The Local MSM's Prejudice

This blog used to cover the local MSM quite a bit. I enjoyed writing the stories and got a lot of readers and links from it. However, at a certain point I became too cynical to read the local MSM every day, so this site has focused much less on being a local media critic. Stories like this are why.

Two polls were released on the Senate race at pretty much the same time. They both had the same sample size. They were both done by well-established firms. However, they both showed widely different results. The Suffolk poll showed Scott Brown up by around 4, while the BMG/Research 2000 poll showed Coakley up by 8. Either of the polls could be right -- in fact, they both were probably right in polling who they thought would show up, it's just that they both disagreed on the specific demographics of their likely voters. Guess which poll the local MSM covered?

If anyone picked "not BMG," they win a gold star. There are probably two reasons why the local media would cover Suffolk's poll, but not BMG's. The first is the Suffolk poll is certainly more politically sexy -- it was the first to really show Scott Brown up above the margin of error. The second reason is because BMG is a blog - and, I suppose, viewed by the media as competition. All that said, if the media is to be taken seriously, it should have covered both of the polls. They were done at the same time, using live questioners and the same sample sizes; they were each at least as worthy as the other. Even if the papers wanted to lead with the Suffolk poll, the BMG poll should have featured prominently, too. Otherwise, any notion of fair play or journalistic integrity can be thrown out of the window.

Does the local media really want to be that obvious? Are they really willing to lose the tens of thousands of their readers, who also read sites like BMG? At a certain point, papers like the Globe are going to have to learn that many of the readers they've lost have come at the hands of their increasing willingness to throw their credibility out the window, when it suits their purpose.

Republicans Finally Expressed Real Idea

Texas Republicans are evenly split over whether or not they should leave the union. I guess they're now too proud to be an American. Note: I didn't say it was a good idea, just that they finally expressed one.

A Suffolk Poll is Worth [Expletive Deleted]

They've been consistently wrong on everything, especially all things Deval. Remember when they showed a close race just before the last gubernatorial primary? And then just before the general? They're worse than worthless. They give opponents hope when there is none!

BTW - if you want my semi-expert analysis (well, better than the guy at Suffolk), I dished it out to jconway.

The People Want Government Healthcare

Good news. 49% want government health care versus 32% that think it should be up to private enterprise. Is anyone in DC or on Beacon Hill listening?

Personally, I don't think Massachusetts should wait for DC. There's no reason why we can't do single-payer on our own and leverage a similar level of health care savings. Just give everyone Commonwealth Care. It's a transition we could probably make in just a few years and it would save the average person in Massachusetts a lot of money over their current health insurance premiums - not to mention saving cities and towns everywhere within our borders.

The poll had some other interesting results: major swings have taken place on opinions about marijuana and gay relationships, with huge generational differences among both groups. I wouldn't be surprised to see 70-80% of people support gay relationships in another 15 years, as well as a majority supporting the legalization of marijuana.

Poll: What Kind of Videos do You Want?

Now that I have a Flip video camera, I've been thinking of how to best use it. I posted a poll which anyone can vote on in the right, or use the comments. So far I've been leaning toward just using my Flip for interviews and events, but I'd really like to use it more often. Videos can be great. So I've been trying to think of some regular features I could do. If anyone has any good ideas, I'd be glad to take them into consideration, but even just answering the poll question helps. Thanks!

The Race is Tightening

Obama's still up a healthy margin, but it's been getting a little closer now that we're less than a week away. It almost always does!

It's time to go do something about it.

I Think Obama's Gonna Win NH

Call it a gut instinct.

My Nickname for the Spectrum Casino Report:

The BS Report.

Here's some of the more asinine claims:

• It'll create 20,000 jobs. Ha! We all know what to do with these job figures, again. Laugh hysterically!
  
• Three casinos in Massachusetts may only claim as little as 43% of our citizens' casino visits anyway - but they bill that as a positive thing. More comedy!
• A casino license is "tantamount" to a monopoly, so apparently that means we can expect casinos to work for the "public interest." Note to Spectrum Gaming: Working for the public interest and casinos just don't go together. That one's not even funny, just common sense.
  

