Democrats – Cannot Help Every Incumbent - Party looking to save Least Vulnerable – Where does that leave Frank, Neal, McGovern and Tsongas?

Soon to be unemployed? Photo Boston Globe - Eight of the 10 MA Congressional Reps with Gov. Deval Patrick (also on the retirement train)

The Democrats believe that they may have a plan to save the house, or at least a portion of their members as outlined in an articlevia the Oakland Tribune (Inside the Bay Area’s) One has to understand that in the interest of moral, those that are the powers that be, must put on good face and continue to say “Democrats Won’t Lose the House” while looking less certain by the second.

According to this article, Democrats are going to assess which party members are most vulnerable, and abandon them completely in favor of easier pickups, perhaps a weak Republican candidate or an incumbent with weak opposition. Unfortunately, this is going to leave a lot of their top leaders out of luck, or perhaps they feel that the 2 to 3 million in cash is going to be enough to save: Pelosi, Frank and Rangel’s protégé Richard Neal.

What has happened, especially in Massachusetts, and one can suspect elsewhere, is that the tactics have changed for the RNC. They are, in a word, campaigning like Democrats, only they have more money, and a better ground game – one that includes independents as well as Democrats who are so fed up with the economy that they are willing to “take back their party” by voting for a Republican.
Therefore, with the :30 second commercials (radio and television), one not only has flyers in the mail, one also has real live volunteers calling their houses (along with those robocalls) and best of all, the troops are knocking on doors. This is something new for the average Republican in Massachusetts – who at first knock looks warily out the window, making sure that some Religious Group hasn’t found their way to their doorstep!

Herein lays the problem – there are incumbents in districts who are, on pundit and analyst paper (or web) completely safe. Therefore, why funnel money into say – Massachustts? Surely Barney Frank, Richard Neal, Nikki Tsongas, John Tierney and all 9 of the incumbents are “safe Democrat”. The 10th seat is open and being Massachusetts, it follows, should go to the Democrat running against what-ever Republican is on the ballot. That was pre-2008 think – This is 2010. Simply stated, aside from those venerable institutions that have long standing intelligence on the ground (and can’t see the forest through the trees) the Democrats somehow really believe that these seats are safe, or they are prepared to lose them (based on internal polls). They have thrown a proverbial dog a bone, so to speak – In the Hampden Second, it was understood by media reports, that Richard Neal was going to get help from the most popular Democrat alive: Bill Clinton. The question remains, can even Bill Clinton save Neal? Or would it be a wasted trip?

When one goes to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s website, one can find the candidates on the primary ballots, both Democrat and Republican. The story here: there are more competitive Republican primaries than Democrat primaries, with the exception of the 4th District. In the 4th District, Barney Frank (Incumbent – Democrat) faces one Rachel Brown (D).

What most political parties bank on during primaries is twofold, the individual state and local committees support and advertising (i.e. favorable media coverage or actual advertisements be it direct mail, electronic or print.) Herein lays the problem: Local city and town committee may endorse a candidate, but the rank and file (regardless of party) most likely cannot name who is on that particular committee. The candidate that relies solely on committee endorsement laurels, so to speak, is in huge trouble – for two reasons: 1) the ordinary Democrat or Republican voter does not pay attention or missed the 2 paragraph note on page 35 of the local paper announcing that endorsement, or they are desperately seeking alternatives due to the current economic climate.

Therefore, this election is going to go down in history as a “free for all” – basically it is up for grabs, regardless of party, primary and or general outcome of both. It is, for lack of a better word, the taxpayers revenge about to be visited upon anyone that individual feels will not work, or has not worked for their personal best interest. Unfortunately, the majority of those politicians’s fall under the Democrat mantle.

