Getting the Massachusetts Facts Straight – Washington Post profiles Charlie Baker’s Run for Govenor

Charle Baker, Repubican Candidate for Govenor, Massachusetts - images masstech.org

In a recentWashington Post Article, written by Chris Cillizza and entitled “Charlie Baker: Scott Brown, part deux?”, the author uses the erroneous claim that the Massachusetts Electorate is heavily Democrat. Further, he cites the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s website as follows:

The central challenge for Baker is how to win a race -- not a special election -- in a state that still heavily favors Democrats. (At the end of 2008 -- the latest information available at the state's election division -- there were 4.2 million registered Democrats, 2.1 million "unenrolled" or independents and just 1.6 million Republicans.)

The actual statistics available here show that Massachusetts is a heavily “independent” or unenrolled state, with 1.5 million registered Democrats, 500,000 registered Republicans and 2.1 million registered “unenrolled”.
Erroneously quoting the statistics of the Massachusetts electorate is nothing new, and is the reason why analysis of races within the state are often dubbed as “Safe Democrat”, with few if any pollsters even glancing at Massachusetts.
Additionally, Scott Brown’s win, in this article is touted as being “one in a lifetime”, the author citing sources as “political operatives”. The piece appears to be designed to at once compare Scott Brown to Charlie Baker (the rising star in the GOP factor), and to outline why it will be most problematic for Baker to succeed in the Gubernatorial election.

Scott Brown is no Charlie Baker and Charlie Baker is no Scott Brown. It is that simple. What the two men have in common is that they are both running as Republican’s in what was previously considered a Blue State (that is within the Commonwealth, on the outside looking in it is still considered “Safe Democrat”).

Baker is his own man and has his own style, one which is at once confident and at the same time approachable. Further, he does not, as far as anyone is aware, drives a pickup truck. Baker does, however, know a thing or two about running a large corporation, specifically one that involves health care. Baker was responsible for turning that organization around, and given the fact that the Commonwealth’s government is nothing more than a large corporate body (granted dysfunctional from this perspective), it would appear that Baker’s background makes him most suited for the position, specifically when compared to the Democrat-turned Independent Tim Cahill (part of the Patrick ‘Administration) and the current Governor.

No article on any Massachustts race would be complete unless the author brought up something salacious or ridiculous about any Republican candidate. The Big Dig, in this wise concerning how far Callizza researched this article – he went straight to the Boston Globe, citing an article written by Joan Vennochi(not known for being particularly unbiased), going into a twelve year old connection to the Weld and Celluci administrations. The problem for those who would prefer to see Duval Patrick keep his seat (those are journalists, pundits, and DNC operatives within and outside the Commonwealth), is timing. Twelve years is a long time in voters’ minds, and regardless of Party, when comparing candidates, and there is a difference between say, a decision made in office or a serious problem such as a conviction for armed robbery or prostitution, - the people here, on the ground, get it. Another factor not being considered is the fact that the Democrat Brand is damaged. The evidence is everywhere, but no more so than in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where almost every Congressional District is also in play and the Incumbents (all Democrats) are faced with the unusual burden of having to actually campaign against Republican(s), some incumbents doing so for the first time in decades and the outcome is looking grim. Therefore, Charlie Baker, who is, for all intents and purposes, squeaky clean (comparatively), also has the ability and background to run the Commonwealth. Additionally, Baker may find something past Republican Governors did not: a house that includes a few more Republican’s than in past years.

Finally, the war chest of candidates in the article bears some scrutiny. Although it is reasoned that the individual with the Cash wins, it is not always the case – one needs enough, obviously, to run the ads, and feed the ground troops who are knocking on doors, and making those calls, but one has to be realistic. It is not so much the money, but the individual who will win the race and the key will be the Brand and how well that brand, in Massachusetts, resonates with the Unenrolled. In the case of the Governor’s race, Baker, who also faces a challenger in a primary, is, from this perspective, better placed to best either Cahill or the current Occupant of the Governor’s office. It is numbers and those numbers are based on the make-up of the Commonwealth’s voters. Should one be inclined to make an early prediction, and why not: Patrick: 35% (based on Democrat Enrollment), Cahill, 7% (most independents end up in that bracket historically), and Baker takes the rest.