Talking Politics

Shocker: Mitt Romney actually served as Governor of Massachusetts! David Bernstein talks Romney on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show

Carly Carioli — Fri, 25 May 2012 00:07:00 GMT

It's true! You'd never know if from the campaign trail, but WILLARD MITT ROMNEY was actually governor of Massachusetts for a number of years, a position he obtained by making a series of arguments to voters -- Bain Capital, business leadership, etc -- that are annoyingly similar to the ones he's made as an unsuccessful candidate for president. Then, once he got to be governor, he pretty much failed to do everything he said. Also, Romneycare, etc.

Many of you reading this will remember all of this happening. The rest of the country is just catching on. And as the guy who had the misfortune of having to cover Romney during those years, our own DAVID BERNSTEIN knows where Romney's bodies are buried. Which is why the national media is now calling. Tonight, Mr. Bernstein made his MSNBC debut on Al Sharpton's show to deliver the good. Let's go to the tape:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Aging Senate -- Boomers Vs. Xers

David S. Bernstein — Thu, 24 May 2012 16:00:00 GMT

My smarty-pants brother recently wrote at Salon that the average age of members of the United States Senate is rising, not so much because Senators hang around getting re-elected forever more than they used to, but because newly-elected Senators are older now than used to be the case. In additional commentary at his blog he ponders why this may be, but has no strong answer.

To which I say what I always say about everything in American society: it's the Baby Boomers who have taken over everything and won't let go -- and us Gen-Xers who have long since accepted that and no longer try to get anything.

This is obviously a vast, gross oversimplification for why people come to run for high office and how voters come to choose among those candidates. But it's true.

Jon notes that two surprise recent primary winners, now likely to win Senate seats, were both born in 1951. Pure Boomers. He says that the 10 new Senators in 2006 had an average age of 54, and in 2008 was 56. This means they were all born around 1952; pure Boomers. He goes on to list a whole bunch of major candidates this year, who will all between the age of 59 and 67 in January 2013 -- hey, that means they were born between 1945 and 1953. What generation would that be do you suppose?

And look, it wasn't always that way. The big Senate class elected in November 1994 were, on average, a little under 49 years old. That would put their average year of birth in, let's see... oh, look at that, 1946, the beginning of the Baby Boom.

Baby Boomers have run everything, so they have been the ones in positions of success to run for US Senate; and they are the biggest batch of people, so they get to decide who to elect -- which is Boomers like themselves, because Boomers are so great.

And who would be the younger candidates who would challenge this? Gen-Xers. And I'm very sorry, but we've been way too busy for the past 30 years or so buying and re-buying our favorite music, movies, and video games on new technologies and platforms to have time for all this "voting" nonsense -- let alone running for office.

But not to worry! The minimum age for joining the US Senate is 30. The eager-beaver get-up-and-go Millennial Generation is generally considered to have begun with those born in 1981. That makes this the first Millennial-eligible Senate election; of course, only the first cusp of them make the cut yet, and as a generation they don't yet vote in numbers to challenge the Boomers, so we won't start to see the effects very soon.

But we will. As the Boomers eventually give way in the coming years, it will be these Millennials taking their place -- not us Gen-Xers. So that will start to radically change the age demographics of the Senate -- as it is already changing the demographics of the US House, where the Millennials have already started to arrive (and the Gen-Xers have barely made a mark).

It's the Boomers. It's always the Boomers.

Tie Game

David S. Bernstein — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:18:00 GMT

The new Suffolk poll released late last night shows the US Senate race in Massachusetts as effectively dead-even, with Scott Brown at 48% and Elizabeth Warren at 47%. This is a big improvement for Warren over Suffolk's February poll, which had Brown ahead 49%-40%.

I'm going to make two quick arguments here: that the Cherokee-heritage story has helped Warren; and that the poll actually holds some good news for Brown.

First though, an overview analysis. When Suffolk, and a couple of other polls around the same time, showed Brown with a lead, I suspected that it was a little misleading. It stood to reason that the bulk of the undecided voters in those polls were generally Democratic-voting people, who don't dislike Brown enough to be willing to say flat-out that they plan to vote for the opposing Democrat who they knew little or nothing about. As they have learned enough about Warren in the past three months -- bear in mind she's been running positive ads as well as campaiging -- they quickly became comfortable saying (for now) that they will vote for her.

