diary. In order to be absolutely clear it should say 15% of the delegates present AND VOTING, or if they want to go the other way they should explicitly say 15% of ALL DELEGATES RECORDED AS PRESENT. By the former method Fisher barely makes the ballot; by the latter he’s close, but out of luck.
But the convention adjourned prior the Fisher vote being settled. I thought that was odd and worth mentioning.
The motion to adjourn takes the highest precedence in Robert’s Rules and only requires a simple majority. Whatever has been decided at that point stands. The Herald article in my post on this matter seemed to indicate he wouldn’t fight.
Regardless of the rules or the law, I think that settles things.
of the Herald’s AP piece was vague…something about interpreting Fisher as leaning toward not contesting. Today’s Globe has more with opposite conclusions.
Oh, if only were that true.
Here in Boston, the cliché is that you need to run and fail for an office once or twice…paying your dues as it were.
I believe this is a real headache for Baker and Polito. First they have Richard Tisei bowing out of the convention when he could have supported those who were in opposition to the platform(6 in number). Then we have this imbroglio stamping the Republican Party in this state as manipulating the thought processes of its activists by changing rules mid stream. In short they are making it less likely for people to consider their candidates. They have created confusion over what being a Republican means. Being clear about your views is something voters desire to make their choice and if not, there is a price to pay at the ballot box.
I found the thread on Fisher’s legal challenge on RMG interesting. Basically he has to prove collusion between the State GOP and Baker’s campaign and could release a lot of damaging emails and communications unrelated to the challenge which could be fodder for Dems. Additionally, another commentator pointed out that a primary likely would’ve been good for the GOP since Baker would’ve demolished Fisher, gotten some practice, an would look more moderate. It might also help registration numbers. Now they have a mess on their hands.
Baker refuses to go on Left Ahead and, evidently, refused to attend last week’s candidate forum on energy and innovation at Faneuil Hall. He reportedly was afraid he’d be “ganged up on.”
The Repugs seem to have made it a habit on both the national and local scales to refuse to engage in open forums. They prefer to talk only to their own propaganda outlets, not to the rubes – oops, voters.
I can’t even get a refusal from Baker’s peeps for Left Ahead. My emails and calls to the campaign manager and communications director go unanswered…repeatedly.
Odd that, as Polito came on the last time she was running statewide. She seems to be the one Republican with such basic courage.
Baker’s team’s attitude and avoidance reminds me of Coakley’s infamous refusal to stand out on Yawkey Way and shake hands. In contrast, Deval Patrick in both of his races met and talked with everyone. Winners do that.
~Mike
Especially since massmarrier has been rather even handed and has done a great job with all his interviews, including ones like Fisher or the independent candidate where he wasn’t inclined to agree. It doesn’t make Baker look good.
They seem to be running a frontrunner campaign which makes little sense in Massachusetts. Sure, there is a decent chance he goes up against a flawed nominee like Coakley, but there is also a decent chance he will face someone else entirely or that she will be ready to fight after the primary. Either way, his strategy is making less and less sense.
the GOP nominee in IL, Bruce Rauner, another Romney clone IMO, has been running a very issues free campaign focused more on his support for term limits and charter schools than any actual issues in IL. He has repeatedly refused to take a stance on any social issue, and is running a frontrunners campaign hoping being *not Pat Quinn* will take him over the finish line. Thing is, Baker tried that already against a weak incumbent and it didn’t work and there is no incumbent this time. Makes little sense. I feel like candidate who run against the media always lose (Romney, Coakley, and Hillary come to mind).