According to a press release from Don Berwick’s gubernatorial campaign, he’s got the delegates he needs to secure a spot on the primary ballot. Email (no link):
Coming off a strong final weekend of caucuses, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Don Berwick announced today that his campaign has secured more than the necessary 15 percent of elected delegates to qualify for the September primary ballot. While a plurality of seated delegates remains undecided, internal numbers show approximately 20 percent of elected delegates supporting Berwick.
There’s little doubt that both Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman will easily make the ballot. So the big question is how many delegates will be in their camps, and how many will remain up for grabs. Enough for all five Dems to hit the ballot? Will we hear from Juliette Kayyem and Joe Avellone regarding their “take” from the caucuses? Or from Grossman and Coakley, for that matter?
Let the horse-trading begin! 😉
The Kayyem camp is stating that they placed second among committed delegates.
Kayem is 2nd and Berwick has 20%, is he 1st or 3rd or 4th? He can’t be 2nd if Kayem is and can’t the 5th with 20%. If he is 1st then the uncommitted block must be sizable, or everyone is razor close.
If he is 4th then Avellone must have next to nothing. I’m guessing 20% means 3rd, which means that he’s ahead of one of the two front runners, e.g. either Grossman or Coakly is trailing badly, which does not sound right.
What am I missing?
I don’t think anyone doubts that. About half the delegates have not committed to anyone and Warren Toleman has racked up a sizable number of delegates that are among those uncommitted in the Gov. race. Avellone does have next to nothing with the exception of some wins in Worcester County. My guess would be that either Coakley has had an awful showing or either Berwick or Kayyem have not done as well as they think.
Something to keep in mind is that there are essentially three categories of delegates. Those that have committed to a candidate, those that are officially uncommitted but unofficially are almost guaranteed to vote for a certain candidate (for instance in my caucus not a single elected delegate has committed to any campaign but I know that Grossman can count on the vast majority of those “uncommitted” delegates) and finally those that are actually not committed to any candidate and will probably remain so up until the convention.
One thing to note about the Berwick announcement is that they are stating he has approx. 20% of ELECTED delegates. There are going to be about 3,856 elected delegates but once you add ex officio and add on delegates the number is going to increase to somewhere in the number of 6,000. Berwick stating he has 20% of elected delegates is announcing he has about 10%-15% of total delegates when all is said and done.
I don’t agree with all of the details, but the bottom line is:
TL; DRBerwick’s 20% of elected delegates is less than 15% of total delegates.
It is true that Dr Berwick’s 20% of elected delegates is perhaps 15% of the total number who will be voting at the convention, but he also has a sizable number of add-ons, ex officio and uncommitted delegates so he is very likely to have at least 20% at the convention.
I have heard multiple times that Kayyem is counting on a significant number of delegates who ran unpledged in her estimates of support. Either her campaign’s done tremendous work on those delegates after they were elected as uncommitted or they’re overstating support by a lot. Most of the uncommitted I’ve heard from or about didn’t have Kayyem in their top 2.
There’s only one chance to get 15% so it won’t be like 2002 where Tolman delegates gave Grossman enough votes on the first ballot, Grossman says thank you very much and withdraws from endorsement contention, then Grossman delegates vote for Tolman on the second ballot to give him enough. The delegates elected with firm commitments will probably want to stay where they are. The fight will be over those elected without committing, the ex officios, and the add-ons.
And remember, we only get to officially know where people are in June, not where they are now.
Avellone gets almost zero. He’s got pockets of supporters, but once it becomes clear he’s not gained traction with the delegates (elected nor ex officios or add ons), a chunk of his “soft” will go elsewhere. There’ll be very little left — so little that it will be “noise” and the analysis should really be done on a four person race.
Berwick gets 15-20 percent, with upside. I don’t think he’ll get many ex officio; maybe youth and disabled add-ons will become inspired. I think if Berwick starts gaining some public endorsements, he’ll gain some more elected delegates who are currently “uncommitted” and perhaps some ex officio.
Grossman will roll. 40%? I figure he’ll take a nice chunk of elected delegates, will persuade some of the uncommitteds, and get tons of ex officio delegates.
So if Grossman gets 40 and Berwick plus Avellone get another 20 combined, that only leaves 40 for both Coakley and Kayyem combined. If that’s the case, I don’t think they both get on — and it’s not an even fight. Coakley should have many dozens of ex officios already pledged. Those delegates are likely super firm… only willing to defect if it’s crystal clear Coakley won’t get to 15% anyway. That means Kayyem needs the vast majority of electeds from between those two, and I have a hard time seeing that happen.