In reviewing the latest date from Real Clear Politics, a website that covers all political races, and uses a methodology that combines all pollsters for any given race, it appears that as time progresses, it appears that “chaos” rules the day. (Note: There have been no polls on any of the Massachusetts Congressional, other than internal polls taken by mostly Democrats (see Richard Neal’s Bill Clinton Star Power tour), showing an uphill battle for the first time in decades. One can assume that there are other states where it is similar, including California. For example: the map here depicts the current races across the country that are deemed competitive or “safe”. At present, the Republicans have 206 seats, the Democrats 194, with 35 seats considered “toss ups”. Of those represented, the most conspicuously absent is the CA8th district, or the district that is home to one Nancy Pelosi. In addition they have two Massachusetts Seats listed, one the 10th is open, and considered a tossup – the other, the Mass 5th, is considered “Safe Democrat”. Both of those seats are assumed safe, based on the Obama won theory, or the past voting history of the district. This methodology, without polls, cannot be considered viable, regardless of the “political intelligence” on the ground (mostly Democrat and Republican operatives), one must look to the climate overall.

The latest unemployment figures are now at 9.6% and the President’s Approval has dropped to 42% and the taxpayers are about to bail out yet another bank in Afghanistan (NYTimes), although the White House is denying the later, when has the nation heard that before?

Given the aforementioned, even with pounds of cash (or what is left of the pounds of cash), party star power, and or the SEIU out in force, the face of the Congress and the Senate, will change dramatically this November - with a freshman crop of Senators and Congressional Representatives that may not necessarily have graduated from Yale or Harvard, may not be lawyers, but businessmen, doctors, and regular men and woman who were so disgusted with the direction this country has taken that they’ve dropped lucrative careers, put their lives on hold and went forth as patriots to campaign for seats in both Houses. It is what the founding fathers envisioned, and will be a refreshing change of pace. One can also expect the local newspapers will all endorse the Incumbent running due to their “experience” and the “ability to bring dollars to the various districts”. Missing the point entirely that these two “pluses” by editorial standards, are nothing more than “minuses” in the minds of “today’s voter”.

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.

Timothy Cahill, MA State Treasurer, Leaves Democrat Party, May Run as Independent Against Deval Patrick

State Tresurer Timonthy Cahill Leaving Democrat Party - photo: Boston Globe

Timothy Cahill the current Massachusetts State Treasurerplans to leave the Democrat Party this week, according to the Boston Globe. Cahill, who is apparently fed up with the tax and spend party policy, will most likely run as an independent against Governor Duvall Patrick. Patrick, who also faces a challenge from Republican Christie Mihos, has been losing popularity as the State's financial woes continue unabated. It is not so much that Massachusetts differs from other states in lacking funds, rather it is some of the programs that the state has initiated that are making Patrick’s chances of reelection slim to nothing. Mandated benefits added to the State’s Universal Health Care (Commonwealth Care) program, after Republican Mitt Romney left the Governor’s office to campaign for the 2008 Presidential race, has brought the state to its fiscal knees; corruption on Beacon Hill continues to run rampant, the Turnpike authority continues to make the news, and the Entitlement programs have completely run amok.

It is no wonder that Cahill, as State Treasurer, wants out prior to the 2009 election. In the past few months, the following stories broke around the Bay State: "Massachusetts spends $2 Million per month Housing Homeless", "Massachusetts Welfare Recipients Provided Cars at Taxpayer Expenses" (includes insurance and Triple A), along with the constant drumbeat from the Beacon Hill regarding the need to raise the State Sales Tax, (in order to cover expenses). The Sales Tax was signed into law by Governor Patrick on June 29th with the budget which included cuts to municipalities and the increase of 25% in the State Sales Tax (effective August 1st).

Cahill also had additional struggles within the party, as the Party refused to give him delegate status at the National Convention. His crime, refusing to chose between Clinton and Obama. Recall that Massachusetts Democrats, outside of higher profile Elected Officials, such as Kennedy, Kerry and Barney Frank, endorsed Clinton who carried the State by a substantial margin. The animosity among grassroots Democrats over the treatment of Clinton by the national party is still a sore point with the rank and file in Massachusetts.

One would think, should Cahill run, it would set the stage for a three-way race, that would, generally split the vote three ways with the end result a Patrick second term. This is of course, unless Democrats as a whole are switching parties just like Cahill (the untold story), and moving either to a Republican and or “unenrolled” status. This would make it a race between Mihos and Cahill. Any campaign manager looking for a lock in on the state (and or individual districts), should begin checking the individual registrars offices in each municipalities to see just how many Democrats are jumping ship on a monthly basis, since February of 2009. (400 here, 500 there, etc.) Cahill may understand this more than anyone, and should he have the pulse of the State’s electorate, it is a smart move indeed.

