In the latest Suffolk poll released today by the Herald, we see some significant shifts from previous polls, including last week’s Globe/SocialSphere poll.
Here are the highlights from the Suffolk poll of likely Democratic primary voters:
Governor:
Coakley: 42.25%
Grossman: 30%
Berwick: 15.75%
Undecided: 11.5%
Lieutenant Governor:
Kerrigan: 9.5%
Lake: 9%
Cheung: 8.75%
Undecided: 70.75%
Attorney General:
Tolman: 34.75%
Healey: 28.5%
Undecided: 35%
Treasurer:
Goldberg: 19.75%
Finegold: 7.75%
Conroy: 6.5%
Undecided: 63.5%
The biggest takeaways for me are…
Grossman has continued to close in on Coakley, narrowing her lead from 21 points in the last Globe poll to 12 points here. Berwick has also seen a significant jump, comfortably into the mid-teens. This trend is not surprising since the public is still learning about Berwick, and to a lesser extent Grossman, but the gap is narrower than I expected.
The LG’s race appears to be a true toss-up with nearly 3/4 of voters undecided and less than a point separating first from third. With very little cash on hand for any of these candidates, it’s going to be interesting to see who manages to cobble together enough support to distinguish himself from the pack.
Tolman has established a modest 6-point lead over Healey, which is an 8-point swing from the latest Globe poll in which Healey led 28% to 26%.
In the Treasurer’s race, Deb Goldberg has built a relatively large lead, but most voters here are still undecided. I know she and Finegold have both reserved air time for TV ads (some of which have already begun airing), so I imagine the two of them will both see boosts as voters learn more about this race. I know Conroy has a good amount of grassroots support and several fans on here, but with $76K on hand as of 8/15, I’m not sure how he plans to build that into more broad-based support from the voting public.
As with any one poll, these figures should be viewed as a snapshot that is likely to change over the next couple weeks.
Full disclosure: I’m volunteering for Steve Grossman and Deb Goldberg.
jconway says
It seems that the undecided pool has shrunk and distributed to Berwick and Coakley. Maybe the debates had something to do with that, ya think?
The AG swing seems doubtful, id still say it’s 50:50.
LG race is sleepy, and a big question for Treasurer is who Conroy supporters flock to. But it seems Goldberg has a secen lead, even though Finegold was the media front runner.
ChrisinNorthAndover says
until the primary, this poll if accurate tells me that Berwick is essentially cooked. If the public is “still learning” about you with 15 days left to go and your 16 points behind the leader that is what I believe experts called “not good.”
I am highly suspect that the debates have had anything to do with the change in numbers, mainly because they have not been televised. While the most hard core activists and of course media tuned into the live stream, I’m willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people who will vote in the primary did not.
johntmay says
I agree that the debates may not be the reason for Berwick’s increase. So what is? Is it his grass roots ground game? That sort of thing is a bit under the radar.
ChrisinNorthAndover says
one possibility could be that this poll, which is a poll of likely primary voters more accurately reflects the race previous polls most if not all of which have been of registered voters. I still stand by my assertion though that with about 2 weeks to go, being behind the leader by 26 (not 16, silly typo) is pretty bad. He’d need a miracle at this point to win the primary.
JMGreene says
Press and field are all probable factors.
petr says
… who are somewhat closely or very closely paying attention.. are likely to have heard of Don Berwick.
So It’s even worse.
Given the… enthusiasm… for the good Dr Berwick in this here forum I would have expected numbers of likely DEM voters who have been paying attention to well exceed 15%: those Dem voters who are paying attention have declined to surf the Berwick momentum in any appreciable numbers. Looks like he’s an even better kept secret than you thought.
publius says
These numbers, which seem to be based on a tighter “likelies” screen than the Globe’s, would indicate that the primary race for Governor is not over.
I’d rather be 12 and 26 points up than down by those margins, but a real race that generates press attention may still have a few twists and turns left. Coakley would surely prefer the continuation of the snoozefest that has been this campaign so far. If Grossman closes to within single digits in the next week or so, this thing could suddenly become hotter and therefore less predictable.
drikeo says
Like you noted, Grossman closing to single digits in the polls would finally give the media a narrative in this race, namely that Coakley is falling apart again. The race itself has lacked defining issues or compelling candidates (everyone involved trends toward bland), which means a tight race, if that develops, will get most of the attention.
On the flip side, if Coakley can fight off a late surge and recapture some momentum for herself, it makes her a much more battle-tested candidate for the general election. The worry, at least from me, has been Martha won’t nosedive until October/November when we won’t have any idea whether she can recover.
Trickle up says
or at least pears.
These are two different polls using different methodologies and questions. The populations surveyed were different–apparently no Republicans, and many fewer independents.
I’m not saying the methodology is bad, just different.
It’s tempting to glom them together into one poll and leap to conclusions but they are not the same.
andrews says
the polls are not the same, but the Globe questions about these races were only asked to those who had identified as definitely or probably going to vote in the Democratic primary. That narrowed their universe of 709 Democrats, Republicans, and unenrolleds to 358 likely Democratic primary voters. The Suffolk poll only contacted Dems and unenrolleds, and excluded those who couldn’t say when the primary is taking place. This resulted in a universe of 400 respondents more heavily weighted toward Dems than the Globe poll. I’m sure that these results do vary to some extent as a result of the methodology, but I think the degree of variation indicates that there have been some genuine shifts that can’t be accounted for by methodological changes. Of course I’m speculating on that point.
pegasus2626 says
Andrews makes a good point, that Suffolk only polled democrats and unenrolled and those that know when the primary is being held. This to me will is a more true indication of how likely the the results will be. Voters that know who’s running and when the primary is being held are more likey to VOTE! I think Steve Grossman and Deb Golberg should be happy with this poll. They are my choice.
discobolos says
with two weeks to go anything is possible but, I think these numbers reflect the true feelings out there.
