Progressive Mass announced our endorsement of Don Berwick for Governor, last week at the State House steps.
Last week, on the steps of the State House, Progressive Mass proudly endorsed Don Berwick for Governor. While there are many qualified candidates for governor, Don has articulated a unique, progressive vision for economic prosperity for all, universal health care, combating global warming, and reducing poverty and homelessness. He is the only Democrat in the race to oppose casino gambling in Massachusetts, speak out unequivocally in support of a progressive income tax, and to advocate for single-payer healthcare. He is running an inspiring, grassroots campaign that has fully embraced liberal values.
Don Berwick is not only the strongest progressive in the race, he is also the strongest Democrat to take on Charlie Baker in November. But don’t take my word for it: recent history shows that when an outsider Democrat expresses a clear progressive vision, we can win. This is how both Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren ran and won, and Don Berwick is poised to do the same.
At our Policy Conference in April, house parties, issue forums and candidates’ debates across the state, Progressive Massachusetts members have seen first hand how Don Berwick’s message and vision inspires. And we have consistently heard from activists that in our candidate questionnaires, Don demonstrated the most comprehensive understanding of the issues facing the Commonwealth, and articulated the strongest plan to address them. That’s why our members gave over 70% of their votes to endorse Don Berwick—an incredible showing with five candidates.
Max, Susan and Patricia — part of the volunteer Progressive Mass team for Don Berwick
Don’s campaign organization is also impressive. Because of his national leadership on healthcare for over 25 years, including most recently as President Obama’s head of Medicare and Medicaid, his donor base is robust and deep. He has had consistently strong fundraising numbers, including significantly out-raising the other candidates May 1-15 (Berwick raised $105,143.24 in the first half of May, compared with $44,815.36 by Grossman, $68,760.87 by Coakley, and $40,606.88 by Kayyem).
Don Berwick’s campaign structure shows a sound understanding of grassroots strategy: empowering volunteer leadership, developing statewide grassroots strength and hiring enthusiastic, skilled and diverse staff. We know this investment in the grassroots will yield a strong showing at the convention. With strong progressive support, we see Berwick’s campaign expanding its place on the electorate’s radar and we know that when voters hear about his vision and plans, they get on board.
Finally, as a movement-based organization, Progressive Mass believes that Don would remain strongly connected to the grassroots as Governor. I am proud of the role our staff, members and volunteers have played in advocating for an increase in the minimum wage, earned sick time, comprehensive election reform and fair taxation, while also working to elect progressive legislators, such as Senators Linda Dorcena Forry and Jason Lewis and Representatives Mary Keefe and Jay Livingstone, to move the Legislature to the left. Deval Patrick ended 16 years of Republican control of the corner office and charted a progressive course that helped us weather a global recession as strong as any state in the country, but there remains so much more work to be done in Massachusetts. Don Berwick is the best candidate to take the helm and lead us in the next 4 years.
Join us in supporting Don Berwick as a member of Progressive Mass, please visit [progressivemass.com/membership] and become a member! Together, we can move the Commonwealth forward.
Ben Wright
Executive Director
Progressive Massachusetts
ProgressiveMass.com
Like this PM post a lot … And for me, the bottom line is this: if we really want to implement progressive policies, if we really want to ensure that we’ll move the needle toward shared prosperity and justice for all, then Berwick is the clear choice.
In my view, Don Berwick is the one and only true progressive in the race.
The rhyming and rhythmic schemes of a poem force creative use of language through their constraints on everyday words. For a poet with a vision, the result is breathtaking. For a poet lacking a vision, the result is repetitive drivel.
The constraints of politics — the reality of working with legislators, voters, contributors, and the media, not to mention the law — similarly force creative use of skills and talents. For a politician with a vision (like Deval Patrick), the result is breathtaking and inspiring. For a politician lacking a vision, the result is repetitive drivel.
Don Berwick is a progressive, clearly committed to a progressive vision. The other candidates are not.
Yes Tom, in Berwick we see the poetry, the progressive vision and the pragmatism. Recently in a conversation with a down ballot candidate whom I was sharing my support of Berwick with, this candidate observed, ” as I have traveled around the state, I have taken note that the Berwick supporters seem to be the most passionate and committed.”
