Andy's theory is not only plausible, but likely. Healey may have an ad attacking Chris Gabrieli, but the political consequences are so obvious that there's no way she was being that straightforward. Healey inevitably must have realized that by attacking Gabrieli, it would make it look like she really, truly didn't want Gabrieli - and therefore people who wanted a Democrat in the office would be all the more likely to vote Gabrieli in the primary. Voters may be uninformed, but they're not stupid. After all, we want to win - we want to vote for the electable guy. Well, folks, like I've said all along: vote for the guy who you like best, because we're going to romp Healey any way she wants to take it.
That said, Democrats have to remember how Republicans operate. They don't win because they have more money. While that may help, it doesn't explain the phenomenon of Republican dominance. Republicans win by creating clear distinctions between candidates. They define their campaign and, more importantly, they define their opponents campaign. Old-style democrats waffle and fall right into the trap.
Kerry Healey knows not to trust a poll months away from the General Election. The candidate she wants to face isn't based on poll numbers, it's based on who she can face that would confuse voters the most. Clear distinctions are key - and she knows it. It's much easier to attack Chris Gabrieli for not being for or against the tax cut, than it is to attack Deval Patrick for not being in favor of it now. It's much easier to attack Chris Gabrieli on a convoluted plan than to attack Deval Patrick on something he's laid out black-and-white: He isn't going to support an income tax rollback right now and wants to address more pressing needs, like housing costs, jobs and healthcare - and Kerry Healey won't be able to handle that onslaught.
Just remember this when Chris Gabrieli sacrifices the Democrat Party up to Kerry Healey trying to win. He's a DLC-style politician and proud of it. DLC-style politics have led to Republican electoral dominance. John Kerry lost because of it, Al Gore lost because of it and we've lost Congress and the Senate because of years of it. However, it's not just a national phenomenon - just ask Shannon O'Brien. None of those candidates had to lose - they all are actually very different than their Republican opponents. However, they all had one fatal flaw: they listened to DLC-style politicians screaming to run to the center and look Republican-lite. Sadly, Chris Gabrieli has that trait too - and that's why Kerry Healey wants to take a crack at him.
PS: Mark my words, Gabrieli is going to run with this. He's holding a press conference at 2pm at the State House. Here's the gist of Gabrieli's speech before he makes it (mark my words), "Kerry Healey doesn't support stem cell research and wants to see little children die from childhood diabetes. The truth is she's afraid of me and knows that I poll the highest against her. If people (note how he probably won't say "Democrat") want to see an end to 16 years of failure by the Republicans in the Corner Office, vote for me."
Gabrieli is absolutely going to run with it - and Kerry Healey is going to be ecstatic. Whether I'm right or wrong on this theory, DON'T LET KERRY HEALEY INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE. This is a Democratic primary, Republicans aren't invited. Despite Gabrieli's problems, he'll still be odds-on to win if nominated. However, let's not make it easier for Kerry Healey by playing into her hands. While I hope everyone votes for Deval Patrick, I only ask that you don't vote based on Kerry Healey or DLC-style "electability" because it'll be a recipe for disaster. We don't want a close general election, especially when we can trounce Kerry Healey and send shockwaves throughout the state: the people have taken back government.
Posts
3 comments:
At least it's not as bad as those stupid "Anyone but Shannon" radio ads Romney ran last time. Of course he wanted her, he knows there's no way a woman can win Massachusetts (I'm female, but my god look how many Democratic guys crossed over in droves with high turnout to vote for someone in complete opposition to their economic interests, what does that tell you. Texas has had a female governor and senator, we've had one female independent statewide officeholder). The arrogance of that man thinking he could influence the Democratic primary to his benefit.
lol if there's anything Mitt Romney is, it's arrogant. However, I do think a woman can win office here - just not Shannon O'Brien. With a little more polish (and a victory under her belt) Silbert could definately take the corner office.
I agree there's a *lot* stacked against women, but they can win. Just look at Deval - I doubt anyone thought an African American would have a shot, yet Deval's done exceptionally well.
What it all boils down to though is the fact that we, as Democrats, can't let the Republican Party influence our choice for Governor - one way or the other.
I don't know. I think it will be very difficult. Look at all the vitriol displayed towards Jane Swift. She's hardly the first incompetent governor we've ever had (um, Weld, Cellucci, now Romney) but she was treated with far more contempt than they. A sitting male governor would never have been expected to just step aside because Rich Boy From Another State decided he wanted her job. The way Romney treated both Swift and Healey (stand behind me, don't speak ever) in '02 was very telling.
I don't have any love for Shannon O'Brien, but the sexism of that campaign was really noticable. She was blamed for things that the Treasurer had no responsibility for, when Romney attacked her as a tool of the lege (something that again, would not have had the same resonance if she'd been a man) and she didn't respond, she lost support for looking weak. When she did attack back, voters suddenly found negative campaigning offputting, and blamed her, even though he'd been doing it for weeks. When you look at the turnout, the massive gender gap and support he received from Democratic men, and the reasons people voted against her (she "smirked" in the debates? Sure, if you hate smirking, vote for Mitt Romney. He *gulp* uhhh, sure isn't a smirker lol) it's hard to see many positive prospects for female candidates. Nobody voted for Mitt, he gave no reason to, they voted against O'Brien, Democratic men overwhelmingly.
As for Deval, yeah. Women and African Americans can win primaries, and I hope and believe that Deval will win both the primary and the election. But if he weren't running against a woman, I don't think he could win the general, sad to say. The same old guard male Democrats who crossed the line to vote for a Republican last time would do the same this time if the R's had nominated Mihos.
Luckily, with a woman in the race, that crossing over will never happen, some of these guys who I know may not vote at all, but they won't vote for a woman over a man for a major office in any circumstances imo.
Post a Comment