In case anyone forgets about this study, let me give everyone a little refresher: Gaming is in the name of the freaking firm for a reason. There is no possible way that the Spectrum Gaming Group could give an 'independent' analysis on casinos in Massachusetts. Apparently, PolitickerMA didn't get the memo.

In Today's Other (Casino-Related) News...

When it rains, it pours. Today's been pretty sucky, on more than one level. On the casino-meme front, a tangently-related Suffolk poll conveniently rained down from the skies today. Ya, I'm sure that was an accident.

Let's ignore Suffolk's poor polling track record and the fact that other polls have been far more damning on casino support in Mass - including this one. Let's even pretend that Massachusetts voters would overwhelmingly support the idea of supporting a casino in Massachusetts. However, no matter what poll anyone looks at, that support dries up when voters are asked questions closer to home. Super majorities in this state have said they don't support a casino if it was located in their community, and casinos are also a loser whenever they're even near home. Yet, here's what Governor Patrick's casino plan looks like:


The circles represent where crime goes up, where local stores go down and where the rate of problem gamblers double. I'm sure casinos, under that plan, would be wildly popular in Pittsfield! Note to readers: there'd be even more circles in Massachusetts if casinos and slots were counted from out of state, or Lynn's Horizon's Edge casino boat that leaves from the harbor daily. Anyone want to take bets on how many people would support all those targeted strikes on Mass communities? that casino plan in a poll? Can I get an over/under on 25%?

Ahh!! Patrick's Polling Numbers!

EaBo's post on BlueMassGroup about Deval Patrick's approval numbers had me so worried that this is how I spent my evening (and, yes, I'm a nostalgic dork!).

Look, Governor Patrick has some lousy approval ratings - for now. These things fluctuate. The Governor had a bad few months, pushing for policy that was anathema to many of the people who got him elected. He lost that fight and it's time to move on - even he realizes it.

Since then, we've seen plenty of outreach and a back-to-the-basics attitude. Subsequently, there's been a great bond bill, a life sciences bill and soon to be a renewable energy bill passed on Beacon Hill, all of them pretty good and all of them done within the last 30-40 days. We even witnessed a solid first effort on closing the corporate tax loopholes, though there's clearly some kinks that need to be worked out by the Senate, after some last-minute maneuvering by a particular Representative who ought to know better (come on, Representative Bosley, don't ruin your positive karma for leading the charge in the casino battle).

Will the Governor's work and back-to-the-basics outreach with the citizens who got him elected show up in the polls yet? No. Grassroot efforts take some time. If, at the end of the summer, the Governor's approval ratings are closer to 40 than they are 50, then there may be something to worry about. But, given the recent success on Beacon Hill and if the Governor keeps reaching out to his constituents, listening and acting on their behalf, then there won't be a problem. People don't say "polling is just a snapshot in time" for nothing.

Scary Polling Data

There was some real scary polling data on MSNBC's Countdown last night. Keith Olbermann talked about a poll MSNBC commissioned, featuring the two top democrats versus McCain. Nationally, Obama vs. McCain was a 42-42 tie, while Hillary actually lost to McCain by about 2% (I think it was 44-46). As mentioned Wednesday, the two don't even fair well against McCain in Massachusetts! Hillary, in the Bay State SUSA poll, beat McCain by about 4% - Obama actually lost to McCain by a whopping 5% (a 9% swing in this state, compared to Hillary's number).

Now, polls are only a snapshot in time and there'd be plenty of moons for the two to shore up the Commonwealth, but if either candidate actually had to defend a state like Massachusetts from a Republican, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the country.