…with the idea that he is the ONLY progressive. I don’t think anyone is going for the consevadem vote a la Stephen Lynch or Jim Miceli.
Apparently we have different standards for characterizing a candidate as “Progressive”.
In my view, especially in this election, THE defining issue is wealth disparity, wealth concentration, and the role of government in either encouraging or discouraging it. Virtually all of the other issues reflect or are constrained by this issue.
If we take education as an example, no amount of passion can change the reality that without more tax revenue we simply can’t do much more. That tax revenue can’t happen when 99% of us are already paying more in taxes than we can afford — half of us are one paycheck away from abject poverty.
All this while our wealthiest residents accumulate even more wealth. All this talk of “austerity” is a transparent euphemism from taking even more wealth — in the form of goods and services — from the 99%.
Only one candidate — Don Berwick — has explicitly named this issue and has courageously stated a realistic plan for addressing it.
None of the other candidates have done anything similar. The front runner has been remarkably evasive and even hostile (in her response to Scott Lehigh, for example) when questioned about it.
In my view, being a progressive candidate takes much more than not pandering to the “consevadem vote”.
He has put his money where his mouth is in the way he has run his family business. He has also been out front on 99% issues such as sick leave and the minimum wage. For that matter I believe Coakley has had a hand in seeking relief for people victimized by the recent mortgage crisis. I don’t see much evidence of a 1% attitude or austerity talk in this field.
It appears to me that jconway clarified the distinction I’m drawing.
A very modest increase in the minimum wage, spread over years (after being frozen for far too long) is spitting in the ocean of wealth disparity. I support it and agree it is desperately needed, but it does NOTHING about wealth disparity. Even a very modest portfolio grows more in a month than the proposed increase provides in a year. No wealthy people were victimized by the recent mortgage crisis — they, in fact, caused it.
The evidence of the “1% attitude” of the front runner is on display each time she addresses (or ducks) questions of tax policy. For example, in this February 2014″ appearance, she says (emphasis mine):
Classic do-nothing buck-passing, knowing full well that “the Legislature” is fully under the thumb of another do-nothing Speaker who sabotaged Governor Patrick’s proposal while promoting casino gambling as a means of raising money. We are asked to ignore the flagrant conflict created by the Speaker’s long-standing family ties to Suffolk Downs.
Here are some related questions and answers from an earlier BMG thread. I ask you to compare the answers, especially between Mr. Berwick and Ms. Coakley (emphasis mine):
Let’s just do an instant replay on the question about increasing the capital gains tax — a tax that applies ONLY to those with significant capital gains, ie, the wealthy. Here’s the question: “Do you support increasing the capital gains tax (with safeguards to protect seniors)?”
This is a softball that ANY progressive should hit out the park. Please tell me which of the following answers sounds like “yes”, and which sounds like “no” (though using many more words):
“Yes”
“I am committed to examining our tax system and exploring all the options we have at our disposal to make it more progressive for everyone.”
“I strongly opposed the plan to take away protections from seniors in the FY 2014 budget. I strongly believe that short-term capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than long-term gains, which are a form of economic stability.”
I already write too much, I could go on for pages more. When you write that you don’t “see much evidence of a 1% attitude … in this field”, I must most respectfully ask how hard you’ve looked.
None of them sounds like a no, but 2 and 3 sound nuanced and willing to make sure they really know all the ramifications which is something I appreciate.
What you call “nuance” I read as an obfuscated “no”.
Only one clearly says “yes”.
In my view, the evidence is there. We apparently interpret it differently.
Three sounds possibly like yes for some and no for others while two sounds non-committal but open. I’d actually be MORE skeptical of a candidate who gives a yes or no without qualification and you seem to take a very cynical he who is not absolutely with me must be against me approach. I would leave that attitude to the “tea party”.
You ask “How in the world do you get ‘no’ out of 2 and 3?” I spent decades working in Episcopal diocesan and parish politics. In those hallowed halls where consensus is valued so highly, nobody EVER says “no”. Against that backdrop, here’s how I get “no” out of 2 and 3:
First, “examine” and “explore” are VERY different from “support”. When a bill is “tabled”, is it alive or dead? Next, “all the options” is a gracious way of saying “I prefer other directions” — such as, for example, increasing the personal exemption.