I think that bears out with the Suffolk poll's finding that Brown leads Marissa DeFranco -- essentially an unknown Democrat -- 49%-28%, with 22% undecided. Same support for Brown, while a large number of generally Democratic-leaning voters aren't quite willing to commit to the non-name "anyone-but Scotto."

So, to my point above about Warren. Clearly she hasn't been hurt significantly by the month-long Cherokee storyline. But I would suggest that the story has actually helped Warren introduce herself to those cautious Democratic-leaning voters.

Consider: the personal narrative Warren wants to spin is that she comes from an ordinary, unprivileged Oklahoma upbringing; rose to great success and prominence, as a Harvard Law professor; and then turned her efforts to fighting in Washington for working families against big Wall Street interests.

The Cherokee-heritage story has pretty damned effectively solidified the first two legs of that tripod in voters' minds, hasn't it? And the campaign has been hammering home the third through ads like the one with Obama praising her work.

So, if those voters aren't buying the negative implications of the Cherokee stories -- and the Suffolk poll suggests that, other than predisposed Brown voters, they aren't -- they are actually heading into the summer with the prefered Warren personal narrative quite well established.

I would note as a caveat that the story could create problems later, if other stories about Warren seem to fit with it to form some pattern of troubling behavior.

Now to the good news for Brown. In brief: voters are apt to see him as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The most striking thing in the new poll compared with the one from February is the burst in voter optimism. In February, 48% said that Massachusetts is on the "right track," and 39% said "wrong track." In the new poll, that's improved to 61%-28%.

Unsurprisingly, the poll shows a corresponding boost in voters' opinions about Deval Patrick (now 62%-32% favorable/unfavorable, up from 54%-37%) and Barack Obama (62%-32%, from 54%-38%).

And by the way, compare those numbers to the last Suffolk poll before Scott Brown was elected in January 2010. Back then, the right track/wrong track was deeply negative, at 33%-55%, while Patrick's favorable/unfavorable was 41%-50%, and Obama's was 55%-35%. (Patrick and Obama's job approval ratings were considerably lower still.)

I think it's fair to surmise that, for most Massachusetts voters -- especially those persuadable ones in the middle -- the national Republians are not receiving a similar boost in popularity since the 2010 Brown election. Quite the opposite: Republicans are seen more as obstacles to the progress being made by Democrats like Patrick and Obama.

That has certainly rubbed off on Mitt Romney. Back in that January 2010 poll, more Massachusetts voters viewed Romney favorably than unfavorably, 49% to 43%. By this February's Suffolk poll, that had dropped to 41%-47%. In the new poll, it's 36%-54%.

But not Scotto. In January 2010 his favorable/unfavorable split was 57%-19%; in February 2012 it was 52%-28%, and in May 2012 it's 58%-28%.

It seems to me that Massachusetts voters at the moment feel that what they have in place right now is working, and that is, so far, holding ground against voters' naturally inclination toward voting for a Democratic candidate like Warren.

Assuming people in the Commonwealth continue to feel good about things over the coming months, the big battle this fall will be fought primarily on these two fronts: 1) is Brown part of the Republican obstacle to staying on the right track, or part of the status quo making that progress; and 2) is Elizabeth Warren a risky unknown to throw into that working status quo, or someone well-suited to keep the Democrats going on the right track.

So far, it seems that both are winning their positive battles. That is, Brown is successfully defending on front #1, and Warren is successfully defending on front #2. But the real offensive firepower has yet to let loose, and when it does we'll see who can better withstand it.

Dems Say Brown-Warren Is Tied

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 22 May 2012 21:15:00 GMT

Suffolk University is releasing a poll on the Massachusetts US Senate race tomorrow, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) just released its own poll, taken May 8-10 of likely voters, showing the race tied, 46%-46%.

The Elizabeth Warren camp tends to think that Suffolk skews to Scott Brown -- they had him ahead 49%-40% in February. You gotta figure that, if the new poll tomorrow is as bad or even worse, the DSCC would almost be forced to go public with this tie-game poll to counter the panic. Better to release it first, which looks more credible now than it would in response to someone else's poll.

