A new Rasmussen poll reports President Obama stump speech for Deval Patrick had little impact on the Governor’s approval numbers.
If Charlie Baker wins the Republican nomination and independent Tim Cahill stays in the race, the poll finds:
Patrick 35%
Baker 27%
Cahill 23%
Undecided 15%
Baker is down from the previous poll despite receiving Scott Brown’s endorsement.
If Christy Mihos wins the nomination, Patrick takes 38%, Cahill 33% and Mihos only 15%.
The Boston Globe is reporting that Charlie Baker is raising money "at a furious pace." According to the Globe, Baker has passed $2 million, raised almost three times as much as Patrick in the last two weeks of March and his bank balance is now more than double Patrick's. Patrick trails Tim Cahill as well. Candidate fundraising information is available here.
Showing posts with label Patrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Apparently Deval is a really bad governor
Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling is reporting Deval Patrick's approval ratings are dead last among Governors, coming in at a lowly 22%. The Massachusetts Republican Party released a statement from Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Jennifer Nassour, saying "It's confirmed: Deval Patrick is the worst governor in America” and that Patrick has been “more concerned with getting his political supporters state jobs and growing the size of government than helping create private sector jobs." PPP has been notably reliable in recent years -- the Wall Street Journal found PPPs polling among the best in the 2008 election cycle and hit the Brown-Coakley contest exactly.
On January 12, PPP opined Patrick’s then 2-point lead over Charlie Baker didn't t look “particularly sustainable.” That poll put Patrick at 29%, Charlie Baker at 27% and Cahill at 21%. PPP noted even then that undecided voters (who broke strongly for Scott Brown a week later on January 19) were 7% for Patrick and a massive 72% against. The keys in the Patrick-Baker contest seem to be 1) whether Cahill stays in the race (if he drops, Baker is way ahead) and 2) whether Patrick can succeed where Coakley failed so miserably and hold the independents needed to win.
On January 12, PPP opined Patrick’s then 2-point lead over Charlie Baker didn't t look “particularly sustainable.” That poll put Patrick at 29%, Charlie Baker at 27% and Cahill at 21%. PPP noted even then that undecided voters (who broke strongly for Scott Brown a week later on January 19) were 7% for Patrick and a massive 72% against. The keys in the Patrick-Baker contest seem to be 1) whether Cahill stays in the race (if he drops, Baker is way ahead) and 2) whether Patrick can succeed where Coakley failed so miserably and hold the independents needed to win.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Gubernatorial race poll shows Baker gaining
A recent note from Charlie Baker's team notes new poll data indicates growing support for Baker. The Boston Herald has reported that the latest Rasmussen Reports poll has Patrick leading Baker 35-32, with Cahill taking 19 percent and a huge 14 percent undecided. Equally noteworthy, Patrick leads lagging Baker rival 34-19, with Cahill jumping to 30 percent. The implication is that Cahill's numbers in a Patrick-Baker race are being siphoned from the Baker side, not the Patrick side. Should Cahill find himself running a distant third as the election approaches and throw his support to Baker, Patrick could find himself trailing badly.
Healthcare battleground?
Governor Patrick has taken a strange turn in the gubernatorial race, attacking Charlie Baker on health care costs. Patrick's website touts that he "call[ed] out" Baker for "opposing limits on rising health care costs." Patrick blamed rising health care premiums for "choking job creation in our state" and therefore asserted that Baker (and Tim Cahill) are no on the side of small business. The web posting dinged Baker for being CEO of Harvard Pilgrim at a time of rising premiums (which Patrick sites as having grown 131% in the last ten year, and for opposing Patrick's plan to give the Commissioner of Insurance the power to cap premiums.
Baker's team responded in an email saying Baker remains "proud of his record as the head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care" and noting HPHC "has been the number one health plan in the country for member satisfaction five years in a row." Baker reiterated his past support for "transparency in health care pricing." Baker dismissed Patrick's attack as "last-minute, election year proposals and frantic attempts to avoid his record of increased spending, tax hikes and mismanagement during our fiscal crisis."
Patrick's late populism is transparent and disingenuous. Anyone who believes that health insurance premiums can be capped without health care coverage being reduced is deluding themselves. This is simple logic. I refer to the cost of identifying a condition and treating it, including all professional fees, device expenses, etc. as "real health care prices." If real health care prices are increasing, premiums must increase as well. If premiums are not allowed to rise, insurers will find that they are or are threatened with paying health providers more than they are receiving from patients. That will leave two options: 1) decrease coverage (meaning that while your premiums are lower, you're out of pocket in the case you need care is higher) or 2) cease operating. If you consider proposals at various levels to require health insurers to provide specific coverage minimums, option 1 may not be an option, leaving only option 2.