The first is a diversion. This question isn’t about taking away protections from seniors — it explicitly says so in the question. Second, and similarly, maintaining a spread between short- and long-term capital gains is irrelevant to this question. The question asked was “Do you support increasing the capital gains tax (with safeguards to protect seniors)?” This candidate therefore offered two evasions while remaining silent on the central question.
A candidate who supports the concept of increasing the capital gains tax and wants to preserve the ability to adjust the specifics has a variety of nuanced ways to do so:
– “I support the concept of increasing the capital gains tax, and want to work closely with the legislature to iron out the details.”
– “An increase in the capital gains tax (with safeguards to protect seniors) is one way to ensure that our wealthiest residents pay their fair share.
– “I am receptive to the concept of raising the capital gains tax, so long as we carefully safeguard our working- and middle-class seniors and so long as we discourage speculation and encourage stability by continuing to tax short-term capital gains at a higher rate than long-term gains.”
The two answers made by the candidates are, in my view, nuanced ways to say “no”.
Word of the day.
“I am committed to examining our tax system and exploring all the options we have at our disposal to make it more progressive for everyone.” is NOT a no. All means all, including the one you favor. Examining and exploring is called good research. Anyone who says this can just as easily ultimately decide that your preferred solution is the best one afterall. Unless you can read minds you have no way of knowing otherwise.
The question was about increasing the capital gains tax. The only reason to offer “examining” and “exploring” is to avoid saying “no” without doing so. Sure, the candidate might want to do “research”. If so, then a more candid answer is “I’m not prepared to support this measure until I do more research”.
I don’t need to “read minds”. I think Ms. Coakley is about as interested in advancing an increase in the capital gains tax as she was in “investigating” the FBI fiasco in Florida.
…sounds like even more of a no since to me “I’m not prepared to support…” sounds like a negative presumption whereas examine and explore strike me as more neutral terms. Sounds like you wouldn’t like my answer either since if I were running, being no tax policy expert, I would likely give the examine and explore answer, though being very inclined and open based on the little I do know I would not want to lead with not prepared to support. You certainly have a right to agree or disagree with my answer, but I would hope you could at least concede it was genuine.
My preferred answer sounds like even more of a “no” because that’s my point — I think Ms. Coakley opposes the measure, and I think my rephrasing is a more candid way to say so.
Unlike you, I think Ms. Coakley has more than enough knowledge to form her opinion about an increase in the capital gains tax. I think if “examine” and “explore” have any substance at all in her response, that substance has to do with the political — rather than economic — implications.
If you start with what you already assume is the answer and work backwards, then you are going to come back to the answer you already assume. I on the other hand assume nothing unless or until I have other actual evidence leading me to doubt an answer. Maybe you think you have it and I haven’t paid as much attention, but in all my dealings political and otherwise I start with the presumption of trustworthiness just because I think on principle that is how we should treat each other.
You and I have each observed Ms. Coakley’s conduct of her current office for many years.
Ms. Coakley demolished any trust I might have in her when she:
– Dismissed allegations against Michael Kineavy (the City Hall connection of Diane Wilkerson’s liquor license corruption).
– Destroyed the career of Tim Murray while giving Michael McLaughlin a pass
– Found nothing to prosecute after years of flagrant pension and disability abuse by Boston police and firefighters. An entire mill of lawyers, accountants, doctors, and lobbyists supports that abuse. Apparently, like some say about the Probation Department scandal, it’s all perfectly legal in Ms. Coakley’s eyes.
– Allegedly knew nothing of the Annie Dookhan scandal until it was reported publicly.
– Allegedly knew nothing of the Probation Department scandal until it was reported publicly.
– Finds nothing wrong in the FBI killing of Ibragim Todashev
– Apparently has no interest in investigating the hiring of Mr. Todashev’s killer by the Boston FBI office, even after published reports revealing the killer’s history with the Oakland, CA police department.
