Today’s news on the casino front is that Massachusetts’ most popular politician, Elizabeth Warren, will vote to repeal the casino law in November. The Herald (but not the Globe, for some reason) has the story:
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she will vote to repeal the state’s casino law when the hotly debated question goes to the ballot in November.
“I come to the question of gambling from a background in bankruptcy and what happens economically to families,” the Cambridge Democrat told reporters yesterday. “It’s a tough call here. People need jobs, but gambling can be a real problem economically for a lot of people. I didn’t support gambling the first time around and I don’t expect to support it (now).”
Of course, this is awesome news for the pro-repeal forces. And it comes on the heels of several days of terrible stories regarding the casino industry as a whole.
In particular, if you have looked at the news at all over the last few days, you cannot have missed the numerous stories coming out of Atlantic City, NJ. Basically, the casino industry there is in something close to freefall. The two-year-old ultra-glitzy Revel casino is closing tomorrow. The Showboat, which had been there for decades, closed on Sunday. And in a couple of weeks, Trump Plaza is set to shut down. Thousands of casino employees are losing their jobs, and it’s unclear where those people are going to go.
Obviously, it’s impossible not to connect the dots from Atlantic City to our own ongoing experiment with casinos. Globe:
The contraction and painful layoffs in New Jersey — amid disappointing revenues in the casino industry elsewhere in the United States — come at an inauspicious time for casino supporters in Massachusetts, a little more than two months before voters will decide whether to repeal the state’s casino law in a ballot referendum.
Naturally, the pro-casino crowd insist that Massachusetts is totally different and all the terrible news coming out of Atlantic City (as well as Mississippi and other casino havens) has nothing to do with building three and a half casinos here.
The industry’s supporters argue that Massachusetts’ casino marketplace would be a much different animal — a maximum of four facilities, not a dozen. With more than 6.5 million residents, the Bay State has enough potential customers to support up to three resort casinos and a slot parlor scattered around the state, as called for in the 2011 expanded gambling act, supporters say.
“All four facilities can do very well and you would not have a supply-and-demand imbalance,” said Jay Snowden, chief operating officer of Penn National Gaming, the company building the state’s slot parlor in Plainville.
But more sensible minds have a different view.
the state [of MA] is not immune to the same competitive pressures that are squeezing Atlantic City, specialists say.
Competition has shrunk casino markets, and new jurisdictions should look soberly on how much tax revenue casinos can produce, said Israel Posner, an expert on Atlantic City and director of the Levenson Institute of Gaming, Hospitality, and Tourism at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey…. Other casino jurisdictions are also suffering in the face of competition, and less interest in gambling among younger people, said Posner. Ohio’s casino profits, for example, have not lived up to projections. Closer to home, the Connecticut tribal casinos, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, have seen declining gambling revenue.
Needless to say, taking a “sober” view of “how much tax revenue casinos can produce” has not exactly been the Massachusetts legislature’s forte. Even before the casino industry started collapsing around the country, the revenue projections from local proponents were derided as wildly unrealistic. Yet the legislature happily built projected revenues into the state budget, with no evident backup plan should those revenues fail to materialize.
Anyway, since I will be voting to repeal the casino law, I’m happy that Elizabeth Warren is publicly on board. We can certainly anticipate that the pro-repeal forces will continue using her name in advancing their cause.
The two businessmen and the “national leader in addressing the economic crisis” are all tripping over each other to see who supports casinos the most.
Does that leave Coakley as the “national leader in addressing the economic crisis”? I haven’t heard her called that or claim that, and it doesn’t make sense for an incumbent AG. Casinos aren’t nearly as relevant as they might have been for the gubernatorial race since we will vote on them directly. I’m inclined to vote for repeal at this point, but one’s position is not a deal breaker and we can focus on other issues and qualifications given the referendum. If the elected Governor tries to bring them back notwithstanding a vote to repeal we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
the “national leader in addressing the economic crisis” was supposed to be Gov. Patrick.
????
Martha has been a national leader in addressing the economic crisis by holding big banks accountable …
Yes, this is a crisis caused by corrupt banks, not corrupt casinos. It’s like free booze. What’s the difference between a “Happy Hour” drunk or a “Free Booze at the craps table” drunk driving the wrong direction on 495? Why oppose one and encourage the other?
“national leader in addressing the economic crisis”
I never would have guessed.