Polls Indicate Problems for Embattled Democrats Nationwide

It may still be early to project the outcome of the 2010 general election, yet there appears to be a certain change in the wind according to polls taken across the country. A May 20th Quinnipiac Polls gives Republican Christopher Christie a substantial lead over Democrat Governor Corzine by a 45-38 margin. In New York, The Marist Poll wonders if Paterson’s approval ratings have a bottom. Newly announced, (papers filed yesterday) New York Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rick Lazio, bests Paterson in the another Marist Poll by 3 points. In Massachusetts, incumbent Governor Deval Patrick, has an approval rating only slightly higher than Patterson’s. Christie Mihos, a fiscal conservative, is the first Republican to announce a run against Patrick.

In Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd, is anxiously waiting for results from the latest Quinnipiac poll due out today. The last poll indicated a 33% approval rating, with Republican, Rob Simmons besting Dodd in early polling. In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, could be easily replaced – the latest poll by Mason-Dixon shows that Reid has a 38% approval rating. Currently, his republican opposition is anti-tax, conservative Sharron Angle.

The current trend towards embattled Democrat Incumbents, most of whom mentioned here are rather high-profile, however, that said, the economy will be the driving factor in the 2010 race. With a Legislature controlled by the Democrat party since 2006, and the White House spending faster than money can be printed, those independents that bought the “middle class tax cut” and make up the majority of the electorate, will push the line in Vegas , which, in all likelihood, stands to favor a Republican resurgence.

Deval Patrick (D-MA) Vows to Veto Tax Increase After Christy Mihos Announces Candidacy for Governor’s Race.

Mihos and Patrick 2006 - image Boston Globe

Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, has suddenly decided he’s met a tax increase he doesn’t like – a 25% increase in the Mass. State sales tax. Patrick has sent a letter to the legislature informing them of his decision to Veto and asking, instead, for them to review his proposed revenue streams, which include an increase in the state gas tax, a tax on soda, candy, an increase in vehicle registration fees, an increase in the state’s hotel tax, an increase in the state meal tax, a bottle tax on non-carbonated beverages and a business busting telecommunications tax.
Patrick, whose approval rating is hovering at at 33% (or roughly the amount of voters registered as Democrats in Massachusetts – source Mass. Secretary of State), has this stunning anti-tax conversion immediately following the annoucment by Christy Mihos, that he would campaign against Patrick in 2010, as a Republican.
Mihos, who ran as an independent in the 2006 election against Deval Patrick and Kerry Healy, received approximately 7% of the vote in a 3-way race. 2006 was a year filled with “Hope and Change”, the Bay State was energized by Patrick’s message of “Yes, We Can”, while Healy ran a strictly negative campaign, painting Patrick as a Tax and Spend Democrat, a message that fell on deaf ears (additionally, Massachusetts, although allegedly enlightened, would not, in all probability, put a woman in the Governor’s office (see Jane Swift, only woman ever to hold the office, was not voted into the office, rather, as Lt. Governor, filled the vacancy left by Cellcuci who was named Ambassador to Canada). That left Mihos who was out-campaigned by both major political parties. That was then, this is now.

Mihos, running as a Republican changes the landscape a bit, and although it is a tad early in the 2010 election cycle (State Papers are not even available yet for the 2010 races), Mihos, a businessman with a sound fiscal plan for Bay State, appears to be a “breath of fresh air” compared to Patrick – Mihos' website has yet to be updated to reflect his change in Party status, however, his platform reads like a combination of Republican-Libertarian ideals that will resonate with the majority of the voters – Republicans’ (with the exception of those values voters who may or may not recoil from his pro-choice stance), Libertarians, and those Independents (51%) who are most likely to decide this next election.

As 2010 draws nearer, and more candidates emerge for the Governor’s seat, be they Republican, Independent, Libertarian or even Democrat, one can bet the house that Patrick may end up sounding more like Ronald Regan, than a super-liberal from Chicago (Yes - He Is!) – his problem – he will never regain the trust or vote of the Republican, Liberation and Independent minded voters and might likely alienate the State Democrats who would vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if he had a (D) next to his name on a ballot.