BOSTON MAYOR : A STUNNING SHIFT — AND WHAT PORTENDS ; THE CASINO PERPLEX

Image

^ New Boston versus a revolutionary “old Boston’ alliance : breakdown of Tuesday’s vote by WBUR

—-      —-      —-

Thanks to the superb interactive map posted by WBUR, my final article about the Boston mayor race that elected Marty Walsh two days ago is made simple. All of my readers should look at the WBUR map and study it. The whole story is in it.

But now to my final thoughts :

1.Marty Walsh achieved office by revolutionizing Boston’s political alliances.

Always heretofore, Boston’s communities of color had voted in alliance with the City’s patrician, high minded, urban reformers, based historically in Beacon Hill, Bay Village, and the Back Bay. This alliance was the core of the old Republican party grounded in Abolition, a GOP that has just about vanished from the scene. It had, until Tuesday, lived on strongly in Boston city politics, even though now entirely within the Democratic party, at least since the 2000 election.

Walsh succeeded at breaking this alliance. Though he won almost no votes among high minded urban reformers — Ward 5 (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Bay Village) was his worst in the City, worse for him even than John Connolly’s home ward — Walsh won the City’s Wards of color decisively, every single one of them. (I can, in fact, find only one majority black precinct that Connolly carried : Fort Hill in Roxbury).

Never before in a city election had Boston’s wards of color voted with the City’s “old Irish’ wards of which Walsh is the epitome. An abyss of contention divided the two communities. To win one was almost to guarantee losing the other. Attempts were made; but none succeeded as did Walsh’s work. The divide transcended party. Walsh’s base is the most Republican-voting part of Boston, the wards of color the most Democratic. Yet on Tuesday the two areas joined up to give Walsh his unprecedented win.

Of course the Republican votes of today’s South Boston and “Irish” Dorchester are completely different from the Republican votes of forty, sixty, 100 years ago. This is pro-life, socially conservative Republicanism, not Abolition and high-minded reform. And of course, the voters of color who moved their wards to Walsh aren’t the old, high-minded, enterprising, church-based descendants of Abolition and reform; they are union workers and those who seek to be. And of course, that is the connection : it was union labor politics that has brought the two communities together — an achievement that Marty Walsh can claim as his unique contribution. I seriously doubt that any other labor union politician could have done it. None is trusted as profoundly as is Walsh, both within union politics and without.

2. High-minded urban reform is far from defeated; indeed, it is Boston’s fastest growing political movement.

Led by John Connolly, who practically created the new version of it by his campaign, high-minded, urban reform all but captured City hall on its first try. The movement forged a base more solid than even Walsh’s and moved to its side one part — Charlestown — of the old “Irish” Boston that would have once been Walsh’s for the taking. And in fact, though a smaller achievement numerically than Walsh’s, the move of Charlestown into the urban reform camp proved just as formidable. Only Ward 5 and one other ward of the City produced a larger percentage increase in voter turnout from the primary. (More about that ward later.)

The new urban reform movement — “NURM,” let us call it — with its agenda of school transformation, enterprise innovation, bicycles and parks, public safety, and the importance of listening to those who are crying out — has firmly taken hold of all of the Downtown core of Boston : ( 1 ) Chinatown ( 2 ) the Waterfront (3) the Seaport (4) the North End (5) all of the South End, including its extension beyond Massachusetts Avenue into what used to be called “Lower Roxbury” and (6) all of Ward 5. And, as I said, Charlestown too.

Add to this the half of East Boston from Day Square to the Harbor; Jamaica Plain west of the Orange Line; Allston and almost all of Brighton; and a strong majority of West Roxbury and a smaller but still majority of Roslindale, and you have a significant voting bloc. And please note : NURM Boston is growing, while the areas in Marty Walsh’s coalition are receding. Case in point : that Fort Hill precinct. Roxbury is changing. it is becoming more entrepreneurial, racially mixed, socially connected to itself. Four years from now — eight, twelve — much of Roxbury will be voting with the South End. The same can be said of South Boston. From primary to final, John Connolly improved his percentage of the vote in the South Boston precincts closer to the Seaport. Four to 12 years from now much of South Boston will be voting like the Seaport, not against it.

Entrepreneurs both white and Black were the vanguard of John Connolly’s urban reform voting bloc. They weren’t just donors to his funds. They took leadership roles on the front lines of getting votes. from Greg Selkoe to Darryl Settles, Clayton Turnbull to BostInno, Akrobatik to Phil Frattaroli, business innovators fought and often won the battle, in a way that I had not seen since the late 1960s.