In my view, these are clear betrayals of the public trust. These are decisions and actions made by the Attorney General — an office that should be a bastion of defense against corruption. Especially government corruption.
Sorry, but Martha Coakley betrayed my trust years ago and reinforces my perception of her with every public statement she makes — including the one we are discussing.
I think that the argument about the word progressive itself isn’t so much the point.
The real point, I think, is that there IS a clear distinction between Don Berwick’s platform/campaign messaging and the other candidates.
As I say in a prior post below, it’s a matter of whether the “DIFFICULT” — yet utterly crucial to long-term transformational change — progressive positions are being underplayed rhetorically (“don’t want to alienate those Scott Brown Democrats!”), and whether those DIFFICULT but crucial policies are the aggressive center of the platform — or safely marginalized.
Just as I never doubted that even though he said he was against it, Barack Obama actually DID “believe in” gay marriage, I do not doubt that most (probably not all) of the other D candidates “believe in” just/fair taxation and single-payer in their liberal heart of hearts.
It’s (past) time, though, for simply “believing in” these policies: it’s time for someone (and many someones…*cough* *legislature*) to LEAD ON THESE PRIORITIES.
We didn’t put a man on the moon by thinking small. JFK set an agenda/goal, and the national will bent toward achieving it.
Let’s demand a Governor who Thinks Big! Let’s make the case, frame the debate, set the priorities and create the agenda!
Yes, it’s always necessary and important to have electeds who work within a system to kick it out a little more/wider. But transformative change doesn’t happen by patiently conceding to “That’s the way things are done”– transformative change happens because we demand it.
You have to pinch me because so often I fret that Senator Elizabeth Warren is a dream: she’s got the platform and she’s putting up a FIGHT for transformational changes. What if we had 50 similar leaders in the Senate? What if we had one such leader in the White House? I love my President, and I know what he’s up against, but he’s not bully-pulpitting on transformational change (e.g., Obamacare vs. Singlepayer, heck, Obamacare vs. Public Option). What if we’d had a Governor Berwick instead of Governor Romney? Just think how much closer would “Obamacare” be to single payer.
Setting a bold, transformational progressive agenda — that’s a qualitative and quantitative difference that puts Don Berwick head and shoulders above the other candidates.
More and more, I realize how so incredibly LUCKY to have in Don Berwick such a qualified, experienced, battle-tested candidate who is LEADING on transformational progressive change.
Very few of them left in the Democratic Party in the 21st century, particularly in Massachusetts.
What we are talking about are Booker Democrats vs. Warren Democrats. That is the real fight. Social progressives who are economically centrist vs social progressive who are economically populist.
Berwick is the populist’s progressive’s best hope in this race. Bar none.
the statement about Berwick. I yield to nobody in being populist and progressive. I came into the political world just as the Third Way/DLC types were taking over the Democratic Party in the early 90s and have railed against them every day since. I like Berwick, but I continue to think the Berwick surge all but nominates Martha Coakley, whom I view as the worst of the Democratic options, possibly excepting Avellone, on the issues that I care about.
only two candidates who have a chance against Baker and one of them isn’t a strong progressive.
It’s all about turning out the Obama/e WARREN voters who are fickle about midterm years.
Coakley brings name recognition and the possibility of greater turn out with the women’s vote.
Berwick brings the excitement of the base who heard E Warren’s economic progressive populism, inspiring the activists to work hard.
I’m afraid that Grossman, and his tempered center left platform, doesn’t bring more voters to the polls. No one knows or cares what a Treasurer does, unfortunately, and his message doesn’t have the bold, inertia piercing quality we need to get the Base turnout required to win.
Ending because airplane. More later.
It’s a real concern, as I’ve said elsewhere-I got nothing against Grossman and will back him if he is nominated or if he is clearly the most viable alternative leading up to the primary. We still have a convention, Berwick just got his ads on the air, and presuming Avellone and Kayyem don’t make the cut-their supporters will flock to the remaining three. Then we will see what the shape of the race is. Until then, I am not ready to write him off as a spoiler-especially since the polls show Grossman is only a few inches above Berwick in the basement right now.
