Rasmussen has a new survey out on the Governor’s race that shows a real tight race, with the bottom falling out on Tim Cahill’s campaign. Rasmussen has Patrick with 42% of the vote, Baker has 38% and Cahill 11%. But Rasmussen now includes so called “leaners”, and when they are included Rasmussen finds:
Patrick earning 45% support, while Baker picks up 42% of the vote when leaners are included. Democrat-turned-Independent candidate Tim Cahill runs a distant third with five percent (5%), and five percent (5%)more favor some other candidate in the race. Two percent (2%) are undecided.
We see Cahill cratering, and Patrick and Baker in a dead heat. Rasmussen has moved this race from “lean democratic” to “tossup”.
A quick editorial point here. I have put the link to the Adrian Walker Globe column below. Walker sort of mocks the municipal health care debate that was the first item of business in this debate.
What we’ve gotten instead is a lot of mush about “seats at the table’’ and who should or shouldn’t join the Group Insurance Commission;
Guess what Adrian. In terms of laying off policemen, firefighters, closing libraries, and decimating all municipal services there is not a more important topic. I fully understand that what I look at as a Mayor is not the most interesting item to write about, but it certainly is the most important issue facing municipalities. Tim Cahill’s position on this is straight out ludicrous. Labor should have a seat at the table, just as they do at the State level. But to highlight the fact that nineteen communities have joined the GIC as evidence that collective bargaining works on this matter is Orwellian. It is hard and real evidence that the system has not worked, and needs reform. Two questions that Braude might have asked that I would love to hear answers on.
1) The State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a bill ending 23 and out at the MBTA. That bill also unilaterally changed heath care coverage for MBTA employees. These changes were not collectively bargained, and in fact abrogated existing contracts. Did you support the bill, and if so why would you not support the same type of action on municipal health care?
2) Everyone agrees that health care plan design would save municipalities about $100 million dollars annually. If you believe that no changes should be made to municipal health care plans outside of collective bargaining do you agree that you are imposing higher property taxes on municipal taxpayers to preserve the sanctity of union collective bargaining rights?
Read the Adrian Walker column here.