The following was written by Mr. John Hornik, an Amherst volunteer for the Berwick campaign. He asked me to share this for him on BMG.
That’s what they said about Bill DeBlasio’s chances of winning the Democratic mayoral nomination in New York City one year ago. He faced formidable opposition, including:
- Christine Quinn, the City Council President, the clear heiress-apparent to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the person who would have been the City’s first female mayor and first gay mayor,
- Bill Thompson, the Black City Comptroller, who had run a strong race against Bloomberg as the Democrat’s nominee for mayor four years earlier, and
- Anthony Weiner, the former City Congressman who was both well-known and popular until caught in a sexting scandal.
In June Quinn had held the lead in the polls for more than six months. Her rivals did not come close. According to Nate Silver’s 589 blog based on past election data, whoever had held the lead for that long was almost certain to win the nomination. At that point in June, 2013, DeBlasio was running fourth and his polls numbers were around 12%!
In July Anthony Weiner emerged and took over the lead. For a few weeks, he and Christine Quinn were engaged in a seesaw battle until another sexting scandal hit the headlines, and Weiner dropped out. In early August Christine Quinn was back firmly in the lead with only a month to go for the September 10 primary.
But in mid-August DeBlasio’s polling numbers finally broke out of the teens. He and Thompson caught up to Quinn. It was anybody’s game. The frontrunner Quinn actually finished third to Bill Thompson’s second.
In the final four weeks, DeBlasio steadily gained ground, winning the Democratic primary with 40% of the vote! He went on to beat the lackluster Republican candidate for mayor in November.
What happened? The early polling did not take into account the fact that most people in the City were not paying close attention to the race through most of the spring and summer. That changed in the last four weeks. With 20-20 hindsight commentators identify three major factors that explain DeBlasio’s success:
- First, unlike his opponents he offered a clear and consistent progressive message about how he would change administration of the City;
- Second, his team developed excellent advertising spots aired late in the campaign that raised his visibility among voters who had yet to make up their minds;
- And third, he had a very well-organized grassroots campaign that steadily built a strong base of volunteers and favorable voters while operating below the mass media’s radar.
So, what does it mean in this gubernatorial race when we see leading poll numbers for the Attorney General and lower numbers for the State Treasurer and for Don Berwick? At this point-in-time, the poll results mean NOTHING. The 2013 NYC mayoral race demonstrates that, despite the conventional wisdom, Don Berwick is in an excellent position to become our next governor. How will he win?
- First, unlike his opponents he is offering a clear and consistent progressive message about how he would change administration of the Commonwealth;
- Second, his team is developing excellent advertising spots that will raise his visibility among the many voters who have yet to make up their minds;
- And third, he has a very well-organized grassroots campaign that is steadily building a strong base of volunteers and favorable voters, while operating below the mass media’s radar.
Did I mention “grassroots campaign”? That’s us. Talk to your friends, family, and co-workers. When we encounter people who have yet to hear about Don Berwick, it’s an opportunity to inform them. If we support this grassroots campaign, we will assure victory on September 9th. We need to volunteer to do outreach to likely voters and to persuade them to support Don. We need to recruit other volunteers so that our network keeps expanding. And we need to contribute funds to pay for advertising.
Ignore the polls. Be patient. And invest in Don. All of our efforts will pay off for Don Berwick, just as volunteers’ efforts paid off for Bill DeBlasio.
http://blog.aimnet.org/aim-issueconnect/berwick-progressive-agenda-good-for-business
The Weiner sexting scandal broke in late July. Weiner’s rapid decline, from 26% (Quinnipiac, 7/18 – 7/23) to the final outcome (4.9%) corresponded to deBlasio’s surge from 15% (Quinnipiac, 7/18 – 7/23) to the final outcome (40.3%).
Quinnipiac had the most frequent polling during this period, so it’s easier to look at the trends using their polling. To illustrate the trendline:
7/18 – 7/23 deBlasio 15, Weiner 26 (combined 41)
7/24 – 7/28 deBlasio 21, Weiner 16 (combined 37)
8/7 – 8/12 deBlasio 30, Weiner 10 (combined 40)
8/22 – 8/27 deBlasio 36, Weiner 8 (combined 44)
8/28 – 9/1 deBlasio 43, Weiner 7 (combined 50)
9/6 – 9/8 deBlasio 39, Weiner 6 (combined 45)
Actual primary results: deBlasio 40.3, Weiner 4.9 (combined 45.2)
The data shows there was a core vote of about 40-45% that was anti-Bloomberg, anti-Quinn, and was split between deBlasio and Weiner.
Without an Anthony Weiner in total free fall, that snowball looks more like a Walmart ice cream sandwich.
i accept the premise that one never knows, and I wish more candidates ran because they want to, and have a message. But the question I have, reading the New York story, is “What was wrong with Christine Quinn?” I haven’t seen so many people avoid a candidate since Mitt Romney.
This article in the Guardian asks how de Blasio won. A few things stand out to me:
1. There was a clear perception that de Blasio, unlike Berwick was the progressive in the race. That slot was temporarily filled by Anthony Wiener in a period between scandals. There are two things different about Massachusetts: our electorate is less liberal than New York’s and there isn’t as much polarization. One has to dive deep into the weeds to prove that Coakley and Grossman are not progressives. Do non-activist liberals not glued to news reports truly believe that Coakley is not progressive? Given the polling, that’s very unlikely. Taking a hint from de Blasio, Coakley’s campaign has put an emphasis on income inequality.
2. De Blasio had a great political team. It helped that he had great kids, but to take advantage of that requires a great political team. It’s not clear that Berwick does.
3. De Blasio never polled as low as Berwick. Ever. Berwick sits at around 5% and has sat there for quite awhile. De Blasio was already at 21% or better in July. Does the OP think that New Yorkers pay attention to elections earlier in the summer than Bay State residents? Really?
4. Speaking of polling, Coakley registers formidable favorables among Bay Staters and is better funded than Berwick. Again, comparing to the New York mayoral race, no candidate in that Democratic primary ever crossed the 50% mark as Coakley has for a while — maybe even since polling started. The OP would have us compare Coakley to Quinn, but Quinn topped out at 37%. Coakley sits at 55%.
5. The primary role of canvassing, according to a number of sources and my own experience, is to identify supporters. As a vehicle of persuasion, it’s not particularly effective. For get-out-the-vote, I’ve seen estimates of effectiveness of 6% to 8%. The gap between Coakley and Berwick is now 50 percentage points. Canvassing alone cannot close that gap.
While I am in favor of raising the minimum wage, raising it to $11 or $12 will not address the root of the problem. Coakley need to do more than the minimum to convince me that she wants to help the labor class survive in Massachusetts.
Universal Health Care would be a start. Opposing predatory casinos would be even better.
I see that she has received a good amount of union support. Will she make that a more prominent position on her campaign?
is outstanding. While I’m not sure exactly who the “labor class” is. I do know that Attorney General Coakley and the AG’s Labor Division has been front and center for workers in Massachusetts.
A quick look at the AG website provides information on legal actions, court cases and settlements a behalf of working women and men on issues like non-payment of wages, underpayment, misclassification and numerous other wage law violations.
http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/press-releases.html
Workers coming forward with wage fraud complaints are never asked for immigrantion status, giving immigrant workers -a group most likely to be victumized – the security and freedom to pursue economic justice.
Add to that the forclosure and predatory lending work the AG has done and Coakley is on the front lines delivering for workers.
AG Coakley does have significant Union support. The vast majority of those unions -the only elected representatives of workers – support the casino gaming labor because of the construction and long-term jobs that will be created. Her opposition to the repeal is pro-worker.
Campaign promises of legislation that is difficult to pass are great debate topics. A proven record on behalf of workers is a reality.
It’s rater simple. Unless one is able to support ones self by loaning ones money, renting ones property, or otherwise able to live a comfy life my “renting” what one has, one is in the labor class. Here in the USA, we have mistakenly bought into the notion of a “middle class”. The middle class is simply a laborer who can support himself via his labor. He can buy a home, pay for his medical care, save for retirement, take care of his family all through nothing more than his labor, be he a pediatrician or a service department dispatcher. Those who cannot support themselves via their labor are people we call “poor”. Republicans have successfully divided the labor class in half, pitting the “middle” against the poor. Let’s not forget how well Scott Brown did with union voters. It’s the only way the Republicans can win. I see it every day as I speak with “middle class” people who tell me that they oppose the Democrats because they are “going to give things to the lazy poor”. The poor are not poor because they are lazy. They are poor because their labor is unable to support them. Some of the hardest working people I know are very poor.
Unions Construction workers supporting casinos would carry more weight with me if those casinos were required to hire union labor when they open. If not, those casinos are just a short term fix to a very big problem. Then again, those construction workers will get more jobs building the prisons and other facilities needed to deal with the massive human sufferings caused by casinos.
I cannot, for the life of me understand why Martha and Steve are not against casinos. Casinos are closing in Atlantic City and across the USA. This strikes me as something fishy.
But to your point of the AG website provides information on legal actions, court cases and settlements a behalf of working women and men on issues like non-payment of wages, underpayment, misclassification and numerous other wage law violations, I agree and admire her work in this area.
Most of what you say here is true. Little of it matters. I suggest that a less gentile but still accurate version of “Labor class” is “wage slave”.
Mass media advertising commands top dollar because it is VERY effective. In particular, it is very effective at manipulating what people want — mass media advertising both creates and controls desire itself. In “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”, B. F. Skinner’s classic, he asks what “freedom” means in a society in which a tiny number of people controls the desires of a large number.
About half the population relies on Fox — the communications arm of the right-wing — to get their “news”. The truth about the comments you make, and the desires those truths might awaken in the masses if the masses ever actually FELT them, make such truths very unlikely to be emphasized in today’s culture.
In Palmer (a “labor class” enclave) last weekend, my wife and I noticed that a restaurant was playing the original “Putting on the Ritz” in the background. The words are lyrics are worth paying attention to, especially when listened to in their depression-era context.
I’m not sure today’s “labor class” has the confidence or interior security to enjoy the caustic humor that makes “Puttin on the Ritz” so much fun.
Fox and the mainstream media work very effectively to ensure that most of us have NO CLUE about what’s really going down with wealth and prosperity in this wealthiest and most prosperous empire in human history.
Yesterday I rewatched George Carlin’s 1996 special to re-introduce him to my fiancee (she’s seen clips, but never an entire special). In addition to being hilarious, it was sort of sad that an 18 year old topical humor set could still be fairly topical. He lambasts the 1%, talks about how both parties are bought and sold, laments that his generation the boomers sold out and commodified all the rebellion from the 60s (something their latchkey kids like Zuckerberg are doing to my generation), and discusses how tone deaf the religious right was and remains. With the exception of his discourse on the uselessness and narcissism of people using camcorders to record everyday things (which he could easily cross apply to selfies and iphones), it was still topical.
