First, which poll are you talking about, and could you put a link?

Second, Deval Patrick is not doing much in the way of self-funding, and he's broken records on the number of small donors and the amounts he's raised. Granted, I'm a Patrick supporter and biased but just because it's a blog, doesn't mean you should skip over facts.

Third, since you're citing polls, let's have a look at the numbers. Your interpretation, I think, is pretty out there. The last poll I saw did not show Reilly holding steady - he dropped from 35% in May to 25% in late June. Patrick, by contrast, went from 20% to 31% and pulled ahead. Granted, it's a relatively large MoE (4%) and polls this early out are not as reliable as indicators, but to say Deval's support has peaked is pretty outrageous.

Also, Patrick's name recognition is still the lowest of the three - 20% unknown (Reilly's unknowns are at 5% and Gabrieli's at 11%)- and his support's the highest. As Patrick's unknowns drop he's in a nice position to pick up new supporters.

I also think, from personal experience with unenrolled voters who are not your "typical liberal Dems" that Deval appeals nicely to independents. As much as the mainstream media likes to label Patrick as "liberal," his positions are more often pragmatic. It just so happens that pragmatic is also often "progressive" too (more often than you think). He's posed to be the person who appeals to independents because of his outsider status, and, fair or not, Reilly is tarred with being a current office-holder in a time where 49% of people think the state's on the wrong track (to a 33% who think we're on the right track).

Now, all this is based on that one poll and its past trends - mind you, you can't compare trends using different polls because they all have different mechanisms - and all of this is really early and tentative. However, your interpretation is eminently disputable.

Now, to continue to refute your assumptions...you are pretty much the only person I've ever seen call Patrick a potential "Mitt" runaway. There is no reason to believe Patrick would become governor and then bail like all our Republican govs do. Trust me, I'd be pissed if I found out otherwise, and hurt. That came out of thin air and you're making a supposition you can't back up, I suspect. My personal feeling is that Patrick would stay governor quite a while. I don't doubt he'd be good at a national campaign; but my personal interactions with him and many people who know him is that he really wants to be governor. He really believes he can make a contribution to the citizens of the Commonwealth and turn the state around. I know that sounds politically naive, but frankly, it's been nice to be able to let some of my considerable cynicism go and believe in someone again.

I remember when I was in high school. I lived in New Hamster and therefore, was subject to lots of lessons in political campaigns (us having the first in the nation primary). Tsongas and a couple other Dems came to my high school for a speech. I remember really really liking Tsongas. I would have voted for him in the primary if I'd been old enough. He was inspiring, and I've missed being inspired. Not only by an "inspirational" speaker. But by someone who genuinely gives a damn about my opinion, whoever I am. That's why I ended up becoming so involved in the Patrick campaign - not because I'm a far left liberal (what's far left anyway? most of my positions are mainstream if you look at the national issues polls), but because I think he surpasses our usual politicians in his genuine connection to the people. $2.7 million monthly mortgage or not.

What's so amusing about Gabby being in the race at all was that Reilly initially promised that Gabby could be his running mate for Lt. Gov.

Of course we all remember the fiasco that resulted when Reilly snubbed Gabby and instead chose that embarrassing person with massive tax problems (Mrs. "What me pay taxes?"). Meanwhile Taj escaped notice with a similar tax paying problem while the whole bruhaha was going on. And then Gabby got pissed enough to run against Reilly. Really slick move on Reilly's part, eh?