That's my theory, anyway. Regardless, the DSCC poll shows a dead heat. They did not release favorable/unfavorable ratings for the candidates.

Still Seeking The GOP Women

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:00 GMT

There are a couple of interesting primaries today for those who share my interest in women GOP candidates.

But first, let me catch up, because I didn't update last week on this. There was a major plus for those interested in seeing more Republican women in high elected office -- in a surprise, Deb Fischer won the GOP Senate primary in Nebraska, likely meaning that she will become a US Senator. This would give Republicans at least four women in the Senate, from their current five.

As an aside, her Democratic opponent is Bob Kerrey, making this the Kerrey-Fischer election. Make your own Princess Leia joke here.

Not so much good news on the House of Representatives front, however. Of the 9 congressional districts with primaries last Tuesday, only one resulted in a woman GOP nominee -- Delinda Morgan, running against (brief) incumbent Suzanne Bonamici in a pretty solidly Democratic district.

That brings the grand total to 12 women nominated in 105 districts so far: 5 incumbents, 6 challenging incumbent Democrats, and 1 seeking an open Republican seat. That last is Susan Brooks in Indiana; the one challenger with a decent chance is Jackie Walorski, also in Indiana.

Today, two more states hold primaries, with 10 districts at stake. Only two Republican women are on those ballots, but as I hinted above they're both of interest.

In Arkansas, Beth Anne Rankin is running for the open seat where she failed to beat Democrat Mike Ross in 2010. The district has been redrawn, and should be competitive. A recent poll suggests that Rankin will lose the GOP primary to Tom Cotton, but I don't know how accurate that is.

In Kentucky, state representative Alecia Webb-Edgington is a serious contender in the primary for an open Republican seat, to replace Geoff Davis. As I understand it from afar, Webb-Edgington is seen as something of the establishment choice in the primary, facing Thomas Massie, who is backed by Ron Paul and the Club for Growth; and social-conservative hard-liner Gary Moore.

[Update: Ranking and Webb-Edgington both lost their primaries.]

Next week brings us the Texas primaries, in 36 districts; Texas, with just one woman among its 23 current Republican US House members (Kay Granger), is one of the major obstacles to anything resembling gender-parity for the party. With several brand-new districts and open seats, there's a chance to change that; I'll take a closer look later.

State Senate Challengers Update

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:24:00 GMT

With one week to complete the ballot-qualification process, a total of 54 candidates had secured ballot positions in the 40 state senate districts as of yesterday afternoon. That includes 30 incumbents; another 7 incumbents who are running for re-election (as far as I know) have not yet gotten around to turning in their signatures: Robert Hedlund, Brian Joyce, Michael Knapik, Mark Montigny, Therese Murray, Bruce Tarr, and James Timilty.

Of the 24 non-incumbents who have qualified, 12 are in the three open-seat districts of Steven Baddour, Fred Berry, and Susan Fargo. In the 1st Essex, which figures to be most competitive in the general election, two Republicans are in: Sam Meas and Shaun Toohey. The GOP has two in the 3rd Middlesex also: Greg Howes and Sandi Martinez. There may be no Republican in the 2nd Essex race, as Richard Jolitz has not qualified and his nascent campaign does not appear to be active.

For the Democrats, Timothy Coco, Kathleen Ives, and William Manzi have qualified in the 1st Essex. Mary-Ellen Manning is the only qualifier so far in the 2nd Essex, but I'm sure others are coming. And in the 3rd Middlesex Joseph Kearns-Goodwin is the only one still missing, while Michael Barrett, Alexander Buck, Mara Dolan, and Joe Mullen are in.

So, if you're doing the math, we so far have 12 official challengers to the 37 state senate incumbents seeking re-election. Two are Democrats challenging Republicans: Genevieve Davis and Steve May, both going after Robert Hedlund. Two others are Democrats challenging Democrats: David Meade vs. Michael Rodrigues, and Melvin Edwards vs. James Welch.