And that is sort of sad, he passed away around 2009 and was actually hopeful about Obama who was the first candidate he voted for since McGovern. And I doubt he’d be particularly impressed with his performance, or the growing apathy of the country towards our collective slide down the ladder. The apathy, even amongst my relatives when I visited two weeks ago for a family reunion, the same people that got my involved in politics at a young age, was palpable and contagious. I am not sure how it can be overcome, but it may be through the ballot initiatives and issues rather than charismatic candidates who overpromise and underachieve.
Fair enough on your definition of labor class. I tend to think of anyone do doesn’t sign their own paycheck as working class.
So a couple points. Scott Brown did do well with Union voters in the US Senate special in 2010 with exit polls showing 49% of union members voting for Brown. That was dramatically reduced in 2012 when 63% of union voters went with Elizabeth Warren. Brown quickly showed his true colors with hsi first vote being against a union appointee to the NLRB. However it was Browns votes against extending unemployment benefits unless they were tied to tax breaks for the rich that turned (at least my Union’s members) union households against a Brown re-election.
As for casinos and union jobs. Mohegan Sun has not only signed an agreement to build its facility union, they have signed agreements with the IBEW, UAW and UFCW that allow casino employees to unionize without opposition. My understanding is that Wynn has signed a similar agreement with HERE. That sounds like the longer term fix you espoused in your comment.
We disagree on the impact of gaming on the social fabric. I see unemployment as a far greater cause of human suffering across all sectors.
Are you aware that casinos are closing/going bankrupt closing down rooms in Vegas, Atlantic City and the Gulf Coast?
Casino opponents have to make the economic argument against expanding gambling. The moral argument, either from a traditionalist conservative standpoint or a ‘somebody please think of the children’ liberal perspective, is one that won’t resonate with voters in the middle. My mother stepped foot in Wonderland, but voted to sustain racing since she knew people that worked there. I see the same thing with casinos, all my relatives in the trades want to get in on the construction jobs.
Striker’s arguments are persuasive, they combine the Barney Frank style libertarian approach to personal behavior with a New Deal approach to make work projects. The way we beat casinos is not by spouting off about the tax on the poor or other paternalistic arguments, but rather, by pointing out that Reno is currently in a bad recession and their Mayor and Chamber President are desperate to create the kind of economy Massachusetts already has. They want to triple their investments in education, tech, and healthcare, and become a lower cost of business alternative to the valley. MA is already there, why would we want to inherit the economy they are bailing out of? Or Vegas? Or Foxwoods and Atlantic City which are unhealthy? Let’s shore up our recession proof industries and have the trades build the roads and trains needed to connect our cities together.
Every industry has to balance and rebalance based on the economy and density of competition. Vegas and Atlantic City may well have a glut of gaming facilities and that may result in some (note that not all are) closing. And while they were open they provided jobs (union jobs in LV).
It’s a business model and the reality is that casino developers aren’t going to spend $2 billion in locations they don’t think will work for them. Massachusetts is a prime economic target with a population and tourist industry that can support a certain number of gaming facilities.
We had a solar panel manufacturing plant close at Devens. Doesn’t mean abandoning the solar industry as a whole?
Construction and service jobs cannot be sent overseas. They will remain here while the industry is viable.
business models are failing in Atlantic City, the Gulf Coast, Reno and many other areas of the USA. What “magic” does Massachusetts have? You make it sound as if the casino developers are gods. If so, why are casinos failing nationwide when the “business model” predicts otherwise?
when did I make that? Have you seen Donald Trump!
They are businesspeople. They study markets and make decisions based on their view of when the market will succeed.
You make it sound like every casino in LV, AC and the Coast is closing. Far from it. The industry remains viable. As with every industry and business venture there will be successes and failures. Opposing the jobs and revenue that a gaming facility and resort hotel can generate for municipalities with high unemployment (Chelsea, Springfield come to mind immediately) because they might fail makes no sense to me.
First you say that “It’s a business model and the reality is that casino developers aren’t going to spend $2 billion in locations they don’t think will work for them.” Now you are backpedaling with ” As with every industry and business venture there will be successes and failures.”.
I think we can do better than slot machines and free booze for Springfield, but if that is the “business model” that your candidate has for the area, I guess you will defend it.
With proximity to UMASS Amherst and Boston, I would think that a high tech connection for the area would be in order. But you say that crap tables are better for those people. Okay. We will have to disagree.
Once again – casino developers aren’t going to spend $2 billion in locations they don’t think will work for them. That’s a reality.
Is every project successful? Of course not. They will build it based on their business model. Not every model succeeds. Again, that does not, to my mind, mean abandoning the concept.
I did notice that you dropped your issues from earlier posts regarding union jobs inside the casinos. Hedging your bets on that line of argument?
My candidate has not proposed any such plan – AG Coakley has supported a law passed by the elected Legislature and signed by Governor Patrick that allows for private development of resort gaming facilities regulated by the state. AG Coakley has said she will vote against repealing the current law. My limited scope of knowledge of the MGM Grand proposal for Springfield (supported by the voters of Springfield in the referendum required for local approval of a casino in their municipality) is that includes a casino, hotel and retail district to be built and operated in a city with high unemployment.
As for high tech vs crap tables (and I have never been able to figure craps out), I’d be happy if both were proposed and privately funded. Alas I have not seen of nor heard of a private developer looking to build a $2 billion high tech operation near Amherst or Boston.
If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
So first you back casinos because of the magic business model and now you say that the business model is a crap shoot.
Your candidate supports the law? Wow. Well, I hope all the candidates support the law.
This is all clear as mud.
“majic business model” is your term not mine. You can pretend not to know that every business has the opportunity to succeed or fail depending on any number of factors including the economy for your spin. And of course I didn’t say “business model is a crap shoot” -you words again.
You hope all the candidates support the law? Really? Don Berwick doesn’t – he wants to repeal it. That would would appear to be non-support to me.
You called something my candidate’s plan and I responded with the facts of the situation including that she has not made a proposal for Springfield.
You my friend are in the mud business.
You defend casinos because of “business models” and that wealthy men with money would not venture into a failure. Then you say that business models win and lose. Somehow you and your candidate hold onto a certainty that this model will not lose. What are you and your candidate basing this concrete assumption on? Can you be specific, or you prefer to remain vague with a high degree of plausible deny-ability?
Honestly, why does your candidate support bringing gambling casinos to Massachusetts apart from “it’s the law”?
Alas I will not debate things I never said. I too spent time in debate club in high school (clearly a jock I was not) to fall for that trick.
Unlike you, the possibility of failure doesn’t stop me from supporting actions that have the potential to create jobs. Especially when no other viable alternative has been offered.
As for why anyone would support expanding gaming in Massachusetts please feel free to read any of numerous gaming threads on BMG over the last several months (and years, and decades).
Would that be snake eyes?
To persons with whom you diagree and still make me laugh out loud.
n/t
http://www.boston.com/travel/destinations/2014/08/04/vegas-resort-planned-new-frontier-site/LttEStZv7J4WMef6GcnVgP/story.html
As that’s not Massachusetts – it’s Nevada. May I also add that the Democratic Party that I embrace does not celebrate the billionaire club. Finally, this deal, by your own admission can win or lose, there are not guarantees. No, wait, the billionaires will still come out ahead. That’s how it goes. Ask Mitt and his leveraged buyout club. Is that what we stand for as Democrats?
Your candidate is on the record with saying “I have said that casinos is not the first place I ever would have gone for economic development.” and then “I have said at this stage, I would vote against the ballot question. That remains unchanged. I would vote against the repeal at this time,”
So casinos are not the preferred option, but we will refuse to say what that preferred option is and we will not fight to rid ourselves of something we have publicly said we would not prefer.
That’s at the very least, a very timid approach, don’t you think?
Take a look at it. I have sympathy for your point of view, and I happen to agree with you and disagree with Striker on the casino issue. But having recently authored a post in which you admitted to taking the last few decades off from political activism, you might communicate a little less arrogantly with people who have been fighting the fight all those years.
I restrained myself on your post, but I hope you’ll remain engaged even if Berwick falls far short on September 9. We can’t get as much done if passionate people drop out altogether until a sufficiently pure candidate shows up every 30 years or so. It’s actually one of the things that’s bothered me about the Berwick campaign.
Took a few decades off? Sorry, you have me confused with another. I’d prefer to not make this about me, so let’s just say that I have been active in politics for quite a while. Yes, the tone with Striker is a tango that I have decided to end and do hope that is a mutual agreement. As to my involvement if Berwick falls short, again, I’d rather not make this about me. I trust we will all work together on the “big game” after these “scrimmages” are over.
As to the ” sufficiently pure candidate shows up every 30 years or so”, we need to choose better if that is the case. We ought not grow complacent.
I only know what you post:
You are reading things into this that are not said. Again, I prefer to not make this about me (but that seems to be the goal). I would argue that the Clinton presidency played it safe, got soft, and stopped fighting for social justice. This is the last time I will defend myself on this thread. I’m delighted to debate/discuss issues but prefer to not be the center of the conversation. Thanks in advance.
well at least the debate is seldom personal for me. I have no problem engaging and no problem giving back in-kind. I’m with you on leaving that tango behind. I suspect we agree on more than we disagree on.
I’ve got my head down and my workboots on for the next 35 days to support Martha Coakley, Leland Cheung, Deb Goldberg and Warren Tolman (along with a host of state rep and senate races) on September 9th. I’m sure I’ll be celebrating some victories, am prepared to lick my wounds if necessary and be back in the fight on September 10th for candidates that support the labor and/or working class!
Yes indeed! Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I call it keyboard courage.
I’m with you on a few of your choices I thought that Leland Cheung gave one of the best speeches at the convention, bested only by Berwick.
The Warren/Healey race tears me in two and I don’t think I’ll make up my mind until I am in the booth.
See you on the 10th!
No one.
But the center-right corporatist Dems ought to act a little more like they give a shit about progressive values and voters.
I don’t dispute that you work harder than anybody (except Judy), but this is contradictory —
If anyone here truly were a center-right corporatist, well then no, they don’t have to care about progressive values. Voters, sure.
I guess my point is, if there’s moralizing about whether “progressive activists” will “show up” for these corporatist center-right Dems in general elections, where’s the moralizing about whether corporatist center-right Dems should do something to at least pretend like they deserve (or want) my support?
I’m driven by my own value system, but the one-sided nature of this pre-emptive cluckclucking about the Progressive Activist’s disappearance in the General is irritating.
I don’t like it when people dismiss voters.
I’ve also long maintained that anyone who cares enough to actually blog about politics will absolutely show up, for the primary and the general.
…whom I would describe as a center right corporatist Democrat.
.
when they actually taught it in grade school. And yes that new development is in LV – the place (among others) you used as an example of gaming being a failing industry. You are happy to point out casino closing and layoffs (Ok happy isn’t the word -I don’t take you for someone who celebrates another’s job loss). I’m simply pointing out that a closed gaming facility is being developed into a new gaming facility and construction and long-term jobs are once again in the mix.