I’ll be happy to say I was wrong later but I continue not to see it. Berwick’s a great guy with great values. He’s not Elizabeth Warren, who was begged to run by activists from Pittsfield to P’town and got 96% at the convention.
And for the love of all that’s holy, the polls mean nothing right now.
Berwick has been strongly, unequivocally, unapologetically, and unhesitatingly out there in support of two progressive priorities that “conventional” third-way centrist wisdom has told us are not tenable:
– Progressive taxation — asking more of the wealthiest (who are currently paying the least, as a percent of income)
– Single-payer health care
If other candidates supported these, they were very careful to wrap them in hedges and conditionals or inoculating statements like “Though I support it in theory, it’s not feasible…it’s a long way off…”
Not Don Berwick.
And that’s exactly what we need: the kind of unabashed liberal who doesn’t give away the priorities before we even start negotiating. We need VISIONARY leadership — not “someday”s or “not yet”s
One might ask, “What does it really matter if someone is in favor of single payer, or progressive taxation?–The conventional wisdom is right; we’re not getting either for a long time (Even if I agree in principle!)”
We already see what a difference such unapologetic progressive vision can have: at the beginning of the primary season, no other candidate would talk about these issues. But there’s been a noticeable change and candidates (Grossman in particular, I think) are speaking more strongly in favor of the policies we always assumed they supported deep down. Good!
By violating the taboo of actually saying he’s in favor of these “controversial” progressive reforms, not only has Don Berwick led the way, he’s actually changed the conversation!
We can do bigger and better things when we have an unapologetic progressive laying out our values and priorities. Look at Elizabeth Warren. That’s the kind of Democrat we should be electing — one who is pushing the boundaries in favor of our values. Not more safe, centrist triangulation typical of just about every other mainstream Democrat (and the coin of the realm in the Legislature, sadly).
I think that this is what STom is suggesting when he says “THE true progressive.”
I tend to agree with Christopher that a simple “yes” arouses my skepticism more than a nuanced answer. In my view Coakley’s answers, generally, take the cake for evasiveness. But I have a bit of a problem with “yes,” “yes,” “yes.” That’s great, how are we going to get there? It just sounds too much like giving people what they want to hear.
It’s also the essay questions that accompany the questionnaire. I wanted the questionnaires to convince me to be with Steve but they did the opposite.
The fullness of Berwick’s commitment (unequivocal and unevasive and unapologetic) is also in all of his campaign appearances and forum participation that I’ve watched.
There’s a qualitative and quantitative difference between Berwick and all the other candidates esp on poverty, progressive taxation and single payer
If the net result of this is to nominate Coakley, forget about poverty, progressive taxation, single payer, and plenty of other progressive policy items no matter who wins in November. Again, happy to be wrong but I think a Coakley-Grossman-Berwick primary ballot (which I expect at this point) hands it to Coakley.
But assume Berwick wins. How does he get those things done?
…why support him in the primary?
Why not instead fight for the best advocate for our values now–who actually has a chance of winning in the general? I think we are all getting a little tricky and too clever by half when we start game theorying in this way.
Who can win against the Republican?
Who best represents our values?
Figure those questions out and then back the hell out of that candidate, and that’s your path to victory. Unfortunately, I see no path to victory in Grossman v Baker.
But Berwick v. Baker — the doctor, who’s dedicated his life to getting better health care to MORE people, vs. the insurance exec whose prime directive is to deny it?
Berwick’s passionate defense and articulation of our core democratic values –without apology, without asterisks — will draw the bright line that we NEED to win in November. Add to that, Berwick can tap into to a field of voters outside of the party regulars who always turn out. And that’s what we MUST have to win. Again, Coakley has that opportunity too, with the women’s vote. Between Coakley and Berwick, two of the candidates who can win against Baker, I much prefer to put my time and energy now on amplifying and strengthening the one who actually shares, passionately, my values.
As for your second question, how does anyone get anything done? Coalition building, alliances with legislators and —crucially, differently from DPatrick— continued engagement with the progressive grassroots, to create outside pressure for change.
Out of ALL of the candidates, Berwick has the MOST relevant experience in steering massive systems toward positive (progressive) change. That’s been his life’s work.
