It’s time to call a spade a “spade”:
- The unanimous ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed what some of us have known for a very long time — Ms. Coakley is a tool of the Massachusetts Democratic Party machine, and therefore of the special interests (such as the gaming industry) that manipulate the levers of that machine.
- Once again, Ms. Coakley attempted to exploit the powers of her office to advance her political objectives. The ruling is, in essence, an SJC spanking of this improper use of her office.
- This ruling kills the claim that Ms. Coakley, as AG, works to protect the consumer or working class person. It clearly spotlights that, instead, Ms. Coakley presented impossibly contorted arguments to support her effort to squash the voice of working class people and consumers in favor of advancing the interests of
organized crimethe gaming industry. - Despite her feeble protestations to the contrary, this ruling is a hole in the hull of her campaign. I don’t believe that she is anything except seething while not in the public eye. I understand the need to spin this as positively as possible, but “healthy”? She’s just lying. Again.
- This ruling helps destroy the canard that Ms. Coakley has been effective as Attorney General (a point that Ms. Healey and her supporters might perhaps consider carefully). This was a high-profile filing against a popular referendum, and the ruling shows that the SJC not only rejected Ms. Coakley’s arguments, but did so in unusually hostile language for this body (emphasis mine) — “We reject this argument as wholly inconsistent with the long-standing principle …”, “We reject this distinction and this departure from common sense.” As Attorney General, Ms. Coakley failed to recognize or investigate the Dookhan scandal, the McLaughlin corruption and scandal (except to use it to remove a rival), and most recently the criminal ties of casino supporter and mayor of Everett Carlo DeMaria. Apparently Ms. Coakley was too busy advancing the extensions of the Patriot Act, which she also supported.
Always the optimist, I hope that this turns out to be the fatal blow to Ms. Coakley’s aspirations for higher office. As a realist, I know that politicians like Ms. Coakley have an astonishing ability to die and be reborn (see Richard Nixon).
I understand that Don Berwick and his campaign can’t say these things I write here. I feel bound by no such constraints. Mr. Berwick is a welcome alternative to all this whom I enthusiastically support.
In a reality-based community like BMG, I think we need to be willing to call a spade a “spade” — the ruling of the SJC is a disaster for the Coakley campaign.
Please share widely!
This wasn’t a split decision, it was a unanimous rejection of Coakley’s argument to keep the casino question off the ballot. Now Coakley says she will vote against the ballot question which is a vote for casino expansion in Massachusetts.
I’m disappointed in Charlie Baker who appears to favor 1 casino but not 3, so he too, is on the same page as Grossman and Coakley.
Don Berwick is the only candidate of the two major parties who is on the right side of casino issue.
So if she is, what then?
Just speaking for myself, I am not going to put up with any politician on the wrong side of this issue. Casinos are a bad deal for the state as a whole. The jobs they will provide and the relatively small tax income they will bring to the State will not make up for the vast amount of capital they will extract from our citizens and export out of the State. At least with the Lottery we know the money will be invested here. And of course, then is the inevitable crime, addiction, prostitution and public corruption that will come with large-scale organized gambilng.
So if it is Baker vs. Coakley (or Grossman) and there are no appealing third party candidates, I will probably not vote for anyone for Governor.
If she comes out and says “I was wrong on this issue but now believe that the Casinos will be bad for MA”, I might reconsider. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear Coakley admit to being wrong about anything or issue a genuine apology for her mistakes (e.g. her campaign finance violations), so I don’t think it is going to happen this time either.
The only way Dems lose in this state is when we sulk or otherwise don’t give it our best effort. The question is not does Coakley deserve the reward of being elected. She will land on her feet, suffer a bit of a bruised ego, and probably never have to worry about her personal means. The real question is do YOU want to risk living under a Baker Governorship for four years.
I am not even remotely convinced that Coakley really puts Progressive Democratic values above her personal ambition. While I would rather not see a Republican take the office, I don’t think it would be a disaster given the lack of Republicans in the State House.
If Coakley wants my vote, she has to earn it. She can’t just count on coasting through the primary and expect everyone will just jump on board because they have no other choice.
I would rather we lose this election in the hope that future candidates will learn they cannot simply ignore what is right for fear of offending Big Money or Big Labor.
Candidates need to learn they can’t just change the subject or mumble there way out of every mistake or controversial issue.
n/t
Charlie Baker appreciates your support.
To further contribute:
https://my.charliebaker2014.com/contribute#donate
…with a terrible candidate is not always the worst thing that can happen.
Case in point: Martha Coakley, 2010. Check out our sitting Senators now. While I obviously won’t support Charlie Baker, I feel like her Senate race (where I stupidly door-knocked for her against my better judgment) was instructive. I think we need to find people for office who have strong core values and a great work ethic. If the Democrats as a party can’t do that, why should they be trusted to run the corner office, and what will happen if they do?
No, failing to support a candidate is not tantamount to supporting their opponent. I don’t support Baker either and won’t vote for him even if he declares he had a revelation from God that Casinos are evil.
Yes, there are plenty of times I will hold my nose and vote for an imperfect candidate (and aren’t they all?) who better represents my other interests, but not this time.
…but depending on the closeness of the race it might as well be from a mathematical standpoint. If you blank the line you are making a conscious decision to leave the choice to others and thus IMO, give up your moral (though obviously not legal) right to complain about the Governor for the next four years.
If the two parties each put up an unsuitable candidate, I sacrifice no “moral” right to complain by choosing “None of the above”.
To the contrary, I suggest I preserve whatever moral right I have, in preference to those who instead swallow their values and vote for either candidate while knowing in their hearts that they have voted for someone they in fact oppose.
Complaining about any elected official after they are in office is one of those inalienable rights I claim as a participant in a democracy that provides both voting booths and a First Amendment.
Not giving $100 to Coakley does not put $100 in Baker’s account. Not voting for Coakley does not give Baker a vote.
Your point about a “moral right to complain” is just plain silly. I could just as well argue that voting for candidate X eliminates your moral right to complain about their conduct for the next four years if they win. So when do you have a “right to complain”? Perhaps only if your candidate has a reasonable chance to win according to the polls but then loses?