I’m not accepting your black or white concept of the gaming debate. It is perfectly acceptable to say that your first choice of economic expansion would not be gaming (it’s not my first choice) however, facing a lack of other proposals I will support the jobs and revenue a gaming facility will create.
You can spout off as many preferred options as you like – without concrete funding they are unobtainable. I prefer to deal in reality. And I prefer candidates who don’t cite options that are not on the table.
I see nothing timid in declaring how you will vote on a controversial issue.
I honestly feel that there is a lot of opposition from a moral standpoint to gambling that tends to fall into two camps. The Puritanical camp, which my brother represents, and I am sure he is not alone, that views gambling as an immoral action the state should not be incentivizing. And the paternalistic camp views gambling as a tax on the poor, who, via cognitive dissonance, are unable to make sound economic decisions for themselves, with the money from their communities subsidizing affluent ones, as is the case with the lottery.
While I agree with the paternalistic camp to a degree, I don’t want to endorse the puritanical view nor do I think the paternalistic opposition is sufficient. We have to make the economic case against casinos. I think I have made them above, but I am also intrigued that you conceded there are no better projects for your members at present.
And that concerns me. It’s a really sad indictment of our supposedly progressive state that we have to resort to subsidizing such a regressive and unsuccessful industry in order to put people to work. In the event the deal is repealed, I wonder what strategies you have on creating the kind of climate to put the trades back to work building the kind of infrastructure we deserve. I think connecting our economic powerhouses that have benefited from the ‘new’ economy with the gateway cities left behind by the decline of the ‘old’ economy would significantly benefit and transform the state while also putting the trades to work towards public goods. I want to revive the spirit of make work projects we had during the New Deal, the need is just as pressing as it was then, and the demand for skilled laborers who need the work is just as high.
“Gambling” — you and I bet on the election outcome, and I end up owing you a fiver — is fine, in my view.
“Casino gambling” is absolutely, unequivocally immoral. Even if you put aside the addictive aspects, the crime it will bring … everything, and just leave the games themselves — they’re rigged. Mathematically, the house will always win. Sure. a few people will walk away as short-term winners, but the vast majority will lose.
The roulette wheel pays (I believe) even money on red or black. But the mere existence of the green zero and double zero mean that both red and black are less likely than 50/50. So the more bets placed, the more lose. This same dynamic plays out in every game.
Casinos are reverse ATMs. That is the only reason they exist. It’s not “Puritanical” to recognize that.
MIT, UMass Amherst The Berkshires, The Cape, Harvard, Biogen, EMC, Boston, The North Shore, Martha’s Vineyard, The South Shore, Brigham & Women Hospital, Dana Farber, The Celtics, The Red Sox, and on and on (in other words, if were were a desert like Vegas), I’d agree, casinos are a good option. But after looking at all the Massachusetts has to offer and build upon, casinos seem reckless.
And the Lottery is the one of the worst kind of gambling there is.
Promoted by the state (and, therefore, by all of us as taxpayers), the state lottery is rigged much more than any casino game. Last fiscal year, people bet $4.86 billion on the Massachusetts lottery. The lottery paid back just $3.51 billion of that in prizes (about 72%). It made net profits of $971 billion (returned to cites and towns) and the remaining 8% was paid out in administrative costs plus commissions/bonus to retail stores.
That house edge for the lottery (again, about 20%-28% depending how you count it) is unconscionably high. The house edge in Roulette is 5.2%, about 2% in Craps, less than 1% in Blackjack, and anything from 2%-12% on slot machines.
The state lottery is a reverse ATM machine that takes your money much, much faster than the casinos.
Personally, I wouldn’t make either casinos or the lottery illegal. Prohibition does not work. But spending millions of taxpayer dollars a year to advertise the “opportunity” to play the lottery and to encourage residents to “entertain” themselves by playing games with a 25% house edges is absolutely, unequivocally immoral in my book.
I don’t see opposing regressive revenue collection as “paternalistic”. To me, this is where the “Progressive” moniker originates. There is a reason why we label a graduated income tax scale “progressive”.
I oppose state-sponsored gambling because I have lived in Massachusetts during the time it’s been in place. I remember the lies told about it when it was first being proposed. I’ve watched our government become increasingly reliant on the VERY regressive income stream from the Lottery. I’ve watched our allegedly “Democratic” legislators vote, time and again, to kill tax increases on the wealthy and make up the difference by relying more on the Lottery (and by simultaneously slashing government services for the demographic that contributes the bulk of lottery revenues).
The leaders of the “Democratic” party now propose to double-down on this regressive strategy — with Bob DeLeo leading the charge.
I am neither morally opposed to gambling nor paternalistic towards those less fortunate than me.
I describe myself as “realistic” about these matters:
– The lottery revenue IS regressive
– The state DOES transfer money from the poor (who buy most of the lottery tickets) to the wealthy (who live in towns like Carlisle that don’t even HAVE a lottery outlet, yet still receive lottery proceeds in the form of local aid).
– Casino gambling will increase this regressivity
– Lottery outlets are more concentrated in poor neighborhoods, cities, and towns than in prosperous ones. It’s a lot easier to play Keno in Lawrence than in Carlisle.
– The proposed casino gambling locations are in poor- and working-class cities and towns. Milton (Governor Patrick’s home town), Concord, Carlisle, Dover, Wellesley — those towns have never been considered as casino locations.
In my view, this about the wealthy and powerful plundering the poor and weak. I don’t think rejecting that is “paternalistic”, I view it as “progressive realism”.
You’re arguments won’t win over swing voters on this issue. Those that don’t gamble personally, but may be swayed by the jobs argument. I think it’s incumbent upon us as casino opponents to tell striker and his workers-and voters like my mother who voted to protect Wonderland when it was in the ballot-that these won’t be job engines, the state will foot the bill for social costs and bailouts , and we can and should invest elsewhere to promote construction jobs. I sympathize and have argued your points above-but I think those points fly over the head of the average voter who will so a gut check on this question in the booth.
Question #3 is about jobs – plain and simple. The unemployment rate for June 2014 in Springfield was 9.1% and in Hampden County overall it’s 7.2%
The unemployment rate in Revere is 6.4% and in Suffolk County it’s 6.0 overall. Unemployment in Plainville is 5.8%.
http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/town_comparison.asp
http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/County_comparison.asp
Voters in all three municipalities voted to approve casino gaming / slots because there was no other alternative to create jobs. Poorer and working class communities don’t need people to “save them from the social evil”, they need employment and a future. And yes we disagree on what future casinos bring – but that’s the social argument. BTW, my understanding is that the funding created in the casino law to address addiction is the highest of any state with gaming.
As for the lottery – hell I’m with you on that. I believe that cities and towns should get lottery funds in the same percentage they purchase tickets. Carlisle would be shit out of luck.
So if voters statewide can override local voters decisions when to I get to vote to put a trash to energy plant in Dover?
That’s my question. Have all other options been carefully considered? Can anyone fill me in on the genesis of this casino thing? All I seem to recall is my state senator telling me “We can’t stop it. It’s coming. All we can do is try to manage it”.
I get where striker is coming from with that sentiment, particularly since if rent control hadn’t been voted out of existence by the rest of the state, my beloved Cambridge would have continued to be a true patchwork of diversity and not just the next Williamsburg/Silicon Valley knockoff it has become.
That said, the social costs are significant and will be borne out by the entire state. And while voters in Carlisle might be averse to gambling from a moral, paternalistic, or progressive standpoint, they will not be effected by the unemployment rates in those communities. This is why casino opponents have to make the affirmative case that repeal saves us from the bogus jobs numbers and bailouts that are endemic to this flailing industry. As I linked to yesterday, union jobs are getting slashed by the hundreds at Foxwoods which is over $2 billion in debt. Were it to fail-CT would be stuck with footing the bill. I don’t want that repeated in MA.
Building casinos, as Tom pointed out above, also continues our addiction to regressive revenue which makes it significantly less likely that new progressive revenue streams needed for a real infrastructure, transit, and jobs program could be funded. We need to fix crumbling schools, highways, mass transit lines, and build new ones to meet the needs of our state. Unionized hardhats should be the ones doing the building. But we need the money to get there, and as long as Boehner is in charge, it ain’t coming from the feds.
Like Keystone, this is a short term jobs program that has dubious long term benefits and that society will have to bare the costs of paying and cleaning up. My heart is with the trades, and my mind tells me there is more socially useful work they could be put towards. We need the revenue to get there, and it is less likely to happen if we get casinos.
I grant you there will be a spurt of job creation for the construction industry. That bubble will last what — one, maybe two years?
It’s like getting rip-roaring drunk because you’re so depressed. It may feel really good for a few hours — but the hangover the next day is a killer, and whatever it is that makes you depressed is still just as intense as ever when the buzz wears off.
The malaise we have today is a long-term STRUCTURAL problem in our economy. Bringing casinos to MA will only worsen that problem.
Once the casino bubble (if it happens) has burst, the hangover will be long, intense, and painful.
And ALL of us will pay the price (as the residents of Atlantic City, gamblers and non-gamblers, construction workers and non-construction workers alike, are learning the hard way as we speak).
Very low cost in terms of purchasing lobbying offices, acquiring power brokers like Weld, and finding communities desperate enough (Everett, Springfield) to host them.
Just two years ago the Times said Foxwoods was fighting for it’s life, and today it isn’t looking any stronger.
From the latter article:
Union jobs are great, but even they are impermanent when they depend on an industry that has been in a downcycle for the past decade. I am sure Wynn feels he can make money off of the industry, or else he wouldn’t be fighting so hard to push it onto MA voters. But, I am also sure that he got a ton of incentives out of that deal, and won’t be particularly remorseful if he has to lay off some unionized workers and close shop and skip town leaving us with the facilities that are proving so difficult for other communities to repurpose, or using those same lobbying powers for bailouts.
Let’s not praise the economics of the deal, it’s all about the politics. It’s just shameful the climate isn’t there to give you’re workers something positive to build like high speed rail or a T that functions and actually goes out farther than Somerville.
the auto industry was in the dumps. Thousands of UAW members were losing jobs. Today the UAW has opened a union office in TN to organize VW workers. And:
http://www.autoalliance.org/jobsreport
Industries rebound. It would be great to see an auto plant back in Framingham. The problem is someone has to spend the private money to build it. There are developers willing to spend that capital to build gaming facilities in Mass.
They create cars and sell them to people, which increases their mobility and opportunity. This improves the overall economy. What do casinos create?
I know one thing they create when billions of dollars in discretionary (and other) spending is shifted from our small businesses and other options over to the casino: unemployment, and shuttered local businesses.
Atlantic City went from 200+ restaurants to around 80 over the last few decades. And now what do they have to show for it? Some big, closed buildings and a devastated local economy. I wish you and the unions in this state would look a bit closer at the long term picture.