In short - capping premiums is a non-starter from a purely economic standpoint. It is hollow, a Potemkin village trying to fool voters into thinking they will save money, when in fact that will never happen.
The central questions are why real health care prices are rising and what we can do to stop it. Why prices are rising is the more interesting question. As pointed out in an article several months ago (that will be posted when found), increased health care costs do not come out of the blue. Health care is vastly different than it was a decade ago, let alone forty or fifty years ago. Gene therapies that were science fiction now actually happen, saving and improving lives. Procedures that were once exotic are now routine -- transplants, in vitro fertilization, etc. New and transformative medical devices, including methods of re-growing organs from a donor's own reverse-engineered stem cells, are in the works. But all of these things cost money. Sure, a few stitches probably shouldn't cost much more today than it did ten years ago (adjusted for inflation), but if the new coverage menu includes, for instance, a pace maker, and that pace maker wasn't on the menu twenty years ago, then you have to expect to pay a little extra for the comfort you're getting that you'll get the pace maker if you need it. Add up all the new things that you might get if you need it, and that could be thousands of incremental cost increases. The relevant analysis of health care costs is how the costs of procedures that have existed for an extended period have changed, and to an extent how much better a new procedure is than the procedure it replaced, and how much the cost has changed.
In light of these observations, the question how to stop health care cost increases appears inappropriate. The better question -- and the one many market-oriented commentators have been asking -- is how to unpackage health care insurance. Insurance providers are currently required to provide certain coverage to everyone they cover, even if the purchaser could not ever possibly use that benefit. If insurance premiums have risen due in large part due to covering additional procedures, the best way to reduce premiums is to reduce the procedures covered. One obvious reform would be to allow consumers to purchase and insurance providers to sell a la carte coverage, picking and choosing those coverages the consumer wants to pay for (perhaps with a minimum coverage for catastrophic injuries and conditions). This maximizes consumer choice, while simultaneously reducing consumer expense by taking away those incremental increases for coverages the consumer doesn't want.
Baker's statements on this issue ought to be very simple -- Patrick attacks Baker for leading an insurance provider while health care prices rose. So what? For five years running Baker's customers, as a whole, have been the most satisfied in the country. They think they're getting what they pay for. End of conversation.
Baker's team responded in an email saying Baker remains "proud of his record as the head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care" and noting HPHC "has been the number one health plan in the country for member satisfaction five years in a row." Baker reiterated his past support for "transparency in health care pricing." Baker dismissed Patrick's attack as "last-minute, election year proposals and frantic attempts to avoid his record of increased spending, tax hikes and mismanagement during our fiscal crisis."
Patrick's late populism is transparent and disingenuous. Anyone who believes that health insurance premiums can be capped without health care coverage being reduced is deluding themselves. This is simple logic. I refer to the cost of identifying a condition and treating it, including all professional fees, device expenses, etc. as "real health care prices." If real health care prices are increasing, premiums must increase as well. If premiums are not allowed to rise, insurers will find that they are or are threatened with paying health providers more than they are receiving from patients. That will leave two options: 1) decrease coverage (meaning that while your premiums are lower, you're out of pocket in the case you need care is higher) or 2) cease operating. If you consider proposals at various levels to require health insurers to provide specific coverage minimums, option 1 may not be an option, leaving only option 2.
In short - capping premiums is a non-starter from a purely economic standpoint. It is hollow, a Potemkin village trying to fool voters into thinking they will save money, when in fact that will never happen.
The central questions are why real health care prices are rising and what we can do to stop it. Why prices are rising is the more interesting question. As pointed out in an article several months ago (that will be posted when found), increased health care costs do not come out of the blue. Health care is vastly different than it was a decade ago, let alone forty or fifty years ago. Gene therapies that were science fiction now actually happen, saving and improving lives. Procedures that were once exotic are now routine -- transplants, in vitro fertilization, etc. New and transformative medical devices, including methods of re-growing organs from a donor's own reverse-engineered stem cells, are in the works. But all of these things cost money. Sure, a few stitches probably shouldn't cost much more today than it did ten years ago (adjusted for inflation), but if the new coverage menu includes, for instance, a pace maker, and that pace maker wasn't on the menu twenty years ago, then you have to expect to pay a little extra for the comfort you're getting that you'll get the pace maker if you need it. Add up all the new things that you might get if you need it, and that could be thousands of incremental cost increases. The relevant analysis of health care costs is how the costs of procedures that have existed for an extended period have changed, and to an extent how much better a new procedure is than the procedure it replaced, and how much the cost has changed.
