Early Poll Points to Risks for Patrick (Dem. Mass. Governor)

[No Elephants]

Source: Boston Globe

Early poll points to risks for Patrick
Voter disapproval rate at 52 percent; But governor leads in 3-way matchups
By Frank Phillips and Matt Viser
Globe Staff / January 11, 2010

Governor Deval Patrick, despite some legislative successes and a slowly improving economy, continues to suffer from low job-approval ratings among Massachusetts voters, a signal that he faces a serious fight to win a second term, a new Boston Globe poll shows. With the general election 10 months away, Patrick leads his likely rivals, but the survey paints an otherwise bleak picture. The findings reflect the erosion of his popularity over the past three years following tough budget decisions and approval of tax increases for consumers.

His best chances for reelection in November, according to the poll, hinge on a three-way race that includes both a Republican challenger and a strong showing by state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who left the Democratic Party last year to run as an independent. Patrick’s lead, however, is vulnerable, given that voters have not yet gotten to know his rivals.

"Clearly, this shows that Patrick starts this campaign at a serious disadvantage,’’ Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the Globe poll. “His ratings are so low it will make it very difficult for him to change voters’ minds between now and the election. He can do it, but he needs to draw into an inside straight - a three-way race, an improved economy, and a well-run campaign.’’ In a three-way matchup that included Cahill and Republican Charles D. Baker, a former health insurance executive, Patrick won support from 30 percent of those surveyed, with Cahill getting 23 percent and Baker 19 percent. The result was roughly the same when Cape Cod businessman Christy Mihos was the GOP candidate in the lineup.



Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/11/boston_globe_poll_shows_52_percent_of_voters_unhappy_with_governor_patrick/

---

The news in the body of the article is better than the headline suggests, so I bolded it. I also think that being "the devil you know" in uncertain times and name recognition are both very important, so I may disagree with the article's statement that being unknown will give his opponents an advantage.

As many will recall, Deval Patrick served under Bill Clinton, was Obama's campaigin co-chair, and is the first African American Governor of Massachusetts.

Ordinarily, both Deval Patrick and Martha Coakley should have it "made in the shade" in the true blue state of Massachusetts, but these are extraordinary times.

Fasten your seat belts.

[bluestateguy]

1. Oh God, enough with the Goddamn polls

I'm still in decompression from the 2008 elections.

[No Elephants]

2. So, you're going to skip the 2010 elections?

[Tempest]

4. Where did you get that from his post?

He said he's tired of all these useless polls that are coming out way too early to have any statistical accuracy to them.

[No Elephants]

5. Maybe that's what he meant, but that's not what he said. Not on this thread, anyway.

[Tempest]

6. You're reading WAY too much into what he said

And he said nothing about the 2010 election.

[No Elephants]

9. See, and I thought you were the one reading way too much into his post. I only asked a question.

And not even a serious one.

But, Tempest, why is a my one sentence question to Bluestateguy so important to you?

[bluestateguy]

8. Of course I will vote

But mentally I'm not yet in a place where I am able to spend much time thinking about the 2010 midterms.

The 2008 election was very draining, and I still need more time to decompress.

[No Elephants]

10. Take your time. Rest up.

[Fearless]

3. He will win and Coakley will win.

And even if he were to lose it wouldn't matter. Does anyone remember how many Republican governors we've had in the last 5? The answer is all four that aren't Patrick. All that happens is that the Congress overrides veto after veto after veto.

[hughee99]

7. I think he might be in real trouble...

You're 100% right about what happens if he loses (nothing, really) and a I think a number of Dems in the state miss having a repuke governor to share the blame with. Being completely out of power has helped the repukes somewhat because it's tough to blame them for anything that's messed up in the state right now, and I don't think Dems will do well campaigning against the * administration.

[No Elephants]

11. Patrick would never campaign against the Obama administration. Obama

handed Patrick Axelrod for Patrick's campaign and gave Patrick so much other help.

I think it would be very sad if Patrick lost.

[hughee99]

12. I don't think he'd campaign against Obama,

but given the problems in the state, and with repukes completely out of power, he'd either have to blame other Dems (which he won't do) or try to explain that these problems are the result of things the Bush administration did that we're still dealing with. While the second option may be true (and is in many cases), it still can be tough to sell voters that the problems we're facing are the fault of someone who has been out of office for 2 years. The repukes "advantage" in MA is that they have no political power, so blaming them (the local repukes) for the state's problems is really a tough sell.

Patrick's strategy, if he's not facing tough opposition, might be to run a relatively low key "work in progress" campaign, but I'm not sure that will work in a three way race where he's facing attacks from both a repuke candidate and Cahill, who will be blaming him for many of the state's problems.

[No Elephants]

14. I think he can do things like blame the national economy, without

specifying Bush or Obama unless and until someone presses him on that issue. He can also point out that all states/governors are in a bind bc of that and point how well Massachusetts is doing in comparison to some other states, like, say, California.

I think Patrick has had a tin ear at times and needs to do better in that area as he campaigns.

I also think Obama/the economy is his trump card, too. Hey, with all the stimulus money going 'round, I'd wannabe sure my Gov(a) was Dem, like those currently controlling the $$ coming out of D.C. (in theory, anyway); and (b) friending Obama.

No matter what anyone thinks of the stimulus in principle, as long as it's getting handed out, people want their state's fair share (and then some).

On edit: Patrick also needs to do a better job of selling his accomplishments. He has done more than people think, IMO.

[Fearless]

17. Indeed...

He will likely blame the national economy as are most gubernatorial candidates in any number of states. And he may very well highlight his accomplishments, but in the end there's an issue still in play. He can say what he did all he wants, but so long as a large number of people are unemployed or underemployed, they will not listen to what he says. Either the economy needs to turn around or he needs to find a successful way to satisfy the unemployed and underemployed. His opponent(s) will certainly cite the sales tax increase, a "lack of effective leadership", budget issues particularly with the highway system, job losses in the tech sector, etc. There will be an overall call to curb government spending and most certainly the redecorating thingy will come back. He will be painted as ineffective. What he needs to do is be more visible and get behind a specific cause that would create jobs in this state or in some way impact everyone in a visual way.

He should win regardless, but it would be much easier if he focuses nipping the criticism at the bud.

[Tailormyst]

13. I think he might be in trouble.

Coakley will win, but not by as much as one would expect. I think the former Dem, Indie might have a shot if things don't change.

[No Elephants]

15. Patrick needs to run a smart campaign, that's for sure.

[Tailormyst]

16. Well, people are not going to fall for "together we can" again.

I feel a great bit of tension in the people around me in regard to almost all politicians right now, but most especially towards those who really got people to believe and then did close to nothing.