My dad was in his favorite Woburn deli when he saw a bunch of workers with union stickers on their hard hats pull in and talk about why they liked Brown. He knew Coakley was toast then and there. And I think Warren, in the early days of her campaign, focused on the Blount Amendment, Kagan, and social questions and didn’t really get traction until she shifted into full blown populist mode and attack Brown’s bad votes against Gloucester fishermen, extending unemployment, and pulling the ladder up from behind him.
I think all of our candidates have to make a direct pitch and connection to the working men and women of this state-that will be the difference between a Democrat or Baker in the Corner Office.
“I see unemployment as a far greater cause of human suffering across all sectors.”
Well then we don’t really disagree. Casinos will cause unemployment across all sectors that rely on discretionary spending. Most of the jobs they bring are automated — slot machines do the majority of their transactions.
Saving jobs is why I am against casinos, and why I will continue to fight their introduction into our communities and states. People look at the big buildings and think they just create jobs instead of displacing money and costing the surrounding community thousands of jobs. It hasn’t worked anywhere else, why do you think it will work here again? What’s the example state with the great casino economy?
The point of this diary is not who has the better positions.
It’s that Berwick can win and that de Blasio’s victory tells us how.
The point of my answer is, “No, Berwick is way behind where de Blasio was and he lacks most of de Blasio’s key advantages”.
One of de Blasio’s key advantages was being the one progressive in the race. One way that was expressed was by emphasizing income inequality.
Berwick does not have that advantage. He does not look to most people like the unique progressive in the race. It doesn’t matter so much whether Coakley has done much or little on wealth inequality. Instead, the point is that she’s emphasizing a key theme of the de Blasio campaign. This makes her look progressive too and it deprives Berwick of an advantage de Blasio enjoyed.
But u wonder what your remedy to this field is, should we just throw up our hands and follow Coakley? Not an attack, just an honest appraisial of where your analysis is leading you.
To the extent that “progressive” is the beaux ideal I won’t disagree with you that the body politic is in need of ‘remedy’.
But to the extent that the vast majority of the CommonWealth doesn’t. per se, share our enthusiasms I doubt they look on it as in need of ‘remedy’ …or at least not in the same way. Most citizens, I daresay, aren’t on the hunt to find, and vote for, the mostest progressive candidate out there. You and I might think they should be but they aren’t… Indeed, you and I are on different sides of the definition of progressive itself: I think that Martha Coakley will be the most effective progressive we could get, even if a ‘baseline reading’ puts her progressive bona fides below that of of the, perhaps, quixotic Don Berwick. You might well accuse me of settling for ‘half a loaf’ (perhaps even with cause) but that’s all in the context of a citizenry that thinks half a loaf might be altogether too much to swallow.
The OP here posit’d a path to victory for Berwick based upon the path blazed by Bill de Blasio. But de Blasio only ‘won’ an election. That’s not the same thing as concretizing progressive beliefs into governmental action. Whether de Blasio will so succeed, actually, remains very much up in the air. So it’s not, per se, a victory for the progressive cause, only one more step forward. You’re response to this will, no doubt, be to say ‘well, we need to vote progressives in to get progressive action out…” and this is profoundly true. But what is also profoundly true is that if we want progressive leaders we should also want progressive citizens. So I would say that your ‘remedy’ here is to, yes, accept and ‘get behind’ Martha Coakley but also to expect and demand more progressive thought and action from your fellow citizens and not just from the candidates. Don Berwick shouldn’t be the outlier here… The more progressive the citizenry, the more progressive the candidacies will be…
or the Bellerophonic Coakley….
… caused him to think that he had the right to fly to Olympus when, apparently, he did not. Since Martha Coakley aspires to the exact same position that Don Berwick does I wonder at this reference… Are you saying that Berwick deserves to stand upon Olympus but Coakley does not? If neither one deserves to stand there, they both deserve the ‘bellerophonic’ reference. If the Governorship of a CommonWealth in a democracy isn’t Mount Olympus, then neither one deserves the reference.
… Or, put another way, that’s a windmill you’re tilting at, a fantasm looming out of the idylls of an idle mind, and not a very perceptive reference…
Attacking me is not nice. Please behave.
Attacking you is not my intent. Challenging your statements is my intent.
On the spectrum between attacking you and challenging your statements, the distinctions (and sometimes the perception of the distinctions) get blurred. For my part I regret the lack of care that may have contributed to the blurring of these distinctions.
1. The main value of Berwick’s run seems to be to raise issues that need raising. Since right now the chance of winning seems remote, that looks like the best we can do.
2. I’ve already noted that Coakley’s messaging can be lame in the extreme. I agree with the idea that having some candidates around in case her candidacy collapses is at least prudent.
3. Politics is the art of the possible. Given that (sadly) a Berwick win isn’t, a focus on things we can achieve would be healthier and could accomplish more.
4. Proving that Baker really is worse than Coakley to Democratic Party activists needs some work and attention. Spending a lot of time proving that Coakley is worse than Berwick doesn’t help that, and doesn’t matter in the end.
I agree in full. Then again, spending time proving that Berwick does not stand a chance does not help either. This is the piece of party politics that I like the least. I’m not here to knock Coakley or Grossman. However, there is still a contest here and pointing out the differences between the candidates sometimes leads to pointing out the faults they may have. When this all began, I imagined an amalgamation of all five Democrats as being my choice. With Coakley, I picked here name recognition, with Berwick it was his position on issues that are most important to me. Kayyem, Avalone, and Grossman all have qualities that I wanted in the candidate who would face Baker.
I am not at the point where I think that Berwick does not stand a chance. I am out canvassing to promote Berwick, not to attack Coakley or Grossman. To make a sports analogy, we’re in a intramural scrimmage. We play to win but need to be careful not to injure anyone before the “real game”.
One thing that is often forgotten notwithstanding Christine Quinn is the New York City Council had gotten substantially more progressive in the later Bloomberg years thus leading to the perception before and the reality after De Blasio election that much of De Blasio platform would be supported by the New York City Council. Compare that to the perspective relationship between Berwick and the Mass Legislature.
If you really want to see the difference between Massachusetts and New York City compare the politics of Melissa Mark-Viverito to that of Robert DeLeo. Mark-Viverito(NYC Council Speaker) and DeLeo look like they are barely even members of the same political party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Mark-Viverito
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_DeLeo_(politician)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is NOT the City of New York
both Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker have and while not losing, Steve Grossman suspended his campaign for Governor in 2002. We still have not seen their televised debates or the plethora of TV ads that are sure to come. Most folks are just starting to yawn and rub the sleep of summer from their eyes as they wake up to the primary election. The current polls are therefore soft. Don Berwick has a track record of accomplishing that which others say cannot be done. Five weeks is an eternity in politics. Any of the three could become our nominee. I still believe that Berwick would have the best chance to beat Baker, but whomever we choose in September, we all better be ready to come together, put our differences aside and work like heck toward victory. So let’s be kind to one other now so we can truly achieve unity in our efforts after the primary.
I can take that under advisement. I have been fairly negative on Coakley, not Somerville Tom negative (I will do all I can to help elect her if she is nominated, and we differ there), but fairly negative all the same. There is a reason for this, he and I share strong concerns about her abilities as a candidate, her record on civil liberties and privacy issues, and her commitment to following through on progressive politics in other areas. Some people here, notably, petr, pablo, kate, judy, and striker, have been liberal activists for far longer than I have in this great Commonwealth and find her candidacy inspiring and encouraging in a way I can’t, and likely, never will be able to.
The Grossman backers like fenway, jimc, and Christopher seem stuck in the middle, they like Steve as a the liberal businessman who really ran his company the right way, and feel he is the most electable of the non-Coakley’s left, and a more pragmatic Governor than Berwick would be.
I think that’s the sentiment of the race, had Wolf run, who knows, more of us might be backing him and he may have made this a real race. It’s obvious the editors aren’t nearly as active or involved by this stage as they were all united for Deval at this point in 2006. I think most of us here were Deval supporters and now we are divided three ways.
I see the Berwick canvassers working hard to wake up a sleep electorate and shake it from it’s slumber. They have 35 days to do it. So does Steve and his supporters, and if they fail, than Martha is our nominee. So don’t mock us Berwick and Steve folks for trying our best to win one for our guy, and we won’t mock you guys for working your asses off for you’re gal, and after the 9th, we will all be in the tank for the same Democrat.
I’ve noticed he hasn’t had lots of passionate defense here, and since my own stems largely from long personal acquaintance I feel my own hands are tied in this regard as well.
…is a bit of a silly standard since he has never run either. I don’t think anyone is knocking Berwick for having never won an election for the same reason either.
And frankly, if you get into a back and forth with striker and judy you are bound to lose. They have a lot more experience than I do at this, an ear to the ground, and strong personal loyalty to their candidate based on decades of cooperation. It’s one of those things that is sort of not worth arguing at this point, they got their candidate, you and fenway got yours, and I got mine. We will see on Sept 9th who won.
It’s presumptuous of them to say Coakley is a shoe in and Berwick and his supporters are wasting their time, and presumptuous of me to keep saying ‘Gov Baker’ whenever Coakley’s name gets mentioned. We just won’t know until the votes are counted and the campaign is over.
There are other fights worth fighting: Tolman vs. Healey, Sullivan vs. Ryan, and we gotta see casinos repealed, and the gas tax and minimum wage increase sustained.
IMHO anyway. I believe her to be the candidate best qualified to be Governor and to have the best chance to win in November however . . . it takes work to get there. The polls show her winning the primary and the final as of this moment – that doesn’t mean I work less hard on her behalf. I’ll take a deep breath and rest at 8:01 on November 4th.
For the record, some of my votes that I am most proud of were for candidates that did not win.
My cat has never lost an election. That doesn’t make her a viable candidate for governor. On the other hand, she would be a purrfect lieutenant governor.
for cats (and puns).
… “Why are you wasting time not feeding me?? Look, human, the bowls are empty…”
Cats can be so expressive…
She reminds me of my old cat Mindy (who was named after Mindy of Mork and Mindy and nearly 25 years old when she passed).
ZeFrank is just too much fun:
http://on.fb.me/19wNCLy
Sad Cat Diary:
http://ashow.zefrank.com/episodes/123
She’s a dog person.
Banecat.
She has her own Facebook page. Please stop by and like it.
But out where I am, seriously, people who aren’t essentially politics hobbyists are barely aware that there’s a primary in September. I know that it feels like that can’t possibly be true. It feels that way to me, too. And yet I find it to be the case every time I set foot outside my little bubble of fellow enthusiasts.
Time is running out, for sure. But except for us and people like us, I don’t have the impression that anyone’s voter base is set in stone. I don’t see why either Grossman’s supporters or Berwick’s supporters should be giving it all up as irretrievably lost, based on what we’re seeing at the ground level out here. To resort to a tired football metaphor: two of the three campaigns are way down at the beginning of the fourth quarter. The odds aren’t great. So what? Sometimes teams win in the fourth, and Massachusetts is still a state where retail politics can work now and then.
