Patrick sweeps caucuses; Reilly says "What base?"

Reilly strategy may be valid... (0.00 / 0)

...as poor of a candidate he has been and as arrogant as he has to been to shun the activists attending the caucuses and convention, it may be a valid strategy.

Look at the numbers...it has been reported that about 35,000 activists attended the caucuses yesterday.  But about (based on '02 primary numbers) 750,000 voters will go to the polls in the September Primary.  These are the folks who will really decide.

Now the 1,000 or so people registered on this site may take exception to what I'm saying...but all I'm doing is following the numbers.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:19:08 AM CST

You're right, but... (4.00 / 2)

...those activists are likely to be "opinion leaders", people who are more informed than most, and influential in their social circles. In other words, many of those activists represent more than one vote in September and November. So, your "apples and oranges" observation cuts both ways.

I am under no illusion that the results are representative of general electoral strength -- yet. They are a snapshot representative of the current state of campaign energy and organization, and the picture is pretty darned clear.

That being said, this clearly means more to Patrick than it would to Reilly, for that exact reason. But Reilly would naturally be in better shape had he made a better showing yesterday.

---
Blue Mass. Group
Call Scott Brown's office at (617) 565-3170, or (202) 224-4543 to support a cap on carbon emissions: 350ppm by 2050
My Twitter feed

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:42:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

a measure of organizing (0.00 / 0)

Charley has it exactly right.  The caucuses aren't a measure of electoral strength, they're a measure of organizing strength.  And this is a surprise upset exactly because Reilly was supposed to have the support of the party and that mean he'd have a statewide field organization, of sorts, built-in.  But it turns out he didn't really try.  On the other hand, what we learned about Patrick (to a level that shocked most of us), is that Patrick has active organizers in every part of the state, in almost every city and town.

The goal of a field campaign is to get out the vote, and the caucuses show that Patrick has the kind of organization that will be able to do that.  Someone who attends a caucus is more involved than a typical voter, and has already spent more time and effort to support their candidate than most voters will all year.  The people who worked on caucus organizing, will likely also work on field organizing, and get out the vote for the primary.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:00:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe valid, but not good enough - I hope (0.00 / 0)

In the past year I have heard just about every possible negative about Deval Patrick's chances. He is too liberal; too new; his campaign is stumbling; he has no money; Massachusetts will never elect a black governor. He is appealing only to the Progressives - whomever they are - and leaving out the moderates.

And yet, he wins the caucuses over Tom Reilly - an establishment candidate who, on the face of things offers Democrats their most "electable" candidate.

Maybe the people who turned out yesterday know more than the pundits. Maybe they actually listen to Patrick's message and believe that he is more "electable" than the patrician Harshbarger, the fumbling O'Brien or the incredibly inept and unconvincing Reilly. (It does occur to me that if one is running for the highest political office in the Commonwealth, politics should be something he is pretty good at.)

Once his message gets out - and I believe it will - Patrick will be regarded as he should be: a fiscal moderate and a social progressive who thinks that we have larger problems to deal with than who marries whom.

I have heard Deval speak many times, and he is the only candidate in a very long time who has been able to capture the imagination of his audience time and time again. Is that enough? No. But he has passed every test so far. I have more hope that he will continue than reason to think he won't.

I also suspect the people of Massachusetts will react to their being the butt of conservative jokes. There might just be a backlash against the Republicans, and a move to the left rather than Healy Light - the Reilly tactic.

---

by: jethom19 @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:25:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

agreed (0.00 / 0)

I think this is an exteremely important election for progressives. We have a chance to these perennial losers, also known as Democratic "strategists", that they don't have the first clue as to what's electable. People, justifiably, don't like Beacon Hill politics-as-usual -- they want change -- and Republican governors have capitalized on that by presenting a distinct agenda, wrapped in the language of "reform". In a gubernatorial election between "reform" and "more of the same", "reform" will will everytime. But if we make the election between "conservative reform" and "progressive reform", the progressive will win. We must show that there is an alternative direction to politics-as-usual that doesn't involve cutting taxes, services, and local aid.