In light of these observations, the question how to stop health care cost increases appears inappropriate. The better question -- and the one many market-oriented commentators have been asking -- is how to unpackage health care insurance. Insurance providers are currently required to provide certain coverage to everyone they cover, even if the purchaser could not ever possibly use that benefit. If insurance premiums have risen due in large part due to covering additional procedures, the best way to reduce premiums is to reduce the procedures covered. One obvious reform would be to allow consumers to purchase and insurance providers to sell a la carte coverage, picking and choosing those coverages the consumer wants to pay for (perhaps with a minimum coverage for catastrophic injuries and conditions). This maximizes consumer choice, while simultaneously reducing consumer expense by taking away those incremental increases for coverages the consumer doesn't want.
Baker's statements on this issue ought to be very simple -- Patrick attacks Baker for leading an insurance provider while health care prices rose. So what? For five years running Baker's customers, as a whole, have been the most satisfied in the country. They think they're getting what they pay for. End of conversation.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Fundraising update
The Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei campaigns asserted today asserted that they out fund-raised both the Patrick-Murray and Cahill-Loscocco teams. Baker-Tisei reportedly raised over $560K in February and $950K in the first two months of 2010. Patrick has deposited a bit over $260K through February and Murray deposited $58K in January.
Cash on hand reports are:
Baker - $1,620K (end of January)
Tisei - $402K (end of January)
Patrick - $754K (end of February) (end of February, 2006 -- $716K)
Murray - $238K (end of January) (end of January, 2006 -- $224K)
The Republican ticket is out fund-raising the Democratic incumbent and the Democratic ticket's fund-raising is down marginally from the 2006 campaign (in a significantly poorer economy). It seems clear that there is a strong push for the Republicans, and Scott Brown probably deserves the credit for getting donors in the habit of giving to GOP candidates.
Cash on hand reports are:
Baker - $1,620K (end of January)
Tisei - $402K (end of January)
Patrick - $754K (end of February) (end of February, 2006 -- $716K)
Murray - $238K (end of January) (end of January, 2006 -- $224K)
The Republican ticket is out fund-raising the Democratic incumbent and the Democratic ticket's fund-raising is down marginally from the 2006 campaign (in a significantly poorer economy). It seems clear that there is a strong push for the Republicans, and Scott Brown probably deserves the credit for getting donors in the habit of giving to GOP candidates.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Welcome snapshot
This first post will discuss what is happening now in the Commonwealth and what is on the horizon.
This year the Commonwealth will elect a governor, House of Representatives delegation (10 seats), and state legislature. The issues that will define these races are typical of those around the country: unemployment, budget deficits, taxes and corruption. It is worth watching to what extent Republicans or Independents are able to translate dissatisfaction with the status quo on Beacon Hill into real gains against the long-dominant Democrats.
One additional issue closely related to employment and economic opportunities, is that Massachusetts will almost certainly lose a seat in the House before the 2012 election cycle. The 2010 census is expected to show the population shifting South and West, and Massachusetts is among the states expected to lose Federal clout as a result. Addressing Massachusetts' relative population loss will be a challenge both this year and well into the next decade. And while redistricting and gerrymandering discussions have likely begun on Beacon Hill, which incumbent is forced either out of the House or to challenge another incumbent will be a hot topic in 2011. If one of the Republican challengers is able to take the governor's seat, expect a drawn-out and acrimonious debate.
Governor's race:
Incumbent governor Deval Patrick will face two strong competitors in his re-election bid. Independent Tim Cahill is state treasurer and previously held various local and country positions. Two Republican candidates are competing for their party's nomination: Christy Mihos and Charlie Baker.
