What are you doing on June 16th?
New polls show primary voters are still Bakerized; Join us for what’s working (and what’s not) at the UMass Club next month
Please join PFP on June 16th at 4pm at the UMass Club for a Policy Forum, followed by a 5:30pm social hour (well, 90 minutes). You can RSVP here to join friends & policy experts for a conversation on the priorities to focus on in this rare year where voters will select mostly new statewide leaders.
So what is working (and not working?)
The political implications of Maura Healey’s campaign message to “Continue what’s working and fix what’s not” have garnered significant attention, and recent polling from Suffolk University demonstrates the effectiveness of that message (more on that below).
Healey’s mantra matches the PFP approach to policy: identify under-the-radar problems hurting people in Massachusetts, and elevate the evidence-based, politically possible solutions to them.
How do we continue what is working? Find major issues impacting our ability to thrive as individuals and as a state, the policies that are working, and the opponents with the political muscle to stop progress - and then knock down those barriers. Baker’s recent housing offensive is evidence-based, but wealthy suburban towns are already fighting back. Proven education interventions connecting students to college & career opportunities are growing, but too slowly.
How do we fix what is not working? Intense segregation dividing schools and communities, shortchanging all our students. The democracy failure of low-turnout municipal elections that empower special interests. These issues may be complex, and they are not prioritized by our current ideological and political coalitions. But other states are addressing these issues with evidence-based (and politically practical) approaches that we can adopt.
Why are some of these issues & solutions under the radar? They don’t fall neatly in one ideological bucket. The nationalization of politics may scramble things, where federal and state priorities are mismatched - or where Massachusetts’ unique situation may not fit into the national dialogue. Or it just may not be anyone’s job.
In 2013, whose job it was to bring evidence into the public square on Boston’s potential hosting of the Olympics. Was it journalists? Think tanks? Academics? Elected leaders?
Like many things, it was a small part of a lot of people’s jobs. All the ingredients were there, but no one was putting them together. The original case for the loyal opposition was straightforward: call up the world’s leading experts on the issue, package that evidence so people could understand it, and consistently communicate truthful and effective messages.
Sometimes, massive issues like the Olympics are imposed upon the public against public will. More often, massive problems are ignored despite available solutions that just happen to be no one’s job to win.
Will Massachusetts still have some of the country’s worst school & housing segregation next decade? Will democratic participation in municipal elections that determine how schools, policing, and other local quality of life issues still be low, non-representative and empower special interests?
PFP Fellows have taken on that job over the last two years. Join us - as a citizen or an advocate or a politico - by letting us know what you think is working, not working, or is flying too low under the radar. RSVP HERE to join us on June 16th.
New polls confirm Bakerization of voters - even in the Democratic primary
Since 2018, PFP has been analyzing the Holy Grail of Massachusetts politics: why is Charlie Baker so popular?
Back then, the media narrative was of a far-left takeover of the Democratic Party. But data showed only a “Left Decile'' of ~10% of Massachusetts voters pushing left (albeit more aggressively and more concentrated in media circles than before). Nationally, researchers have found ~8% of Americans are part of a “progressive activist” typology that is whiter, wealthier, more highly-educated, and far more engaged in politics than the rest of the electorate.
Past PFP research on election results and with a range of high-quality pollsters have demonstrated time and again that voters are far more moderate than the media narrative.
November 2018 (PFP/Change Research) showed that fewer than 20% of any group (registered Democrats, Warren voters, Sanders voters, young voters, etc) wanted Massachusetts Democrats to move left
August 2020 (PFP/SurveyUSA) primary poll showed 62% of Democratic primary voters would support Charlie Baker in a primary if he ran as a Democrat, and that Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly identify as Obama-Biden Democrats more than AOC & The Squad (72% or 16%) or Bernie Sanders (69% to 22%). In the Left Decile, 13% of primary voters identified as “Very Progressive” and that small-but-influential set was more than 3x as likely to use Twitter daily as regular “Progressive” voters (36% to 11%).
January 2021 (PFP/MassINC) showed Democratic primary voters mostly want someone ideologically similar to Charlie Baker, and would be more likely to vote for a candidate if Baker endorsed.
This is not rocket science, but it is important - especially for anyone seeking to make change. Other polls are now asking similar questions, including some of the recently released statewide polls:
Emerson May 2-4 (848 GE)
Globe/Suffolk April 24-28 (800 GE)
UMass-Lowell April 2-11 (800 likely Dem primary voters)
Few voters want ‘bold change’ or Democrats to move left
The April poll from Suffolk University sponsored by the Boston Globe confirmed Healey’s approach. When asked “when it comes to the next governor, would you say you’re looking for someone who promises bold change or continue with what’s working and fix what’s not?” voters overwhelmingly backed Healey’s approach by more than 2 to 1 (63% continue what’s working; 30% bold change).
That topline figure got attention, but the truth of the crosstabs is even tougher for the revolutionaries: the ‘bold change’ push is actually coming from the right, not the left. Republican voters were more likely to favor bold change (35%) than Democrats (29%). Among general election voters, voters supporting Trumpist ally Geoff Diehl were far more likely to favor bold change (35%) than those supporting the Democrat (24%).
UMass-Lowell asked primary voters about ideology two ways, one on the national Democratic Party and one on the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Fewer than a third of Democratic primary voters thought the national party was too far to the right (29%), 18% thought too far to the left, and a majority believed “about where it should be” (54%). The ‘too conservative’ number increased from when PFP/Change Research asked in 2018, potentially due to significant attention on Senators Joe Manchin & Kristen Sinema upholding the Biden agenda.
As with the national electorate, it is white Democrats pushing the party left - nonwhite voters were far more likely to say national Democrats are too far left (26% vs 16% white) and far less likely to say too far right (20% vs 30%).
When asked about the Massachusetts Democratic Party, fewer than 1 in 5 Democratic primary voters thought the party was too conservative (19%), similar to those believing it was too far left (14%) while two-thirds were Goldilocks (67%).
Again, nonwhite voters were less likely to view Massachusetts Democrats as too conservative (13% compared to 20% for white voters) and more likely to view the local party as too far left.
Baker isn’t just popular among Democratic primary voters, they will act on it
Baker continues to have significant popularity, even among Democratic primary voters in the UMass-Lowell poll (78% approval, with no difference between registered Democrats and Unenrolled voters participating in the Democratic primary)
The Suffolk/Globe poll showed this translates into voting. When asked about a three-way race among Democrat Maura Healey, Republican Geoff Diehl, and Charlie Baker running as an independent. Baker won a plurality, with 37% to Healey’s 28% and 17% for Diehl.
That extends to the Democratic primary electorate: looking at that hypothetical general election matchup among just those who may vote in the Democratic primary, Healey leads Baker 41% to 36% but only slightly outside the margin of error.
Making progress (in reality)
This reality seems to be sinking in.
As the Boston Globe’s Adrian Walker put it recently: there just might not be enough hard-left Democratic voters to push Healey to be more unabashedly progressive
Articles have focused on the “progressive” group endorsements Healey is not seeking. The Suffolk poll demonstrated the lack of appetite for bold change - even in a world in which the Chang-Diaz message did get out to all voters. The UMass-Lowell poll tested this specifically, asking which candidate was “more of a true progressive”. While Healey dominated in areas like “is more of a strong leader” (68% to 8%), and handling the economy (41% to 10%) and healthcare (40% to 11%), Chang-Diaz actually had a slight edge in being the “true progressive.”
It just isn’t enough to win statewide.
Continuing what is working and fixing what is not working will require a clear-eyed approach to both policy and politics. Let’s go do it. RSVP here to join us on June 16th to do it together.