Somerville for Instant Runoff Voting

---

by: Greg @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:37:11 AM CST

Patrick vs Swan (0.00 / 0)

It is a sad day when the GOP nutures and promotes African American candidates and in a so called liberal state like Massachusetts the Democratic party machine can not champion a very qualified African American.

Believe me people are noticing that the GOP are promoting African Americans to high level position where as the Dem are not (except in the case of Ford and that is debateable)...

---

by: TrueBlueDem @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:50:31 AM CST

Reilly's Synapses Misfiring (0.00 / 0)

Tom Reilly seems to be exhibiting the early signs of dementia. His statements this week make no sense. He can't be that politically tone deaf. Senility is the only way explain it.

---

by: spyro @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:53:30 AM CST

Isn't this the case all over (0.00 / 0)

Reilly seems to be so concerned about getting the swing voters that he's forgotten he needs the base, too.

This is just a micro view of the macro Dem situation ... It is a little late for the Democratic party NOT to come to terms that the Democratic party is a patchwork of SPECIAL INTEREST and no way can we become the GOP which is 95% white and Christian.

---

by: TrueBlueDem @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:53:50 AM CST

Next step... (3.50 / 2)

Having a great field operation is a good start, but the Sept. 19th primary is going to be decided to a large extent as well by the fleeting impressions of infrequent voters.  And that's about TV.  And that's about money.

Keep the organization strong, but let's take the next step today together.  Every single Patrick person who has posted here should now post here:

https://secure.devalpatrick.com/contribute/direct/1

Let's give the papers something to really report on: a post-caucus fundraising bump that pushes Deval well over the $1m mark.  I challenge each and every Deval delegate to give $75 to the Patrick campaign - to match their "convention fee" paid to the state party.  And I challenge each and every Deval supporter who went to their caucus to support the Patrick slate to give $50.

Let's keep Tom Reilly's "bad news month" rolling to February!

---

by: SalemDemocrat @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:00:26 AM CST

When I as a candidate for delegate supporting D. Patrick knock (4.00 / 1)

on my neighbors' doors,make phone calls to people I haven't seen in a long time(friends of my elderly parents),get my brother to sift through the voter list to see if he knows anyone I have missed,get my cousin who lives 4 towns away to make a call to a high school friend's parents and the COMMON DENOMINATOR is "You aren't supporting Tom Reilly are you?" this cuts through generations and income groups.

Who is Reilly kidding?

  People have been paying attention to who the candidates are. People are hungry to discuss issues that affect them: energy,health care, the fact that their property taxes are soaring and with less service to show for it. People I talked to are
moving beyond the sound bites. We just have to keep talking to our friends and neighbors and get them involved in the process once again.

Democrats want to win, but at the same time win with a candidate who comes closest to their own views.

If the election were held yesterday in my hometown instead of the caucus based just on my  experience with the grassroots push it would have been a huge upset in my town for Patrick.

---

by: merbex @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:11:29 AM CST

It's true (0.00 / 0)

I wear my Deval Patrick button on my coat, and have had MANY people stop me on the street because of it.

About half say "I've heard of him, what's he about?"
The other half say "He's great, where can I get a button?"

And ALL say "Anyone but Reilly!"

He has done so many things to make democrats angry... and we've learned from experience that independents and centrists don't go for wishy-washy: they want someone willing to make a stand (even if they don't seem to care much what that stand is.)  And has Reilly EVER made a stand about anything?

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:02:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is Reilly really a Democrat??? (0.00 / 0)

From the Globe:

According to his strategists, Reilly, who holds a strong lead over Patrick in the early polls of Democratic primary voters, is striving to avoid catering to the liberal bloc of the state party and to special-interest groups, which dominate the convention. Instead, he wants to strike a more moderate image that will play well in the general election in November, particularly to unaligned voters.

-----------

Now wait a minute.  Who needs Reilly?  If we want these Republican policies, why not just keep Mitt Romney?  We have lived through a Republican campaign of disinvestment and privatization for our public schools.  Reilly is just offering four more years of the same old same old.

The people who come out to Democratic caucuses are **DEMOCRATS**.  The unenrolled and Republicans were turned away at the door.  I think there are enough Democrats in Massachusetts to elect a real Democrat, but the Republicans will vote for the real Republican every time.