Assuming of course that they’re the nominees, Baker’s raw vote total doesn’t mean jack. What matters is his vote total relative to Coakley’s. One of them will win, and a good Democrat’s vote withheld from Coakley tips that relative count one vote closer to Baker being the winner. Minus 1 for Coakley is the same as plus 1 for Baker in the relative count.
It’s not quite the same as voting for Baker, which removes a vote Coakley would otherwise have, and adds one to Baker’s raw total, so double the impact. But it’s halfway there.
This is a fair point and illustrates the complexities at work here. I’d argue that you still have a right to complain because your vote was based upon choosing which candidate you thought best from among limited options, and it can’t imply acceptance of every single thing that candidate does thereafter.
It would be lousy if no Democrat could criticize Democratic officeholders for whom he/she had voted. It would be worse if Democrats withheld their votes from Democratic candidates on a regular basis just to preserve their right to bitch.
Ok, I am being pedantic here, but -1 for Coakley is NOT the same as +1 for Baker or even the same as 1/2 a vote for Baker. Why is that? Let’s say the vote was tied. If vote for neither party, the vote remains tied.
This whole idea of taking votes away is based on the premise that you somehow “owe” that vote and are taking it away from them.
Non votes are neutral. You can well say that when you don’t choose between two parties, you are letting other people decide. Fair enough.
and your vote, which typically goes to the Democratic candidate, is cast, it would be the Democrat by one vote. We are Democrats here for the most part, right?
Not a real one. Just like the ones of people who don’t make it to the polls.
My imagined vote either way won’t break any ties.
I’ve never missed an election. I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life either. I was not quite of voting age in 1990 but elections like Silber v. Weld, where the Democratic nominee might actually be worse from our standpoint, are so rare as to be legendary. It’s no accident that example popped into your mind so readily.
In terms of civic engagement, I put us here ahead of those citizens who just don’t show up. If you accept the premise that we will go vote, and you accept the premise that the GOP nominee generally is worse, you’re going to be voting for a Democratic nominee you don’t adore pretty often.
“Rare” and “legendary” are not the same as “never”. I’m sorry, but in my view Ms. Coakley is just as bad as Mr. Silbur. At least he was honest and candid about his most offensive things.
I will go vote. I always go vote. I often vote for a Democratic nominee that I don’t adore. So I agree with you about all that.
Here’s the rub, though. One of those times was when I voted for Martha Coakley over Scott Brown. She lost. The aspects of her that made me hold my nose in 2010 are true, in spades, today. Scott Brown was far worse than Martha Coakley as a candidate for Senator.
Charlie Brown, however, is NOT nearly as bad in comparison. Where Brown versus Coakley for Senate was an easy “Coakley”, Baker versus Coakley for Governor is a toss-up.
Or, as I wrote elsewhere, Tweedledum versus Tweedledee. I held my nose once for Ms. Coakley. I won’t do it again.
…and it looks like Coakley will win 51-49 all it takes is three of those Coakley voters to stay home and it becomes 49-48 Baker. I thus hold those three sulkers responsible for Baker becoming our Governor.
Sadly you can pretty much bet that whatever the margin of victory in votes, many times that number will sit on the sidelines.
If those three could not in good conscience vote for Coakley, it’s wrong of you to blame them. If you must go around blaming, then blame Coakley for not presenting herself as someone their consciences could tolerate.
I didn’t nominate Martha Coakley. I didn’t encourage her to run. I’ve done all I can to present the facts that form my opinion of her, and to do so in plenty of time to help the party choose a different nominee.
I reject your characterization of voters who, like me, will not vote for Martha Coakley as “sulkers”. If you insist on it, then I’ll counter by characterizing you as an insufferable bully whom I hold responsible for putting a Republican in office (in your scenario above).
Martha Coakley has been trying to steamroll me and progressives who feel like me for years. The episode that provoked this thread is a good example of that — she attempted to use her powers as AG to steamroll opposition to casino gambling.
The SJC said “no” to Martha Coakley. I certainly hope the voters do the same.
…but in the general we’re getting either Baker or our nominee. “None of the above” will not be our next Governor. I don’t know how I’m responsible for a Republican in the Corner Office. I’m not supporting Coakley either, but will vote for her if she is our nominee.
I agree that either Mr. Baker or our nominee will be our next governor, and have agreed all along.
My quarrel is with your statement “I thus hold those three sulkers responsible for Baker becoming our Governor.”
You say “sulker”, I say “bully”. Neither is constructive.
I’ve been voting for forty four years, I’ve seen many more outcomes of those votes than you. I’ll not quietly stand by while you call me a “sulker” for choosing a different path from you.
methuenprogressive, you must’ve loved Ed King!
He was Reagan’s favorite Democrat governor. Why we had the boom in the 80’s.
It’s Democratic Governor, you &*^%$&* &*^%$#@!.
Ah yes that dreaded ground force for Elizabeth Warren and Marty Walsh. We are such bad people.
I absolutely reject any suggestion that “big labor” is bad or that you are bad for actively representing the interests of organized labor. I also think that Don Berwick is a better candidate, even for big labor, then Martha Coakley. If we disagree on this one, so be it.
I ask you to continue to exclude me from those who suggest that you or “big labor” are “such bad people”.
If Big Labor supports casinos, are they not partially responsible for the ills that come with it? Why give them a free pass?
You said that since I am a member of the NRA (and proud of it) that I am partly responsible for the gun violence. Do you recant these past comments since Striker gets a pass on casinos that he is pushing?
I am not trying to paint Big Labor as inherently evil (nor do I consider Big Business to be inherently evil either).
The problem is in the “Big” part. Sometimes a very large special interest group can drive policy in a way that is not good for the people at large. I have no problem with large (or small) labor unions trying to get as much work as possible for their members. However, when they do so they are representing the needs of their members and not the society as a whole. When the goals of the union and the goals of a broader Progressive movement are aligned, great things can be accomplished indeed. When they are not aligned, it is another story.
unfairly ‘driven policy?’
Was it when Beacon Hill pulled a Scott Walker and cut the health benefits of all public workers across the state without collective bargaining?
Was it when the state enacted “pension reform,” aka cuts, under current legislative and gubernatorial leadership?