Lynne, you're right - I mean left - you are way out there. Patrick has gotten all the boost he can get from the UL crowd. That's the ultra liberals and liberals. Recent polls by the Statehouse News Service, Suffolk University and Rasmussen Reports, show Gabrieli surging. Guess where Gabrieli's making up his ground? At the expense of both Patrick and Reilly. Rather than give you all the links, just google "Massachusetts gubernatorial polls" for the latest from SHNS, Suffolk, Rasmussen and Survey USA, which is a poll conducted with WBZ. While Patrick has moved past Reilly in two of the polls, his power rating in a matchup with Lt. Gov. Healey are slightly weaker than are Gabrieli's and Reilly's (Rasmussen, May 2006.
The most interesting - or startling from your standpoint - is that Gabrieli's TV ads have pushed his favorability rating higher than Patrick's. In a poll conducted May 3-4 by SHNS of Democratic Primary votes, Reilly gets 37 percents, Gabrieli gets 25 percent and Patrick 15 percent.
In head to head matchups with Healey, Reilly wins 40 to 27 percent, Gabrieli wins 42 to 23 percent and Patrick wins 38 to 25 percent.
Do I take stock in these polls? No, I don't. I talk to the people who work for the pollsters and who understand trends. They like what they see from Gabrieli and Patrick, but question whether they can make it stick when crunch time comes. While Reilly has been losing ground, this is the best time for him to be shedding support -during the summer doldrums and prior to a campaign blitz. Reilly's got a hardcore base and a strong network. Of course, he's just one more gaffe away from sinking into a deep channel.
The Survey USA/WBZ poll has Patrick in the lead, with 36 percent of the sampled audience (435 ikely Dem voters) favoring him. Reilly is next at 31 percent and Gabrieli has 23 percent. The undecideds are high at 9 percent. The poll was taken June 19, which is the latest on the block.
At this point, Taj Deval is doing well off his convention bounce, just like former Treasurer Shannon O'Brien did four years ago over former Senate President Thomas Birmingham and Warren Tolman. O'Brien, however, had run for statewide office and had great name recognition. Taj Deval has never run for office in Massachusetts, let alone statewide office. Poll numbers don't vote, Lynne, people do. When the time comes, the candidate who can get out the vote will bring home the bacon. If Republicans cross over to vote for Patrick, it'll be because they believe Healey can beat him in the November election - not that they want him to be governor.
As for the comment that "people don't like the direction the state is headed," that's been going on for about 20 years now. To change it will require swinging the Berkshires around to where Boston is and vice versa. Maybe that's why Patrick's building his mansion in the high country?
As for Patrick having higher political aspirations, why wouldn't he? If he becomes the second black American in U.S. history to win a gubernatorial office, he'd ba cinch to move up to U.S. Senator. Timing, they say, is everything in politics. If Patrick were governor and either Sens. Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry stepped down from their posts, Patrick could name himself as the replacement.
Very, very likely, Lynne.

We've tried twice now to put un-inspirational low-level statewide Democratic officeholders into the Governor's office and both times we've failed. Why would we want to back Reilly and have the same thing happen again. What appeal does he have over Healey to a middle class suburbanite from Groton. Nothing. The city voters (except the diehard Dems) will stay home, and the suburbanites will put the Republicans back in the statehouse.

The Democrats need to do something different to win. So while his opponents from all sides have tagged him with the 'L' word, Patrick is not a liberal. He's just the first candidate in 20 years to run as a Democrat and come with real innovative policy positions. That makes him an inspirational. Does the power to inspire automatically make a candidate a "liberal"? I sure hope not. Outside of the old group of party insiders, I don't know of many people who are inspired by Reilly. I also don't see how he convinces an unenrolled voter to support him.
Patrick can win because he understands how to be independent from the legislature, can bring good policy ideas to the statehouse, AND can convince voters that he can run the state better than any other candidate. He will win because he has been connecting with voters on the issues that concern them (jobs, housing costs and the spiralling cost of property taxes). Those don't exactly sound like liberal positions to me.
And so what if he wants to be a senator some day? Did that line come out of the Tom Reilly "lines to help beat Patrick in September" playbook?

SD, I wish Tom Reilly were inspirational enough to concoct an assumption on Deval Patrick's future, but he isn't. I spoke to Reilly two weeks ago in an editorial board meeting at The Sun. While he is a bit more polished in his mantra - he's the working class candidate - he lacks Patrick's engaging style of conversation. I don't know who will connect better with voters but the bottom line is this: Will Massachusetts trust the corner office to a Democratic outsider? It might. Now this is much different from trusting a Republican outsider. We've seen that happen with Bill Weld and Mitt Romney, basically because Independent voters preferred an intended watchdog over the majority Democratics who ruled the Legislature. Maybe Patrick could change the political culture on Beacon Hill. Even Gabrieli might have a shot to do so. The problem is that the new governor has to work with the same ingrained crowd of incumbents who've been doing things their way for decades. I agree Patrick holds a lot of promise. It'll be a tight primary for sure, and possibly a nasty one. Once again, that leaves Kerry Healey unscathed on the sidelines and in a good position to pick up the pieces. Or so it seems.
The great myth of Massachusetts is that we always think things are going to get better. But what if it is true that we've reached the high-water mark in jobs, health care and the economy? Who is the leader out there who can really turn things around, and stop the reversals that are threatening to turn the state into the Mississippi of New England?
Marty Meehan anyone?