Patrick: Patrick was elected in 2006 with dominant performances in both the Democratic primary (almost 50% in a three way contest) and the general election (beating Republican Kerry Healey by over 20 points and then-independent Christy Mihos by almost 50 points). Since then, however, Patrick's approval numbers have fallen have fallen precipitously. In difficult economic times, Patrick's budgets have been characterized by tax increases and service cuts, but also by heavy reliance on federal assistance. While proposed and passed under the Romney administration, the state's universal health-care system is both drowning in red ink and being pointed to as the model for Obamacare. As a result, there is pressure on Patrick as Obama's close friend and ally to make sure the system stays solvent, viable and popular. Should Patrick lose re-election, expect to see him in Washington with close friend and ally Obama.
Mihos: Mihos has deep family roots in Massachusetts and will campaign on his American Dream story and entrepreneurship. Mihos is wealthy from selling his family's New England-wide chain of convenience stores and now operating a number of such stores on Cape Cod. Mihos was a Vice Chairman and Director of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and his campaign will tout that he fought for the taxpayer against fraud and waste at the MTA. His campaign website indicates his intention to remove all Mass Pike tolls. He is an economics candidate who may try to follow the Scott Brown story line of a down-to-earth local kid made good, particularly against Patrick's and Baker's higher-brow CVs. Mihos would likely struggle against Patrick's high profile.
Baker: Expect Baker to win the Republican nomination and put him as a modest favorite to win the Governor's seat. Like Mihos, Baker is a Massachusetts native. However, he has a longer and stronger record in state-wide government, among other credentials. Baker had a role in Medicaid reform and other medical services reforms as Undersecretary for Health in the Executive Office of Health and Human Services in the Weld Administration, and led that administration's welfare reform efforts as Secretary of Health Human Services beginning in 1992. With welfare expenses growing in difficult times, expect Baker to hearken back to that experience and perhaps to call for reforms along the lines of Tommy Thompson's prototype in Wisconsin.
Baker was subsequently Secretary of Administration and Finance from the fall of 1994 through September, 1998, overseeing reforms to state acquisition methods and regulations. In 1998 the National Governor’s Association gave him the Distinguished Service Award.
Baker has since held leadership positions in the private sector as CEO of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates (1998-99) and CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (1999-2009). Baker's strong successes at Harvard Pilgrim (including top rankings for member satisfaction from US News & World Report and “Best Places To Work” from the Boston Business Journal) and experience in state health administration under Weld should be particularly persuasive to the electorate in light of the Commonwealth's health care deficits and the national debate over health care reform.
Baker has a degree in English from Harvard and an MBA from the world-class Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Chicago, moderating some of the awe factor that comes with Patrick's educational background. Baker has also held various local government positions which compare favorably with Mihos. Overall, Baker is by far the strongest competitor in a head-to-head against Patrick.
Cahill: Cahill, like Patrick's other challengers, will run on his economic experience. He is the current Massachusetts State Treasurer and has previously held fiduciary positions in Norfolk County. Cahill will try to tap into the support Scott Brown found in his Senatorial campaign and run on fiscal responsibility, budgeting and low taxes. However, Cahill will be tainted by his role in the current administration and will struggle to distinguish himself.
House races:
Every US Rep from Massachusetts has been a Democrat since the close of the 104th Congress in 1997. In a year that has already seen Scott Brown becoming the Commonwealth's first Republican Senator since 1979, Republicans hope to break the Democrats' hold on the House delegation as well. President Obama's performance and the conduct of the gubernatorial race likely will influence these races heavily; if Independents' dissatisfaction with Obama carries into November, Republican candidates will try to ride the same wave on which Brown capitalized. See the bottom of this page for a map of Massachusetts House Districts. Snapshots of each race below:
MA 1 - Incumbent John Olver has represented a broad swatch of North-Central and Western Massachusetts since 1991. Olver is an accomplished chemist who has rarely faced competition for his seat, with only Jane Swift's 1996 run making any headway. Olver has a coveted seen on the House Appropriations committee. Olver is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. The THUD subcommittee has broad budgetary jurisdiction over the Department of HUS, and federal transportation agencies. Olver is also on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Olver is Senior Whip for Democratic Caucus.
Olver may face a primary opponent, and two Republican have already indicated their intention to run -- Jeffrey Donnelly and Timothy McLaughlin.
MA 2 - Richard Neal has represented Springfield and parts of South Suburban Worcester since 1989. He is a former mayor of Springfield. He has never faced a serious challenged and has not been opposed at all since 1998. Neal is a solid, across the board Democrat with a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Neal will be opposed in 2010 by the winner of the Republican primary race between Thomas McCarthy, Vietnam vet Tom Wesley and Jay Fleitman, a doctor.