And over and over again he has shown that he understands that none of the persistent problems that liberals are concerned with (poverty, inequality, declining opportunity, unequal education, rising costs, inadequate investment in human and concrete/steel infrastructure, health care inequities and costs…) exists in isolation: that they are bound together and reinforce the negative downward pressure of each other.
And, given his strong link with progressive legislators like Denise Provost, Jamie Eldridge and Sonia Chang-Diaz, we can be sure he understands the frustrations of trying to pass progressive change thru the legislature, and is benefiting from their counsel about how a progressive Governor can better work with Legislature so that Mass. can really lead again.
Gotta go. Walking kids to school.
I actually think Grossman beats Baker, not at all sure Berwick does. I also don’t see Berwick winning the primary.
Yes; we disagree. That’s ok.
I think Don Berwick is hands down the best candidate and we are incredibly lucky that he wants to be our governor. But I also think he’s the only one who can animate the base and then turn out those irregular Democratic voters.
An insider, a Treasurer, I don’t see it. In a state that loves its Split Party corner office, against “he’s a nice guy”, “he’s not so bad” Baker?
Or,
The movement-, change-leader who led (one of? The?) Largest and most beloved and most effective public institutions in the United States, providing up-front, voice for people and the cause of economic justice? I feel really good about that story.
half a million sporadic voters showing up because of Don Berwick. I think it’s Reich redux. Steve Grossman has a lot of support across the state from people who’ve been doing this a long time.
I also think the “split party corner office” thing exists, but is exaggerated. The John Silber fiasco begat Weld, who handed Cellucci incumbency during a boom economy and Cellucci still only won by 3 or so. That’s 12 of the 16 years right there.
And because of grassroots organizers and activists like me who are excited about getting out on doors.
No one is saying it’s a cakewalk. We don’t get what we don’t fight for.
I think fenway is approaching this question as an ‘either/or’ proposition and is making some unfounded assumptions about Grossman’s viability against Coakley in the primary and against Baker in the general. So he is overestimating Grossman and underestimating Berwick.
I would still argue Harmony who is overestimating Berwick, and I say that as a supporter.
Both candidates lack the name recognition that Coakley has and will have an uphill climb against her in the primary and also in the general election. It is pretty hard to argue, as Fenway has, that Grossman is better than Berwick significantly when he is in fact just barely registering above him in most of the pre-convention polling. Obviously, he may well get the convention endorsement, but the boost from that is overrated historically, particularly since that result is expected at this point.
Berwick is actually outraising the frontrunners for this quarter, has the most volunteers, and will have ads up soon. One could argue that he is the most viable outsider at this point (compared to Avellone and Kayyem) and would benefit in a three way race by staying positive while those two sling mud stupidly towards one another, as they already have (see NRA debate spat). I think were he the nominee he would have a fighting chance against Baker-quite possibly more so than the ‘entrenched insiders’ Baker will portray either Coakley or Grossman as.
You always like citing the Reich race Fenway, but need I remind you in that race the Treasurer did win that nomination and ended up losing. Partly because she lost some of her left flank to Stein and Barbara Johnson, and partly because she ended up looking like part of the problem in Beacon Hill and Saint Mitt could sail on cleaning up the Olympics and being a social moderate. Reich also didn’t have any significant support from legislators, infrastructure from more mainstream organizations like Progressive Dems and Progressive MA, and a history of progressive success like Berwick does with Patrick and Warren.
The 2002 environment was one where liberalism nationwide was on the defensive over Iraq, and retrenching at every turn, and there just wasn’t the liberal infrastructure in place to help Reich seal the deal. The fact that he did as well as he did speaks volumes to how hard his volunteers worked, but had he shown up around the time Warren did with his current profile I am sure he would have done much better.
I like Grossman, and if he is polling better than Berwick on primary day, than he may get my vote, but a three way race between these candidates would be healthy, and it would be smarter for Steve and his supporters to go after Coakley and not Berwick. There are a decent number of people, like me, who like both candidates.