May polls are way outdated at this point, the numbers have all changed from then. This is, of course, two months later. Stop quoting May numbers to support a current argument.

And when are you going to get it? Patrick's support is not from all ultra-liberals. Good lord, among my OWN group of volunteers, there are plenty of moderates who sometimes even trend conservative, especially on fiscal matters.

He appeals to independents in several ways: first, he's a non-office holder. I don't personally think it's fair to tar Reilly with the Romney/legislature brush, but he is. He gains all the negatives of being in government at a time when the majority of the state thinks we're going in the wrong direction.

Second, Patrick appeals on the details to independents. After all, he's been the most candid about his plans, putting them on his website for all to analyse. I note that Reilly's only attack is about Ameriquest - a long-hashed-over sinker of an issue. Why hasn't he had his people analyse Patrick's issue papers and attack on those details, which of course conventional wisdom says you do not come out with this early? Because they are thoughtful positions that are hard to attack.

Contrary to the common wisdom the mainstream media - including you - have decided on, Patrick isn't ultra liberal. He's definitely progressive, but so are the people, if you ask about the issues. But he's more pragmatic than he is "liberal." Labels are so stupid anyway. They're a lazy way to forgo actually talking about what matters.

Thirdly, anyone who listens to Patrick talk or answer candid town-hall-style questions can see the guy is smart as hell, informed as nobody's business, and charismatically engaged with ordinary people. He has both the speaking oomph and the personable ability to dialog with voters.

Lastly, Deval Patrick has a spine. Unlike most pols, he's running on actually taking some positions and sticking to principle. That appeals to independents as well.

But I guess time will tell how wrong you are. Though I caution on comparing different polls to one another (due to the methodology being different), the one from today shows Patrick at 35%. We'll see if Patrick's peaked. I'm pretty sure you're 100% wrong. Remember, Patrick's name recognition is the lowest of all the candidates. There's really only one way for him to go - up.

And how in the WORLD could Gabrieli be getting increased support at the expense of Patrick if Patrick's numbers have also trended up at the same time?? That's basic math.

And once again, RE Patrick "abandoning" his post...well, then, if you make that assumption, you have to say the same thing about the other candidates, since your prediction is completely baseless. If you're going to make insinuations, at least base them on something other than rampant wishful thinking.

I am not really happy about any of these candidates...

Reilly really shot himself in the foot by interfering in the investigation. Cronyism is something I really have problems with... We have enough of it in Salem with most of the local rep's voting for special bill to fund Michael Ruane's pension. We don't need a Governor with similar tendencies.

Partick lost our support because he has refused to support a single-payer health plan for Massachusetts...

I am favoring Gabrielli but that's probably because I don't know that much about him.

I cannot see voting for Healey. Besides the fact that she was chosen to be Mitt's poodle, the last 8 years have given me so many reasons to dislike the Republicans that it will take quite a while before I vote for one at any level local, State, or Federal.

Another election where we vote for the lessor of so many evils.

DD, nice to hear from a Salemite. You bring up a good issue: the late Rep. Michael Ruane's pension. Mike Ruane was a damn nice guy., I remember him from my days at the Salem Evening News in the early 1980s. But I have to believe that even Mike Ruane would have been opposed to the Legislature's move to award him a posthumous pension. Mike himself had refused to join the state pension fund on at least two occasions. So what does the Legislature do? They give his widow a $44,000 a year kiss while putting a lien on her home - or so they say they did. DD, these were Democrats who did this. Gov. Romney wanted the legislators to put up 1 percent of their salary to fund the pension. They refused. They'd rather hit the taxpayers wallet than their own. How Massachusetts, right? Anyway, what about all the good guys in the state who've got a terminal illness and could use a pension break like Ruane got? Can they line up at the Statehouse for a similar deal? It's absurd..
You might not like Lt. Gov. Healey or Gov. Romney, but you should ask yourself one key question: Will any of the Democrats running for the corner office change things? They might have the best of intentions, but it's the Legislature that controls things and takes care of its friends.