In fact, there's only two reasonable deductions to make from the MSNBC poll: we all need to hope John Edwards can actually make a race of this, as he's the only one who consistently defeats McCain in national polls. Secondly, let's all pray the Christian Right does the stupid right thing and helps the Grand Old Party nominate Willabee (either Willard or Huckabee, better yet - a ticket!). It'll be the Republican version of nominating McGovern - and they're actually stupid enough to be doing their best to make it happen (Romney's starting to take the lead in Florida). Otherwise, the prospects of McCain versus either Hillary or Obama is an utter nightmare few should dare to dream.

Eek!

This doesn't bode well for Obama: in Massachusetts, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain. MASSACHUSETTS! As I've said over at BMG a few times, and perhaps here, Clinton outperforms Obama among Democrats, while Obama has relied on Independents to overcome the fact that he loses the Democratic vote to his rivals. Clearly, I'm not alone in thinking Obama isn't exactly a proud Democrat - he turns off a lot of voters, even more so than Hillary.

In what shouldn't exactly be the shocker of shockers, given the previous two sentences, Barack Obama doesn't fare well against John McCain, who also appeals to Independents. In the poll, Hillary beat McCain by a 4% margin. Obama would lose by 5% - that's a 9% swing, folks. Glaringly missing in the survey is the fact that John Edwards isn't included. However, in matchups from other surveys, John Edwards consistently performs best among Democrats versus John McCain.

For years on this blog, I've been telling people to not vote based on their gut feelings of who they think is most electable. Barack Obama may appeal toward broader coalitions in Democratic Primaries, but those people clearly don't necessarily follow him over to the general election. They also don't vote as much. We can't take chances in '08, so people ought to be very careful about voting for Obama. He's not the best candidate out there by any measure.

Hat tip to Susan at Below Boston, who's the best Mass Blogger on the POTUS scene.

Update: Here's one of the reasons why I say Susan's election coverage has been the best. Read her comment on that blog, too.

Don't Forget Your Base

Grassroot politics in Massachusetts?

While 53% of people in Massachusetts would support Patrick's casino plan, according to one poll, the support sure as hell isn't coming from his base. We elect leaders to make smart decisions, not necessarily whatever polls well. There's been plenty of data and stories that have called into question everything about the casino plan - and not nearly enough serious validation of any of the facts, or independent state analysis. It's sad the mainstream media isn't covering this, but it's the truth.

Here's one other piece of truth for Governor Patrick: Bucking the base can have dangerous political consequences. Legalizing casinos will definitely put a bad taste in thousands of Patrick's hardest workers' mouths. Grassroot politics doesn't work when you ride atop a giant tractor to scalp the land, especially when you build the Luxor Deval on top of it.

Yo, Sal: Step Away From the Purse Strings

The math ain't in your favor, buddy. Turn over the keys, Mr. Speaker, and give Team Deval a turn at the wheels on this one.

Massachusetts residents appear to favor Governor Deval Patrick's proposals for raising revenues to bridge the state budget gap and ease the property tax burden, with a small majority expressing support for closing what he described as corporate tax loopholes, and for giving communities the right to impose a local tax on meals and hotels, according to a new Globe poll.

Closing corporate tax loopholes seemed like a good idea to 56 percent of residents, despite arguments from the business community....

The fact is that an even larger majority of this state want to see improvements in schools - or heck, just the avoidance of all these property tax hikes and school closings (which sadly seems inevitable in Swampscott, my hometown, but that has as much to do with politics as money). Without repealing unfair, corporate tax loopholes and without allowing towns the option of having a very small meals and hotel tax, there's no way to even maintain the status quo in educational quality.

If the Speaker of the House blocks these extremely important - and fair - measures, the public would do well to remember just who is responsible for their kids never again going through the doors of their favorite school - because it was shut down for lack of funds. If parents are angry that their children's art and music programs got slashed to nothing, they should remember it was Sal DiMasi who was holding the state's purse strings. If high school students are pissed that sports and activities were cut - or that their fees were raised to even higher astronomical levels - they should know just who is to blame: the Speaker of our House, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's second most powerful politician. All of us would do well to remember that he answers to us and us alone, not Verizon.

So what is it going to be, Mr. Speaker? In the words of another big friend of Corporate America, "are you with us or against us?"