MA 3 - Jim McGovern has represented Worcester, Boston's far west suburbs and much of the Eastern Rhode Island border area since 1997. McGovern is a prototype Washington insider, having earned his undergraduate and graduate degrees at American University in Washington and spent his entire professional career serving the House in some capacity. He is Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Rules and is on the Committee on Budget. Of note, he supported President Obama's $787 billion bail-out bill and introduced a failed bill to force the US withdrawal from Iraq in May, 2007.
Republicans Robert Delle, Martin Lamb, Michael P. Stopa and Robert Chipman have indicated possible intentions to challenge McGovern. Independent Patrick J. Barron may challenge as well.
MA 4 - Barney Frank represents probably the most gerrymandered district in the state. MA 4 includes Boston suburbs Brookline and Newton, but also Taunton, New Bedford and the Southern Coast. Although Ed Markey in MA 7 has been serving longer, Frank is the face of the Massachusetts House delegation and has been in the House since 1980 with few challengers. Frank was the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee in 2003 when he said of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that “these two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Frank’s opposition to additional oversight over Fannie and Freddie will likely be a topic of discussion in any contest. Frank is now Chair of the Financial Services Committee.
Republicans Sean Bielat, a veteran, and Keith Messina will join Frank’s frequent antagonist Earl Sholley (a loser by 43 points in 2008) in the Republican primary. Bielat appears the most serious contender, supported by his past military service, strong educational background and natural fit to the Scott Brown mold contrasting Messina’s excessive youth (he’s 25) and Sholley’s worn name marred by repeated ignominious defeats. Frank will nominally be challenged by Rachel Brown in a Democratic Primary.
Frank’s hold on his home territory in Newton and Brookline is likely impregnable by any opponent, but the Southern Shore and areas more distant from Boston may be available to a strong challenger. Scott Brown narrowly won MA 4 in his Senate contest against Martha Coakley.
MA 5 - Niki Tsongas represents small parts of Worcester and Essex Counties, and much of Middlesex County north of I-90. She is the junior-most member of Massachusetts' House delegation and widow of Paul Tsongas. In 2007 she received a plurality (36%) in the Democratic primary and went on to defeat Jim Ogonowski 51-47 in the special election to replace long-time representative Marty Meehan after his resignation. She was unopposed for reelection in 2008. Tsongas serve on the Committee on Armed Services (Military Personnel and Strategic Forces Subcommittees), Committee on Budget and Committee on Natural Resources.
Tsongas is will be challenged by the winner of the Republican primary between Jon Golnick and Sam Meas.
MA 6 - John Tierney has represented the North Shore, comprising most of Essex County and part of Middlesex County, since 1997. He is an attorney and a true-blue democrat with 90+ ratings from all of the standard democratic issue organizations. He has seats on the Committee on Education and Labor (Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness and Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions subcommittees), Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Domestic Policy and National Security subcommittee and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee) and powerful Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).
Republican Bill Hudak, also a lawyer, has declared his intention to run against Tierney. Hudak has drawn criticism for comments seeming to back the conspiracy theory that President Obama was born in Kenya. Hudak has denied any such backing, saying instead that he had been given documents purporting to support such an allegation. Hudak also apparently claimed to have been endorsed by Scott Brown even though no such endorsement was ever given. Hudak has a long way to go.
MA 7 - Ed Markey has represented Boston’s North and far Western suburbs since 1976, making him Massachusetts’ longest-serving representative. Markey is pure Massachusetts - born and raised in Malden and attending Boston College undergraduate and law schools. He has averaged over 70% of the vote in his 16 reelections. Markey is a member of the Congressional Progressive caucus, rated “composite liberal” by the National Journal and contributes to the Huffington Post.
There are no declared challengers for MA 7, although there is speculation Markey will resign to challenge Scott Brown in the 2012 election.
MA 8 - Michael Capuano was first elected to represent Cambridge, Somerville and most of Boston in 1998, defeating former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn in the primary. He lost to Martha Coakley in the primary of the 2010 Senate special election. MA 8 is one of the safest democratic districts in the country, and there are accordingly no challengers.
MA 9 - Stephen Lynch represents part of Boston and South into Plymouth and Bristol counties and was first elected in the 2001 special election to replace Joseph Moakley. Lynch is a product of South Boston, former iron worker and union boss and graduate of Boston College Law and Harvard’s JFK School. Lynch has been challenged for reelection only in 2006. Lynch is atypical in his consistent pro-life voting record.