Their numbers will grow. I suspect too that so will their front line activism.

Image

^ the Hyde park part of ward 18 : where the Connolly campaign was beaten

3. Ward 18 proved decisive, although it needn’t have.

The Connolly campaign got out-manoeuvered badly in ward 18 — 75,000 people, the largest ward in the City : all of Hyde Park and Mattapan and a part of Roslindale — and ended up losing every one of its 23 precincts.

Granted that none of Ward 18 is “new Boston” in any way, it was not at all assured to Marty Walsh.

Connolly’s problems in the ward began early. Because he announced his campaign while it still looked as if Tom Menino — who lives in ward 18 and was once its District Councillor — would run again, Connolly accorded the ward a lesser priority. Then, when Menino announced that he would not be running again, the area’s current Councillor, Rob Consalvo, stepped up. In the final, the area’s State Representative, Angelo Scaccia, endorsed Marty Walsh, along with several other local political leaders. And John Connolly ? He concentrated his effort so aggressively on the wards of color that, somehow, the power part of Ward 18 got back-burnered.

It should never have been thus. How can you plan to run for Mayor, even against a ward 18 man, and not assemble a ward 18 team early on ? Angelo Scaccia is not all-conquering. He has had many very close elections in his long career. So yes, you talk to Chris Donato, who almost defeated Scaccia not too many years ago. And yes, you pay a visit to Pat Tierney up on Fairmount Hill; you ask if her famous actress daughter Maura Tierney will consider doing a video in support of you. You go to Maureen Costello, Jack Scully, Paul Loconte, Bill Sinnott, Brad White, John Grady, Bill Broderick Jr., Tony Ferzoco, Al Thomas, Tim Lowney, Donny at the Bowling Alley, Joseph Pulgini (who ended up with Walsh, early too) — all whom I respected back in the day; probably I am missing many — and you say, “OK, I understand that you might not be with me if Tom runs but if he doesn’t run, are you with me ?” You do it early and you do it aggressively. And maybe many of the people I have named don’t join you; but some will. So, you build a team in the City’s largest Ward and you keep on building it.

John Connolly may have done some or even all of the above. But I saw no evidence of it. Connolly did, after the Primary, bring to his side Dave Vittorini, Councillor Consalvo’s aide; and Vittorini knows tons of people; but this was the Charlotte Golar-Richie situation all over again : the candidate’s workers went to Connolly, but the candidate him or herself either went to Walsh or stayed neutral.

Little wonder that Vittorini’s efforts were not at all enough to dent Marty Walsh’s Ward 18 campaign. Walsh brought Congressman Mike Capuano all the way from Somerville to Hyde Park to do his endorsement press conference. The Ward’s many BTU people — who loved Consalvo’s “the BTU agenda is my agenda” message — chose Walsh, of course. Thus it came about that on Tuesday Marty Walsh won ward 18 by at least 12 points. Won every precinct of it.

And now to the casino vote. Ward 1 — East Boston — almost doubled its primary vote total as 7324 voters cast casino yea or nay ballots. The nays had it. How was this possible ? How did a majority of people vote against jobs and money ? Who organized and paid for the “no casino’ campaign ?

The answer should be as obvious as the bad breath of a wino. Steve Wynn did it. I have no proof; nor do I need any. It was hugely in Wynn’s interest not to have a possible contending casino applicant right next door to his planned Everett casino — overwhelmingly approved by Everett voters. It would be malpractice for Wynn NOT to fund a “no casino” campaign in East Boston and, I have no doubt, to promise its organizers that there will be lots of juicy jobs in his Everett casino if the East Boston vote went to the “no” side. As it did.

Tuesday was a very very good day for Steve Wynn. Very good indeed.

—- Michael Freedberg / Here and Sphere

BOSTON PRIMARY DAY : TURNOUT ?

Image

^ In case you hadn’t noticed ….
—- —- —-

The polls for Boston’s big Mayor Primary open in about twenty hours.

So who will vote tomorrow ? Most likely, those who have voted in the past City elections. Voting patterns change remarkably slowly. Universal suffrage really IS the conservative political factor that its first advocates, back in the 1870s — Otto von Bismarck of Germany and the UK’s Benjamin Disraeli — expected it would be.

Yet Boston has changed significantly since the last open Mayor election in 1993. “New Boston” has expanded beyond all expectation back then, bringing in thousands of young technology-oriented people — and those who operate or staff businesses catering to them. Wards 3, 4, 5, and 9 look nothing like what they did 20 years ago. Even Ward 11 looks different, and Wards 2 and 6 are changing quickly, albeit only recently.

