Charlie Baker is up for re-election in 2018, the second year of President Trump, who has made “Republican” a synonym for “racist misogynist” and ridden that label to the White House, despite losing the election, because of our anti-democratic electoral college system.
At the moment, Baker is doing great, but two years is a long time. If Trump actually puts his platform into practice, there may be severe consequences: recession, as trade declines, the dollar falls, foreign capital stops funding our deficits, and inflation, interest rates, and unemployment rise; civil unrest, as police launch “stop and frisk” programs nationwide in predominantly minority communities and hunt, arrest, and deport millions of undocumented migrants; discontent as millions lose Obamacare; and anger after Roe v. Wade is overturned and states become free to limit women’s control over reproduction, among other possibilities.
That’s a heavy load for “This is going to be the last one, sweetheart” Baker to carry on his ever-more extremist Republican shoulders, in ever-bluer New England.
Or maybe everything will be fine, Trump was only kidding about “grab them by the pussy,” his multiple bankruptcies really are an excellent preparation for national economic management, his discriminatory business practices and embrace of birtherism were only means to an end rather than actual racism, and his promises to put his political opponents in jail for undefined crimes was never meant seriously.
No Republican politician in the country worked quicker and more decisively to separate himself from Trump and he will continue to do that in the next administration. Tying Baker to the national party didn’t work in 2014 and won’t work in 2018.
This election was a repudiation of the Emmanuel lead from the top elitist strategy and a vindication for the 50 state strategy of Howard Dean. Democrats control the fewest state houses, governorships, and congressional seats since the 1920’s. There’s is no bench of nationally ready officials ready to run in 2020 for president, and we had no Plan B for if Hillary lost.
Locally, the most important issue remains income inequality which is the worst in the country despite a Democratic supermajority. I don’t recall that legislature addressing the issue under our last governor, who was also uninterested in it.
Fortunately the voters will have a golden opportunity to do what DeLeo and Deval never did and actually address the issue by enacting a progressive income tax. Forcing Baker’s hand to accept new revenues for the T, for housing, and for education will stem the tide of income inequality which led the Western part of our state to embrace Trump.
Every four years progressives pin all their hopes on a single candidate who can deliver all the change and every four years we are disappointed when that candidate loses or finds him or herself alone and unable to govern. We have to work our way up from the bottom to make real change at the top. Going all in for governor is not the way to do it. I know what campaign I’ll be working on, the income tax amendment. That’s the single most important thing we can do.
We’re Massachusetts Democrats for crying out loud – we should not ignore the supreme executive magistracy. Steve Kerrigan sent out an email today suggesting that Baker made himself vulnerable by where he came down on questions and his treatment of the MBTA. Let’s fight for this with everything we’ve got!
I’d rather live in a world where we have both, but if I had to choose which one is more important it’s the progressive taxation amendment. We won’t see real change without real revenue and our legislature, fully controlled by Democrats, isn’t interested. The executive branch is pretty impotent around here anyway. I refuse to support a gubernatorial candidate who doesn’t endorse it and won’t fight for it and enact it if elected.
…Massachusetts has one of the strongest Governorships in the country. John Adams would not have had it any other way. How do you know already that there won’t be a candidate who will endorse this? For me it’s very important to have the Corner Office in the hands of the correct party, both for the administration that undergirds it and so I don’t have to explain why a Dem state has a GOP Governor. If the nationwide stats are going to say Dems hold x number of Governorships I want my home state to be part of that x thank you very much.
Mass. has a theoretically “strong governor” by Constitution, but I’m pretty sure that this status dates from the days of Volpe, and not Adams. Some guy from Pew, based on some crummy data, decided Deval Patrick was the most powerful governor in the land in 2007.
What makes him powerful? The ability to make appointments. But what they don’t really mention is that the appointments that matter in Massachusetts are all off in boards whose members terms don’t necessarily coincide with the governor’s. That means that the governor only gets to exert administrative control over time, and as Romney discovered, board members are not easily removed. Massachusetts loves these things for some reason.