Or when, despite fear tactics used in the Boston Mayoral race to smear Marty Walsh, suggesting Marty would give away the house, we ended up with a quicker, fair and reasonable deal with the firefighters union that ended up being far more affordable to the city of Boston than anything Menino had accomplished with his aggressive tactics?
I’m really having a very hard time seeing just how “Big Labor” has been bad for Massachusetts.
The fact of the matter is that unions have been under attack for the past 24 years in Massachusetts politics. The notion or idea that labor is some giant group that is fleecing voters is just complete and utter nonsense and needs to be called out for the BS that it is.
I never said “driven policy” so why you putting it in quotes as if that is what I said? I don’t believe that unions are “driving” the policy on casinos. I am sure they had little to do with the idea. However, they are most definitely *influencing* the policy. Big labor unions are a huge source of political support for Democratic politicians both in terms of contributions and feet on the ground, so most politicians are (and should be) extremely wary of crossing them.
Please don’t try to strawman my argument into something it is not.
In this case, it is my opinion and the opinion of many others that the casinos are bad public policy. It is also quite clear that the construction trade unions are firmly in favor of bringing in the casinos because of the jobs they would provide. So it is perfectly fair to portray labor as a negative influence on this particular issue. That in no way implies that union influence is inherently bad nor that they are even acting in bad faith when they push for the casinos.
Money makes strange bed fellows that’s for sure
Construction trade unions and large real estate developers have always had a symbiotic relationship. They are at odds when the developer is trying to use non-union labor or otherwise exploit their workforce, but they are pretty much always on the same side when it comes to starting new projects.
Or real estate moguls who support Republicans who work against their self-interest? So if they build a casino for Steve Wynn who supports politicians who decimate collective bargaining, that is okay?
For example, last time Charlie baker worked in state government, through a republican administration, he gave us the disastrous big dig financing. And that was just him as a high level staffer. Imagine the damage he could have done as governor.
The governor wields tremendous power that in many ways the leg can do little, if anything, to counteract. When I was at umass Dartmouth, for example, mitt Romney was trying his darndest to destroy it – packing the umass board of trustees with people who didn’t believe in investing in a umass that looked past Amherst and Worcester.
A choice between Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker is, for me, a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I think the risks of living under a Coakley governorship for four years are just as bad as a Baker governorship.
I’ll write in “Donald Duck” if it comes to that.
Jeff McCormick favors the repeal, though it is unclear if he will be on the ballot yet.
Evan Falchuk will be on the ballot, but does not favor the casino repeal, but would vote against one in his hometown.
Maybe they are and maybe they aren’t, but it would seem like a good idea to step beyond the “seeming” stuff to a comparison of what we actually expect them to do in office.
Our choice of governor is more important than is merited by a casual indulgence in self-expression.
I’ve written at length about my objections to Martha Coakley. I am aware of no public statements from Mr. Baker comparable to Ms. Coakley’s eager pursuit of expanded government surveillance, her casual indifference to FBI thuggery, and her consistent willingness to put her own political prospects ahead of the constitutional obligations of her office (as in, most recently, the situation in Everett).
I (and I suppose you) lived through several Republican governors. The world did not end. I did not vote for Ed King, I did not vote for John Silbur, and I will not vote for Martha Coakley.
There is nothing “casual” about that observation.
By comparison, the Baker side of the equation seems cast in shadow.
It would be utterly surprising if Baker were bad in precisely the ways you don’t like Coakley, but he might be quite worse in novel, unexamined ways.
COAKLEY 2014
My opponent might be quite worse in novel, unexamined ways
CHUCK BAKER 2014
Not spanked by the SJC
CHUCK BAKER 2014
Not spanked by the SJC
Thank you
The devil you know and all that.
Let me repeat, again, that I will enthusiastically vote for Don Berwick in the primary. I hope that he will be the nominee. I am confident that if he is the nominee, he will defeat Charlie Brown.
I won’t again vote for Martha Coakley. For any office. Ever.
To combat my own excessive casualness, I went over to the Charlie Baker’s extremely annoying site. (It’s way too whizzy and the whizziness doesn’t always work. For example, the press releases, which contain a lot of the substance, float uncomfortably and unreliably above the news page. Someone needs to cool it with the javascript.)
What I found there were statements from an extremely moderate Republican, e.g., an endorsement of raising the minimum wage. A cynical reader with my politics might wonder whether some kind of bait-and-switch is in play, and I lack the background to refute that. There is talk about the state “partnering” with cities and towns, but every proposal on his site is revenue negative and so it looks to me as if a Baker Administration will have hearty handshakes with mayors but meager local aid.
There’s some discussion of the business climate. That’s reasonable as our prosperity depends on it. The discussion of regulation, for example, steers away from the Reaganesque disdain for regulation, though, and that’s nice to see.
I think Fenway49 has nailed the reason we should have a strong preference for Coakley over Baker: the state budget.
The state budget is still suffering from the structural deficit introduced by the Romney Administration. And just as Gov. Christie in NJ made overly optimistic revenue projections and just as Presidents Reagan and G. W. Bush made over-optimistic revenue projections, you can count on a Republican governor in Massachusetts to lean on fairy tale revenue projections combined with vague promises to eliminate the Department of Waste. The result will be a further shrinking of the funds on which our infrastructure, safety net, and educational opportunity depend.
Baker will be good at accomplishing this, too, as he is great at the symbolism of caring. There will touching anecdotes here and there of some thing or other that Mr. Baker has turned around, but, in aggregate, as it affects great numbers of people, the state budget will be severely harmed by a Republican Administration and impose hardships. Not just when Baker is in office, but for years thereafter.
Accept potholes.
They’ll become permanent.
Neither you nor fenway49 have presented evidence that Ms. Coakley’s position regarding the state budget is significantly different from Mr. Baker’s. Each is “great at the symbolism of caring”, and each offers “touching anecdotes”. Neither has offered concrete substance about funding.
Ms. Coakley, in particular, offered “decreased waste and increased efficiency” as her bromide when probed by Scott Lehigh about paying for her education proposals — that is a GOP/Baker response.
A huge reason why the state budget is still suffering a structural deficit is that Democrats like Mr. DeLeo have torpedoed every effort to solve the problem. Despite the overwhelming Democratic advantage we hold in the House and Senate, our leadership seems intent on out-Republicaning our few remaining Republicans. I see no evidence that either Ms. Coakley or Mr. Grossman has said or done anything to change this.