And aren’t those the more apposite comparisons? This article from the NYT in 2012 “Foxwoods Is Fighting for Its Life” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/magazine/mike-sokolove-foxwood-casinos.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 seems to be more relevant, and that might be closer to what MA would wind up with: three struggling casinos and perhaps a “temporary, warehouse-like structure” for slots addicts along the lines of Tim Cahill’s proposal: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2009/08/opportunity-lost-charlie-baker-is-not-the-states-antislots-savior/
side effects of the casino question, this thing is a dog by the whole way it has been handled. The committee is fraught with vested interests, the bidders have questionable backgrounds, and the decisions made thus far have been second guessed by both sides. I can’t wait for Casinogate hearings to begin. It will be great theater.
.
I’ve been less kneejerk than some about opposition to casinos from the start, but the horrible process is the strongest reason I am now inclined to vote for repeal.
I have a lot of respect for her on account of this position, taken against the stated position of Organized Labor, and on Labor Day. You can support the movement without supporting its horrible mistakes, and might support the movement better by calling attention to its horrible mistakes before they cause serious damage.
It amazes me that this issue, which is so very important to the future of the Commonwealth, is barely relevant to the state-wide campaigns, which are turning instead on such inane crap as who “will take on the NRA” and who will run the least crappy campaign against the other side in November.
Berwick, whom I would support if I was still registered in MA, decided to be a single issue candidate and bet on an issue that might be #4 or 5 on peoples lists. It least it isn’t the NRA-which is like #10 maybe?
Mitigating income inequality, education, transit, funding for those three priorities, and killing casinos would be in my top five and nobody is talking about them at the gubernatorial level, or at least not in their ads.
Healey, running for the office that has the least control over that issue after November, has made it a centerpiece of her campaign and has seen massive electoral dividends because of it. She may owe her victory to that stance in the event she beats Tolman. Surprised Berwick didn’t run against casinos first, and for single payer second.
While he has touted his support for single payer health care in his ads, he has a whole host of issues to run on, and I agree with his stance on every single one of them.
But none of his ads have discussed them, and he and his supporters seem to elevate that issue to the detriment of the others. It’s just not an issue that resonates with voters outside of the base this year, most voters feel that Romneycare and ACA are the best we are going to get for awhile. They are more concerned with fixing the government we already have, expanding their share of the economic pie, affording college for their kids, good public schools for their kids, and fixing our 100 year old transit system which isn’t working for them. I’ve seen no campaign address any of those concerns with any regularity, airtime, or significant substance other than Charlie Baker. And that worries me.
…which is understandable, given that you’re out of state. He leads with single payer because health care costs are consuming over 40% of the state’s budget. Single payer would vastly reduce those costs, and those savings could then go to the very programs you mentioned. Berwick hammers these points in his public appearances, and I believe he said so during the Stonehill debate, if my memory serves me correctly.
I did look at his issues pages once or twice and recall agreeing that they were impressive, but even as someone paying really close attention the only two of his stances I can tell you without looking them up is that he wants single-payer and he opposes casinos.
I agree that Berwick’s campaign could have done a better job selling. I think he should have been focused on inequality and opportunity (akin to Warren’s single-mindedness on the middle class) as the main push, with single payer, no on casinos, real, detailed transportation investment, and education as the way to achieve those. I’m honestly not sure a different packaging would have been enough, though. Coakley just remains incredibly popular among Democrats. She has had 40%+ in the polls consistently, so it’s almost impossible to beat her in a three-way race. While we can make comparisons to a relative unknown like Patrick coming from behind and beating a well known competitor, I don’t think Reilly had anywhere near the same level of support that Coakley enjoys. I think someone would have had to have been much better than Patrick to win this year.
What you said strikes me, though.
They at least came across.
What are Coakley’s two biggest policy priorities?
I honestly have no idea. And that’s really scary to me.
2) Beat Grossman,
3) Beat Baker.
Same as all the Republicans: “Jobs & the Economy”……only the job comes at a higher minimum wage than the Republican job, but it’s still minimum and it still can’t support an individual with health care and housing, but it’s a “job” and the Economy will rise and you will watch it rise, but none of that is going to your wallet. You get to be a cog in the machine, you lucky duck!
does the issue have traction yet with the average voter?
Considering the hoards of seniors from a few years ago screaming at the feds to get their government hands off of their Medicare, my guess is no.
Jobs, education, infrastructure… those are the issues that resonate with Massachusetts voters.
If I were Berwick, I would have ran an ad on how education opened up opportunities of a lifetime for him — and that’s what he wants to deliver to every student across the Commonwealth.
I would have run an add on how he’s committed to growing jobs outside the 128 beltway, so everyone shares in this state’s prosperity.
I would have run ads on how we have a crumbling infrastructure, but if we could put a man on the moon, we could put gravel on all the roads and bridges that need it and make sure the T runs on time.