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:46:07 AM CST

Independents want people with opinions (0.00 / 0)

As I said above, it's a political fallacy that centrist and indendent voters with swing opinions go for centrist and independent candidates with swing opinions.  The repugnicans got so much out of Kerry's supposed wishy washiness... so what makes Reilly think that such behavior is acceptable in this race?

Many people see Reilly as untrustworthy.  He is firmly emeshed in the MA democrat's "system," and when he claims not to be, no one believes him: they just think that he's a liar.  When he claims not to be a politician, they think he's not only a liar, but also delusional.  More than anything else he's done, that alone was the death knell for his campaign among moderates.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:08:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reality Check (0.00 / 0)

As a second-time caucus goer yesterday in Central-Western Massachusetts, I really felt the need to post something here.  I've always tried to be up to date and involved on what goes on in my small home town, but first started getting involved in politics during the 2004 presidential election -- not for  John Kerry or Howard Dean, but for Wesley Clark.

I am completely bowled over by the arrogance displayed by the Deval Patrick supporters here and on other blogs.  People -- I read somewhere that it's the lowest caucus turnout in the last three gubernatorial nominating convention caucuses!! Slates went unfilled all over the place!  That's nothing to be proud of!

Is anyone surprised that Deval won in Somerville and Cambridge? Because you shouldn't be.  I think what happened in Watertown was clearly a strongly coordinated move by Deval -- and rightly so -- but you can't even throw Reilly's daughter a bone and let her go to the convention for her father?  That just reeks of poor form to me.

Deval Patrick may have impressed many people yesterday, but the behavior of his supporters turned me off from him permanently.

---

by: frankkind @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:12:33 PM CST

Riiiight (0.00 / 0)

the behavior of his supporters turned me off from him permanently.

Yeah, I'm sure you were all for him before your candidate performed an embarrassing belly-flop thus inciting your sympathy for the new underdog.

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but don't put blame on your candidate's appointment for working hard to get the vote out.  Reilly didn't have a slate in many towns... and that is Patrick's fault how?

You want arrogance?  How about both candidates being asked if they would support the other if the other won the primary, and having Patrick's representative respond "of course" and having Reilly refuse to answer the question, but just repeating that he WOULD win.  Now THAT is arrogance.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:26:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"appointment" = "opponent" (0.00 / 0)

Sorry for the inane typo...

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:28:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ouch (0.00 / 0)

pmegan - your words cut like a hot knife through butter.

:)

Wayne

---

by: Since1792 @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 18:49:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, really (0.00 / 0)

Being disapointed that your candidate didn't do well is only natural... but making up figures to prove your point and then making vague and wild accusations about innapropriate behavior is just infantile.  The idea that Deval supporters being pleased their candidate won is grounds for disliking the candidate himself is utterly absurd.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 19:09:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Watertown (4.00 / 1)

Let me speak to this, since I was one of the ones organizing Watertown for Deval Patrick.  There are two points that I would like to make.  First of all, had the organizers for Reilly asked us to put Ms. Reilly on our slate when it was clear that Deval Patrick supporters were dominating the caucus (as it was early that morning), we would gladly have done so.  We were not out to embarass anyone.  We had no idea that she wanted to be a delegate, or, frankly, who she was.  They ran her as their odd-numbered delegate, the last possible slot, after they already knew they were out-manned by 100 votes.  We would have cut a deal if we had known, but by that point it was too late.

I am not going to apologize for trying to win the caucus for my favored candidate. The blame should fall squarely on the Reilly campaign for not doing the same. I know how hard we worked.  If his campaign had worked even half as hard, they would have crushed us.

And also, your suggestion that what we did here was a highly coordinated move by the campaign?  Wrong.  We did this on our own.  The campaign did no more for us than they did for any other town in Massachusetts.  There exists a group of us in town that, while we all like our neighbor Tom Reilly, think that Deval is the kind of special candidate that comes around far too infrequently. 

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 13:37:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That wasn't the reality in Watertown (0.00 / 0)

Speaking only about the Watertown caucus, which I attended as a Patrick supporter, I have to say that your impressions are entirely misplaced.