Trickle up says
But there is no such thing a a trend line from a bad poll to a good one.
That’s why you can’t compare the results and say. Oh, look how much better the challengers are doing over last week.
Nobody took this poll last week. Someone else took a different poll asking different questions of different screens.
kbusch says
plausible.
Knowing when the primary is may or may not be a useful screen for identifying likely voters or, more accurately, getting a representative sample of likely voters. The proof of that, though, should be in data somewhere where we can compare different screening strategies to see which produce the most predictive results.
By the way, that screen will certainly not be predictive of who votes. Some people may know the date but nonetheless not show up; some people may learn the date the morning of and vote as a consequence. In fact, if the latter kind of people didn’t exist, GOTV wouldn’t do much good, would it?
That’s why this screening will at best give you a sample, possibly representative and possibly not.
petr says
… since Grossman, with these numbers, will have to get ALL of the 11.5% undecideds and then take votes from either Coakley or Berwick to simply get even. To go ahead seems a job.
If Berwick gains any momentum with the undecideds he’ll, again, have to get ALL of them and he still won’t pull even with Grossman. To pull ahead he’ll have to tear down Grossmans by a lot and dig heavily into Coakley’s lead.
It’s worth noting that at a similar juncture (about 2 weeks) prior to the 2010 special election, Rassmussen put out a poll that had Coakley dropping to 38% and Capuano jumping to 21%. Coakley went on to take 47% of the vote to Capuano’s 28%.
I think, given Coakleys name recognition and favorables, the Suffolk poll 11% and/or the Globe’s consistent 28% undecideds, are soft Coakley votes waiting for some reason to vote elsewhere. I doubt very much either of the other candidates can sway enough of them to make an appreciable difference.
jconway says
The ball is in Grossman’s court now, we have seen upward momentum from him in a consistent manner while Berwick’s support, while growing, may be approaching it’s ceiling. A lot can happen at the debates and a lot can happen between now and primary day on the ground and on the air. It is my hope and expectation that the debates will be feisty, interesting, and illuminating and draw more interest to this competitive primary. That will benefit all candidates and the ultimate nominee, as a long, competitive, and contested primary ultimately benefited Barack Obama in 2008. Coakley supporters should be happy with this news as well, it shows that her lead has been consistent, and it gives her an opportunity to be the candidate they think she is, who can sustain a lead through the homestretch. It’s a big test for her.
Berwick supporters should also take heart that their canvassing and hard work has paid off, but they may want to consider giving Grossman a second look.
If he can self fund a few more ads he may be able to stay competitive, not sure how many more wells there are to be tapped for Berwick, all the more reason his mediocre advertisements need to be rethought and quickly.
jconway says
Just your analysis. I still agree it is her race to lose, the polls have yet to show her behind either of her competitors. But, I am sure she and her staff are taking this race even more seriously than they already were.
andrews says
With regard to the Governor’s race, the results of this poll will be cited by Grossman (whom I support) and Berwick as evidence of a shifting tide. I think that’s valid to some extent: the gaps really are narrowing, and I believe this poll is a more accurate reflection of the opinions of likely primary voters than the are the results of past polls. I think that Grossman will likely gain the most from the undecideds as he is the most obvious and viable alternative to Coakley, whom voters already know well. But as you point out, even if he takes everyone who’s undecided in this poll, he’s still going to need to draw votes from Coakley or Berwick. I imagine there are some Berwick supporters who will move over to Grossman at the last minute if it becomes evident to them that Berwick’s candidacy is a lost cause, but I doubt any shifts over the next two weeks will be sufficient to put Grossman or Berwick over the top.
Pablo says
Looking at a couple of key numbers in the poll:
Favorable:
Coakley 60.25%
Grossman 43.25%
Berwick 28.00%
Horserace:
Coakley 42.25%
Grossman 30.00%
Berwick 15.75%
Undecided 11.50%
Do you think Martha Coakley is too liberal, too moderate, too conservative, or just about right?
Too liberal 8.00%
Too moderate 10.75%
Too conservative 7.75%
Just about right 50.25%
So, the data shows that in this highly screened sample, Martha Coakley has a 12.25 point lead. Coakley’s favorables are 18 points above her horserace numbers, so she has plenty of room for growth when the undecided make a choice. Half of the voters think her political position is just right.
60% of voters like Martha, 50% think she is ideologically “just right,” and she’s up by 12.25% with 11.50% undecided.
With two weeks until the primary, how does this dynamic possibly shift away from a well-known well-liked just-right candidate with a double digit lead?
andrews says
but there are reasons why these people who view her favorably and align with her ideologically aren’t currently supporting her. Some of them will surely end up voting for her, but my sense from conversations with undecided voters is that while many like her and think she’s right on most issues, they have some lingering concerns and are shopping around for someone whose background they prefer, or who comes off as a stronger candidate for the general. It’s natural for less well known candidates to pick up support from undecideds as the race progresses, and I think that’s what we’ve seen and will continue to see over the coming weeks.
publius says
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe a boatload of Super PAC-fueled negative ads?
doubleman says
I have to quibble with that a bit.
