What endorsements is he likely to pick up?
What is Deval Patrick having for dinner tonight?
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
I know many folks won't agree with me that this is a shame. I know many folks talk the talk of the big tent, but have no patience for Tim Cahill or the thousands of Democrats who share his point of view. However, as a person who will still vote for Deval Patrick over Tim Cahill next year, I think this decision is in many ways a loss for the Democratic Party as well as Cahill.
For all the noise of his echo chamber, Deval Patrick has nothing resembling a monopoly on the beliefs of the rank and file of our party -- that much was evident in the reaction to his effort to dumb down the party platform. I am not saying that Patrick + Cahill represent all of the party's spectrum, either -- there really is little leadership in the party for people who oppose predatory gambling, who support labor rights, or favor a preserving our current model of public education which leads the nation on any number of standardized test regimes.
However, Cahill did represent a loud and different voice within the party. It was a voice not trapped in procedural skirmishes over fiefdoms as DeLeo's and Murray's have been, but a voice more clearly linked to policy and political differences. Cahill represents something older than Deval's message, and with deeper roots within the party -- suspicion of government beyond traditional issues, a wariness of picking winners in the state economy, a vision of the government that consisted of setting conditions for you to have enough to eat and leaving you alone beyond that. Cahill was doing more in his own way to force a debate within the Democratic Party than anyone else. He represented the lunch-bucket Democratic tradition suspicious of post-industrial spending and projects, a tradition so often reviled by followers of the Gospel of Axelrod, even though it is essential to the longterm health of the party in the Commonwealth.
More immediately, people who aren't comfortable with Deval's concept of politics, policy, or the Democratic Party now have a place to go. And those people are being pushed on one end, pull on the other. Tim Cahill's followers will form a pull to complement the push of Deval Patrick's followers. While those same Axelrodian acolytes practice the purge of the new believer, Tim Cahill's campaign will offer them a kinda-Democratic home. He will pull many people out of the Democratic Party that this chorus of new arbiters is pushing out.
In the long run, I don't think Independent Tim becomes governor, not least of all because he looks like a wuss for bailing on a primary fight. But I do think that when the votes are counted, people who supported him will have a much thinner connection to the Democratic Party, especially after the bitter fires of a campaign have burned them with vitriol. The debate within our party will narrow even more, the number of persuadable voters will rise and the window of opportunity for a competent Republican Party will be wider than any time in many years. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
Cahill lost to Arthur Powell simply because more of the State Democratic Committee knows Arthur because he writes a newsletter to the SDC most months, sometimes more than once a month, and is a work horse everyone on the SDC knows personally.
Nothing against Arthur, but I voted for Cahill based on other factors then how much SDC work Arthur did vs. Cahill.
Any politician who wants support from within the SDC needs to show up at the SDC and communicate, FYI. Deborah Sirotkin ButlerAmberPaw dot @aol.com
"Failure to plan is planning to fail." Proverb
His integrity is unquestioned. He turned out the most recent legislative pay raise and has played a leadership role in passage of the reforms demanded by Gov. Patrick, especially pension reform.
Prior to serving as a State Representative, he had extensive experience both in the public and private sectors. From his website (http://www.tomconroy.org):
"He worked in the public sector for nearly ten years, where he managed a refugee resettlement program in Southeast Asia for the U.S. State Department, conducted military budget analyses for a Washington think tank, helped write speeches for Senator Gary Hart (D-CO), and served as a foreign policy and national security assistant for Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)."
While it is highly unusual for a second term legislator (with limited name recognition outside his district) to run for statewide office, and Tom has not indicated interest in doing so, I can imagine him as Treasurer playing a major role in addressing the inefficiencies and corruption that have plagued our state.
I want to emphasize that I have not been in touch with Tom since Cahill's move. He has not encouraged this posting and is not aware of it.
Michael Bate
Web Developer, Photographer, long time political agitator
Cahill, a fiscal conservative, has told supporters he feels estranged from the Massachusetts Democratic party, whose tax and spend philosophy, he says, is more liberal than his own.
In other states, people with this point of view would be Republicans. We can argue over types of taxes, types of Government solutions, where cuts should be made and where there should be more spending. But if you don't believe in using Government to solve problems, why be a Democrat? Speaking here for myself only
No, they should not be Republicans as the Republicans have gone nuts.
My initial betting is on Patrick in a Patrick-Cahill-Baker three-way. With those two opponents, a lot of his very effective 2006 campaign organization will show up again, and 40% might be enough to win.
Also, how many hypo Cahill voters do you think pulled the lever for Deval in 2006? I obviously haven't seen polling on this, but my suspicion is that he draws a lot of 2006 Mihos voters: South Shore independents who don't like Deval but can't quite bring themselves to vote for a Republican (esp. an aristocratic one like Muffy).
If the economy remains in the tank or double dips (like 1980 & 1982) all incumbents will be vulnerable. You can't run a Cadillac on a Chevrolet budget, and GM can't either!
a legislature far more interested in protecting their job and personal interest
AL: R 58-42 (16 point spread) AK: R 49-41 (8 point spread) AR: D 55-41 (14 point spread) CA: R 56-39 (17 point spread) CO: D 56-41 (15 point spread) CT: R 63-35 (28 point spread) FL: R 52-45 (7 point spread) IL: D 50-40 (10 point spread) IA: D 54-44 (10 point spread) ME: D 38-30 (8 point spread) MD: D 53-46 (7 point spread) MI: D 56-42 (14 point spread) MN: R 47-46 (1 point spread) NV: R 48-44 (4 point spread) NY: D 69-29 (40 point spread) OH: D 60-37 (23 point spread) OR: D 51-43 (8 point spread) PA: D 60-40 (20 point spread) RI: R 51-49 (2 point spread) TX: R 39-30 (9 point spread) WI: D 53-45 (8 point spread) (Jim Doyle)
Soo... wrong? Yip. In addition to the Wisconsin caveat, he isn't lower than Maine, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon.
Not helpful? Yip. For one thing, to just consider D wins instead of all governor wins when talking "mandate" doesn't make sense. Of the 22 races, Patrick came in T-9. In terms of spread, Patrick came in T-4. To me, that's a strong win.
I find absolute total more useful than spread because all a spread says (as in Maine '06 or Vermont '10) is how divided the opposition is. Patrick had a divided opposition in 2006, and may have a divided opposition in 2010, depending on what you think of Cahill. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
As for totals -- they're meaningless. The spread matters. When the spread doesn't add up to 98+, you know there was a split race.
Interestingly, there were quite a few races that added up to 90- in 2006: AK, IL, MA, ME, and TX.