What else? The line item veto. But what they don’t really notice is that, because the legislative leadership is so strong, any veto is easily overridden by commanding margins, at leadership’s whim.
Oh, and we don’t have term limits, so a popular governor can serve more than two terms. Even though we seem to have trouble getting governors to serve even two terms, probably because they get tired of carrying water for the leg.
The big thing that puts Massachusetts at the top? The overwhelming legislative majority from the governor’s own party that would allow the implementation of the governor’s agenda. I’ll just assume that the guy who wrote that saw Massachusetts on a map once, but has never been here or met someone from here, or even someone who has met someone from here.
If we had an actually powerful governor, then the leg would be in a position to confirm/deny cabinet appointments within the first week or two in January after the governor’s inauguration, and then that person would run the Department. If the governor wants a change, he fires the secretary and appoints a new one. None of the silliness we have with the stupid boards.
N/t
And I would add that the existence of the Governor’s Council has historically weakened the Governorship substantially by creating an essentially plural executive. Much of their power, mercifully, has been stripped away, but I still can’t see how anyone could seriously claim that the MA Governor is among the country’s strongest.
…that we have one of the strongest constitutionally. Your comments about the Council apply more to NH and those who wish it disappeared entirely suggested the Senate might carry out its functions which is what happens in other states so that’s a wash. I would argue with the ability to set the agenda for the Council, the line item veto, the ability to sponsor bills directly, and power to make many appointments without any advice and consent makes our Governor institutionally stronger than even the President. On the other end of the scale you have a place like Texas where in a lot of ways the Lt. Governor actually seems to have more opportunities to influence the direction of the state than the Governor.
What can a governor do? Fight about how many member are on a board, and replace people over time. By the time the executive starts to get control, the term is half over, which leaves little time to do anything ambitious. And if you make a mistake in an appointment, you’re screwed because you can’t make a change. The whole system is designed to separate responsibility from accountability. A strong governor can shake things up; our governor gets into fights about the number of seats on a board, and it winds up on page S43 of the newspaper. That’s not power; that’s a deflection of power.
And focusing just on these “statutory” powers simply ignores the reality in Massachusetts– that the legislative power is essentially concentrated– by nothing more than rule– in one or two hands. In you are a legislative maverick in Massachusetts, you cant get a bill out of committee, you cant get a hearing, you can’t even earn a committee seat by dint of seniority or otherwise, without the blessing of one or two people. So great, the governor can propose a bill, but even if it is supported by 99% of the members of the legislature, it is ignored unless the leadership chooses not to ignore it. That’s exactly how they made Dukakis and Patrick look like an ass.
Power is the ability to make something happen, not a checklist from the constitution. Our governors don’t have the ability to make anything happen., without first asking Mr. Bulger/Finneran/DiMasi/DeLeo/whomever is next for permission.
I need as many as I can find. Baker out in 2018 and Trump as effective lame duck soon after and out in 2020 would be a nice ride. A bit bumpy, but fun to watch. The only question then is, who do we have to fill those spots and have we learned that we must go after the labor vote?
And how does the Trump election potentially change that? This was the discussion in our house last night. Will he:
Run for a second term as governor?
Run for senate against Warren?
Something else?
He got killed on the questions, but it wasn’t really about him, so that’s a small loss. He’s still Governor of Massachusetts, and any Republican who governs our blue state has special status within the party.
You’d be right if he hadn’t filmed an ad in his own home for Q2. They tried to use his popularity to boost their fortunes and it flopped worse than the polls expected.
Just like he will with the presidential race.
Here’s a better question, who’s the nobody you are going to run to beat the somebody already in office?
Nobody knew who Deval Patrick was at this point in 2004 either, but there are plenty of “somebodies”: Maura Healey, Deb Goldberg, Dan Wolf, Jamie Eldridge, Kim Driscoll, Setti Warren, Joe Curtatone, a member of Congress – just off the top of my head. Are you still bitter over the fate of UIP?
I’m just being a realist. Baker is a shoe in because the legislature, especially the House, sucks. And it isn’t going to change anytime soon since voters like their local legislator and separate him or her from how shitty DeLeo is.