Both Mr. Grossman and Ms. Coakley advocate increasing the regressiveness of our tax system, by increasing our reliance on proceeds from gambling (both casinos and the Lottery).
The fundamental change needed to address the structural deficit is to raise taxes on the wealthy. One way to accomplish this is a progressive income tax, but the legal path towards accomplishing that is long and tortuous. Several effective, simple, and easy to enact (given majority support) alternatives are:
1. Significantly increased estate/gift tax (with a high exemption).
2. Significantly increased long- and short-term capital gains tax (with a high exemption)
3. Significantly increased personal income tax rate with a corresponding increase in the personal exemptions/deductions
If we are to measure candidates by examining their approach towards resolving the structural deficit of the state budget, then Ms. Coakley, Mr. Grossman, and Mr. Baker are bunched together in the “no new taxes” camp.
Only Don Berwick has clearly stated his support for increased taxes on the wealthy.
I am hoping Don Berwick gets nominated, I will keep posting for him here, spread the word on Facebook, and if I get hired full time soon, I may even be able to chip in financially. That is it between now and primary day.
I am less convinced that my second choice, Steve Grossman, has a better shot than my first, and frankly, he may have a worse shot at this point. And I just hope we have enough time between now and the primary to make the case against Coakley and take her down before she gets nominated.
I will worry about that scenario if and when it happens. And the if and when are still open questions at this point-seeing as how no votes have been cast and all.
In response to “She’s the odds on choice to be nominee in Nov…” I would like to quote Sarah Connor: There is “No Fate But What We Make”
I’m working hard to make sure we have a nominee who is right on casinos, right on revenue, poverty, taxation and inequality, and right on health care.
I’m tired of Democrats sitting back and accepting What the Polling Says. I get it, it’s important. But so is working to CHANGE the political landscape. I’m tired of liberal observers who give up before even starting to fight for our values.
It bothers me more when I see it here b/c we can sit around and nit pick or we can work to make change. Dialogue and discussion is part of doing that; I enjoy it; I think it’s important. But conceding results to what polling tells you is the opposite of working to make the world what we want it to be. It’s defeatist and consigns us to the same ol’ same ol’, which I think we all know hasn’t really been working.
Game on.
Now if I could just remove the double post….
In response to “She’s the odds on choice to be nominee in Nov…” I would like to quote Sarah Connor: There is “No Fate But What We Make”
I’m working hard to make sure we have a nominee who is right on casinos, right on revenue, poverty, taxation and inequality, and right on health care.
I’m tired of Democrats sitting back and accepting What the Polling Says. I get it, it’s important. But so is working to CHANGE the political landscape. I’m tired of liberal observers who give up before even starting to fight for our values.
It bothers me more when I see it here b/c we can sit around and nit pick or we can work to make change. Dialogue and discussion is part of doing that; I enjoy it; I think it’s important. But conceding results to what polling tells you is the opposite of working to make the world what we want it to be. It’s defeatist and consigns us to the same ol’ same ol’, which I think we all know hasn’t really been working.
I see an outline, but nothing else.
The page reload that happens when I post a comment revealed a spade symbol from a card deck.
Except to perhaps increase the pro-casino turnout.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/24/analysis-casino-decision-poses-peril-for-coakley/NX5hVDEODAyfAfq2cDHLoL/story.html
I’m shocked.
It’s time to pick another tool from your rhetorical tool box….
I’m shocked…
I don’t really see how Coakley gained by keeping the question off the ballot. She could easily have split the difference, saying she personally opposes the question, but legally believes it should be on the ballot, or any combination thereof.
Accordingly I take her position at face value. Had any of her opponents made casinos their signature issue, I might see value in squashing the question. But none of them have.
Why, Tom, do you think she wanted the question off the ballot, since you believe she did?
I think she opposed the initiative, thought she could kill it, and pleased those at the top of the Massachusetts Democratic Party who felt the same — all in one act.
In short, I think she believed she would prevail.
Coakley has pretty clearly demonstrated that she prefers to fence sit on controversial issues that might split her potential supporters. Keeping the issue off the ballot would ensure that Casinos would be coming whether we like it or not, and would make this less of an issue during the election. It would allow her to accept contributions and other support from both sides of the Casino issue.
She does this a lot. In the Progressive Massachusetts candidate questionnaire, she refused to give a yes or no answer on a number of questions, making a vaguely sympathetic but noncommittal parallel statement. She also refused to give a yes or no answer to a question about Keystone XL during an environmental debate a few months ago.
But in this case she drew a pretty firm line.
Perhaps she (or her advisors) thought that no one would pay much attention to her ruling so early in the election cycle. Who knows?
The decision was clearly a mistake, so her thinking must not have been entirely rational so its hard to say for sure what it was. One thing for sure: she will never tell us herself.
and another reason why she won’t make a good governor.
We could only take that one possible explanation as true if we were thoroughly convinced that the legal reasons offered were not sincerely meant.
Do we have evidence for that?
I am not strongly arguing that is what motivated her.
In any case, is it really preferable that we believe that she was thoroughly convinced she was right on the law, when she so clearly was not?
The problem for me is that I am not comfortable with any interpretation of her behavior on this issue that I have heard to date. Was this a cynical act of political (mis-)calculation? Was it a demonstration of a strongly felt pro-business interpretation of the State Constitution? Does she really have a strong belief that bidding for a possible license is an implied contract of actually winning it? Wouldn’t that imply she should believe the outlawing of greyhound racing was also unconstitutional?
She so easily could have just let the ballot question go without challenge and let the Casinos take it to the courts, and it would have cost her nothing.
I have that gut feeling (again) that Martha Coakley has a propensity toward self-sabotage. Her obstructionist actions were pre-meditated and orchestrated from early in the Patrick casino proposal game. She met with the anti-casino group United to Stop Slots exactly once and delegated the matter to an AAG during the critical phases of drafting legislative language. She ignored or rejected recommendations from learned scholars and legal experts including former AG Scott Harshbarger who has been a rare and courageous educator and fair-minded leader on this far reaching public policy proposal. Not once did Attorney General Martha Coakley champion the broad issues of consumer protection in the legislative or post-legislative process. She proposed changed to the Electronic wiretapping and surveillance laws but did nothing on the matter until she and former state Senator Katherine Clark pushed for increased government surveillance powers last year prior to the CD-05 Special Election.