The only cases with names I can attach to Coakley (as an active participant and not office lead) are the Louise Woodword case, Fells Acres (not the original prosecution), and Melendez-Diaz. Hardly deserving of legendary status.
petr says
… Just sayin’
doubleman says
I just have a hair trigger when I think people might be applauding her record as DA or purported brilliance in the courtroom.
publius says
…was in response to pablo’s question about how the dynamic could possibly shift away from Coakley. 16 days is a long time if a lot of negative ads get dumped on the airwaves. And if poll numbers were to tighten in reaction to the ads, the media would pump up the volume.
sabutai says
…do Berwick voters start questioning whether to stick with their candidate? I rather like Don Berwick, but may soon have to weigh what to actually do. If the result is a choice between Steve Grossman or Charlie Baker, it might be tough to stick with the Doc.
SomervilleTom says
I’m going to vote for Don Berwick in the primary. Martha Coakley will win the primary.
None of us will choose between Steve Grossman and Charlie Baker. Here are the two choices we’ll get to make:
Choice 1: Don Berwick, Martha Coakley, or Steve Grossman
Choice 2: Martha Coakley or Charlie Baker.
lynpb says
If you are sure Martha will win the primary, why not work hard for her and vote for her. What purpose is served by voting for Don?
doubleman says
Because you don’t support (many of) her policies and want to vote for who you think would be the best Governor. It also sends a message that those who voted for Berwick are votes she has to win in the general and will also hold her accountable throughout her tenure.
Falling in line early will send bad messages.
lynpb says
Somervilletom states clearly that he thinks Martha is going to win. Therefore he is already saying that Don doesn’t have a chance to be Governor. If he doesn’t have a chance to be the Governor than why does it matter if he would be good at it. I would love to fly and I think I would be great at it but there is no chance that I will so it doesn’t really matter if I would be good at it.
I also don’t get the rationale that by voting for Don you are somehow holding her accountable. Most of the people who I know who are working for and plan to vote for Don would never stay home or vote for Charlie.
Christopher says
AFTER the primary I hope people work for the nominee, but you should work for the one you want to win before the primary. Everyone just jumping on the bandwagon as if it’s a fait accompli just makes it all a self-fulfilling prophecy.
SomervilleTom says
You’ve asked several questions that I’ll take one by one.
Q: If you are sure Martha will win the primary, why not work hard for her and vote for her.
A: Because I actively oppose her. I believe “Governor Coakley” is a worse outcome than “Governor Baker” for Massachusetts, my family, and me. I will not vote for Charlie Baker (because I will never endorse the GOP). In my view, Martha Coakley embodies and personifies the incompetent, dangerously arrogant, dishonest, and pervasively corrupt Democratic Party machine that is destroying my adopted home state.
Q: What purpose is served by voting for Don?
A: The same purpose that is served by every vote I cast in every election — formally noting my choice of the best person for the given office.
I will vote for Don Berwick because I think he’s far and away the best candidate on the ballot. I also think he’s the only progressive (as I understand the term) on the ballot.
I don’t hedge my vote based on who I think is going to win. I can think of only ONE election in the forty years I’ve lived in Massachusetts where I knowingly voted for a candidate I didn’t like, and that was the special election of 2010. In that election, I held my nose, worked for, voted for, and attempted to support Martha Coakley over Scott Brown (I was a fervent supporter of Mike Capuano in the primary). I can’t remember when I’ve felt so personally betrayed by a candidate.
What purpose is served by voting for Don? Because I have to live with myself afterwards. Because I remember all too well how disgusted I felt after that 2010 election.
Martha Coakley, along with Bob DeLeo and even some of their supporters here on BMG, has been giving me and progressives like me the finger for as long as I can remember.
I’ve written this several times before on BMG, but let me try again — I will not vote for Martha Coakley for Dog Catcher. I will NOT work to support her. I believe our party is betraying our core values and principles by even contemplating, never mind nominating, her.
I hope this clarifies my position on the questions you’ve asked.
jconway says
Wasn’t entirely in agreement, but I admire you’re consistency on this subject Tom, and on the civil liberty questions you’ve been asking of all the candidates, particularly those for Governor and AG. This race is important, but I frankly feel that the ‘suck it up and vote for Martha’ argument is incredibly condescending, stale, and certainly not persuasive for a primary. The arrogance of this argument reminds me of the kind deployed by Hillary supporters in 2008, and increasingly for the upcoming contest. It’s not healthy for a party that calls itself democratic.
drikeo says
If we end up with Coakley vs. Baker (which would be a full-on Keystone Cops race), then would you look to the independents? Falchuk’s running as a functionally Democratic independent.
SomervilleTom says
I’ll either blank the office or write in Don Berwick.
sleeples says
My story with Martha Coakley is the same. She is the one candidate I ever knocked doors for when I was upset that she was the candidate. Never again will I support the party candidate and work for the party candidate just because he or she has a D next to her name. She has been a complete failure on every single issue except gay rights, and I have learned my lesson accordingly. In some ways I have to thank Martha Coakley for teaching me the folly of blind party allegiance. I am certainly happy she lost to Scott Brown and left a door open for a real candidate in Ms. Warren.
I will happily be voting for Don Berwick, and I will urge others to do the same.
If more Democrats followed Martha Coakley as closely as we have here at BMG, she would not be in consideration for this office.
jconway says
Re: lynpb
If Martha will win the nomination regardless, why do I have to bother voting for her in the primary when I still have a choice? Why should I settle for my third choice candidate in the freakin primary? What happened to democracy and voting your conscience in the party that claims to be progressive and democratic?