It’s always possible that a candidate flames out, and the others (except Avellone) will then all get enough delegates to have a three way primary race. But the reality is that a 15% threshold makes it very very difficult to end up with four candidates. Here’s why:
1. Let’s start by giving all four candidates 25% each.
2. But wait, one is reasonably strong, with 40%. That’s 5% from each of the other three, and now we’re at 40-20-20-20.
3. The other three aren’t equal — one establishes as the alternative frontrunner — also has insider support, has a big base of electeds, is magic with the add-ons, whatever. Let’s say has a mere 30%. That takes from the other two. Now we’re at 40-30-15-15. See what happened? The other two candidates have zero margin for error. If the frontrunner does even better, if the runner-up pushes closer, or if the other 15-er grabs another point or two, the fourth candidate is on the outside looking in.
It’s this math that makes me think that eitherKayyem just won’t have the delegates orCoakley is going to completely flame out, perhaps a slow leak or perhaps a rapid descent, or Berwick doesn’t really have 20% of the electeds, but rather something far less. Given those three options, I don’t think the second or the third is particularly likely, and the math to get all four on is so tough. With plenty of time left to change the future, that leaves a most likely scenario: Kayyem doesn’t get enough delegates.
if we take ur stipulation of grossman 40, then wouldn’t he have a little room to nudge forward kayyem or berwick?
I’d think Grossman would rather nudge Kayyem onto the ballot than Berwick.
If Grossman is able to effectively re-allocate some of his 40 to another candidate, he could certainly do that. I have no feel for how or how well that works.
I also agree with fenway49 below that so long as Coakley is on the ballot, Grossman would do well to have Kayyem instead of Berwick on the ballot — though I’m not sure if he would prefer Berwick or both Berwick and Kayyem.
He’d be best off with neither, or with Berwick and Kayyem both. Berwick and Grossman both live in Newton and are going after liberal voters. Though I believe gender’s overstated as a factor, I still think Kayyem takes more votes from Coakley than from Grossman. If Berwick’s on the ballot, I thnk Grossman will need to cut into the Coakley support.
About the convention: Grossman’s campaign would have to estimate where they’re at and balance helping Kayyem reach the ballot against a desire to make a strong showing and create a media narrative of Coakley vulnerability.
If Grossman’s team wants Kayyem on the ballot and he has 40% of the delegates — Kayyem’s on the ballot, too.
Kayyem’s team is specifically saying she is in second, Coakley third, Berwick fourth, and Avellone fifth. Now one might disagree with those number but I do think it is somewhat incumbent on Coakley and Berwick to put out some contrary information if they think Kayyem’s camp isn’t telling the truth. (I don’t think anyone disagrees with Grossman in firth and Avellone in fifth).
Overally Coakley in third is kind of pathetic. She really needs to disapprove that this is the case or else she as risk of heavy hitters like the AFL-CIO and MTA endorsing Grossman.
We don’t need no steenking delegates.
Coakely will run against the “elitists” who control the convention and have not “forgiven” her for losing to Brown.
And who are sexist.
When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
Stupid sexist elitist insiders who carry a grudge.
Wait for it.
I think it is highly unlikely a scenario would emerge were neither of the two female candidates were to make the ballot. Having said that just from reading the back and forth here between many Berwick and Coakley supporters I think such a scenario would be quite poisonous. I guess in such a scenario you would have the following lineup:
1. Grossman
2. Berwick
3. Either Coakley or Kayyem
4. Same as above
I don’t know it seems far fetched that somehow Berwick could move into second with enough delegates to keep BOTH Coakley and Kayyem off.
In full disclosure I personally support Grossman and everything I have seen so far is making me more convinced that Steve is the best and will be the eventually nominee(And next Governor, Grossman vs Baker is hands down Grossman).
It may very well be the case that Kayyem is second in the delegates she’s counting but I’m still unclear what the ‘universe’ is that she’s second in. If it’s “committed elected delegates” I would believe that she is second, but that’s not even close to 15% of the entire delegate pool which includes uncommitted elected delegates, elected Dem officials, DSC members, add-on delegates (which haven’t even been selected yet), DTC/DWC chairs, and probably some others that I’m forgetting.