Republican Keith Lepor will challenge. Lepor styles himself an “author, foreign and business development analyst, consultant, speaker and recently combat photojournalist.” He has a masters from the American University in Cairo and an international relations degree from Oxford University. Lepor spent a year as a journalist in Afghanistan with the International Security Assistance Force and embedded with various combat forces. Lepor says he is running in part due to his experience in Afghanistan that US troops were underequipped. Lepor’s platform includes lower taxes, states’ rights and energy independence.
MA 10 - William Delahunt announced this month that he is considering retiring from his representation of the South Shore and Cape Cod. Delahunt has been in office since a contentious primary election and legal battle in 1996. Delahunt is on the Foreign Affairs Committee (chairman of the International Organizations subcommittee) and Judiciary Committees. Delahunt is responsible for striking a controversial deal in which Venezuela supplies cut-rate heating oil to low-income Massachusetts residents. Delahunt is an ardent opponent of the Iraq war and created controversy when telling Dick Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington that he was “glad [al-Qaeda] finally have the chance to see you” during a televised hearing
Republicans Jeff Perry (State Representative), Ray Kasperowicz and Don Hussey have announced their intention to challenge Delahunt, as has Independent Peter White. In opening his campaign headquarters, Perry identified health care, jobs, illegal immigration, national security, taxes and the deficit, and Capital Hill cronyism as his core issues.
This year the Commonwealth will elect a governor, House of Representatives delegation (10 seats), and state legislature. The issues that will define these races are typical of those around the country: unemployment, budget deficits, taxes and corruption. It is worth watching to what extent Republicans or Independents are able to translate dissatisfaction with the status quo on Beacon Hill into real gains against the long-dominant Democrats.
One additional issue closely related to employment and economic opportunities, is that Massachusetts will almost certainly lose a seat in the House before the 2012 election cycle. The 2010 census is expected to show the population shifting South and West, and Massachusetts is among the states expected to lose Federal clout as a result. Addressing Massachusetts' relative population loss will be a challenge both this year and well into the next decade. And while redistricting and gerrymandering discussions have likely begun on Beacon Hill, which incumbent is forced either out of the House or to challenge another incumbent will be a hot topic in 2011. If one of the Republican challengers is able to take the governor's seat, expect a drawn-out and acrimonious debate.
Governor's race:
Incumbent governor Deval Patrick will face two strong competitors in his re-election bid. Independent Tim Cahill is state treasurer and previously held various local and country positions. Two Republican candidates are competing for their party's nomination: Christy Mihos and Charlie Baker.
Patrick: Patrick was elected in 2006 with dominant performances in both the Democratic primary (almost 50% in a three way contest) and the general election (beating Republican Kerry Healey by over 20 points and then-independent Christy Mihos by almost 50 points). Since then, however, Patrick's approval numbers have fallen have fallen precipitously. In difficult economic times, Patrick's budgets have been characterized by tax increases and service cuts, but also by heavy reliance on federal assistance. While proposed and passed under the Romney administration, the state's universal health-care system is both drowning in red ink and being pointed to as the model for Obamacare. As a result, there is pressure on Patrick as Obama's close friend and ally to make sure the system stays solvent, viable and popular. Should Patrick lose re-election, expect to see him in Washington with close friend and ally Obama.
Mihos: Mihos has deep family roots in Massachusetts and will campaign on his American Dream story and entrepreneurship. Mihos is wealthy from selling his family's New England-wide chain of convenience stores and now operating a number of such stores on Cape Cod. Mihos was a Vice Chairman and Director of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and his campaign will tout that he fought for the taxpayer against fraud and waste at the MTA. His campaign website indicates his intention to remove all Mass Pike tolls. He is an economics candidate who may try to follow the Scott Brown story line of a down-to-earth local kid made good, particularly against Patrick's and Baker's higher-brow CVs. Mihos would likely struggle against Patrick's high profile.
Baker: Expect Baker to win the Republican nomination and put him as a modest favorite to win the Governor's seat. Like Mihos, Baker is a Massachusetts native. However, he has a longer and stronger record in state-wide government, among other credentials. Baker had a role in Medicaid reform and other medical services reforms as Undersecretary for Health in the Executive Office of Health and Human Services in the Weld Administration, and led that administration's welfare reform efforts as Secretary of Health Human Services beginning in 1992. With welfare expenses growing in difficult times, expect Baker to hearken back to that experience and perhaps to call for reforms along the lines of Tommy Thompson's prototype in Wisconsin.
