I am amazed that in spite of all the doubt currently surrounding Don’s chances of winning tomorrow, he is still so optimistic. In a way, it shouldn’t be surprising. Throughout his campaign, Don has taken the bold, progressive stances on issues that his opponents are too timid to take. Don is the only Democrat against casinos. He is the only Democrat who not only supports, but has the background and expertise to actually pull off a successful switch to single-payer healthcare. And Don really means it when he says “All Means All.” There are too many citizens of our Commonwealth currently living in poverty or otherwise feeling left out. Only Don Berwick has the vision and experience to lead Massachusetts into a new era of inclusion and prosperity.
I just got off a conference call with Patrick, Don’s field director, who announced to all the volunteers listening in that we have knocked on 51,000 doors and made 46,000 phone calls across the state over the past three days! I have seen the momentum build in these final few weeks of the campaign, from Don’s dominating performance in the debates to how he has fired up the crowd at GOTV rallies.
Don can win, but only if you vote for him.
…end up on the infamy list along with those showing Dewey defeating Truman in 1948 and the Literary Digest poll showing Landon beating FDR in 1936.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Berwick overperformed and was very close to Grossman or perhaps even a narrow second. I also wouldn’t be shocked if Berwick ended with single digits.
On my daily commute through Newton and Waltham, I see a number of Berwick lawn signs but none for Coakley or Grossman. It might be that my route does a bad job of sampling the Mass populace. But perhaps it’s a sign that Berwick’s campaign is the one that ignites passion, albeit seemingly in a more-limited set of voters. Berwick has an actual point of view, he plainly believes that government should do the right thing.
Being an FDR/Elizabeth Warren Liberal myself, I like to think that our Commonwealth, indeed our entire country, is ready to return to the only governing philosophy that’s been proven to work for all of us. If we don’t win with Berwick tomorrow, we’ll get it next time.
The only (few) yard signs I’ve seen (in Belmont/Waltham) have been for Berwick. The only (very few) Facebook posts I’ve seen about this election were in support of Don Berwick. The only (very few) campaign supporters I’ve run into were Berwick supporters.
I don’t know if this a sign of the area, my social bubble, the passion of Berwick supporters, or the dispassion (a la 2010) of Coakley’s and Grossman’s campaigns, confirmation bias (my not noticing the others) or just luck.
My belief is that Berwick fans are so much more passionate and believe in him, while Coakley’s support is mostly from name recognition.
My guess is that Berwick will do very well in Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Brookline, Watertown, Arlington, Belmont, Waltham, Concord, Lexington, and that area.
He’ll also likely do very well in the Pioneer Valley. In much of Central Mass, the North Shore, Merrimack Valley, and the South Shore he’ll probably be low single digits, and that’s what will decide it heavily in Coakley’s favor.
…at least on individual lawns, and the ones I have seen have all been for Grossman.
I’d like to share something that I’ve learned as I’ve aged in hopes that some may find it useful.
I’ve learned to pay attention to hindsight and use it to inform what some wags call “future history”. The votes we cast today and in November will be history five or ten or twenty years from now. The marvelous thing about future history is that WE CAN CHANGE IT.
What percentage of voters who pulled the lever for Richard Nixon in 1972 proudly remember that today? How about those who voted for George McGovern? What percentage of those who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 are proud of that vote today? How about those who voted for John Kerry?
The winner of the Masschusetts Democratic primary in 1990 was John Silber. How many of you who so assertively argue that party loyalty demands a vote for the winner of today’s primary voted for Mr. Silber? How do you, in hindsight, feel about that vote? How many of you voted for Francis X. Bellotti instead of Evelyn Murphy, because you opposed the nomination of Mr. Silber, and wanted to cast a “strategic” vote (Ms. Murphy trailed badly in the polls during the entire campaign and finished with 2.9% of the primary votes). How do you, in hindsight, feel about that vote?
Let’s go back a bit further. The winner of the 1978 Democratic primary was Ed King. How many of you who chastise me for my refusal to vote for Martha Coakley in ANY election (primary or general) voted for Ed King in 1978? Let me pose a brutally honest question, and request a similarly honest answer — who would have been the better (or less bad) governor, Ed King or Francis Hatch, Jr.? For those who voted for Ed King, do you proudly share that memory with your children or grandchildren?
