Hey, there! Log in / Register
Campaign update: Baker claims it's neck and neck, which means his campaign is collapsing
By adamg on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 9:30am
Latest Suffolk poll shows Patrick 7 points ahead. Baker campaign bravely says their own polling shows a dead-even race, which a reporter with an attention span longer than 30 seconds reports really means the Baker campaign is now in free fall.
The Herald tries to buck its man up, quotes Baker as blaming Patrick for the national economic collapse. John Carroll notices the Baker campaign doesn't know anything about the capacity of Fenway Park. Channel 4 looks at the two candidates on the idea of no new taxes.
Out-of-staters are throwing money at Massachusetts, the Globe reports. And much of that is going to Sean Bielat in the 4th congressional district.
Boston Municipal Research Bureau warns Boston could lose $43 million in state aid if Question 3 passes and the legislature follows the will of the people and actually cuts the sales tax to 3%. talks to organizers on both sides of the battle over Question 3.
Punditocracy: Globe says no on 3. Scot Lehigh assembles a column out of a bunch of random thoughts. Brian McGrory defends the Big Dig. The Republican Operative at the Herald urges Baker not to give up. The Herald itself blames Patrick for thinking about buying a barge, even though he didn't buy the barge.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why did Baker release an internal poll showing he dropped 7%?
It really says something that Baker is releasing an internal poll showing he lost 7%. What kind of people are running his campaign? Oh right, the people who thought it was a good idea to hold a press conference with Cahill's ex running mate endorsing Baker.
His campaign manager, Rick
His campaign manager, Rick Dorka, knows a thing or two about losing, he worked for McCain/Palin. FAIL
(No subject)
Statistical tie
Rasmussen Survey of 750 Likely Voters
October 27, 2010
Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor
Charlie Baker (R) 44%
Deval Patrick (D) 46%
Tim Cahill (I) 6%
Some other candidate 3%
Not sure 1%
Alas, the Rasmussen House Effect...
... really doesn't help here, now, does it.
Nate Silver's take.
Pollster's take.
It looks like the Globe is
It looks like the Globe is reporting that the race is now in a statistical heat, according to a Rasmussen poll that shows Patrick with 46% and Baker with 44%, within the 4% margin of error.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/201...
Heh.
Heh.
Except Baker's the Rhoda, er,
Except Baker's the Rhoda, er, Coakley in this particular contest.
$43 million - oh the horror!
The city's property tax alone is projected to go up $60 million for 2012 on top of the $60 million in 2011 and the $60 million in 2010 along with tens of millions in the meals tax etc. etc. So they're still $17 million to the plus next year even if Prop 3 them $43 million. Is it too much to ask government to just spend the same amount next year as this year (a 6% health care increase would cost the city about $17 million so even on that fixed cost we are even).
This will have no effect on the city's budget UNLESS they start handing out significant raises and step increases in the current round of collective bargaining.
Boo - Armageddon is coming! Happy Halloween. If this passes the trick will be on you and the treats on us! (granted, I don't expect the legislature to play nice, especially if Deval is re-elected).
First off: numbers. Where
First off: numbers. Where are you getting them? Extrapolations; where are you getting them? Seems once again we've got somebody insisting the budget can handle it, but hasn't done their homework.
One of the things I hate the most about the Baker campaign is how many idiots have wandered in and started pontificating on human resources, as if this wasn't a field that business schools offer MBAs in, or it wasn't horribly complex. You can't say "health care will go up 6%" and leave it at that. Health care isn't that simple.
Don't even get me started on Baker's idiotic claim that he'll cut 5000 workers.
right here
Numbers:
www.cityofboston.gov/budget -
I did my homework - the numbers are absolutely 110% correct (plus or minus 5%). There's a ton of detail and you can study the budget back to 2006 which has actuals back to 2003 (before which it's difficult to compare apples to apples due to accounting changes the city implemented - the totals are generally correct, but some of the categories got shifted around - reorgs also lend to the complexity as cabinets were consolidated ant created -but again - totals should generally be correct. For 2010 and 2011 you need to adjust for teacher's pensions - again accounting changes because the city/state eliminated an administrative step to pension distributions). And if you know where to look you can even get next year's estimates - the revenue numbers are easy to estimate. I could do them myself on the back of an envelope and be within about 3% every year. The city always massively and deliberately overestimates spending so they can scream poverty during the budget cycle - eg. - the $60 million they are claiming the school system is in the hole is complete bupkus.
Extrapolations:
Health care is complex. The costs to the city are not - the city announces a "number" every year - that is usually in the middle to upper single digits - usually higher than inflation but not ridiculous. It's a reasonable estimate to say it will be 6% - it might end up being 3%, could be 9% but it's simply a number that is easily calculated (need to be a little careful - school district health care is not included in the COO health care budget except for BPS retirees).
Any other questions Dan?