The Carney case was fresh on the books and her decision to ignore the glaring legal precedent set by this very same SJC is best described in their words, “We reject this distinction and this departure from common sense.”
by all those who find Coakley unpalatable as a Democratic nominee or governor yet support Don Berwick, whose place on the ballot remains the one thing most likely to hand Coakley the nomination.
Cue the indignant protests…
That and her 50% plus poll standing.
I still consider her poll support soft, but it’s sufficiently high that the best chance for anyone else to win the primary was a one-on-one race against an opponent devoted exclusively to drawing a contrast with Coakley.
My sense has been that if the primary electorate overall doesn’t become engaged enough with this election to pay some serious attention to the issues and the candidates, Berwick and Grossman are both toast. Grossman’s name recognition statewide hasn’t translated to enthusiasm among voters overall yet, which is a good indication that it won’t happen automatically as the election gets closer. Like Berwick, he’s a candidate of the well-informed and the committed. In this scenario, Coakley is the candidate, for good or ill, and would be even if Berwick — or Grossman, for that matter — weren’t on the ballot.
If the electorate does start paying attention, the calculus changes completely. Maybe Grossman and Berwick split an anti-Coakley vote and both lose, but maybe Coakley and Grossman split a status-quo vote and both lose. There are ways in which the two establishment candidates are much more alike than the two not-Coakleys are, after all.
FWIW, the Republicans don’t seem to be writing Berwick’s chances off. I was random-called last night for quite an extensive poll on the primary, clearly not being fielded by media. Based on things like the caller’s continual reference to the “Democrat” primary, and one of the questions being who among the three candidates I perceived as “too liberal,” I would assume that the odds are high that I was hearing from Republican interests. Whoever it was, though, they were field-testing potential lines of attack on all three candidates. Coakley did get a little more attention than the other two, but not very much, and the Grossman and Berwick batteries were equally weighted. Not that the other side’s views should be considered particularly authoritative, but it strikes me as an interesting data point.
I think, based on everything I’ve seen this year, it’s highly likely the electorate does not tune in very closely at all and Coakley cruises. I do think, sadly, Grossman and Berwick are probably both toast. Perhaps it was always going to be that way, but I think the best chance for it to be otherwise would have been a two-person primary. That ship sailed.
I do not think Berwick will be able to overcome the built-in advantages of both Coakley and Grossman and win this primary. I also am far from sure he’d win in November if he did. I’ll be perfectly happy to be proven wrong, but I just do not see it. I also think there’s a lot of difference between Coakley and Grossman, and (as I’ve argued before to little effect) the focus on casinos this year to the near-exclusion of everything else is a bad thing.
In any event, that right-wing pollsters would cover their bases doesn’t say much about the state of the primary race.
Berwick is an enormous longshot. He always was. But that’s not the same as impossible, and I’d rather take a flyer on what I actually want than settle for second or third best without even making the effort. And of course, in this case I have nothing to lose by it, since I just don’t see how Grossman would or will make up for whatever it is that’s fueling Coakley’s enormous lead.
Casinos aren’t the most important issue we have in the state, standing alone and towering over all others; I agree with you there. But how the question is answered will make a big difference to the target localities, and possibly to the overall budget. And a candidate’s opinion about them does tell us something about how they approach economic development issues overall. And about their approach to taxation; I remain deeply uncomfortable with any candidate who’s ready to sign off on a scheme that effectively reinvents the ancien regime’s practice of tax farming.
I’ve heard now from several Berwick supporters that it’s OK to support Berwick because, even one-on-one, Grossman had no chance to beat Coakley. I don’t agree. He’s got plenty of money and I think there was a chance. As in, not the same as impossible. Actually, better than that. Of course, we’ll never find out now how a two-way race would have gone.
These are often the same people who say that believing Berwick can’t win is a poor basis for a decision not to support him.
But consider your own puzzlement for a moment. Under your model, Berwick supporters are in exactly the same position you are. We could just as easily be going around asking Grossman people why, if they’re so convinced that Coakley is an inferior candidate and the only way to defeat her in the primary is to have a one-on-one contest, they’re not willing to drop the candidate they really believe in to support ours instead. Is it so difficult to believe that we’re not going with Grossman for the same kinds of rational, policy-based reasons that keep you from switching your support to Berwick? It’s okay to support Berwick, under your model, for exactly the same reasons that it’s okay to support Grossman. No more, and no less.
Who would be stronger against Baker is obviously a different question than who would be stronger against Coakley, and I know there’s strategic support for Coakley by people who believe she can win in November and the others can’t. And as I’ve said before, if someone genuinely believes that, I think it’s a perfectly valid reason to stick with Coakley. I don’t agree, is all.
In the primary, things are more complicated: a strong showing by an outsider candidate can move the agenda even when that candidate loses. So if you’re indifferent as to the choice between Coakley and Grossman, or don’t think Grossman has a realistic chance of winning, and you support Berwick’s agenda, now you do have a good reason to support him even if you don’t think he can win. Again, it’s not why I’m doing it, but it’s not an unreasonable strategy over time.
I have no doubt Berwick supporters made their choice in good faith and based on policy preferences. I just think, in the big picture, it will be counterproductive.
As for reversing the argument, Grossman’s a statewide officeholder. He’s been a very successful chair of the state and national Democratic Party. He’s been a member of his local committee for 40 years. Maybe those things don’t matter to you, but they matter to me. The idea that his supporters should give way to a guy who’s had exactly zero involvement in Massachusetts politics in 67 years of living strikes me as insulting, but typical of a campaign I’m increasingly seeing as full of self-righteousness.
I don’t buy the idea that someone losing a primary will move the agenda after the primary ends. Ask Robert Reich about it, or Tom Reilly, or Steve Lynch. At best you gain some visibility for your issues during the primary season. On September 10 it resets, and a Coakley-Baker race will have an agenda bookended by Coakley and Baker.