Regarding turnout, this was the first caucus I have attended. However, I spoke with a long-time member of the local Democratic town committee, and he stated that the turnout was higher than 4 years ago. Since Patrick supporters outnumbered Reilly supporters by a more than 3:1 margin, the only side to blame for not having an even higher turnout is the Reilly campaign. Since Patrick supporters turned out in force in all of the neighboring towns as well, I find your argument unconvincing that Patrick's organizing in Watertown was in some way "special". For instance, there were about 150 Patrick supporters in Watertown and about 300 in Arlington.

And about Reilly's daughter, let's make a few things clear. First, she is going to be at the convention as a family member - heck, she'll probably even be on stage at some point. She could even apply to be a delegate as a special "youth" representative. And I'd support her if she applied.

Second, Reilly's daughter ran as the "add-on" delegate. This meant that we had already voted for the male and female delegates, and then there was a long pause while votes were tallied before nominating the add-on (since one of the sides might have wanted to nominate one of the losing slate members to the add-on spot). During this wait, I expect that many people filled out their ballots for the add-on.

The Patrick side handed everyone a sheet of paper listing the slate of delegates. The Reilly side did not. (In fact, the Reilly side did not even field a full slate of delegates!) So no one even knew until the nominating process for the add-on that Reilly's daughter was running. By that point, it was too late. There was nothing malicious about it - in fact, I and others felt bad for her. It was a risky and ultimately poor decision by her side to nominate her at that point, in light of how outnumbered they were.

And by the way, despite the cramped quarters that we were all in (due to the large Patrick turnout), the only unruly individual at the caucus was a Reilly supporter who yelled at the town chair and called the fire marshal. The head representatives for each campaign were quite cordial and worked together to alleviate the overcrowding. Everyone else was quite polite and patient.

The simple fact of the matter is that Deval Patrick's campaign is building the kind of grass roots support that we need to elect a Democrat to office in November. That's what you saw at the caucuses yesterday. As a Democrat, I truly wish that Reilly's campaign were doing the same, because we'll need everyone working together to beat the Republicans.

---

by: BlueWatertown @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 13:58:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fire marshall? (0.00 / 0)

Wait, what's that about the Fire Marshall?  What's the story there?

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 14:04:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Too many Democrats! (0.00 / 0)

The room was only rated for about 100 people, but there were probably around 175 people in it (with additional people standing in the hallway). So someone was upset and called the fire department. They told us to keep an aisle clear and to conclude business as rapidly as possible.

---

by: BlueWatertown @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 14:13:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Photos of fire marshal, police at Watertown caucus (0.00 / 0)

I was at the Watertown caucus both as a participant -- I had been asked by Steve Owens to come and support the Deval slate -- and covering it for H2otown.info, the Watertown metroblog that I run.

I have photos of the packed room and the arrival of firefighters and police.  The event wasn't shut down -- I think people were just ordered to get away from the exits.

Packed caucus room

Line to caucus stretches down the block

Fire captain arrives

General coverage of the caucus

There are more photos, too, at H2otown.info. 

As a few people said upthread, it was hard to find out who was on the Reilly slate of delegates.  I never even heard about Ms. Reilly until the next day, even though I was in the room.  Like Steve I would have had no problem with making room for her as a nice gesture.  Maybe if they had been a little more organized and asked earlier they would have gotten what they wanted.

Lisa Williams H2otown, the Watertown, MA metroblog

---

by: H2otown @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 17:08:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope, not "add-on" (0.00 / 0)

An add-on delegate is a someone who does not get elected delegate at the caucus, but gets added on later, through a different process to create certain kinds of balance at the convention.  For example, for age balance, there are "youth add-on delegate" slots, open to people 35 and under to apply for.  There are also disability and racial minority add-on delegates.

Regular elected delegates are gender balanced, so there's a separate election for male and female.  If you have an odd number to elect, that means you have one more slot, called "either gender", that you elect after the male and female elections.  It's that odd "either gender" slot that Reilly's daughter ran for.  It's not an add-on, it's an elected delegate slot just like the ones elected earlier at the same caucus.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 16:14:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

You're right, I misspoke. Reilly's daughter was running for the "open/either gender" delegate slot. But the Patrick slate nominated a strong candidate for that slot as well (an elected member of the local Democratic town committee), so it would have been hard to vote against him. And he won by a similar wide margin as the other delegates.