Baker was subsequently Secretary of Administration and Finance from the fall of 1994 through September, 1998, overseeing reforms to state acquisition methods and regulations. In 1998 the National Governor’s Association gave him the Distinguished Service Award.
Baker has since held leadership positions in the private sector as CEO of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates (1998-99) and CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (1999-2009). Baker's strong successes at Harvard Pilgrim (including top rankings for member satisfaction from US News & World Report and “Best Places To Work” from the Boston Business Journal) and experience in state health administration under Weld should be particularly persuasive to the electorate in light of the Commonwealth's health care deficits and the national debate over health care reform.
Baker has a degree in English from Harvard and an MBA from the world-class Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Chicago, moderating some of the awe factor that comes with Patrick's educational background. Baker has also held various local government positions which compare favorably with Mihos. Overall, Baker is by far the strongest competitor in a head-to-head against Patrick.
Cahill: Cahill, like Patrick's other challengers, will run on his economic experience. He is the current Massachusetts State Treasurer and has previously held fiduciary positions in Norfolk County. Cahill will try to tap into the support Scott Brown found in his Senatorial campaign and run on fiscal responsibility, budgeting and low taxes. However, Cahill will be tainted by his role in the current administration and will struggle to distinguish himself.
House races:
Every US Rep from Massachusetts has been a Democrat since the close of the 104th Congress in 1997. In a year that has already seen Scott Brown becoming the Commonwealth's first Republican Senator since 1979, Republicans hope to break the Democrats' hold on the House delegation as well. President Obama's performance and the conduct of the gubernatorial race likely will influence these races heavily; if Independents' dissatisfaction with Obama carries into November, Republican candidates will try to ride the same wave on which Brown capitalized. See the bottom of this page for a map of Massachusetts House Districts. Snapshots of each race below:
MA 1 - Incumbent John Olver has represented a broad swatch of North-Central and Western Massachusetts since 1991. Olver is an accomplished chemist who has rarely faced competition for his seat, with only Jane Swift's 1996 run making any headway. Olver has a coveted seen on the House Appropriations committee. Olver is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. The THUD subcommittee has broad budgetary jurisdiction over the Department of HUS, and federal transportation agencies. Olver is also on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Olver is Senior Whip for Democratic Caucus.
Olver may face a primary opponent, and two Republican have already indicated their intention to run -- Jeffrey Donnelly and Timothy McLaughlin.
MA 2 - Richard Neal has represented Springfield and parts of South Suburban Worcester since 1989. He is a former mayor of Springfield. He has never faced a serious challenged and has not been opposed at all since 1998. Neal is a solid, across the board Democrat with a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Neal will be opposed in 2010 by the winner of the Republican primary race between Thomas McCarthy, Vietnam vet Tom Wesley and Jay Fleitman, a doctor.
MA 3 - Jim McGovern has represented Worcester, Boston's far west suburbs and much of the Eastern Rhode Island border area since 1997. McGovern is a prototype Washington insider, having earned his undergraduate and graduate degrees at American University in Washington and spent his entire professional career serving the House in some capacity. He is Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Rules and is on the Committee on Budget. Of note, he supported President Obama's $787 billion bail-out bill and introduced a failed bill to force the US withdrawal from Iraq in May, 2007.
Republicans Robert Delle, Martin Lamb, Michael P. Stopa and Robert Chipman have indicated possible intentions to challenge McGovern. Independent Patrick J. Barron may challenge as well.
MA 4 - Barney Frank represents probably the most gerrymandered district in the state. MA 4 includes Boston suburbs Brookline and Newton, but also Taunton, New Bedford and the Southern Coast. Although Ed Markey in MA 7 has been serving longer, Frank is the face of the Massachusetts House delegation and has been in the House since 1980 with few challengers. Frank was the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee in 2003 when he said of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that “these two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Frank’s opposition to additional oversight over Fannie and Freddie will likely be a topic of discussion in any contest. Frank is now Chair of the Financial Services Committee.
Republicans Sean Bielat, a veteran, and Keith Messina will join Frank’s frequent antagonist Earl Sholley (a loser by 43 points in 2008) in the Republican primary. Bielat appears the most serious contender, supported by his past military service, strong educational background and natural fit to the Scott Brown mold contrasting Messina’s excessive youth (he’s 25) and Sholley’s worn name marred by repeated ignominious defeats. Frank will nominally be challenged by Rachel Brown in a Democratic Primary.
