It’s unusual that declarative statements by candidates for a major office like Governor are open to the charge of being demonstrably false, but that seems to be where we are with the results of the Democratic caucuses. Consider:
- Don Berwick issued a press release stating that he “has secured more than the necessary 15 percent of elected delegates to qualify for the September primary ballot.” But over at Boston Magazine, David Bernstein says that “[n]one of the other campaigns believe this number,” and some of our own resident number-crunchers have their suspicions as well.
- Juliette Kayyem’s Facebook page is plastered with the claim that she “took second place at the caucuses,” behind only Steve Grossman. This claim is rated “probably not” true by Bernstein, and “extraordinary” and “blustering” by BMG’s finest. (Interestingly, though, she claims only to be “on our way to 15%,” not to have achieved that goal.)
Yes, the math is complicated … but it’s not that complicated. And yes, “committed” delegates can and do change their minds, which makes the counting messy. Still, it would be nice if the candidates who are making these claims would join us here at BMG, or at some other suitable location, to explain how and where they are getting these numbers.
Please share widely!
1. He won, and
2. No one doubts that.
Our Treasurer got a condensate of delegates in the caucus at my town. His candidacy for our governorship dominated the Unity slate (which got elected as delegates in its entirety), even when at least three other of us Grossmen had other life obligations than our Sunday caucus to attend to.
I’m not sure what you mean.
I mean that so many Grossman supporters came together, that our town had not a caucus where the results could have otherwise been contested or challenged by a few questionable candidacies for delegate. Two gubernatorial opponents produced zero delegates. One other opponent did not come up with a handful of delegates despite showing up twice formally in our town to win over local activists.
So… maybe you mean consensus?
I am not surprised that Berwick is celebrating his delegate success. Many campaigns similarly announce their internal polling numbers which always show them gaining momentum. In my opinion, when a campaign pretends to have internal polls showing their increasing strength, it’s a sure sign that they are doing poorly and desperately trying to motivate their supporters. Similarly, I think Berwick’s announcement is a sign that he did not get adequate delegates, and he is trying to rally his troops. Same for Kayyem.
it’s one thing to release internal polling numbers which maybe don’t match up with other polls. Obviously the samples were different, the weighting and other aspects of methodology are different, etc. But everyone went to the same caucuses, and it’s the same delegate pool that everyone is competing for. So I’m not sure it’s really comparable.
Much of this is straight up spin, right? Does having “15 percent of elected delegates” even mean anything? If true, that alone would not qualify Berwick for the ballot. Whenever I think about claims of “winning” the convention, or winning the delegate battle, I think about 1990–Bellotti, Murphy, Silber and Flood. Sometimes by “winning” the convention you actually lose in the eyes of the electorate (“insider”), and sometimes the only thing that matters at the convention is who gets to 15%. Within the battle to get 15% you get some fascinating politicking (Menino/Silber in 1990). If the primary this time comes down to 2 , 3 or 4 candidates, it’s not going to matter much who “won” the convention; but, if a candidate squeaks onto the ballot it can change the outcome of the primary election. 2006 was a lot different because Patrick served notice that he was for real by thumping an establishment candidate and a successful businessman. In terms of newcomers/outsiders, neither Kayyem nor Berwick seems to have worked to mobilize a base of caucus support the way Patrick did in 2006.
campaign, and my DTC chair is working for Berwick, but I haven’t heard or seen much from him in terms of organizing.
Patrick had the right campaign team. Coakley certainly didn’t have the right team when she ran for the senate; it looks like she has corrected that problem this time around. I don’t know who’s working for Berwick. This stuff matters.
It matters. I agree with you. It just doesn’t always play-out the way people expect and sometimes a “win” isn’t a win. I’m most interested in who gets to 15%.
for any candidate if this is in fact spin. People need re-evaluate who they take advice from if they think spinning info to activists is the way to go.
And, it’s spin when the campaigns release poll numbers. I am amazed that anybody believes these type of partisan statements. It’s just stuff that is created and can’t be verified. Remember the republican Kimball poll?
Similarly, Berwick just made a statement that cannot be verified. If he really had secured 15% of the delegates, there would be no reason to make such a statement.
So, I am sitting here all uncommitted, and I have paid my $75 for a ticket to Worcester. I kind of like Berwick, and might vote for him in the first round just to get him on the ballot. However, if he announces has his 15%, he doesn’t need my vote, so I guess I’ll stick with Coakley or Grossman.
If I were running, I would be saying I have 14% and I really need you.
Best person in the race! Happy to chat. E-mail me at KateDonaghue AT aol DOT com .
Of government at the state and local level.
Berwick doesn’t, as I know Pablo well knows.
Razor-thin deciding votes were not the scenario in my town’s caucus, Pablo. Activists in my town trust Grossman, because he stands for the growth of small businesses, whether it be the manufacturing of lab coats right here in Massachusetts or winter coats by Red Rover Clothing. Don Berwick was no Don, no patron in my town’s caucus, sino un nadie. It’s Grossman who is our patriarch of economic growth. Our Treasurer has worked together with his constituents where small businesses earn their share of the pie. I shop small businesses such as Panache Coffee, Tesoro Supermarket and Elizabeth Lee, feeling that with Grossman’s rise to our governorship, my confidence will continue in our way of life.
He’d make the true claim for the same reasons he’d make the false claim — because securing 15% shows that he’s moved from gadfly to underdog. That’s a big step up.
Berwick has not evolved from a buzzing instinct to a warm, fuzzy canine. He has meritorious ideas, but is now more set back than when he totally backed out of the Senate confirmation vote which was the necessary step for him to continue working in our President’s cabinet. Having had irked Glenn Beck has not by itself secured majorities of delegates for him. Like a fly indeed, Berwick does not have a mastery of eye contact to attract mates and delegates where he eats breakfast formally sharing the fact of his candidacy. He has not evolved into a feeling, fun-to-the-touch dog, but has displayed his failure in the natural selection of delegates.
but you need not make every post you make about the Democratic governors one loaded with sandbagging other candidates and/or celebrating Grossman.
It’s rather tiresome.
… with all the wordplay. But I have to agree it doesn’t work.
n/t
comment, man.
Dogs and flies?
to Berwick rising from gadfly to underdog.
It is a strange comment.
I must say that I find nearly every comment from this individual “really strange”. “Strange” as in “out there”. Most of the time, I am unable to discern even a subject, never mind point of view, of the comment.
Perhaps this one is an improvement, I can at least downrate it for being offensive and insulting as well as categorically wrong.
Sudbury overwhelmingly went for my candidate , Don Berwick. Wayland had a unity slate but those of us who said we were for Berwick topped the voting for delegate.
BTW, my second choice is Juliette Kayyem. I like to support women, but couldn’t do it this time.
Either Grossman or Coakley would ensure a Charlie Baker victory.