---

by: BlueWatertown @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 16:25:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

unreality check (0.00 / 0)

Huh?  What arrogance?  Arrogance is assuming you don't even need to try - which was apparently the Reilly campaign's attitude towards the caucuses.  Of the towns and wards Reilly actually competed in, they managed to win a good number.  But then there's that other, apparently much larger set of towns and wards, where there was no Reilly presence whatsoever.  They didn't organize, they didn't get out the vote, they didn't even send signature collectors.  That's arrogance.  And it backfired.

What slates went unfilled all over the place?  I don't know of any slates going unfilled, yet.  Now, I'm sure it happened - it happens every year - but until we see some actual numbers on how much it happened this year, I'm very skeptical that it was particularly worse this year than most.  And even if it was, how is that the fault of the acitivists who organized for Deval Patrick and did fill hundreds of slates in places where Reilly people were nowhere to be seen?

I fully expected Deval Patrick to sweep all or most of Cambridge and Somerville.  The mayors and city committees were all supporting Patrick.  I don't think anyone expressed great surprise about that.  The surprising thing is that Patrick also swept Lexington, Arlington, Watertown, Hingham, Norton, Falmouth, Wayland, Sudbury, Gloucester, Rockport, ... ... ... so many places we really didn't expect to win.  And 40% of Boston!

It is indeed a big surprise.  A couple of months ago, we expected a struggle to get 15% - which practically means more like 30% because we couldn't count on much support from ex-officio delegates.  A week ago it was pretty clear we were organizing well enough, and had enough cities like Cambridge and Somerville likely locked up, that 15% would not be a big problem unless we fell apart and didn't do our GOTV well.  But 50% and the party endorsement still seemed like a long-shot hope.  Now, the day after most of the caucuses, it looks like we've got a stronger change at 50% than Reilly does.  It's not a sure thing, but wow.  Yes, it is a surprise.

I was going to say something about how wrong you are about Watertown, too, but some other people who were actually there already did that.  I'll add one more thing: Voting for Reilly's daughter at the point when she was nominated, would have meant voting against someone from the Deval Patrick side who had a lot of support, and I've spoke to a couple of people from Watertown who told me they felt bad not voting Reilly's daughter in, but they would've felt worse not voting for their candidate, who they also thought really ought to get elected.

So, what exactly is the behavior that supposedly turned you off?  I don't get it.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 16:11:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Arrogance?? (0.00 / 0)

I think there is a difference between arrogance and jubilation. Of course Patrick's supporters were happy - and surprised. None of us expected this sort of victory.

As to arrogance, I am not sure how you can say arrogance and not Tom Reilly and his campaign in the same breath.

I would point out that he seems to think that he can win the office without the help of his party. That he can neatly divide the party into "progressives" moderates and Republican wannabees, and pit one against the other - well the progressives against the latter two anyway.

This is something Deval has never done, and time and again has spoken against. Patrick is running as a Democrat. Reilly just wants his name on the ballot and needs a place to put it.

Let's not talk about arrogance.

---

by: jethom19 @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 16:11:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Turn the tables (0.00 / 0)

I think if the tables had been turned yesterday, and that Reilly had the same kind of success that Patrick did, that the Reilly camp would definitely be trumpeting it as a "statement".

The fact of the matter is that in towns where they were well organized (such as here in Lowell), Reilly still did very well. The problem is that they failed (for whatever reason) to organize effectively in more than a handful of towns/cities. Or so it would seem.

The bottom line for the two campaigns, in my layman's view, is this:

Reilly:
Must not rely soley on his political machine to hand him the Democratic nomination in June. He needs to re-evaluate his "centrist" strategy and decide whether it's going to be effective heading into the convention. Whether this will be enough to win back the masses he's already alienated (and those who've been out of the loop thus far) remains to be seen.

Patrick:
Must keep the momentum. Unexpected success at the caucuses needs to lead to an all-out campaign to build name recognition beyond the "early adopters" -- especially among voters who are just tuning in to the race, as well as sowing the seeds among independent voters. Word-of-mouth campaigning now can undercut a lot of the $$ and TV glitz we can expect closer to the primary. It's never too early. Keep focusing on the issues, and don't do anything stupid.