Kayyem is making a rather extraordinary claim. To know she is in second place — even if we’re just talking elected delegates — is stretching. We’ve got
* firm committed elected delegates
* fully uncommitted delegates (although each individual may have ruled out one or more candidates)
* soft committed — that is, delegates who are currently intending to vote for a particular candidate but either (a) didn’t publicly commit, or are (b) willing to ignore a previous public commitment.
So Kayyem, if she’s a really good counter, might know she’s in second place for that second bullet point, but that second bullet point might well make up less than half of elected delegates, which make up only 2/3s of overall delegates.
It’s not incumbent on Coakley or Berwick to prove Kayyem is wrong. Kayyem is the one making a rather extraordinary claim, a claim which reiles on potentially unobtainable evidence. From my perspective, absent a very clear statement with specific caveats, Kayyem’s team is blustering.
Edit the above to be
So Kayyem, if she’s a really good counter, might know she’s in second place for that second first bullet point…
office in Hampshire County that hasn’t endorsed Grossman. That’s only here, but I’m assuming the trend is the same in other areas.
I heard Grossman did very well in the Springfield caucuses like getting almost every delegate. I have heard that Grossman did well on the North Shore in areas such as North Andover and Andover. Grossman does seem to have an advantage in areas the GOP and Baker/Brown have done well in.
I think the importance of the caucuses can be overrated however, it IS an opportunity for less well known candidates to put in some sweat equity and possibly break out as Patrick did. Perhaps one difference is the established candidates aren’t ignoring the process like Tom Reilly did and in fact in Grossman’s case are using it to their advantage. The challenge for Kayyem and Berwick isn’t just getting on the ballot but selling themselves to a much larger lower information pool of voters. I am not sure I see a way at all for Avellone to make it and I assume whatever support he has will eventually go to Grossman.
from anyone ?
I might put some money down that Warren Tolman approaches if not exceeds 75%
I here activity and support almost entirely for Healey up in my neck of the woods (Greater Lowell), so unless that is an anamoly I’d say she has more than 25% support.
Kayyem’s fundraising was very weak in the first half of January. I would guess that she is using a far-fetched but difficult to disprove second place claim to drum up financial support from a rapidly drying donor pool.
I mean the first half of February.
With all the special elections in the past few years the fundraising numbers of all the candidates are poor compared to 2006.
Even by those standards, $29 K is a lackluster reporting period. It might be an outlier, but it might be a signal that her fundraising base is crumbling.
I don’t understand the outrage over the Kayyem campaign’s claim. If anyone’s claim is off base it would be the Berwick Campaign’s, given that there are currently 3400 elected delegates, and all the campaigns agree that about half are uncommitted. So 3400/2 = 1700. Of those 1700, Berwick claims to have gotten 20 percent of all the delegates (3400*.2) or 680.
Now, all of the campaigns agree that Grossman was the winner, even Berwick so Grossman has more than 680, say 720 or so…now 720+680 = 1400, out of the 1700 committed delegates. This means that according to Berwick, Martha Avellone and us are all splitting the 300 (1700 committed delegates minus Berwick’s 680 and Grossman’s 720), which we know is wrong. Coakley claims that she got 15% of the delegates, which has roughly the same math.
I would just like to see how Berwick can justify these claims when his biggest reported single caucus delegate victory was about twenty people.
Whoops
Berwick got 6 of 8 delegates in Swampscott, with another uncommitted who would vote either Grossman or Berwick.
The same night it came up in conversation at our caucus that (I think) in Newbury all delegates went to Berwick.
This is ultimately going to be Berwick’s bread and butter — towns that aren’t really apart of any ‘machine,’ where there is a strong goo-goo vote. There’s actually a lot of those across Massachusetts.
In locations where there’s 20+ delegates, it’s far, far more likely to have a strong machine operating there that can deliver delegates for Grossman or to a lesser extent Coakley.
Grossman’s going to win because he’ll win almost all of these areas plus more than hold his own in towns and goo-goo areas. That’s why he’ll finish a strong first.
But I think it’s a mistake to discount the number of delegates that will be elected out of small and smallish towns across Massachusetts. More people live outside of cities in Massachusetts than in them.
Seems to be a similar performance to Robert Reich way back in 2002 for those of us who are old timers. Reich though unlike Patrick could never really break into the more populated communities. I still remember a story of Reich almost being laughed out of a Malden Democratic Council meeting.
