Before we turn to consider the general election (not that there is much to consider in an overwhelmingly Democratic district where one candidate is unenrolled), let us close the book on the Democratic primary seeking to fill Smitty Pignatelli’s soon-to-be vacated seat in the State House of Representatives.
Although I supported Leigh Davis, I confess surprise at the magnitude of her victory: 50 percent more than second-place finisher Patrick White. Surprised because, other than Ms. Davis’ substantial endorsement gap, the two candidates appeared to be fighting toe-to-toe throughout the campaign without much daylight in their stated positions. I would not have wagered that Ms. Davis would win 55 percent of the vote in a three-way race, or that Mr. White would win only two of the district’s 18 towns: Stockbridge, where he serves on the Select Board, and Mount Washington (by four votes).
Contributions to each campaign were fairly close. Ms. Davis collected $62,418.99 from 307 contributors ($203.32 average contribution); Mr. White collected $57,300 from 344 contributors ($166.57 average contribution); and the third primary candidate, Jamie Minacci, collected $3,409.00 from 12 contributors ($284.08 average contribution, skewed as nearly half the campaign’s contributions came from Ms. Minacci and her partner). Marybeth Mitts, the unenrolled candidate facing Ms. Davis in the general election, collected $11,310 from 59 contributors ($191.69 average contribution) during the same period.
Scanning expenditures reported to the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance, one notes the candidates differed in how they sought to reach voters. The Davis campaign concentrated its expenditures on now traditional methods: mailers, lawn signs/palm cards/buttons, canvassing, and Facebook. The White campaign focused its spending on face-to-face meetings with potential voters by catering meet-and-greets and attending events at the Norman Rockwell Museum and The Mount. The traditional method appears to have trumped the more personal approach.
The Davis campaign spent $15,000 less than the White campaign while gathering 50 percent more votes. Mailers and Facebook appear to be more cost effective. The Mitts campaign recently spent a significant sum on a billboard. The undercard in the general election will be the competition between upstart Facebook vs. old-school billboards. Since billboards are seen by vast numbers of uninterested drivers with limited attention, the Mitts campaign may find that its expenditure was not money well spent.
Among other things, Ms. Davis ran on a record of expanding affordable housing opportunities in South County. But you did not have to take her word for it: The Massachusetts Realtors’ Political Action Committee proved it by sending out a mailer endorsing Mr. White. Fair to surmise that the realtors’ PAC helped Ms. Davis by confirming that she is a feared opponent of an often-vilified trade group. Mr. White stated he was as surprised as everyone to receive the PAC’s endorsement mailer, which is no doubt true. Mr. White had good reason not to be pleased.
What remains in question is why the realtors’ group misperceived the effect of the mailer in South County and why local realtors permitted the effort. If the realtors had considered the district, they would have concluded that they would have been better served endorsing Ms. Davis in a false-flag operation.
Social media—well, mostly the same few posters making the same claims over and over—unfairly sought to blame Ms. Davis, vice chair of the Great Barrington Selectboard, for the town’s woes. As everyone knows, town government and its interaction with state agencies is complicated. No town select board member is individually responsible for any of the ills facing a town, and Great Barrington has five members. Ms. Davis was not personally responsible for inspection of or the state’s recent decision to close Brookside Bridge; Ms. Davis was not responsible for the Berkshire Hills Regional School District maintenance of or the multi-decade decay of Monument Mountain High School; and Ms. Davis was not responsible for the Department of Public Utilities’ (DPU) feeble oversight of Housatonic Water Works (HWW) or, worse, its recent agreement to nearly double Housatonic water rates. The multiple Facebook jabs at Ms. Davis for matters beyond her control didn’t land a blow because everyone knows they were simply cheap shots.
Speaking of HWW, Mr. White had an unforced error in not supporting the towns of Great Barrington and West Stockbridge in their petition to appeal the DPU’s order permitting HWW’s enormous phased rate increase, addressed in an earlier column. On August 21, Stockbridge’s town counsel published a memorandum explaining its decision not to appeal the DPU order. Given Mr. White’s long-standing and much-appreciated efforts on behalf of HWW’s ratepayer, I had (wrongly) assumed that the Stockbridge Select Board outvoted Mr. White in declining to join the appeal. I publicly argued that the decision must have dismayed Mr. White. But in a surprising comment at the end of the column, Mr. White corrected the record, stating that he, not the Select Board, made the call. Some portion of Mr. White’s Housatonic support likely went down the drain with that clarification.
