Robert David Sullivan 2

A Corzine warning for Patrick?

According to State House News Service (subscription required), Gov. Deval Patrick was on the radio this morning saying there is "no comparison" between yesterday's New Jersey/Virginia gubernatorial elections (both won by Republicans) and his own re-election effort next year. "A year is a long time in politics," he added.

He's right, but the New Jersey result can't be comforting, especially if Patrick and advisers are nursing hopes of winning with less than a majority in a three-candidate race. In the closing weeks of the campaign, many analysts suggested that unpopular Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine could win with far less than 50 percent of the vote, thanks to independent candidate Chris Daggett pulling anti-Corzine votes away from Republican nominee Chris Christie.

In the end Daggett, who had polled as high as 20 percent, got only 5.8 percent of the vote, and Christie unseated Corzine, 48.8 percent to 44.5 percent. My hunch is that anti-Corzine independents and Republicans broke for Christie in the final days of the campaign, leaving Daggett with Democrats who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corzine but would never vote for a Republican.

So I'm updating my prediction from July: Patrick needs to get very close to 50 percent next fall in order to be re-elected. Gambling that the Republican nominee (presumably Charlie Baker) and independent Tim Cahill will split the anti-incumbent vote and allow Patrick to glide in with, say, 44.5 percent, would be a poor strategy for the governor's campaign.  

Cross-posted at CW Unbound.

Romney's neighbors abandon the GOP, and other fun voter registration facts

In my latest post for CommonWealth Unbound, I look at the recent shifts in voter registration in Massachusetts. (We're not a one-party state. We have independents as well as Democrats!)

National death watch on Mass. income tax?

It's not in the same league as gay marriage, but Carla Howell and company's attempt to abolish the state's income tax through a voter referendum is getting some national exposure. The Wall Street Journal's Tom Herman uses the somewhat antiquated "Taxachusetts" label in the lead of his round-up of tax questions across the US. Here's part of his write-up:

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington-based coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups opposed to tax increases, agrees. The Massachusetts vote, officially dubbed "Question One," "could be a model for the future" in many other states, he says.

Critics of the proposal say passage would be a major blow. "It would be an absolute disaster for the state," says Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a Boston public-policy research group funded primarily by employers.

Herman mentions Gov. Deval Patrick's opposition to the proposal, but he doesn't note Patrick's recent high-profile signals (vetoing public pension increases, curbing highway police details) that he's trying to tighten state spending -- moves that may be more important than any ad campaign against Question One. It's hard to believe that Patrick didn't have the impending vote in mind when he authorized one of his cabinet officials to do this:

After a public rebuke from the Patrick administration, MBTA General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas agreed yesterday to rescind a 9 percent pay raise for executive employees that had been criticized as excessive for an agency struggling to pay its bills...

[H]e backed down yesterday after state Secretary of Transportation Bernard Cohen, who is also chairman of the MBTA board, sent him a letter urging him to rescind the raises for the most highly paid employees.

Is pot decriminalization really a sure thing in Massachusetts?

A poll released last week found that voters favored a relaxation of marijuana laws by more than 3 to 1:

Of the three questions on the Massachusetts ballot this November, only one question -- #2 the decriminalization of marijuana -- appears all but certain to pass, according to a poll analysis released today by 7NEWS/Suffolk University.  Seventy-two percent favored the proposed law, which would replace the criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana to a civil penalty of forfeiture of the marijuana and a fine of $100. Twenty-two percent opposed the proposed law.

"The public may be signaling that pursuing small-time marijuana users is a waste of taxpayer resources," said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University.  "This issue suggests that there is a libertarian streak in the thinking of Massachusetts voters."

But can that libertarian streak survive police pressure? Two years ago, a proposal to let more supermarkets sell wine seemed destined to pass -- until opponents started running TV commercials and organized a "vote no" rally with 27 police chiefs. Opponents charged that more (or at least more convenient) wine sales would mean more drunk driving, and a greater risk of underage drinking. Channel 5 reported on what happened next:

A poll by the Suffolk University Political Research Center suggested the lead enjoyed by supporters of Question 1 during the summer has evaporated.

The poll, conducted Oct. 3-5, showed 47 percent of likely voters in favor of allowing more food stores to sell wine, while 44 percent were opposed. In June, the same poll found 61 percent in favor and 31 percent opposed.

David Paleologos, director of the center, said the numbers should encourage the initiative's opponents.

"Right now the 'No' side is riding a very good trend," Paleologos said. "It's going to take some work to reverse that."