Re: Fenway
I get that there is a case to be made that Grossman is a solid second choice for Berwick supporters who want to block Coakley, but he isn’t close enough yet to justify that choice, and I honestly feel that he has run the worst campaign out of the three and stylistically* offers the fewest contrasts with Baker (bland, white socially liberal businessmen).
I am honestly shocked and a little surprised that Grossman hasn’t made his long time support of labor, bread and butter economics, and family leave the focal point of his campaign. So far his ads say, I like business even though I’m a Democrat (do we really need to be running this ad in the 2010s? In Massachusetts? In a primary?), and I am slightly more anti-gun than Martha. That’s it. Not impressive in my book. And his center-right stance on casinos really is a deal breaker for a lot of folks.
*I said stylistically, policy wise he is actually more liberal than Martha as I’ve pointed out, something he repeatedly is failing to do in a liberal primary which is beyond me
fenway49 says
I agree with you on Grossman’s campaign. I’ve been disappointed. Perhaps they found Berwick sucking up too much air on the left and are now trying to appeal to the economic right of the primary electorate. Unfortunate since Steve has a strong record as an economic progressive.
But I haven’t called for any Berwick supporters supporters to switch their vote to Grossman. All I said was that Berwick will have a difficult time overcoming Coakley if he’s splitting the 11% undecided not only with her but with Grossman as well.
jconway says
Thought you’re discussion of Berwick hitting a ceiling while the Grossman surge was real was an invitation for Berwick backers to come aboard the Stop Coakley train, and I was stating while I am certainly amenable to doing that, at this point, not sure he is even more viable than she is against Baker with the kind of campaign he has run.
That wasn’t to argue Berwick’s viability either, simply stating the facts as I see them, which I now realize is what you were doing as well.
fenway49 says
I didn’t say Berwick hit a ceiling and Grossman’s surge was real. I was just saying that if johnt’s going to tell voters the Herald poll represents a surge for Berwick compared to the last Globe poll, Grossman supporters could make the same claim with more to back it up.
But I think both “surges” are equally the product of differences between the Herald poll’s methodology and the one used by the Globe. For what it’s worth, I think the Herald poll’s closer to reality than the Globe polls, with all their undecideds who may just stay home. That would mean both Grossman and Berwick haven’t been quite as far back as they seemed.
HeartlandDem says
that I believe is the best in any primary. Many of my choices have not been the favored “establishment” candidate.
The general is sometimes tough when the best and the brightest are not on the ticket and then it is sometimes a vote for the “less bad” choice.
When the nose-clothes pins are being handed out I have been known to leave an office blank.
That is only a recent phenomenon though as I get older and realize life really is too short to vote for lousy candidates.
kbusch says
There’s a faint possibility that Coakley might begin to falter in the polls. Some have suggested she doesn’t manage that too well: a successful response to a decline would require an abrupt change in campaign tone. That can be very hard to do. So a faltering followed by a bad response could give Grossman a win.
That’s certainly quite speculative, but it’s the only road to anyone other than Coakley winning that I see right now — and it doesn’t seem too likely because, as David noted, Coakley debates pretty well, there aren’t many debates, and few are going to watch them.
lynpb says
I’m not expecting that anyone vote for Martha just because she is the inevitable nominee. I was responding directly to Somervilletom. I should have remembered that he has a deep loathing for Martha for reasons that are unclear to me.
John Tehan says
…why on earth would I abandon him now? Berwick can win this thing yet – and seeing him debate Charlie Baker will be awesome!
fenway49 says
A poll with a tighter screen yielded fewer undecided. That is not a surge.
John Tehan says
You know that, and I know that – but we’re political junkies. To the average voter, this looks like a candidate who i surging in the polls, and I’ll be saying so as I knock on doors this weekend!
fenway49 says
Gained 9 compared to latest Globe poll, almost double Don’s gain of 5, at 30 to Don’s 15, 12 back to Don’s 27.
If this poll is anywhere close to accurate Berwick has to make up a 27-point deficit in 2 weeks with only 11 percent undecided and another Coakley alternative polling twice as high. Good luck with that.
HeartlandDem says
Stay positive my friend.
kbusch says
I listened to the recent debate. As Berwick led off his opposition to casinos with a line like this, I nodded. “Hooray,” I thought, “someone is taking policy really seriously.” I immediately liked that.
Then I realized. There are not many people in the world who talk like that. Doctors do. Professors do. Wonks do. But likely to non-wonk, non-medical, non-academic voters, it sounds weird or condescending. For example, the word “literature” is being used in a very academic jargon manner. Your plumber, for example, is unlikely to “quote the literature” on pipe material. It’s a specialized way of talking appropriate to a certain occupations.
A more skilled debater would have extracted two or three jaw-dropping facts from the literature and forced the debate to confront them, but Dr Berwick just left it there, up in the literature and then seemed to speculate about social costs. (The literature, supposedly, measured net job growth.) So it was oddly unconvincing. When Coakley, no less speculatively, talking about the necessity of mitigating social costs, it didn’t seem as if Berwick had won the round either. There was just a clash of speculation.
So I left the debate mixed about Berwick. I certainly want a governor who reads “the literature” and talks about it intelligently, but a politician who insists on talking that way is not going to get to be governor.
*
Where the f. is his campaign manager?