Only a few days ago, I could have said that there’s been almost no campaign-type activity here since the convention. Today I’ve had two invitations to new candidate events come in during in the time I’ve been writing this comment. Honestly, a lot of people are just beginning to pay attention at all.
In a broader context, this is not the first September primary ever. Dr. Berwick has 75% less support than candidates who have successfully come from behind. So if he just continues doing what he’s doing, he might triple his support. All the way to 15%! That’s a quarter of a wow. A hip without the other hip or the hooray.
On the other hand, if he were really planning to win this, his campaign would be taking extra efforts to assure volunteers that there was some big plan, some big splash, some super stratagem coming up that was going to turn the race on its head. Otherwise, his campaign will leak volunteers to demoralization. Experienced campaign workers recognize when they’re toiling on a losing campaign.
But I don’t hear that. I don’t hear any hint of an upcoming Great Plan. The Berwick campaign is certainly not amassing a huge war chest for a big media push, either. The ads, while excellent viewing on BMG, have all fallen short of being ready for television.
So we have a campaign like a Tinker Bell Recovery Plan.
Everyone hope.
And clap your hands, too.
If I understand what has been posted here, the narrative runs something like this:
* Berwick has a great message, that lots of people will like.
* Since no one is paying attention yet, few have bothered to listen to his message, and thus come to like it.
* That will all change in August or maybe September.
* At that point, his deficit will vanish and he’ll be within striking distance of the nomination.
I don’t think that story fits any campaign I’ve ever seen or known of.
There’s actually been a pretty significant uptick in new volunteers in my region over the past 2-3 weeks and existing volunteers picking up more shifts. As for a “super stratagem,” perhaps the reason you’re unaware of one is that you’re not a Berwick volunteer? I’m not sure what stratagem is served by repeated posts attempting to quell enthusiasm for others’ candidate of choice–unless it’s aimed at solidifying Berwick’s support through reverse psychology? If that’s your plan, keep up the good work!
We are picking up new vols every weekend in Needham. And my experience canvassing (over hundreds of doors now in town) is the same:
1) Biggest set of voters are barely aware there’s a primary,
2) Second biggest: if they’re aware, they haven’t been paying attention
2.5) Most voters are unaware Coakley has challengers and are happy to learn that there are options
3) 3rd biggest: voters very open to Berwick
4) Voters who’ve already decided on a candidate — Mostly Berwick, next Coakley, and deadlast, Grossman (one voter so far that I’ve encountered).
As Needham goes, so doesn’t go everything, but that’s my anecdotal experience, FWIW.
I’m super excited and I am motivated to go out canvassing at least 2x/week when I’m around, which unfortunately, I’m not too much this summer.
We need to change our Primaries to the Spring, people. Voters are not engaged in summer time. Fall primaries just exacerbate voter apathy and disconnectedness. Which I think is probably the point.
So Berwick’s measured polling has dropped from 8% to 5%. It’s nice none of the volunteers are demoralized. One would think that with all this effective volunteering and with September approaching that the numbers would increase rather than decrease.
Also polling shows that Coakley is viewed quite favorably. At the time of my polling diary, she was viewed more favorably than Sen Warren or Governor Patrick. There’s utterly no evidence that a significant number of voters are hungry for an alternative.
I understand the numbers you’re citing and I understand the “You’re toast, kids, pack it up” message you’re sending.
I am relating, “FWIW”, my *anecdotal* experience.
I’ve met three committed Coakley supporters, and two were easily persuaded to consider alternatives. I’ve met many more anti-Coakley voters, self-declared “ABCs”. I do not and would not ever pile on, but it alarms me, as one of the people expected to dutifully GOTV for the general, because she is NOT making headway with these voters. They’re scarred by her past and they are skeptical about her present message. She will be hard pressed to get them back.
I’m glad you’re glad that there’s no demoralization here, but I am also curious: is your goal to demoralize?
Needham is decidedly more progressive than many similar towns. We have a strong progressive community that is pretty engaged and informed. Perhaps this makes for a different set of responses at the doors. I can only control my own actions, commitments and try to engage and influence in my corner of the universe, so that i don’t feel like a schmuck at 8:01PM on September 9. My convictions and moral center motivate me, not polls or your skepticism, but you know, whatever!
I’m back in town and I’ll be heading out canvassing again tomorrow, and touching base with my team of fellow citizen activists, who are also motivated by an impressive candidate with an impressive message, not by sneering told-ya-so’s from polls and the internetz.
It feels really good.
and after a similar experience with fenway49 in another thread I’m uninterested in plowing through your misreadings. “You’re toast, kids, pack it up” is not the message I’m sending, but then I don’t expect you ever ever ever ever ever ever ever to title a comment “To be fair” because you aren’t.
I’m not following your posts obsessively, and I don’t plan on it, but good luck with that long term wringing of maximum benefit out of the Berwick campaign.
If you don’t wish to answer your own questions, I can’t change that. I can change the vote totals in my own corner of the universe, and I am doing exactly that.
High 5!
.
I’m not sure I did that, but I did ASK you to explain them. If I’ve characterized you wrong, please correct me, but seriously, I’m just responding to what you’re putting out there. Words, intent, and reception are all variables in “meaning” so , you know, be open to the fact that you could have put something out there that you didn’t intend to, maybe? Or not. Whatevs.
Curious discussion we’re having:
Yes, that was a question I asked.
High 5
…I suspect data as to whether that is bellweather community with a good track record of matching the statewide results can be found without too much difficulty.
IIRC, Needham was ~54/46 Coakley/Brown, the same Patrick/Baker (Baker is FROM Needham), and ~40/60 Lynch/D’Alessandro. So, yeah, we’re more progressive here than much of the state. And that’s BECAUSE we are organizing. Not just giving in to polls and status quo but working, from the grassroots, from our neighborhoods, to CREATE and inspire and work for change.
We lose more than we “win” maybe but I see long term changes in the future as rooted in whether or not I/we throw up our hands and say, “Quixotic; let’s give up” or not.
I meant that paragraph. I realize it would be requiring an “obsessive” following of my posts to actually read a comment to which you responded.
I do not follow this comment.
“I meant that paragraph”? What paragraph?
What Robert Reich?
Did you mean to reply to my thread about Needham?
Sorry. I’m confused. Feel free to storm off in a huff or, you know, explain more.
I don’t know how you’ll ever find that comment to which you responded. Here it is:
The point is that if a loss is heading the way of the Berwick campaign, then realistic people will think about how to keep that from causing too much damage. Instead of that, we hear all this Tinker Bell get well clapping. Maybe you can clap for the Arctic ice, too.
Note, by the way, that Prof. Warren already polls at 10% for President.
I’m really confused about what snarkfest you’re trying to win…
What “realistic people” are you talking about? Coakley people? Berwick people? Democratic people? Baker people? You? (Remember, I asked “who’s the “We”? Same question).
You’re sneering at Berwick supporters for being Tinker Bells ignoring the melting of the arctic ice sheets. Great!! Got it.
Now what? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN NOW? If YOU were a Berwick supporter, what would YOU be doing?
and try very hard to understand how it makes sense.
How you came to the questions in your first paragraph I cannot explain. The second paragraph is even more absurd. And it ends with all caps. This is akin to having a discussion with someone who is psychotic. I have no idea where to begin.
Possibly the morning will bring you more clarity.
Thank you though for continuing to NOT engage with my honest attempts at further dialogue and instead insulting psychotics. Good stuff! Let’s work on wringing some realistic good goals out of this in the morning.
I recall days when Needham wasn’t so progressive. But I guess you guys have taken in more than your share of Cambridge refugees (a few kids I grew up with anyway, moved out thataway)
This is a DIRECT result of continued grassroots organizing, galvanized in 2008. Regular people, mostly non DTC types, who see that the only way we can change what needs changing is by working for it and engaging with other non-political-insider types and GROW the movement. It’s not about one candidate, election or issue. It’s about moving the needle slowly but purposefully. And screwing the derisive “wisdom” of the jaded, mocking, short-sighted sore winners.
But I like being progressive outlier, and on the vanguard of pushing for more progressive candidates.
Markey v Lynch: 79/21 (MA results: 57/43)
Markey v Gomez: 63/37 (MA: 55/45)
Warren v Brown: 52/48 (MA: 54/46) (!!!) 🙁
Patrick v Baker v Cahill: 53/43/4 (MA: 49/42/8)
D’Alessandro v Lynch: 62/38 (MA09: 35/65)
Coakley v Brown: 52/47 (MA: 47/52)
Cap v Coakley v Khazei v Pags: 21/48/23/9 (MA: 28/47/13/12)
Genuinely surprised Brown support went up against Warren , especially considering how much better Coakley did during a significantly lower turnout.
I really wish Khazei and Pags didn’t run vanity campaigns, I still think that one on one Capuano, would’ve had a decent shot against Coakley, and he’d have cleaned Brown’s clock.
And Deval really should thank Cahill one of these days.
Well, I worked hard for Khazei and I was really inspired by his message of citizen activism and engagement. I had just come off the Obama campaign, my first foray at all into political volunteering, and he spoke to my long-standing frustrations with the political class, pol. system and the never-ending cycle of cynicism/apathy. I don’t regret that support, but I do now have reservations about core features of his platform, especially around education.
As for Warren/Brown/Coakley… It’s curious. I did NOT have an active role in that campaign, as I was lead organizer in Needham for Obama. I love my president, but I really wish I could have been more central to Needham/Warren 2012. Brown IS relatively well liked here, because he is familiar/incumbent, and he was our STate Senator, so he has some historical relationships with people in town (“Good guy!”). He dropped by quite a few times in 2012.
But all that was also true in 2010… and he even, I think, had a campaign HQ in Needham (or was that Baker? one or the other).
I dunno. I’m gonna have to work extra hard in the future I guess against the threat of familiar, good-enough-guy, not-so-bad moderate Republicans.
At the time I lamented that a lot of the Patrick/Obama supporters were going towards Khazei, particularly the BMG editors and many of my activist friends and officials back in Cambridge. This is in spite of the fact that Capuano had far more legislative experience and one of the most consistently liberal voting records in Congress.
I think a lot of people are attracted to outsiders versus insiders. And my argument, which I still largely hold, is that we should reward and promote insiders who actually fight the good fight and adhere to our values. I had no qualms sending Ed Markey to the Senate for example, since I knew he would hit the ground running on day 1. I also think Warren brought a unique outsider’s perspective, so it’s good to have both.
I was leaning Grossman at the beginning of this campaign for largely the same reasons, but preferred Berwick on the issues including single payer and opposition to casinos. It was the early backing of ‘insiders’ like Sen. Chang Diaz and Sen. Elridge that convinced me he had a real shot and was serious about governing and not just campaigning on all his issues.