I obviously reject the presumption of indifference between Coakley and Grossman your comment is premised on. If that’s how you feel, it’s not surprising you’d go for Berwick. But how you’d feel that way is beyond me.
I remember attending my local caucus for Deval when he first ran, and distinctly remember the shock and discomfort of the caucus regulars that they were unable to push Reilly through. I got a definite feeling that we had encroached on the insider’s turf.
I think it is all too easy for someone who has been working the inside of the system for so long to forget the perspective of those of us who are mostly outside that system. The fact that there is such a huge disconnect between Grossman’s convention support and his public polling numbers is a very clear warning sign that while he may know how to work the Democratic party system, he has yet to figure out how to really connect with voters.
If we believe the polling, nobody’s really connecting with voters. I’d actually include Coakley in that. Her support seems like the default setting for an electorate not at all tuned in. The main question is if enough people will tune in enough to change anything in the end.
There are “insiders” and “insiders.” I’m no fan of the clubby conservadem crowd. I’ve complained as much about Bob DeLeo as anyone here, and I supported Deval in 2006. I don’t know what your local committee is like, but mine is full of very liberal people who also supported Deval and wanted nothing to do with Reilly.
It remains to be seen how strong Coakley’s support really is, so you definitely have a point. In any case, the candidates can’t simply wait for people to notice them.
But I will say that I would find it equally insulting, and equally self-righteous, to be told that I should give way and support your candidate because he’s been standing in line for quite a long time, and now he’s worked his way to the front, and how dare some upstart come along and try to cut in ahead of him? So I’m going to assume that you’re not saying that, or anything like it.
As I’ve said before, I’m interested in who I think can do the job I’d like to see done. I’m not convinced that candidate is Steve Grossman. You don’t have to be completely indifferent to whether the nominee is Coakley or Grossman to come out where I and other Berwick supporters are. You only need to think that Berwick would be sufficiently better than either one that the upside potential of supporting him outweighs the upside potential of any theoretical optimization of the not-Coakley vote.
I think Steve Grossman is a very good candidate. I think Governor Grossman would be an improvement on Governor Patrick. I think Governor Coakley would be a big step backward. I don’t believe there will be a Governor Berwick, so I think that’s largely irrelevant and see no upside at all.
All things considered, I would have preferred that more of the Berwick supporters had supported Grossman instead. People made their decisions but I think it’s unfortunate and counterproductive. I never said word one about anyone’s choices until Berwick people started suggesting Grossman’s supporters should just rally behind Berwick if they want to beat Coakley.
I think it was always gonna be this way, I don’t think Grossman, even mano a mano, would’ve had a shot. One of the reasons I quit on him so early, he just wasn’t willing to go where I needed him to go.
Berwick is, and if he can get the national money Warren got and the flood of endorsers keeps coming, I think he can be a very viable #2. He has to get on the air, and he has to kick ass in the debates, and he needs Grossman to fight Coakley.
Grossman btw, should fight Coakley rather than draw poor contrasts to Berwick. They need to be a tag team for this to work in either of their favors.
And going after Berwick and his supporters is not the smartest strategy. He has won statewide, has ran before, and is still polling within the margin of error from Berwick, who nearly toppled the frontrunner at the convention. I say the momentum is on Berwicks side-where I disagree with other Berwick supporters is that he doesn’t have a lot of time to make the case. I hope he does. But the argument ‘lose with Don, win with Steve’ is a very very weak one at this point. If Steve was polling within the margin of error from Coakley, than it’s another discussion entirely.
in the least. And I’m not particularly saying that I think Grossman’s better positioned than Berwick to beat her at this point. Although I think that’s still true, because of his ability to get on TV and his statewide network. At the convention Grossman came in first in 23 Senate districts, second in 15, and third in 2. Berwick ran up his vote in relatively few places, and came in fourth or fifth in a surprising number of districts. I think his momentum is largely within an activist set in a limited number of places.
I’m just voicing the same opinion I’ve voiced here since at least February. I left the DCU Center thinking Coakley would be the nominee because she got her ideal field. People made their decision, they’re entitled to it, I just don’t think they want to face what it means.
I think there are a lot of us who find both Coakley and Grossman to be unpalatable. And given the current topic of casinos, I don’t see why you would be surprised that people who are adamantly against casinos would favor Berwick over the other two Democratic candidates. In fact, I don’t believe you actually are surprised.
You know, sometimes it is much more satisfying to skip past all the game-theoretic political pseudo-analysis and to simply support the candidate you like the best. I can live with that.
You’re the guy who’s so against casinos (which I also don’t want) that you will “take the risk” of a Republican governor. It’s OK, look at all the Democrats in the legislature. Because that worked out so well when Weld and Cellucci and Swift and Romney were in the corner office.
For the record, I am supporting the candidate I like best.
Why are you pretending to be surprised that other people support the candidate they like the best?
Also, if I didn’t make it clear, I am not happy with either Grossman or Coakley on several issues and with their general approach to politics. Although I feel strongly about casinos, I could imagine myself looking the other way if either Coakley or Grossman were otherwise great candidates. Unfortunately, they are not, in my opinion.
(Speaking of Weld, do you really think we would have been better off with Silber? I am not so sure.)
I am “puzzled,” and “saddened,” by the fact that those most vociferously opposed Coakley are, in my view, guaranteeing her nomination. Some people don’t agree with that premise. If it proves wrong I’ll be the first to come on here and say I got it wrong. But all year it’s seemed clear Coakley’s going to be hard to avoid and a third candidate on the ballot makes it that much harder.
Obviously Silber was a jackass, foisted upon us by Billy Bulger’s machinations at the 1990 convention. It would have sucked either way. As much as I don’t like Martha Coakley, I don’t think a Coakley-Baker matchup would quite rise to that level. As a Democratic activist I’ll knock doors for her if she’s victorious in September, as I did four and a half years ago.
You do realize that the people who are opposing Coakley on casinos are also opposing Grossman on casinos. Right? And so it goes with other issues as well. Just because we are criticizing Coakley here doesn’t mean that we are going to ignore Grossman’s position on the issue.
