Today is Friday, which means that the Globe’s weekly poll is out. It shows, just like all the ones that came before it, that Martha Coakley is way ahead and nothing else is settled. Some thoughts:
- Steve Grossman and Don Berwick are in trouble. Coakley has been sitting on a 20-ish point lead for weeks, and a little over two weeks from primary day, she’s still there (she polls 45%, with Grossman at 24% and Berwick at 10%). Equally important, her favorable/unfavorable is an impressive 52/37. So these poll respondents aren’t choosing the candidate they dislike the least. Many of them affirmatively like Coakley, which suggests that they will show up on primary day.
- By way of contrast, on this date in 2006, two polls were released that showed a much closer, much more fluid race. One poll (SurveyUSA) had Deval Patrick at 34%, only 4 points ahead of Chris Gabrieli and Tom Reilly, who were tied at 30%. The other poll (Suffolk) was wildly different, with Gabrieli ahead with 32%, followed by Patrick at 24% and Reilly at 20%. The moral of that story: the numbers can change a lot between August 22 and primary day (Patrick ended up winning by over 20 points), but that race showed a lot more movement throughout than this one has so far. This race, so far, looks more like the Senate primary in 2009, when Coakley maintained a substantial wire-to-wire lead throughout.
- The debates may move the needle … but frankly, I think that’s unlikely. Here is the Globe’s rundown of the upcoming debates among the Democratic gubernatorial candidates:
■ A live hourlong Western Massachusetts debate at WWLP-22News at 8 p.m. on Wednesday in Chicopee. The debate will also be streamed live on WWLP.com.
■ A 30-minute taped debate hosted by Jon Keller, airing in full on WBZ-TV (Channel 4) at 8:30 a.m. Aug. 31.
■ A Boston Media Consortium debate from 7 to 8 p.m. Sept. 3.
■ A live debate on NECN from 6 to 7 p.m. on Sept. 4, hosted by [Jim] Braude.
What a sorry lineup that is. About 12 people will watch Keller’s 8:30-am-on-a-Sunday-morning-in-late-summer debate. Maybe 17 or so watch NECN and so will catch Braude’s debate on September 4. Another handful or two will watch the WWLP debate, which apparently is airing only in the Springfield area. The only debate that will get any significant viewership is the Boston Media Consortium debate on September 3. And Coakley is good enough in a debate setting that she’s unlikely to blow the whole election in a single hour-long debate (though stranger things have happened). In short, if Grossman and Berwick are counting on the debates to bump up their poll numbers, they seem likely to be disappointed.
- Nobody has any clue who is running for Lieutenant Governor. Two and a half weeks out, “undecided” is winning in a landslide with 75% of the vote. Advantage Steve Kerrigan, who has at least a modicum of insider support, which in a race like this could be enough.
- The race for Treasurer is almost as bad – 62% say they don’t know who they’re voting for. Barry Finegold is on top of the current poll, but the spread between first (16%) and third (10%) is so tiny that, with 62% undecided, it doesn’t seem to mean much.
- The race for Attorney General is indeed where the action is, as today’s big Globe story reflects. This week’s poll shows Maura Healey up by 2% (28-26) – obviously within the margin of error, but still, impressive for a first-time candidate who is not yet up on TV. About the race, I will say this: the recent events in Ferguson, MO have changed my thinking. I don’t care what the AG thinks about the Arthur T./Arthur S./Market Basket brouhaha (FWIW, it strikes me as inappropriate for the AG to weigh in – if any political figure should get involved in what is ultimately a private business dispute, it’s the Governor), nor do I particularly care whether “smart gun” technology is adopted by regulation (Tolman’s position) or statute (Healey’s position). But as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, the AG does – or, at least, should – have a lot to say about the militarization of police forces around the Commonwealth. WBUR did a great service by cataloguing the military equipment that, via misguided federal policies, has wound up in local police departments. Of course, everyone thinks that police should be properly trained in the use of whatever equipment they have – that is a safe and, to me, uninteresting position. I want to know what the candidates think about whether military equipment should be in the hands of local police forces at all. (And, unlike SomervilleTom, I don’t think either candidate said anything about that in their recent joint appearance on WGBH.) Whichever candidate seriously questions whether militarizing local police forces is a good idea, and offers ideas on how to manage it, will get my vote. So far, I’m not sure who that will be.
I’d like to see more from the gubernatorial candidates on the militarization of police issue as well.
Even if, as is clear, the race does not seem close – nowhere near as close as the race for AG.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised neither Grossman nor Berwick has used the recent events as a way to draw a distinction with Coakley.
They haven’t been too concerned with drawing distinctions with her so far, why change, clearly their strategy is working perfectly (for Coakley).
…why doesn’t the Globe do an interview of and write up about each candidate. Maybe they can have charts that place candidates’ positions side by side to actually educate voters and bring down those undecided numbers. If massmerrier can do it certainly the Globe can!
The Globe has been cultivating Martha Coakley for years. The Globe loves Maura Healey, in part because of her close association with Ms. Coakley. Why would the Globe change ANYTHING about its coverage of the “race”, especially now?
The race is shaping up exactly the way the Globe wants it. I expect no change.
I do expect a large dose of woe-is-me hand-wringing from the various Globe pundits when Charlie Baker is elected governor in November.