Just for curiosity I would be curious to see who is doing well in a lot of the Central Mass small towns(I grew up in this area) that tend to be more Conservo-Dem than goo goo. Places like Templeton, Princeton, and Barre. This is Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer’s(a well known foe of single payer healthcare) heartland. I suppose its very academic because a lot of these towns simply don’t have the population to really make that much of a difference.
Would also be curious to see how Grossman did in Newburyport vs Newbury(different towns). I knew Grossman did do some events in Newburyport.
His campaign was calling it a big win in Newburyport and several other cities, but their list included Newton (where I believe he split fairly evenly with Berwick), so I don’t know if he ran away with it.
I believe that is Grossman’s hometown. I’d be worried if I were he if that were the case.
It’s not completely shocking if the vote is split there.
Didn’t know that.
I believe according to one of the earlier posts by Kate Grossman came close to sweeping Brookline. At one level not surprising given Grossman lives in next door in Newton. On the other hand given that Berwick lives next door and Brookline has a history of voting for progressive candidates not exactly the greatest sign for Berwick to be shut out.
What are people’s feelings in terms of how many of the uncommitted are truly uncommitted vs how many will vote for whoever the MTA endorsements, AFL-CIO, Marty Walsh etc.
I think the poster meant:
I believe according to one of the earlier posts by Kate, Grossman…..
I was wondering who Kate Grossman was who had been posting…
Sorry about that missing comma.
but are Newton and Brookline so interconnected that someone from Brookline would care so much about whats happening in Newton next door? Given how hyper local so many parts of Massachusetts politics can get, I bet some people think they’re worlds away. Just look at ward politics in Boston and things like the Mayor’s election.
I don’t have any horse in this race, though. I just want to see a good candidate win – and both Berwick and Grossman easily fit that bill.
We care about development’s impact on nearby Brookline neighborhoods, same as Boston. We use their high school debacle as a cautionary tale. We’d like their residents to shop in Coolidge Corner more often, and we’re fiercely jealous in the morning when they’re sitting down on the Green Line and we have to stand (though we snicker at them when we get off in the evening to go home and they’re still stuck on the street car). And, for many Brookliners who don’t own a car [and that’s a lot!], Newton is largely irrelevant; Boston and Cambridge are where it’s at.
[generalities, exceptions, disclaimer, yadda yadda]
Nawp. She never made that claim. She was approximately right on the results, but a number of the top vote-getters were distinctly not Grossman supporters, so it’s not like Grossman would have swept if only a handful of caucus goers had done something differently. And besides, there was a large number of undecideds too.
dfishman’s count, which is close enough to my recollection:
Grossman: 23
Uncommitted: 7
Berwick: 8
Kayyem: 6
He packed the auditorium at Arlington High School and won the entire delegation. Deval swept Arlington in 2006. Harshbarger swept Arlington in 1998. We have a history of progressive candidates packing the house and sweeping the caucus. Until this year.
The elected delegates from Barre (I’m told) went for Coakley. Royalston is next weekend.
If that wasn’t clear.
There are no official committed delegates in the sense that we have in a National Convention. There are people who have told candidates that they are supporting various people. Even people who ran and told people at a caucus are not officially committed.
I’ve been to caucuses across the Commonwealth, both before and after I made my decision to support Martha Coakley. I have been to Waltham, Arlington, Boston W22, Cambridge W9, Watertown, Andover, Worcester W1, Leominster, Fitchburg, Worcester W 2, 6, 8 and 10, Clinton, Somerville, Boston W22, Worcester W9, Westborough and Acton.
Based on what I have observed, I concur with stomv that it is a rather extraordinary claim that the Kayyem campaign is making.
From my own observations and conversations it would be my guess that when it comes to elected delegates that it would be Steve Grossman, Martha Caoakley, Don Berwick, Juliette Kayyem and Joe Avellone.
There was a Democratic National Committee meeting in DC that I attended as your elected representative. Got back Saturday and managed to run one caucus and volunteer at another on Sunday.