Still, a citizen’s likelihood of registering to vote, and actually voting, in a Mayor election varies almost directly with two factors : ( 1 ) length of permannent residence in the City and ( 2 ) a feeling of connectedness to City government. In most elections, the income level of a person is also a factor. Not so in Boston City elections. Lower income people in “connected” neighborhoods are quite more likely to vote in a Mayor race than even high-income people in less “connected” neighborhoods.

The City’s most “connected” neighborhoods are Charlestown, South Boston, Ward 16 of Dorchester, and West Roxbury/Roslindale. Together, their population totals about 120,000 — one sixth of the whole City. Now look at some facts :

1. In the 2011 City Council-only FINAL, Charlestown (2309 votes) almost out voted East Boston (2334), a neighborhood two and a half times a populous.

2. In that election, Ward 20 (West Roxbury/Roslindale) outvoted (7166) Ward 18 (6623) substantially — even though Ward 16 is 50 % more populous than Ward 20.

3.In that same election, the “connected” neighborhoods that total one-sixth of the City’s people provided FORTY percent of the total votes cast.

3.In the last Mayor election PRIMARY, in 2009, an electorate not much different from tomorrow’s voted thus :

Total turnout — 81,766. Charlestown total : 2788. South Boston total : 7689 Ward 16 total : 4927
Ward 20 Total 9402.

Ward 20, with 9407 votes cast, almost outvoted 50 percent larger Ward 18 (9880). With 6.5 % of Boston’s people it cast 11.5 % of the City’s vote.

South Boston, with about 5 % of Boston people, cast 9 % of the total vote. Charlestown, comprising about 2 % of Boston people, cast 3.5 % of the total vote. Meanwhile, Ward 21, with 5 % of Boston people, cast 3.5 % of its vote, and Ward 15, home to about 4 % of Bostonians, cast 2.4 % of the vote. Most striking : high-income ward 5, home to almost 6 % of Boston folks, cast less than 4 % of the vote.

Image

^ 119,000 pairs of legs will walk or wheel-chair into Boston’s 254 voting precincts. We predict it.

Turnout in this Mayor Primary will surely go much higher than 2009’s 81,766. Three Council Districts (4th, 5th, and 8th) have District Council race primaries too. My prediction is that 119,000 voters will cast ballots. Want to see how I get my numbers ? Here they are (and percent of total) :

Ward 1 (East Boston) — 6200 ( 5.1 %) — intense battle between walsh, Consalvo, Connolly, Arroyo
Ward 2 (Charlestown) — 5100 (4.3 %) — big increase, for home boy Jack Kelly’s Council race
Ward 3 (North End & Downtown) — 6500 (5.5 %) — many new residents —
Ward 4 South End — 4500 (3.8 %)
Ward 5 (Baack Bay, Beacon Hill) — 6500 (5.5 %) — big Council race; Mike Ross’s home district —
Wards 6 & 7 (South Boston & Seaport) —- 12,000 (10.1 %)
Wards 8 & 9 (Lower Roxbury & South End) — 6000 (5.05 %)
Wards 10 & 11 (Mission Hill, Hyde Square, Eastern J.P.) —- 8000 (7.075 %)
Ward 12 (upper Roxbury) — 5000 (4.2 %) — big for Golar Richie —
Ward 13 (Uphams Corner, Savin Hill) —- 5500 (4.7 %) — big increase in Walsh’s home area —
Ward 14 (Blue Hill Avenue) —- 6500 (5.5 %) — see remarks on ward 12 —-
Ward 15 (Bowdoin/Geneva) — 3300 (2.8 %)
Ward 16 (South Dorchester — 8100 (7.1 %) — see ward 13 remarks —
Ward 17 (Codman square, Lower Mills) — 6000 (5.05 %) — Walczak brings out the vote —
Ward 18 (Mattapan, Hyde Park) —- 15,000 (12.8 %) — Consalvo and Conley compete —
Ward 19 (Jamaica Plain, Rossie Square) — 8000 (7.075 %)
Ward 20 (West Roxbury/Roslindale) — 14,500 (12.2 %) — Connolly’s home Ward —
Ward 21 (Allston, Comm Avenue) — 4000 (3.3 %)
Ward 22 (Brighton, North Allston) — 5000 (4.7 %)

So yes :  “new Boston” will up its grammar. To maybe 45 % of the total. But not anywhere near enough to render “traditional” Boston a past participle.

Wednesday morning we will know if this is the IT or just a will o’ the wisp.

—- Mkichael Freedberg / Here and Sphere