Donald Green says
I have been out canvassing, and phoning. The campaign is concentrating on people who vote in primaries. These polls are not reflecting the greater number of those who are undecided or soft on their choices. In Reading, certainly not an enclave of super liberal ideology, the undecideds take first place at about 44%, next comes support for Berwick(they’ll actually vote for him) by 37%, Coakley 13%, and last Grossman at 6%. The sample is small, but by knocking or phoning I have not seen any rousing support for Coakley or Grossman. Unions have not endorsed anyone and will not be out campaigning for one candidate or another. In a small preference poll here about a week ago, Don Berwick was the top choice. So I say, if this is who you want to be governor, then it is time to enter the fray, and lend a hand to get him elected. Handicapping is not how you win races.
theloquaciousliberal says
Yeah, right. How about an actual cite for these (I assume) completely made up numbers? What a bunch of nonsense.
This is also ridiculous. Of course “the unions” have endorsed candidates in the Gubernatorial primary. They will spend millions of dollars in direct mail, advertising and for their ground operations in the next two weeks. Mostly for Coakley (who’s been endorsed by 1199SEIU, AFSCME, and many other power players in the state’s labor movement).
Donald Green says
They come from my tally of several hours of canvassing past dem primary voters in Reading. I made up nothing. The only supporters for Coakley I came across was a relative of her campaign manager, and someone who identified her as the woman in the race, but didn’t know her name. Grossman had even less clocking in at 1 supporter. Maybe the unions will be doing mailing and advertising, but they are not going door to door(the most effective tool) like they did for EW. Even those backing Grossman are not canvassing or calling in Reading, but instead are out securing votes for Markey, Lewis, and Tierney. Perhaps it is a different story in Boston and Cambridge, but in this suburb the other 2 candidates are missing in action. Let’s see what the polls show after the debate on September 3rd, when those voting will pay real attention to the election and when more information on the candidates will be available.
kbusch says
You are definitely a biased observer here. Your advocacy also impedes your ability to get an objective read. Finally, as I commented before, well-run campaigns send canvassers to friendly turf most often and most frequently because the goal is build a big GOTV list. Unfriendly turf is not going to be so rich in supporters, and so it will waste more time. So yes, canvassing will look more positive to you than polling will reveal.
I’d also suggest you think now about happens September 10, 2014 the day after the primary. Will you be able to relocate the people you’ve canvassed with? Can you bring them on board some other electoral effort? Will you be able to create something in Reading useful again in 2016 or 2018?
petr says
… Coakley has a heap of union endorsements. Grossman has a pipefitters local endorsement. A la the electro-wiki-info-matic:
Coakley:
Sheet Metal Workers Local 63
New England Regional Council of Carpenters
1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
Painters & Allied Trades District Council #35
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 103
Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) 369
Massachusetts Coalition of Police
Massachusetts Police Association
Grossman:
Pipefitters local 537.
In fact, the main flaw in the poll in question, as I see it, is that it does not take into account unions (a specific question asked if the respondent, or any member of the household was a union member.. and the replay was negative, IIRC, greater than 70%) which is where Coakley has real strength (IMHO).
fenway49 says
No way Berwick beats Coakley by more than 20 points in Reading on September 9, with Grossman a distant third. Whom are you polling? Is this based on Berwick’s canvassing in Reading?
Donald Green says
those canvassed are not known Berwick supporters. It is cold knocking on doors of Ds and Is who voted in the primary before. I’m not saying this is a true estimate since so many were undecided. As an administrator he showed he could make health systems more efficient and more available. Every stance he takes has been well thought off without political fudging. This is not so with the other two candidates.
fenway49 says
Your numbers show him with 37% and nobody else above 13%. That’s the reverse of the statewide polling, a 40+ point swing. Either the sample is not representative of Reading’s Democratic primary voters, or Reading’s Democratic primary voters are not representative of statewide primary voters, or all the polling is way off and we’re headed for one of the hugest upsets in history. I just don’t think it’s the last possibility.
jconway says
So I honestly don’t think the second explanation is a possibility either. It’s one thing to keep the faith and be optimistic about your candidate, but when our guy is in third we gotta be honest about it. And our guy is in third.
johntmay says
I’ll agree with you on this. On the other hand, who listens to a internet radio debate? (Wonks). Yes, he would be much better off in the next debate to bring up two or three talking points that are “in the literature” and easy for the common voter to understand.
kbusch says
By sewing up these constituencies one at a time, he looks to be the sure winner for the gubernatorial primary in September 2023.
I predict he’ll cross the 25% mark in 2018.
Again, where the f. is his campaign manager?
kbusch says
Maybe I should add that two of the plumbers who’ve worked on our house are extraordinary people for whom I have great respect. I’d hesitate to call them “common”.
In the age of the Internet, it’s quite possible, too, for plumbers — or anyone — to learn a lot about something and for phrases like “read the literature” to make perfect sense in the context of a hobby. Such language is professional argot. (The word literature more often refers to the works of people like Homer, Shakespeare, and Cervantes.) But anyone can learn that argot now.
drikeo says
And you picked a perfect example for why. He talks like, and I would argue thinks like, a public administrator. He understands policy, but he’s so inured to profession of government that he seems clueless when it comes to building the consensus needed to govern. Berwick’s right about a lot of stuff, but I’m fairly convinced that he’d create movement on very few of the things about which he’s right. There are piles of compelling, pocket book reasons to be against casinos that it’s sad that Berwick faults his opponents for failing to read the literature. How about them being easily duped? How about them not understanding the basic economics that casinos ultimately will cost Massachusetts more jobs than they create? How about the casino law being an insider scam that preys on the desperate, and leaves neighboring communities with no say and a bevy of social ills on their doorstep?
Berwick’s 100% right about casinos, but he’s just about the worst choice to be the spokesperson for why casinos are such a terrible idea. This is an issue about which people should be charged up and Berwick approaches it like he’s at a policy luncheon. Basically, this is why I’m not voting for Berwick. Good guy. Able guy. Smart guy. However, he’s a lieutenant and not a captain.
publius says
The guy built a non-profit from scratch that is the most influential health reform group in America. He built a coalition of thousands of hospitals to improve practices and save over a hundred thousand lives.