Frank’s hold on his home territory in Newton and Brookline is likely impregnable by any opponent, but the Southern Shore and areas more distant from Boston may be available to a strong challenger. Scott Brown narrowly won MA 4 in his Senate contest against Martha Coakley.
MA 5 - Niki Tsongas represents small parts of Worcester and Essex Counties, and much of Middlesex County north of I-90. She is the junior-most member of Massachusetts' House delegation and widow of Paul Tsongas. In 2007 she received a plurality (36%) in the Democratic primary and went on to defeat Jim Ogonowski 51-47 in the special election to replace long-time representative Marty Meehan after his resignation. She was unopposed for reelection in 2008. Tsongas serve on the Committee on Armed Services (Military Personnel and Strategic Forces Subcommittees), Committee on Budget and Committee on Natural Resources.
Tsongas is will be challenged by the winner of the Republican primary between Jon Golnick and Sam Meas.
MA 6 - John Tierney has represented the North Shore, comprising most of Essex County and part of Middlesex County, since 1997. He is an attorney and a true-blue democrat with 90+ ratings from all of the standard democratic issue organizations. He has seats on the Committee on Education and Labor (Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness and Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions subcommittees), Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Domestic Policy and National Security subcommittee and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee) and powerful Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).
Republican Bill Hudak, also a lawyer, has declared his intention to run against Tierney. Hudak has drawn criticism for comments seeming to back the conspiracy theory that President Obama was born in Kenya. Hudak has denied any such backing, saying instead that he had been given documents purporting to support such an allegation. Hudak also apparently claimed to have been endorsed by Scott Brown even though no such endorsement was ever given. Hudak has a long way to go.
MA 7 - Ed Markey has represented Boston’s North and far Western suburbs since 1976, making him Massachusetts’ longest-serving representative. Markey is pure Massachusetts - born and raised in Malden and attending Boston College undergraduate and law schools. He has averaged over 70% of the vote in his 16 reelections. Markey is a member of the Congressional Progressive caucus, rated “composite liberal” by the National Journal and contributes to the Huffington Post.
There are no declared challengers for MA 7, although there is speculation Markey will resign to challenge Scott Brown in the 2012 election.
MA 8 - Michael Capuano was first elected to represent Cambridge, Somerville and most of Boston in 1998, defeating former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn in the primary. He lost to Martha Coakley in the primary of the 2010 Senate special election. MA 8 is one of the safest democratic districts in the country, and there are accordingly no challengers.
MA 9 - Stephen Lynch represents part of Boston and South into Plymouth and Bristol counties and was first elected in the 2001 special election to replace Joseph Moakley. Lynch is a product of South Boston, former iron worker and union boss and graduate of Boston College Law and Harvard’s JFK School. Lynch has been challenged for reelection only in 2006. Lynch is atypical in his consistent pro-life voting record.
Republican Keith Lepor will challenge. Lepor styles himself an “author, foreign and business development analyst, consultant, speaker and recently combat photojournalist.” He has a masters from the American University in Cairo and an international relations degree from Oxford University. Lepor spent a year as a journalist in Afghanistan with the International Security Assistance Force and embedded with various combat forces. Lepor says he is running in part due to his experience in Afghanistan that US troops were underequipped. Lepor’s platform includes lower taxes, states’ rights and energy independence.
MA 10 - William Delahunt announced this month that he is considering retiring from his representation of the South Shore and Cape Cod. Delahunt has been in office since a contentious primary election and legal battle in 1996. Delahunt is on the Foreign Affairs Committee (chairman of the International Organizations subcommittee) and Judiciary Committees. Delahunt is responsible for striking a controversial deal in which Venezuela supplies cut-rate heating oil to low-income Massachusetts residents. Delahunt is an ardent opponent of the Iraq war and created controversy when telling Dick Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington that he was “glad [al-Qaeda] finally have the chance to see you” during a televised hearing
Republicans Jeff Perry (State Representative), Ray Kasperowicz and Don Hussey have announced their intention to challenge Delahunt, as has Independent Peter White. In opening his campaign headquarters, Perry identified health care, jobs, illegal immigration, national security, taxes and the deficit, and Capital Hill cronyism as his core issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