I heard in discussions with potential voters that they supported Mr. White because they found Ms. Davis to be a bit pushy and political. One letter supporting Ms. Davis’ candidacy—keep in mind, this is from a supporter—stated, “Does Leigh sometimes step on toes to get things done? Yes. Do we want someone that may step on toes to get things done? Absolutely, yes.” I laughed and agreed—stepping on toes to get things done might be a feature, not a bug. It may be that voters perceived Mr. White as congenial and Ms. Davis as fierce and that the 3rd Berkshire District needs fierce on Beacon Hill to get a fairer slice of the economic pie.
Then there was the endorsement gap. We have no insight as to why so many state interests supported Ms. Davis while so few endorsed Mr. White. As Mr. White pointed out in an online post, endorsement meetings are “like speed dating; you get 5-15 minutes to make your case.” Perhaps that forum heavily favored Ms. Davis, more practiced in public speaking, or that Ms. Davis championed programs more aligned with the endorsers’ views. Mr. White appeared to take umbrage at all of the endorsements, stating that if he wins, “I will owe no allegiance to any big special organization.” That sounded like sour grapes, as Ms. Davis’ positions were already aligned with Planned Parenthood, the Environmental League, the Women’s Political Caucus, the Nurses Association, and other endorsers. It is also not known if endorsements at the local level matter—although, as noted, the realtors’ endorsement may have materially moved the needle.
The White campaign succeeded in getting its message out via email and blog posts. I heard in discussions with voters that Mr. White earned their support due to his involvement in so many activities and the breadth of his ideas reflected in his communications. Most posts were also found on the campaign’s webpage. Mr. White presented many—possibly too many—interesting ideas, each authentically written in his voice. Stockbridge remains lucky to have him on their Select Board.
To both campaigns, let me ask: Maybe there is such a thing as too many communications, photos of what you just did, and updates on the minutiae of campaign life? There is a running joke in the Woody Allen film “Play it Again, Sam” in which a businessman, played by Tony Roberts, is on the phone constantly. As he leave an apartment to go to dinner, he says into the phone, “I am leaving 555-1234 now, but I’ll be at 555-4321 in 20 minutes.” Woody Allen, annoyed, says, “Hold on, there’s a phone booth we’ll be passing along the way. Let me get the number for you just in case.” Maybe we didn’t need to hear what you were passing, what you were doing, and who you were visiting as often as you did.
At 21.7 percent of registered voters, it was a good turnout for a primary. But because the Democratic primary essentially decides the election, it would have been terrific to see greater voter interest in picking our next representative. As has been noted, we do not have government by the majority; rather, we have government by the majority who participate. Or as FDR said, “Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves, and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” Fair to expect a better turnout in November when there is this other important election on the ballot.
One last note. If it had been a boxing match, you would have said that it was a clean fight. The current presidential campaign brings to mind the George Bernard Shaw quote, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” With presidential politics, many are promised much paid for by others. To each primary campaign’s credit, no empty promises were made. No one promised to instantly solve South County’s problems immediately upon getting to Beacon Hill.
In Ms. Davis and Mr. White, you had two candidates asking for your votes based on their demonstrated dedication to worthy issues, their established record of performance, and promises to work hard for the Berkshire Third. The fact is that either candidate would have represented the district well. More voters simply concluded that, perhaps due to her fierce drive, Ms. Davis is the candidate they want representing the district in Boston. There is no question in my mind that the voters made the right choice, and that they will do so again in November.
Survey Monkey Questions
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Given that Democrats hold nearly 85 percent of the seats in the Massachusetts House, would it cause you concern that one of the candidates in the general election is unenrolled?”
Monkey Results
A recent column asked the following survey question: Do you support your town’s select board implementing the residential exemption for local property taxes to reduce for most residents the costs associated with renovating Monument Mountain Regional High School?
As of publication, 50 percent of respondents said “yes.” For comparison, in a July 7, 2024, survey, without the residential exemption, 66.67 percent said they would not support funding the renovation of Monument Mountain High School.
Days Great Barrington has held Community Access Fees hostage: 196