There's a lot a work ahead for both candidates....

---

by: Tim Little @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 17:03:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The point isn't Deval - it is us (3.00 / 1)

I spent the six weeks before the last presidential election volunteering to work for ACT in Cleveland. Like thousands of others I decided that it was important to get off my ass and get to work. What was born of the Dean effort was supplemented by labor (SEIU in particular), and we organized for the election outside of the party structure. It was progressives finding new vehicles to work, raise money, and move an agenda forward.

We didn't win, but we didn't go away either. The right spent decades building organization from the ground up, building on a base of extremely committed Christian Fundamentalists and fed with a never ending stream of cash. They moved the agenda (God they made people believe Clinton was on the left)and they marginalized progressives.

We don't have the luxury of time - or the advantage of a church infrastructure, but what we do have is damned good organizers, the ability raise money that is not beholden to a machine, and a vein of people who want to get involved. At the outset we seem like insurgents, but in Massachusetts anyhow, the chasm between us and the "regular Democrats" (that Reilly thought would materialize for him) isn't so great.

What happened yesterday was organizing, with all of it's grind it out, do the shitwork of making calls, Knocking on doors, identifying supporters, getting them out to vote. It ain't sexy, and it ain't all that hard - you just have to find people committed to do it.

The MOST SERIOUS MISTAKE WE COULD MAKE NOW is to view ourselves as out of the ordinary, or as Reilly tried to desribe us as "the liberal activists". That is how the right has marginalized us in national politics. What Deval is saying is not something any of my neighbors wouldn't hear or respond to. The problem comes when we don't take the time to tell them.

Listening to the media you would think that the biggest mistake Reilly made last week was blundering in his choice of running mates, but does anyone really think that made any real difference yesterday? Reilly's big mistake last week was waking up and realizing that he had no real field organization and that he was going to get his head handed to him in the caucuses. Come on, since when does the front runner start saying "all I want to do is get my 15%" It's when he knows he is going to loose.

---

by: EdinArlington @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 15:48:11 PM CST

Bashing the party (0.00 / 0)

This discussion is unbelievable. I'm so totally inspired by everyone here.

I am also stunned at how Reilly can thumb his nose at party activists, thumb his nose at grassroots organizing, and dismiss this entire process so easily. What really kills me is that he has the money to put in place a grassroots team. He could do it. Either he chooses not to, or the team he has can't get anyone to really support their man. Whichever one it is, this just can't be good for his campaign.

What's truly amazing is that Reilly really did get trounced by a guy who most of the state still hasn't heard of. That's what's truly amazing. It seems to me that people who know who Deval is choose him over Reilly by a wide margin. Now all Deval has to do is reach the rest of the state.

They have to start reaching the 750,000 voters now. But this is a pretty good start.

I just don't get how Reilly thinks that bashing the party faithful and bashing the party process is somehow an effective way to get elected. I've been saying all week that this St. Fleur thing was nice for Deval and for Tim Murray, but terrible for the Democratic party. And now Reilly is just killing the party left and right. He's become an embarassment.

---

by: Qane @ Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 22:02:34 PM CST

My 2 cents: As a voter and an activist when a candidiate ignores (0.00 / 0)

a process he or she does so at great peril.

  People translate that into:

  "If they cannot be bothered to do THIS process what does that say about their future job performance?"

"If they can't work hard to get themselves elected will they work hard for me?"

"By blaming others for their poor showing in a process,by engaging in labeling(just liberals,far-leftists)what does that say about their personal integrity,their willingness to accept responsibility?"

"Can I TRUST this person?"

This may be all subliminal but people take all of the news about candidates and they digest it and store it away for future reference sometimes without being fully aware that that is what they are doing.

An established process that people are familiar with all aids in a voter's decision making.

Caucus' serve a purpose. Gathering signatures serve a purpose. Establishing and promoting a grassroots effort SERVES a PURPOSE.

Anyone that ignores that better have a  better system, a compelling reason and outstanding communication skills.

I certainly DO NOT see that in Tom Reilly.

---

by: merbex @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:05:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]