That leaves 8 Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents. They are Jeffrey Bailey (James Timilty), James Buba (Eileen Donoghue), Dean Cavaretta (Jamie Eldridge), Gerry Dembrowski (Kenneth Donnelly), Thomas Dooley (Anthony Petruccelli), Thomas Keyes (Therese Murray), Steven Simonian (Michael Moore), and Alex Vispoli (Barry Finegold).

There will surely be more -- Sarah Schultz, for instance, against Karen Spilka.

But that's where we stand as of yesterday, according to the very kind folks at the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

And naturally, I want to highly encourage all of these candidates -- challengers and incumbents alike, and their staff and supporters -- to submit photos for my superfantabulous tumblr: mapoliwithanimals.tumblr.com/ !!!!!

Q&A #9: Boston

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 16:05:00 GMT

A couple of Boston questions! "R.O.B." asks:

After Mayor Menino, who are the most powerful figures in city government?

This strikes me as one of those mind-bender Zen koans. There is no power in the city of Boston that is not ultimately derived from Mayor Menino, is there?

I'll say this, though: aside from Menino, there may be nobody with more influence on the city's future than Kairos Shen of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Anybody disagree?

On another front, "NoMichaelFlaherty" asks:

With John Connolly and Steve Murphy coming in a weak 3rd and 4th in last year's At Large race during a low-turnout election, what would the impact be of a 3rd strong candidate of color running in a mayoral year. For instance, a Suzanne Lee?

First question is whether there will be an actual mayoral race in 2013. If Menino runs again, as I've long predicted he would, I'm not sure who of significance would take him on -- and if the answer is nobody, then you've got another low-turnout, low-attention race in which the incumbents are once cycle better known.

So I'm saying it would be tough. But it's also possible that 2013 will be the year Murph decides to call it a career, opening up a seat -- and there would certainly be a good chance of a minority taking it.

As for Lee, I think she'll run again in the district, regardless of how it gets redistricted.

Q&A #8: Beacon Hill Bad Apples

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:35:00 GMT

"Beacon Hill Gossip," a real troublemaker, asks:

Of Beacon Hills current crop of Legislators, which do you think have either overstayed their welcome, hit the glass ceiling, or are just plain ineffective, and should take a hint and look for a new career?

Well, let's start with my stated opinion -- and I'm serious about this -- that we should shut down the house of representatives and send them all home.

In the state senate, you've got a (fast-shrinking) group who have been there more than 10 years. That includes senate president Therese Murray, who presumably will leave after her term as president maxes out in less than three years; frankly it's a mystery to me why she's bothering to run for one more term. Some of the others are doing real work -- Dick Moore on the health care payment bill, for example -- but will probably be winding down soon too.

Then you've got some middle-grounders, like Jack Hart, who are fine but in my mind are too stuck in the old senate (you're not supposed to get jobs for people at probation? what else is it there for?).

And then there are a bunch of newcomers, a few of whom might turn out to be better than drawing names out of a big basket, like in the Hunger Games, to pick legislators. Oh, and there are a few Republicans, or so I've heard.

I guess I'm avoiding your question, because instead of naming names of who should go (*cough* Marc Pacheco *cough*) I'm saying I'm not really sure whose presence or absence makes that much difference one way or another.

Q&A #7: Middlesex 3rd

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:04:00 GMT

"John Y." brings us back to local races:

How do see the 3rd Middlesex State Senate race shaping up? Any favorite in the crowded field?

It's a great, great field of candidates isn't it? This is the open seat where Democrat Susan Fargo is retiring. If I had to guess, I think Mara Dolan wins it. She has some good endorsements (including Congressman Capuano) and should benefit from so many men splitting votes. What I'd watch for is whether this becomes a clear two-person race by the end of summer, perhaps between Dolan and Joe Kearns-Goodwin, with others effectively dropping by the wayside. That would give Kearns-Goodwin (or another in that spot) a good chance to win. But I'm not so sure that Buck, Barrett, and Mullin are going to fade away so easily.

On the Republican side, I have a suspicion that Tea Party perrennial candidate Sandi Martinez will beat Greg Howes, and while I've got nothing against Martinez -- and I doubt either could win the general this year -- I would be interested in seeing whether Howes is the kind of solid GOP candidate Massachusetts is so badly lacking.