As for Brown, sometimes it is hard to beat local figures and solid constituent services, which matter as much as voting records to people I’ve talked to. It goes both ways, one of my best friends growing up is a libertarian conservative, but he will always back Capuano whose office assisted him when he was trying to get his veterans education benefits. Starting local and getting the pulse of your neighbors is key, and I think that is the work you and Progressive MA have just begun.
I didn’t (and don’t) have the personal familiarity with Cap that others do/did, and as I got to see him on the trail, I didn’t particularly like him, but he was certainly my 2nd choice.
That 2010 special brings back so many bad memories… But I have to be grateful to MC for one thing: without that loss, we wouldn’t have Senator Warren today. No Brown? No Warren. And IMO we are much better served with this outcome.
Than Brown was, than Coakley would’ve been, and likely than Capuano would’ve been, as much as I like him. I think we have returned to having a fairly good delegation in the Senate for the most part. I hope we can continue to have great Democrats in the Corner Office and more great Democrats in the State House. Working local builds the infrastructure we will need for the statewide campaigns to come.
I’ve hit more than 100 doors. Most are not home, same as every year. Of those that are home, most are unaware that there is a primary. Of those that are aware, they do not know who is in the running but the one name they recognize is Martha Coakley.
My guess is that a “poll” of my area would rank Coakley #1. Then again, if we were to ask people in the area to name a British Passenger Liners of the 1900’s. “Titanic” would be #1 as well. So let’s agree that name recognition alone is not all it’s cracked up to be.
I have spoken with a few former Grossman supporters who have switched to Berwick because of the negative campaigning. I have not run into any Coakley supporters – except here in BMG.
… wishful thinking has taken hold. With the exception of Barack Obama and Deval Patrick — two unique and memorable names in and of themselves — very few candidates with low name recognition get very far, and none that I can think of this far into the race. I wonder if some progressive activists are hoping against hope for some 2008 style hope and change all over again. That was a powerful high, to be sure, but we’re back to reality now.
And there’s this…
The assumption here is that, once told, they’ll hurry up and hie themselves off to a voting booth with all deliberate speed and vote. But if we all are a month out from the primary and they are unaware of the very existence of the primary, never mind multiple candidates, they are unlikely to prioritize voting in said primary.
The 2012 general election in Massachusetts had a 66.6% which, given the Presidency at stake and a Senate race, is probably a high water mark. The special election in 2010 garnered just north of 50% which was still better than the 49.6% rate of the midterm of later that year… which was the last gubernatorial election we’ve seen. Those are general election numbers. The numbers for primary voters are likely to be even more diminished…. however much they seem to elude the google. Being the first contested primary since 2006 doesn’t seem to have changed the dynamic much, if it’s been noticed at all…
So which campaign has the largest number of “feet on the street” to get voters out to the polls in September? Last time Martha lost because all her supporters figured it was in the bag, so why bother.
are worth 6% to 8% by most estimates.
Feet on the street are insufficient to overcome a 40 to 50 point deficit.
Seems that we’re both in the same bucket. You have faith that, this time, the sure thing will in fact be a sure thing and I have faith that we are in a new paradigm that will be talked about for years.
Saying Berwick is going to lose the primary is not the same thing as saying one favors Coakley or Grossman.
You, Sir, have become a member of a cult. Anyone not participating in your cultish enthusiasms, you think has to be Other, Wrong, and Unprogressive.
Please, must you make this a personal attack? Then again, if that is all you have in defense of your position, I can handle it. What’s next, challenge my birth certificate or family lineage?
“Last time,” Martha Coakley won the primary… You’re thinking of the general election when she lost. In 2009/2010, she, as well as every Democrat in the CommonWealth, figured it was in the bag: that’s why the primary was several times longer than the general election. The entire scheduling of the special election was concentrated around the primary. It was a dumb move, no doubt, and Coakley isn’t free of blame… but she also isn’t alone in culpability.
Martha Coakley has never lost a statewide primary.
I’ve written enough elsewhere on this thread that you can probably figure out my motivation without cynical speculation.
However, it might be useful to think of the Berwick campaign as resembling the 2002 Robert Reich campaign. Prof. Reich never got close enough actually to win but Reich’s campaign had a number of useful fall-outs: (1) It left behind a core of activists ready to run with Deval Patrick in 2006. (2) It elevated Prof. Reich to the level of public intellectual.
Berwick’s campaign is not raising large quantities of money. Polling has been in single digits and sinking. Deval Patrick already had a substantial lead, at this point in 2006; Gabrieli and Reilly were already in the 20s at this point in 2006 — and they lost. De Blasio in New York was already polling multiples of Berwick’s numbers. In the election Scott Brown won, he too never polled as low as Berwick does. These are just the facts. Sorry if you find reciting them abhorrent.
Might it be useful to think about how we can extract the maximum benefit from a campaign that, right now, has only the remotest chance of winning?
Being realistic has its advantages. If you prefer to be faith-based about this, then you place yourself outside the range of rational discourse.
How do you want to use Berwick campaign to advantage?
Abhorrent or not, I do not understand what it is you expect to extract from people who are committed and professed supporters and activists by your recitation of facts. Can you explain what it is YOU want to see as the “maximum benefit” that can be wrung from a dynamic progressive campaign?
Who’s the “We” in your presentation? What’s kbusch’s ideal world for “us” here?
.
Pack it up.
Is it possible that Berwick’s field target universe is so ‘good’ that people can have the experience canvassing of mostly Berwick support, which clearly flies in the face of the current polls?
Honestly asking. I tend to want to trust everyone here on BMG, and it seems like we have this conflicting narrative.
Option #2 is that voters lie at the door. I guess, but my experience has been that that isn’t usually true.
…having a universe that’s all for your candidate isn’t that great. You need to be talking to persuadables.
And that’s why it’s so awesome that most of the people are undecideds. I personally reported (and others personally have anecdotally said same) that OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED, Berwick is the top candidate, followed by MC (very squishy), and distantly, Grossman. I’d have thought SG would be stronger but I haven’t seen it yet.
Remember, targeted universes are designed to screen out likelies for the other candidates, whether by voting patterns, geography, or demography. Canvasses are not designed to be representative samples.
We’re doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing and we are finding that within that field, it’s working.
Cue kbusch and petr referencing polls and mocking and insulting Berwick supporters as delusional party poopers, in an elegant campaign to win us over to their campaign.
When making predictions, however, I’ll take polls over canvasses any day. This would be both my political science and political management degrees talking, but by all means, work to change the polls.
Again, I offer my experiences at the door as anecdotes. Nothing else.
Their responses are certainly coming across as more amicable than others.
But perhaps you and I are reading diff things.
But my questions was one of behavior, not epistemology.
Do you think it’s really necessary to repeatedly call people cult members and Tinker Bellers? Behaviorally speaking.
The work “cult” appears in this thread 4 times, twice by kbusch and twice by you. The words “Tinker Bell” appear 8 times, twice by kbusch, the other six by you. Petr has never used either word in this thread.
I dislike, intensely, superciliousness aimed at people who are acting on their convictions to back a candidate, work for that candidate, because of the alignment of ideas/ideals. I do not like the suggestion that when polls tell you “snowball’s chance” but you still believe in the cause, that you’re delusional. It’s cynical and everything I hate about political insiderdom and contributes to cynicism and apathy at a more general level. It’s, to me, deeply cynical and troubling, and I hate to see good people, good organizers, good believers in democracy made into the objects of derision because they’re working for what they believe in.
So, if I am wrong that in the face of me saying, “I’m seeing good results because of our organizing and hard work on the doors in my community,” we WON’T hear, “But the polls say otherwise, to believe your own experience is going to win the day means you’re in the realm of wishful thinking,” then I apologize. It wasn’t an insult, it was an attempt to acknowledge, “Yes, I know you’re going to make fun of me for knocking on doors and finding good response, because polls,” and indicate, “so what? I’m in this for the long-term progressive movement, and I hope Don Berwick will win, and the only thing I can control is to work as hard as I can to make that happen.”
And that’s my story.
that you’re using quotes when no one actually said those things.
Often used in literature. To distinguish between speakers and narrator voice. I find it strange that u didn’t know that!
You can’t knock down fictional criticism. Even if you dispute the objectiveness of the assessment.
But I was recounting my thought process. Seriously, these are the reasons why I cannot stomach the navel-gazery that often happens here. LOL.
Attempting to make an objective assessment is rude. It hurts the feelings of canvassers. Therefore, don’t do it.
.
So, no, my comments were not directed at canvassers. One can canvas for candidates for any number of reasons.
A campaign leadership with some moral scruples might look at all the canvassing and look at the poll numbers and wonder why it is putting all these people to work with nothing measurable to show for it. A big GOTV effort on Berwick’s behalf only begins to make sense if he can get up to 35% or more by mid-September. If the campaign lacks a plan to achieve that, don’t its leaders feel even a bit guilty?
*
So by my reading of your motivation, you want to corral as many people into canvassing as possible. As an organizer, you are not paid to have second thoughts. You are paid to cover as much turf as possible, get as many doors knocked as possible. If that’s your goal, then anything negative interferes with how pumped up you and your lieutenants can get. So it has to be brushed aside, squashed, derided. Your role is not to guide the campaign. It is to execute your corner of it, and to do so well and with energy and conviction. There is no room for doubt.
However, a job or a role that requires you to be pumped about the Berwick campaign will force you to be unobjective about it too. Objectivity is hazardous to you. It is better to think that the polling is anomalous, refutable by anecdote and experience, or by passion, or by faith in Dr. Berwick’s ability to communicate issues. So that, in fact, is why you are incapable of engaging in a rational, fully civil way with the points I’m raising, and why initially you appeared to me to be so deep into denial as to sound somewhat cultish.
But maybe that’s just a result of the role you’re in, and maybe you should just accept that and not pretend to be able to have a discussion about whether Berwick can win or not.
Ok. Maybe. You’ve got your narrative.
During primaries whether my candidate is a presumed winner or loser. Passion exacerbated by righteousness have often pushed me into the attack mode. Those attack behaviors are very stressful, and since I am ordered to reduce strss, the cure for me is to follow Mao’s advice to turn negative thoughts and behaviors into positive ones.
Harmony has a well reasoned analysis and long view of an organizer for progressive causes, and I admire her passion and persistence, but I have had to stop myself from responding. I lack KBUSH’ s kind patience.
It sounds challenging. What can I do to help?
You want me to acknowledge polls: I acknowledge them. I’ve always known Berwick is a long shot. THat’s NEVER been a question. Polls don’t change that. My motivation is organizing and building and strengthening the long-term progressive grassroots and effect change. One part of doing that is working for the ideals we believe in, whatever the polls or the smarty-pantses may say. Another part of doing that is telling the people who will try to demoralize you from your work, short-term and long-, you’re very smart, your points are understood, and if you have great ideas about long-term successes and short term wins, please help by giving money or time off-blog!