I voted for George McGovern — proudly. I did NOT vote for Ed King. I did NOT vote for John Silber. I will NOT vote for Martha Coakley. Not today. Not in November. Not in any election for any public office. Ever.
I am about to proudly cast my vote for Don Berwick. I am confident that five or ten or twenty years from now, I will have many stories to share about this campaign and my vote when I’m sharing memories with my grandchildren-to-come (talking politics with Pat Jehlen, Denise Provost and other local officials at Sunday’s block party while children played in the street around us was a memorable highlight).
Vote for Don Berwick. In your heart, you KNOW he’s right.
So was Barry Goldwater supposedly – did you intend that irony?
The comparison of Coakley at least to King is not apt as King was conservative, so much so that he did eventually switch parties. I wasn’t old enough to vote in 1990, but recall generally agreeing with his newspaper columns on education in later years, so Silber is not the pariah to me that he seems to be to a lot of people.
Very anti-student and anti-professor tenure at BU, particularly with regards to free speech and gay rights. He was born and raised Texan, and always called himself a Johnson Democrat, which to him meant socially conservative, economically liberal, and hawkish on defense.
My parents voted for Weld, and it’s hard to argue, in my view, that Silber had the temper to do the job. Dad was gonna vote for Weld anyway, ma’s always been a yellow dog Dem but turned on Silber after the Natalie Jacobson interview (as did many women and swing voters I’m sure). To date Weld is the only Republican I recall them voting for, they backed him against Kerry too.
I don’t think there was ever any question about Mr. Silber’s infamous temper. 🙂
My point is that some candidates are toxic. Richard Nixon was liberal in comparison to many of today’s Democrats, and he was still toxic. Even conservatives occasionally have great slogans (although, of course, the pun only works for a right-winger).
I knew that Ed King and John Silber were toxic. The Massachusetts Democratic Party nominated them, after primaries, just like it will nominate Martha Coakley. The party and its proponents made the same argument in 1978 and in 1990 that the Democratic candidate was better than the other guy, and that I should vote for the Democratic nominee because a Republican victory would mean the end of the world as we knew it — the same argument being made now.
My point is that voting for “the Democratic nominee, whomever it is” was wrong in 1978, it was wrong in 1990, and in my view it is wrong in 2014.
I was a Murphy supporter and thought she was the only reasonable choice on the Dem ballot that year. I went to BU and was at Silber’s infamous “the women of Warren Towers are no better than the hookers in Kenmore Square” speech. Bellotti was such an inside man it was almost comical. Yet Murphy officially withdrew a week before the primary. I voted for her anyway as a protest over the lousy choice we had been given.
I’ve got no problem with anyone voting for Berwick, though he managed to convince me he wouldn’t be an effective governor despite my general agreement with his stances. Ultimately I say the fault in Steve Grossman’s inability to beat Coakley lies with Steve Grossman (and with the primary not being held a month later). However, referencing your lower entry, if your stance is that Coakley is toxic, that’s not based strictly on the tenor of her politics. She’s not an outright conservative like King or a rabid social conservative like Silber. The knock on Coakley is that she’s a bit of an empty suit. She espouses moderate-to-liberal stances, but the assumption is that when the tough get going Martha will be gone. Plus, like Bellotti, she’s a party creature who likely has promised her way into a corner.
So the knock on Coakley is that she personally isn’t made of stern enough stuff to be an effective governor. If that’s your stance, then a horse race vote for Grossman would have made sense since he was the non-Coakley candidate with an actual chance of beating her. Grossman may not have been flawlessly liberal, but he is left of center with a solid record in public service and in the private sector. It’s a bit incongruous to insist Coakley is someone you find unsupportable at a personal level, but you voted for Berwick due to the purity of his politics. If Coakley is that bad, then the most viable alternative deserved more consideration. If you just loved Berwick despite his snowball’s chance, then you needed to make peace with the notion that Coakley likely was going to win while you were making your statement.