If supporting Berwick ensures Coakley’s nomination, why should I care if the alternative is another candidate I don’t really like? What is really so hard to understand about that? Is it that you actually cannot comprehend that there are people who like neither establishment candidate?
to the people from whom antipathy to Coakley goes beyond the casino issue. I’m not referring to you. For you the casino issue clearly is a deal-breaker, and you say there are other issues as well. If Grossman’s just as bad as Coakley to you, I don’t share that position but it’s certainly your right.
But for Tom, the author of this post, and some other people here there are multiple issues that make them unwilling to vote for Coakley, period. In that case, don’t you have to balance the risk (that Coakley will be the nominee) against the potential payoff (which I see as a fairly small chance of winning) of going for broke with a candidate like Berwick? I’m puzzled how people with the most anti-Coakley fervor are willing to take that chance.
So you really expect him to abandon Berwick just to stick it to Coakley?
You seem to think people are only supporting Berwick to oppose Coakley. I really don’t think that is the case. It also seems pretty early in the primary campaign to fret about Berwick supporters splitting the vote.
If either Grossman or Coakley want to make a play for Berwick voters, then they had each better make a positive attempt to appeal to us. Asking us to vote for Grossman just to get back at Coakley is not going to be a winning strategy.
I may not be being clear. I do not think that.
Tom, and others who REALLY don’t like Coakley, have got a choice to make between two competing considerations. On the one hand, they like Don Berwick best. They’re interested in throwing their support to Berwick because people like them supporting Berwick is the only way to find out if Berwick actually can win. On the other hand, they really, really don’t want Martha Coakley to be governor. That feeling pre-dates the feeling for Berwick by years.
Looking at the situation, Coakley’s the clear favorite and Berwick’s a long shot. Going for Berwick offers a quite low chance of getting the big upside, and increases the chance of getting the big downside. Personally, in that situation, I’d forgo the long shot and try to block Coakley. That’s just me. You want to go for broke, be my guest, but be willing to accept the consequences.
I am just making an observation. This is definitely not any sort of political strategy on behalf of Grossman. I’m not asking you to vote for him and don’t expect you to. I chose him because I know him, like him, believe he shares my values, and believe — all things considered — he’s the best candidate this year.
Unfortunately for him, this particular issue isn’t a differentiator for him, but perhaps on other issues he can find a way to make himself more appealing to Berwick supporters before the primary.
In my view, Don Berwick is the only candidate who would be a clearly better alternative to Charlie Brown. I view either a Coakley/Brown or Grossman/Brown race as a don’t-care. I don’t think “Governor Brown” is particularly worse than “Governor Grossman”, and I like Mr. Grossman more than Ms. Coakley for governor.
I’m perfectly willing to accept the consequences of this path. In my calculus, Mr. Brown, Mr. Grossman, and Ms. Coakley are equally bad (in different ways). So I’ll use my vote to support the one candidate I like. I don’t choose my vote based on who I think is likely to win. I don’t use my vote to attempt to “stop” some other candidate (well, maybe once or twice in my life).
In this case, there is only ONE candidate from either party who I think would make a good governor — Don Berwick.
Though I’m sure if the NH governorship opened-Scotty would take a swing
The GOP flacks and hacks are easily interchanged, and the temptation to adopt “Charlie Brown” instead of “Charlie Baker” is strong for those of my generation. I mean, when was the last time another GOP front-runner missed the ball every time he tried to kick it?
Yes, I meant “Governor Baker”.
You know, this song.
After the fact, I thought about the song. I figured it was too obscure for folks to remember, and so I kept the recollection to myself. I enjoyed the citation from you!
Embedded here for the convenience of others:
as discussed, I find these statements ludicrous:
Perhaps we’ve shared as much of our divergent perspectives as is helpful. I think I understand your premise and your logic, I hope you understand mine.
I suspect we’ll be discussing the three nominees a fair amount between now and September. Who knows what may emerge during that time.
I frankly don’t see a ton of difference between Coakley and Baker. Both solidily corporate centrists who are socially progressive. If all she has is scare tactics around the ‘R’ word she is dead in the water. And I would be hard pressed to find too many around here excited about such a race. I just barely see the risk in not voting for her.
Grossman is significantly better on a limited set of economic issues, but unreliable on the bigger ones. I would obviously prefer him to Coakley or to Baker, but he is failing to seize the populist mantle-and plenty of plutocrats have in the past (Roosevelts and Kennedys come to mind), so he needs to stop wondering what his Newton neighbors and country club friends think and start running to win. He does that, not be insulting Berwick as the magic wand waving liberal, but by taking on Coakley.
n/m
… Berwick is compared to Deval Patrick. You know Deval Patrick, the two term governor of the CommonWealth who was the one to introduce casinos… The prevailing wisdom is that the stalking horse, come-from-behind, whodat is the only real progressive in the race and it’s 2006 and ‘together we can’ all over again.
So, yeah, I’m quite surprised that, in one instance, opposition to casinos, in one circumstance, is supposed to count for something different than opposition to casinos in another circumstance. I voted for Deval Patrick in 2010 in full knowledge of his support for casinos, despite my own, rather fervent, opposition to casinos and gambling in general. Now, according to you, i’m expected to vote for Berwick for the opposite reason… You’re asking me to be unsurprised at my own inconsistency…
All of this is an indication of just what a risk 2006 was, and, not coincidentally, what a risk 2014 is… Deval Patrick was untested and progressive. Donald Berwick is untested and progressive. Nothing about being progressive is a magic wand that validates the choice: Deval Patrick introduced casinos…. there’s an equally big disappointment waiting in Donald Berwicks toolbox. Maybe it’s not particular to casinos, but it’s there. For me, Deval Patricks stewardship of the the CommonWealth through the economic crisis of 2008, and its aftermath, outweighs my concerns about casinos. At one level, I wish it didn’t but it does: I want and engaged, everyday governor, on the case.
To some extent, Martha Coakley isn’t that much of a risk. She’s a known quantity. What I know about her I quite like, which is a plus, but that’s not the point: there aren’t that many blanks to fill in, in the way casinos were a blank for Patrick, initially, and a surprise to the rest of us. Grossman, likewise, isn’t that big of a risk. But I don’t like a single thing I know about him so he’s out.
It’s also very satisfying to punch your boss in the nose when he’s being a dick. I don’t recommend it, however.