Don’t agonize; organize! Woot woot!
I ain’t lying, not that you need to believe me, but I’d be significantly less enthusiastic about heading out on doors if I weren’t seeing first-hand this squishiness for the frontrunner, and opportunity for a strong progressive. This is MY experience on the doors, and it could be, given that others are reporting similar experiences (here and elsewhere in personal convos), that yeah, they’re cutting really good target universes.
I have had a couple of people who refuse to engage, and are a little bit grumpy about it. Maybe they’re the Coakley voters I haven’t otherwise seen.
Again, I AM concerned about the “ABC” dynamic. If she’s our nominee, I think she’s really got her work cut out for her.
Harmony pointed out that her community is hardly a bellwether, as it is rather progressive leaning to begin with (particularly in regards to the Lynch/D’Alessandro crosstabs). That said, it seems that a decent number of voters are ‘plugged’ in enough to want a progressive candidate but ‘unplugged’ enough to not know all the candidates that are running. I would add that local media has done a terrible job of covering this race, compared to the 2006 cycle, if my memory recalls.
There is still a majority of voters who are not voting for Coakley, even according to the polls Coakley voters were celebrating either, and a large number of undecided voters. If they can break Berwick or Grossman’s way, it can be a real race. And the ads have only just hit the airwaves. I think an earlier primary would have made more of these candidates household names, and most people here want that change. It will also make it easier to regroup around the nominee.
Petr made a good point that Coakley was hurt in 2010 by the compressed cycle between the primary and the general, and it’s hard to argue that O’Brien wasn’t similarly damaged in the 2002 cycle for that general election. So that time is a factor.
I’d be more optimistic about Grossman closing the gap rather than Berwick, based on the numbers. So we will just have to see.
In our personal lives, many of us for example alter our eating habits to improve some aspect of our health. Doing so requires a great deal of work, and it is easy, tempting, and all too human to think that great virtue will lead inextricably to great results. That’s not always true, and blood tests often prove it.
Likewise here. The polls show, at the very best, no improvement. We’d like to think that we are all captains of fate. If we go out, work hard, do stuff, then things will improve. Sometimes that doesn’t happen. That’s why campaigns, too, need “blood tests”.
So how does one explain the anecdotes. I don’t know for sure, but let me offer some hypotheses:
1. Too small a sample.
2. Mistaking friendliness for support. If some stranger shows up on a front porch advocating some candidate or other, most people are not going to pick a fight or act oppositional. They’re likely to be friendly. In fact, they may detect that agreeing will make the canvasser feel good. In other words, there is no way for the canvasser for sure to know whether they’ve had a good effect or merely a polite encounter.
3. Unrepresentative selection. Lots of people feel a bit harassed by political canvassers. Given that, the people who open the door may not represent a cross-section of voters.
4. Campaign intentions. The most productive way to win votes is to go to precisely those precincts most likely to be supportive and to try to get a large turn-out. A campaign that tries to win is going to give low priority to target-poor, unfriendly turfs.
Those are indeed all possibilities. And, also, everyone knows that anecdotes are simply anecdotes and are not the hard data. And that polls are not the actual vote. Some people would say, “Look at the polls, the vote is is a foregone conclusion; everyone else should pack it up and stop bothering,” but that would be undemocratic.
One would have to be delusional to think I want Gallup to take over our elections. On the contrary. Polling does not always get it right. I get that.
However political strategy, in modern campaigns, is often informed by polling. A campaign that ignores polls clearly doesn’t care about winning.
In 2006, I decided I’d spend vacation time on House races. Democrats stood a good chance to pick up seats. Based on the evidence of polling, I decided to help do GOTV for the Courtney campaign in Connecticut which was fighting to unseat a long-time Republican in a seat that could be Democratic.
Rep. Courtney won that seat by 87 votes. I obviously made the right choice. He still holds that seat today.
I never count friendliness as support. Only if a vote says “I’m voting for X” do I confuse/report a hard ID.
more like an overt attempt to boost Don Berwick’s chances in the primary, rather than any examples of similarly trailing candidates. I’m for him and will likely pull the lever for him, but he doesn’t have a prayer. It’s just whistling past the cemetery.
It doesn’t feel like whistling past a cemetery to me, because I’m on the ground and seeing the ground shift. It’s a snapshot view of a very small bit of ground, to be sure, but it’s there. Steve Grossman’s people may be seeing movement too, which is why I included him in my comment just upthread. (There are other candidates I might have mentioned, but they’re running for local offices and not necessarily names anyone here would recognize. I promise you, though, Don Berwick isn’t the only candidate whose current name recognition and polling make things look very dark for them at the moment, and in whom I am not giving up hope.)
And anyway, and more globally: so what? The worst thing that can happen if I go on supporting the candidates I think would make the best officeholders is that not enough of my fellow voters will ultimately agree with me. That’s the same result I’ll get if I stay home and do nothing, so there’s not a lot of downside risk involved. At most, there’s maybe the psychological cost associated with not having affiliated myself with the winner ahead of time, and the loss of the psychological benefit of being with the winning side. Which is a real cost and a real benefit, up to a point: it’s the same reason that it’s fun to be with Germany when it wins the World Cup, and sad to be with Argentina when it loses.
But having recognized that, I can also recognize that the risk of feeling bad on election night is a terrible basis upon which to make a decision on a matter of public policy. I don’t have to let it affect my analysis or my enthusiasm for voting, and I don’t see why I or anyone else, supporting any candidate, ought to let it.
Berwick’s numbers on Boston Globe polls
3% June 1-3 and 8-10
8% June 8-10 and 15-17
8% June 15-17 and 22-24
6% June 22-24 and June 29 – July 1
5% June 29 – July 1 and July 7-8
6% July 7 -8 and July 13-15
5% July 13-13 and July 20-22
5% July 20-22 and 27-29
Coakley has lost some support to Grossman over this period but none to Berwick.
I just don’t care, in the sense you seem to think that I should care. Nor am I at all sure what you think any of us should do about it if we did care, but then, I don’t normally bother about horse-race coverage, and I’ll freely admit to not having read this whole thread, nor the one about the last round of polling.
this post and the one preceding it are +10
1. If the Berwick campaign really has the will to win, it does need to do something big and it needs to do it fast and it needs to be effective. On the current trajectory, 15% is looking difficult to achieve. So the campaign has to change trajectories. Like yesterday. And no, blaming the media, snark, jadedness, cynicism, and numerical literacy do not constitute a successful plan. It is ridiculously late to have the “no one’s paying attention” excuse.
2. Even if a big change occurs, victory doesn’t look good. So, those involved with the Berwick campaign should make sure that they can still find one another after the Berwick campaign. If that means Progressive Massachusetts, so be it, but please, please recruit within the campaign to keep the torch lit. And do avoid the trap of letting people slip into some cult of personality about Dr. Berwick. This has to be about progressive politics so that we can win down the road — especially if Baker wins in November.
3. Convincing people to vote for Coakley in the general is not going to be easy. I live with someone who today refuses to. I think we underestimate this problem. I called the first communication I got from her a slice from the Higher Pablum. It was horrendous. So winning in November is going to take work. Unpleasant work. And maybe that means doing some oppo research now not later on Mr. Baker.
Get out the word. Knock on some doors. Stop sneering judgements of volunteers doing the hard work for a campaign and values we believe in, stop referring to us as tinker bell cult members. You could give a generous donation to Progressive Mass and get involved in community organizing and make connection, vs. Ill will , with these glassy_eyed — yet hardworking — naive idiots.
Or keep doing versions of the same thing and feel super awesome about how you nailed it and we get center vs center right in the general. In your face, Tinker Bells!
Apparently the cult knows a single message.
Note to self: Do not try to engage in discussion.
“You’re a cult. You’re wasting your time. Polls show you suck. You’re a tinker bell.” Got it.
… as kbusch has repeatedly attempted to turn the discussion to how make a good outcome from the situation, preventing your time from having been wasted and which was predicated, clearly, upon the premise that you most certainly do not suck.
However, since it is not the exact and specific outcome to which you feel entitled, you have placed yourself distinctly at odds with someone –whatever they say — who is both wiser and more patient than you… which is foolish.
OK. We’re all set with all that already. So, maybe on to the next thing?
I suspect that harmonywho’s unvarying view here is due to his or her organizational role. To admit that the current situation is not working would perhaps jeopardize standing.
Let me take this as a beginning answer to such obnoxious gems as
Generally people refuse to think out of social standing or pressure.
I’ve avoided this Holy War, but this bears comment. kbusch, you have been (perhaps deliberately) misunderstood in this thread, and that’s not right. But now you’re off-thread into personal speculation.
I don’t know Harmony (she), but she has a stellar reputation as an organizer, and nothing she could say on BMG would change that. If Don Berwick wins one town, it will be Needham.
Based on my own stated philosophy, I say — Blog and let blog. But my strong recommendation is that everybody cease fire and move on from this thread.
That may
That may be true and up until now I’ve steered clear of ad hominem. That has not been even a little bit the case with johntmay or Harmony who have suggested that those who disagree with them are subject to all sorts of failings both political and emotional. I decided it might be useful to respond in kind.
Not a pretty direction to go, for sure. I agree with you there.
Those who disagree with me are those who disagree with me. While Striker and I did tango a bit, we’re over that awkward introduction. If anyone thinks I am resorting to ad hominem, please point it out. Thanks in advance.
My highest political priority after the primary will be, I think, removing Bob DeLeo from power. I think this means:
– Ensuring that the Casino Repeal question passes with an overwhelming majority (especially in his district).
– Identifying a truly progressive Democrat to run against Mr. DeLeo in his next primary.
– Calibrating and potentially supporting a move to replace him as Speaker
I agree that we need to play the long game, whatever happens with the upcoming primary and general.
And part of doing this is showing that progressive messages have resonance. And taking in the new volunteers and building a larger progressive organization/community, build common cause and commitment beyond one single election.
I haven’t seen progressives in my community as excited and united around a candidate and the causes behind him in a very long time. THat’s not by accident. Berwick *gets* grassroots power and he’s investing trust and power into the organization. It’s not only about one campaign: it’s about building a sustainable movement for a progressive agenda.
I don’t expect magic fairy dust to fix our problems. I see elections as important steps in that path, but we need LONG TERM, ongoing grassroots organizing and *engagement*. We need 1 year goals, 5 year goals, and a 30 year plan.
At an event recently where the ratio of supporters appeared to be 1:3:6 Coakley/Grossman/Berwick. Grossman and Berwick delivered good stump speeches to the crowd. Coakley was a no-show.
Will you consider the observation that you may be belaboring this point?
Not that I would ever do such a thing. 🙂
The topic of this diary is what exactly? If you’d like me to veer off topic, I could.
because he has been running attack ads against Coakley, and as ugly as attacks ads are, they are used because they usually work. In my case, his relentless negativity has set me in stone against him. He might very well be a good governor, but I won’t vote for him because of his style. In the primary only. Should he win the primary, I will support him over Charles Baker, hands down.