It’s not too late for Steve to take big risks and start adopting the Berwick platform as his own, particularly if he wants to be the nominee and wants to be a transformative governor rather than a caretaker. Deval ended up largely being a caretaker, due to the bad economy he inherited and successfully managed, and a legislature he neither bothered to work with nor bothered to depose via primaries. And casinos will haunt him, especially if they are passed. I see many of the same progressive instincts Deval had in Grossman, along with the same troubling comfort level with relying on regressive revenue, charter schools, and issue that appeal to the boardroom and not main street (EBTs). So if a Berwick candidacy can move Grossman to the left, it will still be a success.
I think that we have the elements in place to activate the sporadic voters and the passionate progressive base to volunteer/GOTV.
But I think that it’s something we’ll really have to work for. Yet, Berwick’s a candidate who I’ll gladly do that for because he’s prioritizing all of my values, and doing it smartly, and he DOES have a path to victory. In my estimation, his chances are better than Grossman’s (not insider, relevant experience, inertia-piercing platform and potentially movement-building message), and his path is different from a Coakley path (name recognition, play it safe, Scott Brown Democrats, women’s vote).
We gotta work for what we want, and in this race, there’s no one closer than Don Berwick. If we want progressives to win, we need to build the circumstances to make it possible. I see that opportunity here, and little risk to doing so–since he’s, in my estimation, the BEST chance to beat Baker (with all the caveats and hard work alluded to above built into that statement).
I don’t see either Ms. Coakley or Mr. Grossman causing “half a million sporadic voters” to show up.
To the contrary, I think if either is the nominee then a great many passionate progressives (like me) will join a significant part (or all) of those “half a million sporadic voters” and stay home or write in “None of the above”.
Neither Mr. Grossman nor Ms. Coakley have staked out any new ground on any of the issues of the campaign, and neither has offered anything new or even remarkable about their positions on the well-trodden liberal turf they hope to walk across to victory.
I think a race between Charlie Baker and Martha Coakley is a toss-up, and I think part of why it’s a toss-up is a great many potential voters will conclude that the race is between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. If Ms. Coakley wins, it will be because she peels off more loose-in-the-socket Republican voters than the passionate progressives she alienates. I think a race between Charlie Baker and Mr. Grossman is more likely to end up electing Charlie Baker, mostly because his more liberal stances will attract less Republican votes.
I think Don Berwick will turn out more sporadic voters who lean progressive, and I think he’ll get far more passionately progressive voters — including the large segment who will skip an opportunity to vote for or against Martha Coakley.
I largely agree with the content, I just worry that Berwick is starting to peak a little late, Deval had his momentum like this but he had it two or three months ago in the equivalent cycle. I am hopeful Berwick can surpass expectations and not only get on the ballot but really make it a three way fight for the endorsement. I am also hopeful that the debates, the actual campaigning in the summer, and the ads can help him get a great lead.
I disagree with Fenway over the potential spoiler role for Berwick simply because there is no evidence that Steve has really gained much traction over the past few months either. If it was really looking like a 50/50 race, with Berwick sucking away the support Steve needed, I would be open to the idea, but to declare a spoiler before the convention sounds awfully premature and somewhat cynical to me. I also suspect Avellone and Kayyem won’t make the ballot, I can guess that most of the Kayyem supporters I know (some elected and municipal officials back in Cambridge) would break Berwick’s way, but I am not sure if that is the case for all of her support.
But if the primary is three way it could bode well for Berwick, especially as more voters get to know him and the trivial spats between Grossman and Coakley start to suck the air out of their fight and he can emerge unscathed from that fray. I also think he might be our most viable general election candidate in terms of motivating independents and activists alike to the Democratic ticket. MA has not elected an insider to the Corner Office during an open race since 1974, and one could argue though a legislator, that the Duke represented an insurgent faction, so we may need to go back even earlier to find one.
BT and ST are both articulating the two important considerations in a strong candidate: the Pragmatic and the Intangible/Poetic
Pragmatic: Don Berwick’s agenda is the strongest and absolutely most unapologetic progressive (hallelujah!!), offering the maximum opportunity to advance a non centrist agenda. His Prog MA questionnaire was by far the best of the bunch; that’s when I started thinking, “This might have to be the one I support”
Intangible/Poetic: He has the ability to inspire and mobilize–I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and as hard-boiled as I am, I’ve been moved and inspired by him. I’ve heard it again and again from people, who were just as surprised as I was to learn this. On hearing him at the Progressive Mass conference, that’s when I thought, “OK, that’s it; this is ABSOLUTELY the one I HAVE to support.”