By Election Day, the pro-wine proposal lost by 12 points (41 percent to 53 percent, with 6 percent blank votes).

Anyone think the police chiefs are going to sit this one out?

Pioneer responds on Patrick post

Liam from the Pioneer Institute responds to my post on his measured praise of Gov. Deval Patrick:

Thank you for reading our blog. We really do appreciate it. But I think you sell us short by assuming we are internally monolithic, either for or against any particular political figure or party. We've been pleased to support the Governor on any number of issues -- pension fund consolidation, the role that GIC might play in aiding municipalities, and, of course, police details. And we've been equally disappointed on other issues -- among them, the benefits of school choice -- and will continue to disagree with him on them. But neither our support nor our opposition necessarily signals a partisan attachment.

Sorry for the shorthand description of Pioneer; I should avoid a simple label like "conservative" and perhaps use "free market" because that seems closer to the description on Pioneer's "about us" page.

My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I do think this may be a defining moment for Gov. Patrick. Whether he's seen as serious on reform issues like the police details and pension fund consolidation will be a major factor in determining what kind of opposition he faces if he runs for re-election.

I don't mean to suggest that Pioneer (or MassINC) is partisan, but when there's a widespread perception that Patrick's first year or two was less than effective (see the recent Suffolk poll in which 40 percent say he hasn't lived up to their expectations) it's significant that he's getting some kudos from any major research group.

Free marketers for Patrick? Bad news for Charlie Baker?

The Pioneer Institute gives props to Gov. Deval Patrick for taking action to curtail police details and fat public pensions, as well as showing improved skills in political hardball. Potential Republican challengers in 2010 can't be happy when a conservative-leaning [CORRECTION: "free-market-supportive" is a better description] think tank commends Patrick for "burnish[ing] his image as a Beacon Hill outsider willing to stand up to vested special interest groups."

Then again, almost everyone agrees that Patrick has been taking small, if highly symbolic, steps toward reform. If he loses interest in such issues (maybe after this fall's nonbinding, but highly symbolic, vote on abolishing the income tax?), he'll probably become less popular than ever among conservatives and Republicans.

New York Times casts eye on Mass. police details

The New York Times reports on the Patrick administration's tentative steps toward ending the "Massachusetts anachronism" of having police officers stand guard whenever a road crew is "fixing potholes or laying pavement."

MassINC president Gregory Torres is quoted on the political implications:

“The details erode public confidence that taxpayer money is being spent wisely,” Mr. Torres said. “I think the symbolism is very important when it comes to issues like this.”

Worcester gets impatient on foreclosure law

The city of Worcester, tired of waiting for the Legislature to do something about the home foreclosure crisis, is asking for permission to act on its own, reports Shaun Sutner of the Worcester Telegram. If a home-rule petition passes on Beacon Hill, the city would "halt sub-prime foreclosures for six months, protect tenants in foreclosed buildings and force judicial review of foreclosures."

Nobody beats Kerry and Patrick

A new poll from Suffolk University and Channel 7 has "someone else" beating US Sen. John Kerry this fall, 51-38. That same entity is ahead of Gov. Deval Patrick, who is up for re-election in 2010, by a 41-39 margin.

Neither man is likely to be panicking yet, given that an early 1994 poll had "someone else" beating US Sen. Ted Kennedy easily, 52-38. Kennedy beat his actual Republican opponent that year (Mitt Romney) by 17 points. 

A shift in tax attitudes?

The Boston Globe's website has a handy rundown of Proposition 2 1/2 override votes that have been held so far this year. Eighteen cities and towns have voted so far, and only seven have approved property tax increases for such things as schools, police departments, and (in Rowley) a "pumper truck." Will these springtime results offer clues about what will happen with the big tax question of the year -- the referendum on the November ballot that would eliminate the state income tax? (That's something the Legislature is not likely to let happen no matter how the referendum turns out.)

Abolition of the income tax lost by a 40-48 margin the last time it was on the ballot, in 2002. (Blanks made up the remaining 12 percent of the vote.) In most towns, the anti-tax forces got more than 40 percent of the vote, but most cities and more affluent suburbs soundly defeated the measure. Six of those communities have had override votes so far this year, and they've split down the middle, with property tax increases passing in Brookline, Natick, and Wayland but losing in Harvard, Newton, and Sudbury. The city of Newton, in particular, bears watching this fall: If the anti-tax measure comes within 10 points of passing there (it lost 29-56 last time), it should win statewide easily.

It's also worth noting that traditionally liberal Newton is the home of a controversial $200 million high school project, detailed by Seth Mnookin in this week's Boston Globe Magazine.