Yes, he too often shows his wonky side and hasn’t totally figured out candidate-speak. But he is also frequently passionate in a way that does connect with lots of non-wonks. Don’t make too much of his “they haven’t read the literature” comment, any more than we should make too much of Coakley showing herself not to be a rabid Sox fan.
kbusch says
There’s a difference between being chosen as a chief executive in a private position and being a governor. We certainly want governors to get the policy right. If they cannot communicate and persuade, not only are they unlikely to become governors, even if they do, they’re unlikely to accomplish much.
At least, that’s how I’d reconcile drikeo’s comment with yours.
drikeo says
And I submit that won’t translate to being a good governor. He’s fantastic inside the health care domain. He’s studied policy on the rest. How to put those policies into action? He has failed to sell me that he can do it.
I agree with the guy on most issues. If my vote was based solely on that, I’d be voting Berwick. If this were for a rep seat, I’d be voting Berwick. However, I find him unconvincing on issues other than single payer. Unfortunately, the Governor of Massachusetts largely succeeds or fails on his/her ability to convince.
johntmay says
Is that a good reflection on him or a poor reflection on her or a combination of the two?
Putting policy into action is what he’s done over the years.
Should I vote for the person with whom I fervently disagree with on major issues just because I want “my team colors” to win?
kbusch says
not following the thread of the discussion in this comment that I’m not sure where one begins.
Maybe by suggesting that a strong third place showing (at a convention no less) is still a third place showing?
drikeo says
In a lot of cases, I generally agree with Berwick, but I have little to no confidence he grasps the issue (and the potential solutions) at the level where he’s going to accomplish anything of substance. I love Don Berwick when he’s talking single payer and, IMO, that guy disappears when the subject changes from health care.
For the record, I think this is just about the lousiest group of gubernatorial candidates we could be given. I’m holding my nose no matter where my vote goes.
jconway says
doubleman says
He also ran Medicare and Medicaid. That place is a bit complex and has a budget more than 10 times the MA budget.
So, yeah, maybe he doesn’t have the chops to get the votes, but not being able to successfully manage large, complex organizations with many diverse stakeholders – the evidence points strongly in the other other direction.
drikeo says
I’m fairly positive “He’s a great bureaucrat” lands with a thud. I appreciate he ran a big budget and that health care is complex. I don’t think Berwick is an incompetent boob. I’m sure he runs one hell of a meeting. However, I don’t think his ceiling goes beyond administrator. At least he’s not convincing me of that, and I’m technically the type of voter he needs.
doubleman says
To be a great governor, you need to be a great manager.
To be governor, you need to be a great campaigner.
I think he has much more potential at that first sentence, but, of course, the second is what really matters now.
drikeo says
The Governor hires managers. For instance, Deval Patrick hired Rich Davey, who seems to be pretty good at his job. However, in order to get Rich Davey more funding, Deval Patrick had to bear wrestle Bob DeLeo. That really ought to be the question they ask in debates, “Pick any issue and put Speaker DeLeo in a rhetorical hammerlock.” That’s the job, lead the state in a positive direction. Can you build the critical mass necessary to give your managers something to manage?
johntmay says
We also elect leaders. Is someone who watches a poll and sees what 51% favor on give issues and makes that their campaign “issues” a leader?
doubleman says
On which issue will Coakley do this?
“Deval Patrick had to bear wrestle Bob DeLeo. That really ought to be the question they ask in debates, “Pick any issue and put Speaker DeLeo in a rhetorical hammerlock.” That’s the job, lead the state in a positive direction.”
I know what issues Berwick will fight for. I trust him in the fights he would pick. I honestly do not know which fights Coakley will pick. Getting most or even some of a great policy is better than getting 100% of a bad policy. You obviously believe that Coakley has better ability to fight and win, but what do you think she will really fight for?
That’s the decision I’m making on primary day.
Pablo says
I am sure it will be very entertaining to watch a Governor Berwick push for single-payer, and if it gets to the floor of the House it will get 30 votes.
It’s not about the fights you pick, it’s about the progress you make. My money’s on Martha,.
SomervilleTom says
I hear this over and over, and still with no answers.
In your last paragraph, in what DIRECTION do you expect “progress” to be made?
We already have a buffer zone law, there isn’t a lot more do there. Pretty much the entire legislature supports protecting and advancing women’s health care, there’s not a lot more for a governor do either.
So I ask you again … in what DIRECTION do you expect “Governor Coakley” to make “progress”? What are some reasonable (and measurable) goals you expect from the first Coakley administration?
johntmay says
To help with the growing costs of market based fee for service health care and private insurance. Would that be considered a health care reform?
johntmay says
From Charlie Baker’s Web Site:
“working on bringing down the cost of health care is to increase transparency”
From Martha Coakley’s Web Site:
‘Bring down the high costs of healthcare to reduce the burden on working families and businesses. We can do this by increasing transparency”
From Steve Grossman’s Web Site:
” ” (Steve Does not mention health care as an issue on the drop down menu on his web site)
From Don Berwick’s Web Site:
Move our state away from fee-for-service payment and from fragmented delivery into coordinated, team-based, integrated care. For patients and families, this will lead to care that is much more responsive, helpful, and respectful. Outcomes will be better and costs will fall significantly. And, in addition, we need to focus much more on prevention.