I would have made a nice little youtube video on Single Payer for my supporters, because that sells to the activist core and few other places.
The groundwork to be able to successfully use Single Payer as the main issue on the stump hasn’t been laid yet — not enough people know what it even is — but it’s not going to be laid during a sleepy election that hasn’t held anyone’s attention span.
You articulated in a far more concise and eloquent manner than I did below. I appreciate it.
I get I’m out of state and it does change perceptions, but to say “you shoulda a seen him” at a debate nobody watched is a bit of a stretch. I came in for a family reunion in late July in Wakefield and to see old friends on Cambridge. Nobody in either group, and these are politically active people (where do you think I got it after all?) had heard of Berwick, other than my dad who didn’t like him on a NECN appearance and was a Coakley voter from day 1. None of my friends, many of whom voted and registered friends to vote for Coakley against Brown.
A lot of that isn’t Berwick’s fault, the media has consistently dropped the ball, but he hasn’t gone after unions and college students like Liz did. He isn’t even on activists radars in Cambridge. I know one ward captain with him at the convention who hasn’t heard back since, who hates the ads, and is fairly demoralized. A lot of Kayyem people are up for grabs and Coakley has scooped some but left a few others untapped. The friends who helped get Nadeem elected city councilor are totally AWOL on the governors race, and these are people that canvassed for Deval in 10′, these aren’t apathetic kids. They should’ve been Berwick’s backbone and they aren’t. Their issue is the shitty T, lack of affordable housing, lack of living wage laying jobs, and fear of fleeing Cambridge. Berwick is our candidate but he hasn’t made the effort and sorry, single payer would be nice but rent is the real killer of our income, we are covered by ACA or our parents, but it isn’t health care costs kicking us out of our hometown. It isn’t healthcare costs preventing us from getting to work on time. It’s a symptom of income inequality, not the cause of it.
Even with the most perfectly run campaign, I don’t think it would have mattered.
Coakley is teflon in a Dem primary and had enough support locked up early to ensure a victory in any three-way race.
She’s done a fine job as AG, but I’m not sure why she is so adored. She’s similar to Galvin in my mind – competent, but nothing to write home about.
She got this by doing a good job fighting for women’s issues, senior citizens, and being the kind of centrist ‘glass ceiling’ breaker feminists and boardroom Democrats can support in equal measure. Not unlike a certain former senator and secretary of state, who clobbered the candidate of youth and excitement in the 2008 MA presidential primary, in spite of Teddy and Deval backing Obama. I would agree it’s not much to inspire or write home about, but I am not the demographic that votes in every cycle, so I am not her target.
A lot of people like her though. My parents for one. I think it was when she took on Cardinal Law as a DA and later took on the Church over Conscience Clauses that she made her way into the popular political imagination. I know my dad has been a big fan of hers ever since then, and he voted for her in the primary for Senate and has always planned on voting for her for Governor. ‘I think she does a fine job’ he says, and that’s about the same impression most voters seem to have. He felt much the same way about Shannon O’Brien and he feels much the same way about Maura Healey. On Tolman ‘that boring bald bastahd on Fawx News? No way, Healey is a fightah like Coakley’. And while we all have a spirited back and forth on policy here on BMG, it’s that first impression that matters to most voters. I think what hurts Grossman, Berwick, and Tolman is that they are old boring white male faces in a field that will be dominated by women voters, who will turn out more reliably than their male counterparts, seniors who respect her long track record on their issues, and boomers like ma and dad who loved Geraldine Ferraro and think a strong female candidate will take on Beacon Hill even if she is as much a creature of it as her main male rivals. It’s obvious you and I are wrong to dismiss that appeal, since neither of our candidates seem to be gaining traction against it.
I understand that she is incredibly popular, but I still don’t get it, especially for some groups.
I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are young (25-35) and very liberal, although not incredibly active. They love her – almost entirely based on her choice and LGBTQ rights work. On other issues, many of them assume that she’s also great. It wasn’t on their radar to even consider someone else in this race.
She says the right things (even if in outrageously generic terms) so it’s easy to project things onto her. The same absolutely goes for others like Obama or Hillary. Great politicians.
And Healey got a lot of mileage out of her risk free opposition to casinos, as well as her significantly substantial achievements on LGBT rights. It’s a lot easier to discuss fighting the forces of inequality in court directly rather than working with them to switch sides behind the scenes as Tolman did.
I also think my dad’s criticism still stings for Tolman, ‘what has he done lately?’. It’s a lot easier for people to latch onto public cases where the AGs successes are splashed on the front page, then see the more mundane and obscure regulatory changes that officials like Berwick or Grossman conducted in their public offices.