Q&A #6: Elizabeth Warren Getting An Edge?

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:48:00 GMT

"Jack" goes back to the US Senate race:

Elizabeth Warren is meeting with Bay Staters, face to face, in small and large groups, at a steady pace. Contrast that with Coakley, who didn't have the time or inclination to present herself. Also, Brown is tied up in Washington, for now. Further, Brown is known mostly by public persona, rather than direct contact with residents/voters. Is Warren maximizing this window of opportunity, to get close to voters; thus getting the edge on Brown?

First off, I disagree with you on Scotto, as I wrote a couple of months ago. I would also suggest that E-Dubs (as I've started calling her) is meeting with a lot of supporters, but I'm not so sure she's been spending all that much time yet face-to-face with the swing voters who will decide this election. That's not a bad thing -- you've got to get the activists active first.

Anyway, this will probably all be long forgotten and irrelevant this fall in the barrage of $25 million of TV ads.

Q&A #5: Obama & SSM

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:37:00 GMT

"Bellavita" asks:

It's nice of our President to 'come out' about his personal support of homosexuals. Forgive me, but as President, shouldn't he have done something to help that along at this point? What do you predict he will actually DO, if anything, to support individual rights further? THANKS!

Well, I recommend you take a look at my new feature in this week's Boston Phoenix on this topic. But I think the direct answer is that he's not going to do a whole lot -- which is exactly what most same-sex marriage strategists want him to do. They want to focus efforts at the state level, not federal, at least for now. (At the federal level, they would like him to push ENDA and some other things, but that's another story.) The only question is whether Obama will make any real direct appeal in the upcoming state votes, potentially over-politicizing it, or let his stated support speak for itself.

Q&A #4: Future Statewide Pols

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:07:00 GMT

"Thecosmicamerican" asks:

I've heard many people discuss the absence of MA elected officials ready to take the next step into the Governorship, US Senate, etc. Who on Beacon Hill now do you see as future Statewide (nationwide?) figures?

I'd look off of Beacon Hill for upcoming talent, but on the hill (not counting those already in statewide office) I think you can see Katherine Clark, maybe Ben Downing... I don't know, to be honest I see a lot of perfectly decent pols, a fair number of newbies with potential, and not much to get excited about.

I don't think it's a coincidence that our current Democratic Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Attorney General, and presumptive US Senate candidate all held no previous Beacon Hill elected office. Same with the presumptive Democratic nominee for this year's open Congressional seat (Joe Kennedy III), and the last open Congressional seat (Bill Keating) and the one before that (Niki Tsongas).

Q&A #3: replacing Brownsberger

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:28:00 GMT

Turning from the high-profile to the obscure, "EliasNugator" asks:

Who is the "front runner" in the 24th Middlesex Democratic Primary for State Rep? How does that General Election shape up?

That's the open seat in Arlington/Belmont/Cambridge, previously held by William Brownsberger, who won a special election to become state senator. There are a bunch of candidates, mostly first-timers. I haven't talked to people about this race yet; I would guess it's going to depend a lot on who gets the key people behind them, and I just don't have a sense of that yet. I would think Sue Sheffler would be a strong candidate, but the conventional wisdom is that it's a Belmont seat -- Sheffler's from Arlington.

I don't see how the Democratic nominee doesn't win in November.

Q&A #2: Brown Or Warren?

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:08:00 GMT

"KZB," who is clearly a horrible troublemaker, asks:

Call it now -- who wins, Brown or Warren? By how much?

Brown by 3 percentage points. But the confidence level on that is low, and the margin of error is high.

Q&A #1: Marisa's Margin

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:00 GMT

Off we go on a fabulous Ask Me Anything Day! First up, "jessiekb" asks:

Will delegates to the Democratic state convention give Marisa Defranco the 15% she needs in order to appear on the primary ballot in September?

Yes. Just about every Democratic insider I've asked thinks so, and I get no sense that top party and Elizabeth Warren people are willing to make the kind of effort it would take to prevent it -- if they can. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if Defranco doesn't get the 15%. But I also don't think it ultimately makes much difference.