There’s an organizing meeting for Don in Needham next Friday; I invite other area progressives to come along!
Not so worried about Don getting 15% at the convention anymore. He’s on a roll.
I started this campaign season slightly demoralized with the choices we had at the top of the ticket, and the clear media blackout of outsider candidates. When was first hashing out who I was going to be lending my time, effort, and money to; I immediately knew I couldn’t support neither Martha or Steve. Based purely on demographic qualities I decided I’d support Juliette, because she could motivate a largely apathetic off year electorate. Boy was I wrong. She doesn’t have a mastery of the issues, and at all candidates forums, its clear she’s in far over hear head. While Juliette has taken a pretty serious nosedive, Don been methodically climbing the ranks, picking up important endorsements (Progressive Mass, PDM undecided delegates, Sen. Eldridge, Sen. Chang-Diaz) raising tons of money and staked out his message as a bold progressive agenda with a true depth of issue comprehension you never see in a first time candidate to public office. I’m so encouraged groups like Progressive Mass can prop up truly impressive candidates and combat the Globe’s agenda of pushing their Steve v. Martha narrative down our throats!
Worcester DCU center here we come!
…is actually being excited about a candidate. I think Don is an intelligent, pragmatic person with potential to make Massachusetts a real leader in the nation.
With respect to the other candidates, I haven’t seen anything but boilerplate safe boredom from them. Kayyem is a the biggest surprise disappointment, Grossman I never much cared for. Coakley lost my vote with her i’m-a-tough-guy work as Attorney General (to say nothing of The Campaign).
That would have left Berwick just by elimination, but he has turned out to be a great candidate. Go Berwick!
And yes, he’s really developed as a candidate, and his program/platform is spot-on.
largely irrelevant town, and spent an hour and a half talking, but as importantly, listening to a room of us. He even motivated some tried and true independents.
I have a huge amount of respect for Don Berwick, And, I certainly support a federal single-payer healthcare system. But, there are many challenges with trying to implement single-payer within a single state. Dr. Berwick needs to provide more details. In particular:
1. Is he only proposing single payer as a replacement for commercial insurance, or does he somehow intend to also replace Medicaid and Medicare?
2. How is he going to pay for it? Which taxes will be raised, and by how much?
I might support him if he could explain what he is really saying, but I don’t understand how it will work well on a state basis.
Bluewatch,
The mistake made by most is to think that Single payer will cost more money, but it is just the opposite. It will free up money for other priorities. Go back and watch Dr Berwick’s speech, “Medicare For All,” given at the BU medical school. Here is the link: http://youtu.be/oeAlYlMgFkY
Does anyone really think that the fact that we pay roughly twice what other developed countries do for health care has nothing to do with our insurance-burdened system?
bluewatch, like you I know that Don Berwick has a huge amount of insight into what’s wrong with our health system and how it could run more efficiently. What’s kept me off the Berwick train so far is that a different system would need a lot of investment up front, and I’m not sure that he fully understands the political difficulty involved in finding the mega-dollars to do this.
With the Connector debacle there were way too many people involved who thought all they needed to do was draw two boxes on a PowerPoint presentation and call one of them “HIX” and the other one “Federal Data Hub” and an IT implementation would miraculously appear. I’d like to believe that a Berwick administration wouldn’t have this kind of people on board but I don’t know that at this point.
I really hope the Democrats have a strong position on healthcare funding.
In the governor’s submitted budget, 37% of the total is allotted to “health coverage related services” ($1.7B total for MassHealth and public employee health benefits).
Much as we are all tired of fighting the health care battle it’s hard to see how it won’t be an issue in the general election.
I’ll take the CMS, Institute for Health single-payer pediatrician against the Insurance exec.
This IS our turf. We HAVE the right narrative and the facts. We should be making the terms of the debate and moving always forward.