I’m not bitter at all, had great experiences and met wonderful people. As I’m sure you have on campaigns. I’m a Democrat again. Third parties were interesting in the pre-Trump era, they won’t be going forward. Falchuk said as much in his Commonwealth piece.
I just don’t think the Governor is the source of all our problems. He and the speaker agree we shouldn’t raise revenues via new taxes, and the amendment is the best way to force their hand and end run around them no? Would you rather have a D governor unable to fund his agenda like Deval or giving Baker Bobby and Stan a surplus to save the T with?
More to come on this, of course.
But if he survives the primary, the Democratic candidate will have to have something besides Baker=Trump, ewww in the paybook, or else s/he will lose.
You really think that a right-wing Republican can raise enough money and credibility to primary out Governor Baker?
I mean, sure, if Baker’s approval ratings are in the 20s (and 49 among MA GOPers), maybe. But that ain’t going to happen. He’s too risk averse for that.
His political strength isn’t really on the right, but in the middle. In opposition to the corrupt legislature, etc. I don’t think he is all that popular among his own party. He was already not a favorite of the local right wing– because of his takeover of the party infrastructure last year and because of his disdain for Trump. And now that right wing is empowered.
The Massachusetts GOP is really quite small. That means that it really doesn’t take much, in terms of absolute numbers, to shift the majority, and so the entire apparatus is volatile. A majority of a small minority need not be very big at all. And the Trumpy ones are empowered, and at least thus far seem to enjoy attacking fellow Republicans who are insufficiently loyal. I don’t think it would take much money. Credibility is a non-factor in a GOP primary, no?
So, yes, I think he may face a challenge in a volatile primary in a small party. But if he squeaks through, he will carry loads of independents and even Democrats, as he has already done, by running against the corrupt legislature. as well as whatever naif the Dems nominate to do the legislature’s bidding.
…in shaping MAGOP in his own image by wading in to RSC races? I can see someone mounting a challenge from the right, but probably not successfully. I definitely agree that Dems need more than Baker=Trump. It’s not true and voters will laugh at it.
and control of most of the infrastructure and all the money.
I’m just saying that his own primary is likely his biggest hurdle. Once through that, I would expect the Democrat to run a “Baker is a Dangerous Extremist Republican; Here Are Things that Other Republicans Said– Did He Denounce Them?” campaign, again, and to lose, again.
I’m not picking up what you’re putting down.
I agree that, at least theoretically, it doesn’t take many actual people to swing the MA GOP inter-party apparatus.
I also think that if Baker were to be primaried by a Trumpeter, Baker would get loads of primary votes from (a) upscale MA GOPers, and (b) loads of unenrolled citizens who don’t typically vote in primaries.
If Baker’s name is mud in 18 months there’s lots of ways he could go down, but absent that, I just don’t see much success in a GOP Trumpian knocking out the sitting governor in a primary.
But we need a great candidate. I think we need someone who is a great messenger, and relentlessly strong campaigner. I liked Don Berwick, but he turned into too much of a one trick (health care) pony. Coakley just wasn’t a strong enough candidate and had a tin ear for politics. Who we got?
I am going to devote all my time and energy to the Raise Up Amendment. I suggest everyone at least sign up to volunteer and make a regular donation. This is the single most important thing local progressives can do to mitigate against income inequality in the coming campaign cycle.
comes from two directions.
It’s not just that he could be tainted by it in the eyes of the public. It’s also that he could become a target of its vengefulness. You know what happens to politicians who decline to endorse members of the Trump Republican Club — a few traffic problems crop up in Fort Lee.
Our state gets about $11 billion in federal money every year to help fund our $35 billion budget. Not all of that will be directly subject to Trump’s control, but a lot of it will. And presumably there will be less federal funding to start with with the Republicans in control of Congress.
A cash-strapped Massachusetts will hurt Baker — and it won’t do Elizabeth Warren or us any favors either. Unfortunately its a scenario that sounds entirely plausible.
It would have been nice to have at least one (Richard Tisei?) connection to the federal legislature majorities.
In fact, almost all of New England is not on the majority side of the aisle.
.