I agree entirely
A large dose of well-damn-I-was-wrong on BMG when Coakley wins in November.
And I promise no I-told-you-so.
I don’t know how many times I have say this.
I don’t think it will matter. “Governor Coakley” or “Governor Brown” are equally bad. Neither will make the changes needed to:
– address our income/wealth concentration issue
– restore sustainable public transportation
– halt regressive taxation through casino gambling and the lottery
Governor Baker might actually be BETTER about halting the militarization of our police and at least controlling the pervasive culture of corruption that currently infects Beacon Hill and City Hall.
How many times do I need to say it: I don’t care who wins in November.
If we end up with “Governor Coakley”, and she causes (rather than acquiesces to) ANY of the points I’ve mentioned, I will EAGERLY say “well-damn-I-was-wrong”.
That’s a promise I would love to keep.
Pretty sure Scott has his eyes on a Senate seat to our north:)
I have SUCH a hard time stopping the “Charlie Brown” meme, and turning into “Governor Brown”. If this was CA, it might not be so bad.
Yes, I of course meant “Governor Baker”.
Interesting to see that Mike Lake’s prior run for Auditor doesn’t seem to have any benefit for him in this race (in voter-support terms anyway).
for my vote, his relentless negative campaigning cost him. And, while I’m at it, Tierney will get my vote in the 6th because of the same strategy employed by his primary opponent, Seth Moulton. He has been relentlessly negative, almost like a Republican campaigning against a Democrat.
I’ll give you that for Moulton, but Grossman has been awfully tame, even if you insist on counting that SuperPAC ad as his.
I’m not saying he was nasty, far from it, but in an appearance on Greater Boston, he spent most of his time trying to cut down Marta Coakley instead of just promoting assets he has. “I’m not her” is not a reason for me to vote for him. Then there are the variety of TV ads both featuring him, and featuring others whose primary missions was to cut Coakley down, instead of promoting his virtues as a candidate. Don’t misunderstand me. I appreciate the impact that negative ads can have for someone who is well behind in a campaign. I just prefer that they, at least, make an attempt to sell me on them before they start to cut their opponent down to size.
I’ve heard a lot more from him about being a progressive job creator and touting his position on sick time, than I have about Coakley, but being a primary he has to draw SOME distinction as well.
To be a progressive, I need more than “I am a progressive”. I admire Steve Grossman and all that he has done, but his stand for casinos and unwillingness to take a strong progressive approach to health care disappointed me. I see no real difference between him and Martha in this race apart from name recognition by the public. Sadly, our press has decided to promote only one candidate match-up. The Boston Globe is more like Don King than an actual newspaper.
…and yes, the way he and is family have run his business he creates and maintains jobs in a progressive fashion. I also lose patience quickly with the holier-than-thou nonsense about being progressive. All three of the Dem candidates for Governor are firmly planted on the progressive side of the spectrum. One or two issues that don’t go as far as you would like should not serve as litmus tests. Labor favors casinos too, and some would even rather keep health care as a bargaining issue rather than move to single payer – are they unprogressive too?
There is nothing progressive about casinos. All the data (and we have 50+ years of it from 39 states) proves that they disproportionately hurt the lower income strata of society and widen wealth disparity as they funnel wealth to the upper crust leaving crime, broken families and social misery in their wake. Being progressive means, among other things, believing in science, in data, not just faith and ideology. I could not care less that the other three candidates hope that casinos will somehow be different here in Massachusetts or have faith that their particular safeguards will be the magic bullet to tame this beast. I simply rely on the data, on the facts.
Why on earth would labor favor casinos? Maybe some short sided construction workers do. Sure, building a few casinos will be a few years work. Soon after, prisons will have to be expanded along with treatment centers for addiction and other social ills. So yeah, more construction. Here’s an idea: build something other than a casino. Martha Coakley herself said numerous times that “Casinos are not her first choice”. Why is she so willing to settle for second best? Why should labor? Why should I?
Some would even rather keep health care as a bargaining issue? That’s great for the “haves” in labor. Are we to further fragment the labor class in this way? United we stand, divided we fall. This is not about being holier than thou, this is about being true to each other, united, principled, bold, and admitting that “all” means “all”.
I will grant that Berwick is the most progressive in the race. I absolutely will not grant that the others are not progressive. There are no DINOs or conservadems seeking the Governorship and I am confident that if any of the candidates took one of the political quizzes available they would be scored as progressive/liberal, whichever term is used. If we used the definitions proffered in another diary all the candidates are progressive and liberal and can point to actions in their records to prove it. Grossman favored marriage equality before it was cool and believes in treating his workers right. Coakley defended our buffer zone laws, fought DOMA, and went to bat for residents in trouble with their mortgages. I didn’t mean by the way that favoring casinos and keeping health care in contracts were progressive stances. What I object to is what seems to be a desire to excommunicate a whole group from the mainstream of the party, especially since we count on them and their issues are very progressive ones on other matters.
She’s generally been a capable front runner … except for that one time. She knows how to get ahead and anesthetize the electorate. What she no doubt fears is a late slide in the polls where the narrative becomes “Coakley’s doing another nosedive.” Crisis control is not her forte.
If 2014 starts looking anything like 2010, the media will go insane, and she’ll have a hard time containing the frenzy.