I’ll take David up on his suggestion that we post comments on today’s Globe editorial about the gubernatorial candidates. The editorial is pretty unintentionally hilarious overall, although I do agree with the recommendation that the candidates should revisit mandatory sentencing guidelines. I also am open to the argument about removing the 15% rule at the convention.
Overall, though, the advice offered to the candidates was fairly bland and condescending, and most notably lacking was the discussion in the editorial on “avoiding special interests,” which mentions only one such interest — state employee unions. The editorial suggests that the Democratic candidates should be mindful that:
…upscale suburban voters don’t entirely trust the Democrats to stand up to unreasonable demands from government employees and labor unions.
Wow, where to start with that. The only special interest on Beacon Hill we have to be concerned about is state employees and their labor unions? What unreasonable demands are they making? And what about the casino interests? The gun lobby? And “upscale suburban voters?” What’s up with that? People in urban areas do trust state employees, but upscale suburban voters don’t? I don’t get it.
I also thought the discussion on defining Patrick’s legacy was pretty sparse. But like David, I don’t have a lot of time to get into it, so maybe others can comment.
may be thinking. However “many” is not “most” and if you’re talking about 50% +1 in November you have to figure on the large number of people who still perform their civic duty no matter how uninformed they are.
So you get the:
I’m this gender, so I’m voting for the candidate of the same gender.
I’ve always voted for the same party.
I’ve always voted against the other party because in my mind they’re bad.
I vote for the nice person (might also vote for the nicer looking person).
In a Blue State this crowd is going to lean blue.
Patrick was a big winner in 2006 because a lot of women liked him over Healy. That’s one of his political strengths I think. He is also a good looking guy and projects a nice guy image.
Baker is trying for the nice guy vote. Polito is a play for women and she’s nice looking as well. I do think that a lot of switch voters will see him as a balance of power person who probably wouldn’t do much ideological damage.
If it’s Coakley she’s going to be tough to beat. She’s going to get a larger percentage of the women’s vote and add that to the natural party advantage she’s over the top. If it’s Grossman, Bakers got a solid shot.
I wish it wasn’t that way (as in we could have meaningful debate) and I hate being the cynic, but when you get out of your own political bubble or bubbles and talk to regular folk, they just don’t know anything.
I’d find it unsurprising if over 50% of the Massachusetts electorate believed that the most worrisome special interests were public unions. As our diarist suggests, there a lot of reasons to think that’s wrong. Our expectation of the Globe, though, is not that it express what “everyone” is thinking. Our expectation is that it aspire toward some kind of objectivity.
*
That said, it seems to me as if the long-run interests of liberals, at least, includes some kind of civil service reform. If you think government can and should do good, the current way in which government is managed is, well, a bit nuts. Devising a saner system and transitioning to it in an equitable manner looks daunting, and, yes, that’ll entail some friction with labor unions. (See Patrick Administration Initiatives, Police Details) The Republican response to this leads to the kind of kleptocracy one sees in Florida where laughably weak regulators “oversee” powerful state subcontractors.
This Juliette Kayyem supporter thinks the Boston Globe editorial is right on the money. Why should I say more? (Besides, I’m still making phone calls and don’t have time.)
Stale agenda, old voices?
you’re standing behind “upscale suburban voters” and union bashing?
…she stands behind the points made in her comment title.
Which would be any demands, I assume. Thanks for the advice Globe. Where should working people go for support?
…the Globe seems to forget that he rocketed past 15% and got the endorsement of the 2006 convention on the first ballot. His campaign organized the caucuses early and often and it showed.
Instead of appealing to the 1% who are upper middle class suburbanites, maybe we should appeal to the 99%?
Seemed to have worked out for this proudly left wing gal, and it even worked out for this right wing guy.
…upper middle class suburbanites are the 1%, though there’s no reason they should not be our allies on most issues.
And Deval Patrick did pretty well with them while also winning back working whites and bringing record numbers of minorities and young people to the polls in a non-presidential year. Pandering to the union bashing sentiments of the TEDtalk watching, latte sipping, Acela class that thinks Western MA is Sudbury and Brookline is an inner city might not be the best strategy.
Warren win big by bringing Lowell, New Bedford, Lawrence and Worcester back to the Dem column. Working whites, minorities, and young voters are this century’s New Deal coalition and we run up their numbers rather than dilute our message. The Globe has been trending Baker’s way all campaign anyway. I predict they will endorse Coakley in the primary and Baker in the general.
for all anyone knows the Warren percentage in cities was boosted in a presidential year. Those cities have the largest swings between presidential and off year election. We won’t know for sure until 2018.
Not saying Warren would have lost if the election was this year. Just seemed that the people I saw that we most energized by Warren were unions and suburbanites.
the most pretentious thing I’ve read this side George Will.
I expect better from the Globe.
describes the Globe pretty much perfectly. I stand for strong unions, public and private, before making sure the tax bills of suburbanites well into the six figures stay low. But that’s just me.
This kind of pandering to “upscale suburban voters” delivers a million people to the cesspool of bullshit that is the Herald.
Not to be out-done, Scott Lehigh piled on with today’s excrable column (emphasis mine):
The excrement continues for the rest of Mr. Lehigh’s revolting rant.
Never mind that a great many of us doubt that at least one of the candidates is at all “progressive”.
The narrative that opposing charter schools is “opposing reform” is simple right-wing deceit. The insinuation that the self-interest of unions is opposed to the public interest is another insidious right-wing lie.
We are watching the once-liberal Boston Globe transform itself into yet another union-bashing anti-tax rag. Today’s paean to George H. Bush is similarly revolting. I don’t care whether he jumps out of airplanes or not. I care more about his culpability in the Iran Contra scandal, in who knows what black activities during his time as director of the CIA, and in his incompetent economic “leadership” as President than I do about how he celebrates his 90th birthday.
the next time I say that I’m immediately suspicious of any candidate getting a full column’s worth of praise from Scot Lehigh.