It is March 4th. The convention is 3 months away. Even if people “commit” to a candidate, there is NOTHING to stop them from changing their minds. 3 months is a long time. I like Don Berwick. I sincerely doubt he knows he has 15%. Calling a delegate and asking if they will support you does not mean they will. I am not sure if he will get his 15%. I think that Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman will get on the ballot. I am not certain about any of the other 3.
claiming delegate support like this is that they can be reckoned, but not truly counted. It’s easy to doubt claims, but almost impossible to improve. It’s an easy political strategy for making a candidacy seem viable.
and not dissimilar to some of the above
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/03/04/delegate-counts-get-funky/
I think it is a pretty good assumption that Coakley makes the ballot no matter(I know it is scary to make that kind of prediction but I am pretty confident on that one notwithstanding my past views of Coakley’s political skills). Where Kayyem and Berwick truly in terms of delegates is probably a fools game although they both could definitely still get in ballot.
The issue in mind is how do either of them pick up steam and start to get noticed among the broader primary electorate. While caucuses are overrated you can put in a lot of sweat equity by running around the state.
Just about everyday I see Grossman doing some type of event with some municipal/local leader being reported in some local newspaper somewhere in the state. I haven’t seen Berwick many similar types of events with municipal leader with maybe the exception of some very small communities. Kayyem has done perhaps slightly better than Berwick in this regard.
Perhaps this is an unfair standard because basically a lot of the municipal leaders have already endorsed Grossman but for a lower information primary voter there going to see Grossman in the local newspaper doing some event with the local mayor but will have no idea who Berwick or Kayyem are. On the otherhand if Kayyem or Berwick did great in the caucuses ala Patrick that probably would have broker through to the broader primary electorate.
I was going to write a long commentary here, but it seems much less necessary now that trickle-up posted the link to David Bernstein’s latest analysis of the delegates.
I have seen fragments of caucus results, as well as knowing the dynamics in my beloved town of Arlington. As a reminder, our delegation emerged as follows:
19 uncommitted delegates
15 Coakley delegates
1 Grossman delegate
1 Kayyem delegate
As one of the 19 uncommitted delegates, I am leaning Coakley. I like Grossman, and I could vote for him. Berwick came to the last meeting of the Arlington Democratic Town Committee, and he was impressive. He did pull on my lefty progressive heart strings, but I would want to see some evidence that he could beat Charlie Baker before I vote for him. I attended an event for Kayyem, listened closely to her arguments, read her platform on her website. I liked Kayyem as a person, but the probability of my voting for her is < 0.0001.
It's going to be a fun few months as an uncommitted delegate, especially as the down-ballot candidates start to solicit support. It's going to be an interesting convention.
Ex officios (mostly state committee members and electeds) could be big at the convention given how crowded it will could be at the 15% mark.
The 383-member state committee has 88 who are 20+ year members, which means they were on the state committee way back when they elected Grossman chair of the state party in the early 90s. Big advantage to Grossman among this group. Those are really long term relationships. Then you have to imagine there are a lot of state committeemembers who know Coakley long-term as well, from her 3 statewide races and her elected history as DA.
State House/Federal elected officials have yet to endorse Kayyem or Avellone. Endorsements from local electeds are a vote at the convention, plus will likely sway local DTC members who are committeed/connected to their local electeds. It’s still early, but local electeds seem to be moving to Grossman (Rosenberg, Spilka, Chandler, Moore, etc.), Coakley (Terry Murray, Katherine Clark), and Berwick (Provost, Chang-Diaz, Eldrige).
As for “uncommitteds” at the caucuses, to be elected uncommitted at a contested caucus means that you are likely on the local town/ward committee (vs. your average voter off the street running solo against slates and getting elected). Those folks are way more likley to be of the older school/politically connected group similar to the state committee, and therefore will likley be leaning Grossman/Coakley. Some uncommitteds may be tied to labor unions, or in Boston to the Mayor — both those groups would likely lean to a more establishment candidate who is guaranteed to make the ballot than to a long-shot who is still praying.
When looking at fundraising, Grossman has $1M and Coakley $500k. Compared to $150k for Berwick, and $120k each for Kayyem and Avellone. Those are big fundraising advantages for the 2 statewide office holders. Unlikely that spending that money on mailers is going to convince many uncommitteds, but activists will consider those numbers when thinking about viability against Charlie Baker.
Seems very very possible that Grossman+Coakley delegates equal 70%+1 at the convention. Which means only one more candidate can get on, max. My money is on Berwick over Kayyem only because elected officials are getting up the courage to back him (which hasn’t happened yet for Kayyem) and it seems that that momemtum is translating into dollars ($120k raised in February for Berwick vs. 65k for Kayyem over same period).
I’m not sure what portion of the convention they make up, but they will be fought over as well.