Recapturing the Corner Office Final Report of the Election and Outreach Committee of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Co-Chairs: March 2005 Senator Jarrett T. Barrios (D-Cambridge) Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay Worcester County Sheriff Guy Glodis Election and Outreach Committee Members Edward Burley, Boston Jim Klocke, Wellesley Michael P. Cahill, Beverly Patty Lamarre, North Reading Kathleen A. Casavant, Jamaica Plain Preeti Mehta, Boston Robert Cassidy, Holliston Christopher Meier, Charlestown Russell A. Ashton, Wayland Fanette Morrison, Ayer George Barnoski, Somerville Mark H. Mulgay, Swampscott Janet M. Beyer, Concord Joseph W. Mullin, Weston Bilotta, Whitinsville Spencer Nichols, Lexington Robert E. Colt, Winchester Terrance Noonan, Newton Richard Couture, Southbridge George Pillsbury, Cambridge Kathleen M. Donaghue, Westboro Melvin C. Poindexter, Watertown Leonard Engel, Holliston Tina Poindexter, Watertown Valerie Frias, Roslindale Arthur Powell, Beverly Jesse Gordon, Cambridge Sue Reimers, Winthrop Alma Greene, Hyannis Eliot Rushovich, Cambridge James Herbert, Winchester Daniel Schlozman, Cambridge Jennifer Hodsdon, Jamaica Plain Jonathan Sclarsic, Sudbury Thomas J. Holloway, Acton Sam Seidel, Cambridge David Hoover, East Falmouth Nancy O'Connor Stolberg, Andover Martina T. Jackson, Newton Douglas Thompson, Cambridge Gregory A. Johnson, Boston Robert Tumposky, Roslindale Christina Kasica, Arlington Election Analysis Subcommittee Subcommittee Report Prepared by: David Hoover and Bonnie Baranowski Assisted on U.S. Census data by: Robert Tumposky Message and Outreach Subcommittee Prepared by: Martina Jackson, Jennifer Hodsdon, Mark Mulgay and Jesse Gordon Polling Subcommittee Prepared by: George Pillsbury, Sam Seidel, Melvin Poindexter and Tina Poindexter Report Authors Colin B. Durrant, Chelsea Dalié Jiménez, Cambridge Jarrett Barrios, Cambridge John Hopkins, intern Page 2 of 38 Message to the Democratic State Committee A conversation has begun within the Massachusetts Democratic Party. It is both a conversation about our vision for the future, and a conversation about our values and the values we project. The hundreds of people who submitted testimony prove what we already knew: our Party is a lot more than its state committee, and that our future owes a great debt to the thousands of committed individuals who volunteer in myriad ways to help our party and its candidates work for Democratic ideals. The conversation we’ve begun about winning the corner office in 2006 must – by necessity -- include these good souls, and the voters who they strive to persuade. This report is merely an attempt to distill in a more formal fashion findings and recommendations about our future direction. It is just another step forward in this ongoing conversation. It is not the end of the conversation. We hope the Massachusetts Democratic Party and its members will use this report to spark discussion and then action. To some, the corner office may seem elusive to Democrats. But to us, it is well within reach. The co-chairs would like to first thank the large number of rank-and-file citizens and concerned Democrats who took the time to communicate their thoughts through us to the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Nearly a thousand citizens testified at hearings or submitted testimony through the Internet. Many individuals have performed yeoman’s work in conducting the business of this committee, and deserve specials words of thanks. Jane Lane, Sue Thomson and Patty Lamarre have helped to coordinate the many hearings and subcommittee meetings. Literally dozens of subcommittee members attended meetings, performed research and forged consensus on critical aspects of past elections and strategies that form the basis for many of this reports recommendations. Many thanks to all dedicated subcommittee members -- their hard work and commitment are reflected throughout this report. The large number of committee members who drove across the state to take information, share back with the co-chairs their own analyses and, in many cases, who dove into the subcommittees with conviction are the soul of our Party, and deserve many thanks as well. Yours truly, Senator Jarrett Barrios Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay Sheriff Guy Glodis Page 3 of 38 Table of Contents Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………. 5 Introduction and Background ……………………………………………...,… 10 Communicating Democratic Values ………………………………………….. 12 Voter Turnout …………………………………………………………………... 