…when folks get word that Steve Grossman’s mom is paying for the attack ads, that slight movement toward Grossman may flip.
Attack ads might be gaining him votes from Coakley but from what I’ve seen, they are losing him votes to Berwick. He’s in a tough spot.
Nate Silver would probably say Coakley has a 95% chance of winning this thing. My point is, and I think the point of the OP, is that if we are committed to the ideals and principles of a particular candidate we should stick with them even if we know they will lose. The likely outcome is a Coakley nomination whether I vote for her or not, Grossman seems like he is not within striking distance so my candidate won’t spoil, so what incentive do I have to change my candidate at this stage in the game? Better to go to the dance with the one that brung ya, and work as hard as you can.
My first campaigns where I was really active were losers-Reich and Dean. And there were times when Reich looked to get fourth or fifth, when Dean was at 5% or leading the pack. But we can learn from failure too.
My first political volunteer work on a national campaign was for the George McGovern campaign in Maryland.
You could have gotten yourself one of those “Don’t Blame Me…” bumper stickers!:)
I hear you. I recall the first campaign I got really interested in was John B. Anderson! The next three weeks are going to be exciting. I am not convinced that Don Berwick is a lost cause. It’s my view that the infighting of others paired with the open positives of Don Berwick will set him apart from the rest.
It all changes when the ads hit.
Your bar for those words is pretty low. I’ve seen two ads – his own suggesting that a businessman would make a better Governor than a prosecutor, and the PAC’s that very civily expresses disagreement with Coakley on a single legislative provision. These are extremely tame. If you want to see real attacks watch an NH TV station for a while and see the truly negative darkly funded slams of Shaheen and Kuster for voting for the ACA.
While I still believe that Don Berwick will be our next Governor, I understand his grassroots support, as a movement for progressive change in the Commonwealth. We are not just campaigning for Don the man, though he is a rare and amazing leader, but for his progressive policy agenda! And I believe that our movement will continue whether or not he becomes our nominee. We are campaigning for Medicare For All, a strong stand Against casinos and to make it clear that the progressive agenda of investment in people is the best one for our families, communities and yes even for the growth of business,commerce and the economy of our Commonwealth. Whether or not Berwick is our nominee, the Commonwealth will be impacted by his voice and vision and that he stood up and told the truth.
… Oh, right. Bill Clinton in ’92…. …And Robert Reich in ’02 … And Howard Dean in ’04 … And Deval Patrick in ’06 …And Barack Obama in ’08.
There are lots of movements for progressive change. Some successful. Some are not so successful. After Robert Reich failed to gain the governorship he sorta drifted out of politics and eventually moved out of the state. Howard Dean implemented a rather successful 50 state strategy as DNC Chairman, which was later scrapped when the less hopey-changey wing regained control of the DNC. Deval Patrick introduced casinos to the state. Barack Obama continues to authorize drone strikes.
Well, yeah. As noted above, I’ve heard all of this before. I might even have said some of it, verbatim, prior to now… The problem, however, is not lack of motivation, but rather your identification of the movement with ‘rare and amazing leaders’ and thus “rare and amazing” progressive policy agendas…. it’s a bit of a drug constantly reworking the same theme and re-bolting it unto a new Jesus every election cycle: euphoria can be addicting. So the perfect is made, once again, the enemy of the good as a normal human like Martha Coakley pales in comparison to the ne plus ultra…
The word ‘progressive’ denotes movement forward. That’s all. It doesn’t say crawl. It also doesn’t say leaps and bounds. Barack Obama is not the ‘rare and amazing’ progressive leader I once thought him to be. He turned out to be only human. So too, Deval Patrick. But I’m ok with what they are. I don’t agree with everything they’ve done but I think they can fairly be called ‘progressive’. It is an an ordinary, mundane and every day sort of progressive… with setbacks and disappointments, to be sure, but absent the euphoria that first attached to them, it’s been progress. It’s not likely to be all that different with Don Berwick.
All of this is not a plea not to vote for Berwick. If you like him, vote for him. But it is a plea to be a little more open to the less perfected candidates in the race… The ones who — should they be elected — will have to progress as mortals.
To your list, by the way, I’d add Jessie Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. Possibly Democracy for America was also an attempt to turn a former campaign, in this case Dean’s, into an ongoing organization. If people involved with the Berwick campaign can likewise grow Progressive Massachusetts or some other such organization, then the loss won’t be for naught.
I think the problem is that campaigns are pulled together by a clear goal and congeal to a degree around the personality of the candidate. Without an election to win, goals become more diffuse, leadership less strong (because there isn’t a candidate calling the shots), and membership gradually less engaged.
And I am certainly not as close to the campaign as harmony, johntmay, and others who have met with the candidate and worked with him, is that it is the issues more than the personality that we are most attracted to.
If Grossman or Coakley had the exact same positions as Berwick, I would be happy to consider the frontrunners and an upstart like him wouldn’t be necessary. I doubt he would have bothered with a run at all. Unfortunately, we have no other Democrat advocating progressive taxation, progressive revenue without regressive casinos, advocating a renewed effort to combat poverty, mental illness, and homelessness or a renewed effort to finally get single payer in a supposedly liberal state.
At least Grossman has paid leave and a higher minimum wage going for him, Coakley has a lot of progressive platitudes but far fewer progressive programs or principles.
… This is true enough. But I also think the present dynamic is in play: Should Deval Patrick have chosen to run, he’d no doubt have little problem getting a third term… but it wouldn’t be an election run on the terms of the election we are presently in. This is because Deval Patrick is no longer viewed as a ‘bold progressive leader intent on change.’ No. He’s viewed as old hat: few people would be fired up about a Patrick third term in the way they are fired up over a possible Berwick first term…. or even the way they were fired up over the potential of Patricks first term. Berwicks supporters want to replicate Patrick ’06 while committing Patrick ’09 and later to the ash heap of memory.
So ‘progressive’ is often (I think) seen as cognate of ‘bold’, ‘new’ and ‘visionary’ and those formerly viewed as progressive melt into ‘status quo’ for the moment and sometimes even into ‘conservative’ with time. It is this very dynamic that repeats itself again and again. But I don’t look at Deval Patrick and say ‘failure’ or even ‘betrayal of the progressive cause’, as the dynamic might suggest I should. Overall, despite casinos, I think he’s been mostly progressive… and I think Martha Coakley would be, more or less, our best chance at a continuation of his mostly progressive policies. So… progress gets done, not in one wholesale swallow or leap forward behind charisma with the fines will but incrementally and perhaps even painfully, and with humans.
I can’t see why, a la Obama v Clinton, a Governor Coakley would not want to bring Berwick into her administration in the same was Obama brought Clinton in as SecState… I have absolutely no objection to that and would, indeed, welcome it. The idea that losing candidate should remain on the outside biting ankles is faintly ridiculous, if you think about it, and if the Partners deal goes through then a Coakley administration could do a whole lot worse than appoint Berwick to oversee whatever watchdog is overseeing it…
…is one reason why mere mortal voters check out of politics.
… What, pray tell, are some of the others?
(1) A feeling that the fix is in — regardless of whether or not they vote. That candidates are pre-ordained as winners or losers by (2) a newsmedia that only superficially and lazily covers the issues (contributing to the fact that (3) Mere Mortal voters largely have NO IDEA about the issues in play) and only cover the (4) horse-race polls, contributing to that sense of inevitability no matter what you do (1). And, the sense that there’s an inner cabal of gatekeepers whose “We know better” understanding would (5) repel them from trying to engage to begin with (the “jaded snark”).
Hell, just look at this thread: not only are ACTIVISTS being continually harangued about their quixotic, psychotic, cultish pursuit of what they believe in, we’re being told to like it. LOL. That shit, unlike 1%er wealth, does trickle down. How stupidly quixotic and psychotic would a Mere Mortal voter have to be to think that their votes contrary to the Pre Ordained Outcome (POO), whatever the race, have any effect?
Those are just some breezily cobbled together observations from just a few years of working to overcome how the pervasive, depressive and seemingly perpetual cynicism and apathy, to mobilize these Mere Mortal Voters to make a change.
What do you think are some of the reasons that Mere Mortal Voters don’t vote? It’s, to me, THE important question in effecting long term progressive change, and it is part of everything I do as an activist/organizer in my community, and I think the larger community of progressive activists ought to engage with that question more directly and work to combat it.
In my experience there are THREE kinds of citizen: First, there those who are violently anti- something; Secondly there are those people who are ardently pro- something; Finally there is a (much larger) group of people who look upon the first two groups with a sort of holy awe and inadequacy, as towards a clique or priesthood that has set itself apart and thus holds special knowledge and abilities. And this (much larger) group feels bullied by these first two groups, constantly being told they aren’t informed or are apathetic or what not. How, under these circumstances could the “fix” not be in? It’s very nearly a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Most people have lives to live and genuinely think that being ‘interested in politics’ means to go to a large room and yell at other people and have them yell at you in return. Or, put another way;
I couldn’t have said it better… and I thus turn the accusation around and pointed it back at you.
This sentence makes little sense… I’m not sure what you’re being ‘told to like’. I am quite sure that if your quest really is quixotic were you not partaking in cult-fumes you’d be thankful for the input. The priesthood of ‘ACTIVISTS’ — apart and holy as you seem think — isn’t immune from bad decision making.
I’m ever so grateful. I’m switching to your candidate now.
… for somebody who’s quick to see — and dismiss– “snark”…
… Well…
When it seems like actual dialogue isn’t the point, I will meet snark with snark, because it’s more fun to sneer than to keep trying only to be met with sneers.
Thank you
So it’s time to put your hands up or down. Who’s voting for whom here? This blog houses the most liberal end of the Democratic Party. It might be interesting to take a snapshot in time.
We’ll be unfair and limit it to Martha Coakley, Steve Grossman, and Don Berwick.
I’ll go first: Don Berwick for governor.
Enthusiastically and I’m bringing folks with me.
I was an early supporter of one of the other candidates until the convention. Berwick’s speech changed that.
No surprise here
I’ll post shortly.
Here it is
We apparently were typing at the same time.
I liked you’re format better, so I deleted mine before it got too big
For the primary, I plan to vote for Berwick and encourage everyone I know to do likewise.
For the general, I plan, at this point, to vote for Coakley.
Though as some have suggested, my ‘vote’ and voice on BMG don’t count since I couldn’t make it permanently back in time to MA to continue voting here.
This diary has now surpassed 200 comments. Is that a record? If not I’d be curious which diary did get the most comments in BMG history and how many.
IME on other discussion boards, I prefer continued/ing conversations on one thread (“diary” in BMG speak), new posts/diaries can cut off discussion, but I know that every community has its norms. (I also dislike the editors’ discretion for front-paging! 🙂 )