On Friday, the Western New England Polling Institute released a statewide poll on Boston’s 2024 Summer Olympics bid. It found that 46% of Massachusetts voters oppose the bid while only 40% of voters support it. When the poll looked at all adults, instead of just registered voters, it was slightly closer, but the edge was still to the opposition: 43% opposition and 42% support.
Boston area voters registered the strongest opposition: 48% opposed the bid, while only 35% supported it. North Shore and South Shore voters opposed the bid 47% to 40%. Central MA voters opposed it 46% to 40%. Western MA voters, by contrast, supported it 54% to 34%.
But this regional variation wasn’t the most interesting find. The poll also asked voters how much information they have heard about the Olympic bid, and the results showed that the more information people had heard, the more likely they were to oppose the bid.
Of those who said they had heard “a lot” of information, 62% opposed the bid, and only 27% supported it. Of those who said that they had heard “some” information, 53% opposed the bid, and 35% supported it. Of those who said that they had heard just “a little” about the bid,” 45% supported it, and 39% opposed it. Of those who heard that they had heard nothing at all about the bid (“none at all”), 51% supported it, and 29% opposed it.
In other words, the more people knew about the bid, the less likely they were to support it.
The relationship between information and position on Boston 2024 immediately reminded me of a poll from the Globe from last June, the first publicly available poll on the Olympic bid.
That poll found slim support (47% to 43%) statewide for the bid, and it, like this new poll, also showed Metro Boston more opposed than other parts of the state and Western Mass more supportive.
But what really stood out in that poll was what happened when you presented respondents with the arguments from both sides. The pollster presented the following two statements to respondents and then asked which statement came “closest to [their] own view.”
Supporters of Boston’s plan to pursue the 2024 Olympics say that hosting the summer games will provide Boston and the region with a lasting legacy of improved lives, a stronger economy, a more modern infrastructure, and a community with a stronger sense of connection and vision.
Opponents say that the likely costs do not outweigh the potential benefits. They say that hosting the 2024 summer games would take significant investments in our infrastructure and cost between $10 to $20 billion dollars – which could be better spent on education, housing, and transportation. Based on what on you know at this time, which statement comes closest to your own view?
63% sided with the opponents, and only 29% sided with the supporters. A majority of respondents from every region sided with the opposition.
The pro side can’t do PR to save their lives and the anti side has the benefit of just having to plant doubts. I’m agnostic regarding the support vs. opposition statements quoted above. Either could end up being true, but there’s no way of knowing for sure until it happens.
What planet are you living on?
They have the best PR people in the state. Doug Rubin, Hill Holliday, AND Will Keyser (Baker’s guy). Plus some others I’m probably forgetting. What are you going to argue next? Ted Cruz is a forward-thinking progressive who just has a PR problem?
The Ted Cruz analogy is just silly. He says what he says and its prima facie nonsense. They’ve done a lot of planning, given thought to many of the concerns which have been raised, but haven’t communicated well. The better political analogy is President Obama who has plenty of accomplishments to his presidency but often forgets to tell anyone, thus ceding the debate to the likes of Ted Cruz. Besides I’m not convinced we need all the answers by 2017. I for one am OK with things still being a bit in flux nine years out. Once our bid is locked in if we get it we should insist on doing things our way.
Tangential point – is the Will Keyser you identify as Baker’s guy the same one of that name who was once Marty Meehan’s chief of staff on Capitol Hill?
Yes.
You can say that Boston 2024 has made some PR missteps, but they pretty much all amount to an inability and/or unwillingness to provided details to back up any of their claims. I don’t care who good your PR is, it will not be able to paper over fundamental flaws in the idea.
Boston 2024 has bad PR, but the bigger problem is that they are selling a bad product.
We had a golden opportunity to try something different that might be an affordable and accountable games-instead we played by their rules and lost the publics trust. Just as Chicago did.
Whether the IOC is driving this or local politicians are, the Olympics simply is not a magic money pot that is going to pay for local infrastructure projects.
If we already had the venues and infrastructure to host the Olympics then a bid might make sense, otherwise forget it.
appear to support it the most says the poll. That may be that apart from cost concerns and awareness of the issues, supporters are those enthralled by the idea of an Olympic spectacle in their area. Once you learn what it entails, and the risks of runaway costs falling in their laps, support melts away.-
Facilities should be built in Greece and the games should permanently be played in the same arenas. Greece needs the help and since all future games would be played there the infrastructure would be paid for over time. The corrupt bidding process would be eliminated. The ideal of the world stopping wars to come together in peaceful competition would become enhanced, security would be easier since threat assessments would be for the same area all the time, and there would develop a more intense historical perspective.
This is a great idea.
Ironically, I suspect the biggest challenge will be signing Greece up for it. Then the IOC. The cynic in me suggests that the elimination of the corrupt bidding process is an immediate deal-breaker for the IOC, and I would love to be proven wrong.
That does seem to be a huge concern, but as far as I can tell they are a self-perpetuating organization. Is there a way that national Olympic committees such as the USOC can force a housecleaning and or rule changes?