17 Perceived Lack of Party Organization ………………………………………… 29 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 31 Page 4 of 38 Executive Summary “The crisis of our times provides the opportunity for boldness.” (Pat Evans, in testimony emailed to the committee) In the fall of 2002 yet another loss at the ballot box left many Democratic Party faithful scratching their heads in disbelief. Weld, Weld, Cellucci, Romney; 2002 marked the fourth consecutive election where a Republican candidate had defeated the Democrat in the race for Governor of Massachusetts. In a state where Democrats hold hefty margins in both the House and Senate, the message from voters could not be ignored. Does the Democratic Party do enough to inspire voters? Why are voters increasingly choosing to register as Independents? Is the Party’s message too liberal or too conservative? And how can lessons from recent defeats inform future gubernatorial campaigns? Debate within the Democratic State Committee centered on how best to position future Democratic gubernatorial candidates for electoral success. Shortly after the 2002 elections, Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Philip Johnston established this Election and Outreach Committee to review the values, mission, message and direction of the Party. Johnston appointed Senator Jarrett T. Barrios (D-Cambridge), then-Senator Guy Glodis (D-Worcester), and Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay to co-chair the Committee. This report – informed by testimony from members across the state – seeks to provide direction in answering questions facing the Party. Its findings are the result of hearings, analysis and discussion. The series of recommendations suggest themselves to party activists and candidates as the means to achieving future electoral success in Massachusetts and nationally. But this report is just one step -- perhaps more formal than others already taken -- in the ongoing conversation. Re-branding and retooling the Massachusetts Democratic Party will require far more of us all. Overview of Findings “People, I believe, really do want progressive change…Give them a reason to vote – inspire them – make them believe that they can be a party of something bigger than themselves. That’s the kind of vision that is so sorely needed.” (Lawrence Kulig, Southborough in testimony submitted via email) The central theme emerging from the Committee’s investigation is clear: the Democratic Party’s inability to secure the corner office requires immediate introspection, evaluation and change. This report suggests that the nature and form of our Party’s response be guided by the findings and recommendations below. Communicating Democratic Values The vast majority of testimony received by the Committee focused on the importance of values to the success of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. A large majority expressed a desire to return to the Party’s “foundational values” and to avoid the temptation to shift toward a “Republican-lite” message. Although a clear majority espoused “progressive” values, a significant minority – while not opposing those values – raised the point that the Party focused too much on controversial issues and should become more “centrist.” Page 5 of 38 Analysis of election results by this Committee showed nothing to suggest a change in the philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic party to a more conservative – or, for that matter, a more liberal -- position would make a difference in the election outcomes, since there are very different constituencies that must reached. Moving within the ideological spectrum is not the answer; “Our party must be we must instead refocus our efforts on “branding” Democratic framed by us, not by values as a means of anchoring Democratic positions on issues. the GOP.” (Testimony received at Northampton Members who testified confirmed that redefining the Democratic hearing) Party’s vision must be rooted in our fundamental values and what it means to be a Democrat instead of attempting to delineate where the Pa rty stands on specific issues. • The Message and Outreach Subcommittee writes: “the most important theme to emerge from the testimony is the necessity of a clear message, rather than merely a debate over where that message falls or should fall on the scale from left to center.” • The Election Analysis Subcommittee wrote: “Our analysis has found nothing that would suggest that a change to a more conservative or a more liberal position of the Democratic candidates is going to make a difference since there are very different constituencies that we must reach.” Our conversation in Massachusetts mirrors a discussion now occurring among Democrats on the national political stage. In Framing the Dems,1 nationally recognized political linguist George Lakoff notes that national Democrats “have been hampered by a focus on specific issues, rather than the overall moral and ethical perspective that justifies specific policy choices.” The Polling Subcommittee quotes pollster Celinda Lake’s finding: “the lack of national message among Democrats” hurt the Party’s success in 2002, especially