kbusch says
http://stevegrossman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Steve-Grossman-on-Compassionate-Common-Sense-Behavioral-Health-Care.pdf
http://stevegrossman.com/grossman-releases-plan-for-common-sense-compassionate-mental-behavioral-health-care/
http://stevegrossman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/062314-Letter-to-Attorney-General-Martha-Coakley-on-Partners-Health-Care-Merger.pdf
Google I’d like you to meet johntmay; johntmay I’d like you to meet Google.
johntmay says
that it is mentioned elsewhere, why is it not listed as an issue on the drop down menu on the official web site? If I am an interested voter and I go to the four wen sites for info, why do I have to “google” again for one and not the other three?
doubleman says
For Grossman
#1 – About mental health care
#2 – About mental health care
#3 – Asks Coakley to get public input on Partners deal
For Coakley
#1 – About mental health care
#2 – About mental health care
#3 – About mental health care
None of those address overall health care costs (the biggest problem), which are the things jonhtmay cited.
kbusch says
Both emphasize behavioral health care. There are a number of specific proposals in both, I downrated because you classifed as “About mental healthcare” this:
kbusch says
http://www.marthacoakley.com/CaringForAll
http://www.marthacoakley.com/Campaign-Updates/details/2014-08-coakley-calls-for-increased-access-to-mental-health
http://www.marthacoakley.com/Campaign-Updates/details/2014-03-caring-for-all-why-we-need-to-act-to-improve-behavio
johntmay says
To the person who is not a policy wonk or has hours on hand to learn about the candidates and just has time to read the “talking points” on a web site of hand out (in other words, 90% of the people you meet while canvassing), the take away is that Coakley and Baker lead with “transparency to cut costs”, with Grossman they have to dig deeper if they care to and with Berwick, well, it speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
kbusch says
I demand my license to be sloppy with the facts because the facts are so hard for me to find!
johntmay says
How did Mitt Romney get health care reform in Massachusetts? To those of us who want heath care reform, is the message, “Put a Republican in the corner office?”
jotaemei says
johntmay says
Both she and Charlie are two peas in a pod
On health care: Remain as market based fee for services with “more transparency in pricing”. A system that makes healthcare in the USA the most expensive in the world and one of the lowest performing, but a freaking gold mine for health care CEOS and insurance companies.
On Casinos: Full endorsement to vote NO on repeal and even if there is a repeal, fight to bring casinos into Massachusetts.
So I get to pick Burger King or Wendy’s. Gee, thanks.
petr says
‘
I got a lot of heat early in the season for calling Berwick a technocrat who is both ‘feckless’, and in another instance, ‘naive’. Here you’ve sorta cleaned it up and re-presented it but I think you’re saying (at least in part) what I was trying to get at (in my usual, charmingly inflammatory, style,)
The idea is that the public administrator has a lot of faith in ‘experts’ (and therefore ‘literature’) and in the process: that’s pretty much the definition of ‘administrator’… Why else would someone assume that ‘my colleagues have not read the literature’ as though there is no possible conclusion OTHER THAN the very moment they read the literature the scales would fall from their eyes and they’d be converted. This is a naive belief to say that because they don’t agree with him, they have not read the literature and it’s feckless to throw that as an accusation.
I do not think this is a particular defect of Dr. Berwick himself, but rather it is a particular defect of the training of medical doctors. I think medical doctors are trained to be feckless technocrats. They are trained to see the body as a host of possible ailments and processes. And they are trained to a certain ruthlessness in diagnosis and implementation of a fix. They are most certainly not trained to see the patient as a human. I was listening to ‘Fresh Air” the other day and they were discussing ‘The Knick”, a TV show I have not seen. They had a doctor who was the shows consultant who mentioned that, years ago, when he did his residency training, they used to make rounds and refer to the patients as “the gall baldder” or “the pneumonia” and this very often in the presence of the patient themselves. This is what I mean by ‘feckless’ and that they are surprised that anybody would/should be surprised at that is ‘naive’.
The imperious nature, however avuncular he might be in person, of Berwicks statements and pronouncements ( a la “literature” for example) are reminiscent of Howard Dean, Ron and Rand Paul and Bill Frist (all Doctors). (As is the slightly worshipful awe in which they are held by their respective acolytes .. ) I cannot speak to the efficacy of this with respect to the actual practice of medicine. I do think, however, that it does not translate well to the actual practice of politics.
jconway says
I think the Yes on 3 campaign more broadly should start articulating the pocket book reasons, as I have, rather than a plea to pity and help the poor from disproportionately taxing themselves .
usergoogol says
At this point in the race, it’s pretty clear who’s in first place and who’s in third, even if it’s still possible for candidates to catch up. If someone wants to defeat Martha Coakley, they should throw their support Grossman. I’m voting for Don Berwick because Martha Coakley winning is an outcome I am entirely comfortable with. Grossman might be somewhat better, but Coakley would still be a fine governor. In general elections, you should always vote for the Democrat because a Republican will quite reliably be worse. But in a primary, I’m comfortable voting for the longshot.
jconway says
If your ultimate goal is electing Martha you should vote for her, if your ultimate goal is electing another candidate you should vote for them directly. It’s a direct vote in a one man, one vote system, and people should cherish it and direct it towards the candidate they are passionate about. I am much more willing to listen to passionate Coakley supporters like striker, judy, or Kate than I am to the next person demanding I vote for her now since she already has won. When Grossman is down by 2, then his supporters can yell spoiler, right now, that is not the case, and it’s inaccurate to assume that Berwick voters would all go towards him.
fenway49 says
I understood the comment like this:
1. I’m voting for Berwick because I like him best and don’t really have a problem with Coakley as the nominee.
2. But IF you really, really don’t want Coakley as your nominee, you should consider voting Grossman since he’s got a better chance of beating her. You’ve gotta decide if your desire to vote for Berwick (who very probably will lose) is greater than your desire to block Coakley. The commenter decided that, for her/him, it is.