There is a GIANT difference between Coakley and Baker. I get that she’s broken the deal for some people, and I respect that, but the gap is still wide. I will absolutely vote for Coakley if she nominates.
I said early on she has my vote if nominated, and I haven’t said otherwise (only speaking for myself here-I don’t judge those who can’t pull the lever). But, there aren’t GIANT differences.
We have two pro-choice, pro-equality candidates, both of whom are pro-charter, pro-casino, anti-tax increases, pro-“waste and abuse” spending cutters, neither of whom have talked all that much about transit, infrastructure, or education investment or healthcare or fixing our regressive revenue streams. Both of whom have records of gross incompetence and negligence as government administrators.
And unlike Baker, who is a cypher on civil liberties and drug reform issues, Coakley is a drug and terror warrior who has and will continue to favor policies that keep far too many behind bars, that empower the police to do too much with do little oversight, and that enables wiretapping and fusion centers at the state level.
That’s the thing-some great liberals here think she is the bees knees and haven’t offered any compelling evidence. Others just make excuses. Either way, the “Baker is Dubya incarnate” argument didn’t work against Brown and won’t work in this race. Warren beat Brown by running as a true blue Roosevelt Democrat, not be pretending Brown was a Santorum Republican without articulating any clear stances of her own.
A few select bullets from her issues page. Granted, she may not do all of this, but Baker won’t do any of it. (Sorry I can’t make bullets, and there are multiple “snips” in this block.
From his page:
He also just released a plan to reduce college costs, is talking up income inequality, and is starting to discuss pay equity. Again, I will not vote for him, but I honestly don’t see big differences here. I guess he is still afraid to talk about climate change and transgender rights-but I don’t see Coakley’s proposals as outlined above being particularly ambitious either.
She can’t commit herself to single payer, neither does Baker, so either one is arguably a status quo candidate who would continue what we have already done. Both are pro-casino, both favor modest minimum wage increases, both discuss cutting waste and abuse more often than they talk about raising revenue. Both favor education plans overly reliant on charters, both talk a good game but do very little to take on the NRA. And FWIW Charlie is talking about outreach to the other side and bipartisanship far more than she is.
So far she is playing to the middle in the primary, and will run on social issues that most voters simply do not care about in the general, particularly when there is little difference between the candidates. How’d that work out for her against Brown? How’d it work out for Shannon O’Brien?
We still got a primary folks, but bashing Berwick supporters for not being team players this early in the contest is a low move from the Coakley and Grossman supporters on this site. You will need us, the activist, progressive grassroots base, fired up for your candidates if they get nominated. And belittling us as Naderites is not the way to do it.
Baker’s Page<
He comes across pretty well in this WGBH interview, and this one.
As I read Martha’s proposals, they’re somewhat generic, but they imply spending. Baker’s do not.
But it’s not incumbent upon me to refute your thesis. Rather, you have asserted something fairly radical, and not supported it.
Drawing the line at single payer is convenient, but it would exclude an awful lot of Democrats. Let’s not tie ourselves in knots, and give aid and comfort to Baker. Anyone in the field would be a better governor than him, and by a wide margin. (I don’t know if anyone else has belittled Berwick supporters — long thread — but I haven’t.)
I’m not talking about you or people on BMG here, but I’ve interacted with enough Berwick people in the last couple of months to expect most of them to take their ball and go home if he doesn’t win the primary. A few who caucused for Robert Reich, haven’t even voted since the 2002 primary, and now are for Berwick and only Berwick. And even Striker, on the other thread, agreed that Grossman or Berwick’s best chance would have been a two-person primary against Coakley.
Frankly, I’m appalled by Tom’s statements that the “world didn’t end” when we had 16 years of Republican governors. Tom always complains about the chronic underfunding of the T and other state services. During what period did those funding levels become the Beacon Hill default?
As much as I don’t like Coakley, I still think she’s a damn sight better than Baker. Whoever’s elected governor will have a party to keep relatively happy for the next nominating process. For Baker that’s the Mass. GOP. For Coakley that’s the Mass. Dems. That alone will keep her more honest.
All the Reich supporters I know became the Partrick supporters I canvassed with four years later. Progressive MA is full of activists ready for a progressive governor-some of whom are people that I know working for Berwick, others for Grossman. I haven’t seen anyone on this thread who has suggested that they won’t vote for the Democrat if Berwick loses. Tom, Kevin, and others have been clear they won’t hold their nose for Coakley-since way before this race.
I have been arguing that the attitude that Berwick is a Grossman spoiler is not belied by the facts, and the idea that Coakley dare offer us more than “I’m not Charlie Baker” is not liberals being whiney bitches but the basic thing a candidate should do to get people to vote for them.
JimC-the onus is on Coakley and her supporters to show the difference-not me. She is certainly to Baker’s left-but Berwick is significantly further away from Baker and it will be that contrast that wins us the general.
It’s one thing to say the onus is on Coakley to win someone’s primary vote. It’s entirely another to say that, if Coakley is the nominee, she won’t have your vote.
There are Berwick people who have been in the battle and are engaged on an ongoing basis. I imagine they won’t vanish if he loses in September. There are others, and they’ve told me so, who consider Berwick pure, all other candidates corrupted, and will not vote for Coakley or Grossman under any circumstances. I can’t alienate them. They’re already lost.
With accommodation for friendly hyperbole (I don’t claim purity for Don Berwick), I agree that Ms. Coakley already lost my vote.
I feel less strongly about Mr. Grossman, but his support for casino gambling and expansion of the Lottery makes it very hard for me to see him as fundamentally different from Charlie Baker when it comes to progressive economic policy.
If Mr. Grossman stepped forward and embraced income disparity and increased wealth concentration as key issues of this campaign, he could sway me in a general election against Mr. Baker. If Mr. Grossman “evolved” and began supporting increased taxes on the very wealthy, he could sway me.
So long as he continues to mouth liberal platitudes and offer no substance to back them up, he stays firmly glued right next to Mr. Baker in my book. So long as he continues to support casinos and expanded Lottery revenue, he moves closer to Mr. Baker.
That’s just the way I see it. I think your observation that I’m already “lost” is fair and accurate regarding Steve Grossman (at least as we see him up to now) and Martha Coakley.