Not sure where you got that the commenter supported Coakley or yelled spoiler.
johntmay says
But IF you really, really don’t want Coakley as your nominee, you should consider voting Berwick since he’s got a better chance of beating her. I say this because there is very little difference between Grossman and Coakley on paper. Again, when I was at the convention, the one theme I heard over and over was “I like Berwick the best, but don’t think he has enough support to win”. I heard this from people who went with Coakley and Grossman. Not once did I hear anyone say, “I’d vote for Coakley/Grossman, but…..”. Gut feeling and yes, I am a Berwick supporter, but I think if enough Grossman votes switched to Berwick, a number of Coakley voters would make the switch as well. I hear a lot of passion from Coakley supporters but I also hear a lot of support because “we just have to win”. If they see Berwick as a winner, they switch.
fenway49 says
That’s not what the polling says. Not in any poll all year. Grossman’s always been the one closer to Coakley. We’ll find out in two weeks if that’s how it actually plays out but someone looking, first and foremost, to block Coakley likely will turn to Grossman rather than say, hey, the state’s full of would-be Berwick voters as soon as Coakley slips.
I also dispute the idea that “there is very little difference between Grossman and Coakley on paper.” But that’s another matter.
johntmay says
difference between Grossman and Coakley?
JMGreene says
If more people agreed with you, your preferred candidate will win the primary?
jconway says
But the second half of my critique was directed at Coakley supporters more broadly, the ones who are trying to shove her down our throats rather than win us with kindness and passion. I’d say it still stands.
Overall, the poll made me a little excited, I think a well contested and competitive primary is ultimately good for whomever ends up as our nominee. I’d rather Coakley have to fight to win by five than coast to a 10 or 15 pt win.
petr says
On the other hand, if your ultimate goal is to elect a Democrat, then you’ve as much as said nothing here..
In a previous iteration of the silly season “puma”, which stood for “Party Unity My Ass”, was a rather gross display of petulance driven by a rather silly sense of entitlement… and I think there’s some of that here. I think, if we want, we could decide that ‘puma” means “Party Umbrella Maybe Acceptable”… But everybody has to decide for him/her self the lines which they will, or will not, cross. Even the so-called ‘independents’ are mostly defined by what party or parties they don’t want to be, rather than by any aspirational, overriding, organizational principle.
I go back and forth on party unity. I see how often the lockstep Republicans put party unity before the declared principles of the Republican Party (revealing, in fact, that the only real principle of that party may be just to wield power). The GOP can get a lot of very bad things done, or stand together blocking the implementation of some very good things. All because they are a unified party. On the other hand I see the pumas in the Democratic party relentlessly pushing away the very idea of party unity because they feel entitled to a specific outcome. It would be nice if we all got unified behind Dr. Berwick. But we don’t. Some people are unified behind the idea of moderation. Others are unified in their distaste for this very notion. Some people are unified behind the notion of ‘great leader’, others blanche at this. Some are unified behind the noble aspirations, others technocrats and pragmatism. And we end up moving forward at a crawl because we’re all tugging the cart in different directions and with differing impeti.
No doubt, the answer to all this will be to say, “well, primaries are the place for parties to fight amongst themselves” and there is something to that… But at some point you have to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and decide if you move with the party or no. For Berwick supporters, that time is now. For Grossman supporters, that time is approaching.
jconway says
If the frontrunner is up 15% in the polls, how am I hurting her ability to take on Baker by voting for someone else in the primary? Some Coakley supporters seem so certain she will get nominated, and so certain she is electable in the fall, but also seem entirely desperate to push, cajole, and scare us into voting for her now anyway. Which way is it? Is she the inevitable nominee and us Berwick backers have no hope? How does our support of his candidacy, which you all gleefully point out is stuck at 15% on a good day, threaten her supremacy and dominance which, as you all point out, is so utterly inevitable?
You feel that Coakley is the likely nominee, and the most electable nominee, two statements I am actually inclined to agree with at this point due to the horrid campaigns her opponents have run. But, I still don’t see what I have to lose, what she has to lose, and how I am helping Baker by backing Berwick in an intraparty primary? How does that make any sense?
Christopher says
September 10, 2014 – not before.
kate says
The people who were contacted had voted in three of the following four primaries: 2002 gubernatorial, 2006 gubernatorial, 2009 Senate special, 2013 Senate special. That’s according to Bernstein in Boston Magazine. I didn’t see that mentioned in the Herald article.
fenway49 says
That does not appear in the linked PDF synopsis of the poll either. If they applied it strictly it would potentially exclude a lot of people. 2006 was 8 years ago,so it would automatically exclude anyone under about 26. In fact, voters 18 to 35 make up only about 8% of the poll sample. Normally, due to low turnout rates, this age group is under-represented relative to its share of the population, but I don’t believe most polls under-represent it to quite this extent.
Likewise, the three-primary screen would exclude reliable Democratic voters who moved into Massachusetts since 2006. In fact, it would exclude me because I was living out of state for two of those primaries.
jconway says
And actually come to think of it, I was too young for that primary. Deval was my first vote for a candidate ever, something to look back on I suppose, but yeah, I’d be excluded, and I’ve been active on BMG and in progressive circles since well before I could vote.