Cambridge Casts Its Votes For Friends

WORCESTER, Mass.--Ask most delegates to the state Democratic convention here why they voted for a given gubernatorial candidate, and they will usually list their hopeful's views on the hottest issues of the campaign.

But salient issues are not what seemed to dictate the Cambridge delegates' decisions between state Rep. Mark Roosevelt '78 (D-Beacon Hill), state Sen. Michael J. Barrett '70 (D-Cambridge) and former state Sen. George Bachrach (D-Watertown).

Rather, Cambridge delegates said it was personal contact with the candidates, not personal convictions, that made up their minds.

Cambridge resident Lawrence J. Sousa, for example, said he voted for Bachrach because of family cannections.

"He was a friend of my father's," Sousa said. "I've known him for 20 years, in the Senate and in local politics."

For Polyxane S. Cobb, a human services administrator from Cambridge, it was a tough choice between Barrett, her neighbor and state senator, and Bachrach, who represented the same district as state senator from 1980 to 1986.

She eventually decided on Barrett.

"I made the decision and I'm living with it comfortably, but it's difficult. They are two good friends," Cobb said.

In the end, Cobb said she chose Barrett because "he's good liberal and a good neighbor."

The trend of voting for friends was perhaps even more prevalent among Cambridge political activists, many of whom have had extended interaction with the candidates during their tenure in the state Senate.

Cambridge Civic Association President R. Philip Dowds said his support for Barrett is due to past contacts with him.

"I have known Mike on and off for years," Dowds said. "All the times I have dealt with him, there was somebody at home and willing to listen."

But Carolyn Mieth, secretary of the Cambridge City Democratic Committee, said she supported Bachrach for essentially the same reasons. "I have been committed to Bachrach since year one," Mieth said.

And Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72 voted for his friend Barrett, whom he said he considers to be "very hardworking" and "a very sincere, honest man."

"He has done a very good job representing Cambridge in a legislature that doesn't move forward very often," Reeves said.

Most voters agreed that no matter which candidate wins the Democratic primary, they plan to support him next November against Gov. William F. Weld '66.

"They are three very good candidates, so anybody can beat Weld," Dowds said. "[Weld] has fallen short on many of the things he promised and he has gotten a free ride on taxes and budget issues."

For these reasons, many Cambridge delegates conclude that the Democrats stand a good chance in November.

"We've got good candidates," Reeves says. "We need someone who will capture the imagination of Democratic Voters."

While Roosevelt may have ultimately won the nomination, his opponents often bested him in the senate districts that represent Cambridge.

In the fourth Middlesex Country district, Barrett won the first ballot over Roosevelt by a 12-vote margin (45 to 33). But Barrett and Bachrach lost several delegates to Roosevelt on the second ballot, and Roosevelt picked up 42 votes to Barrett's 40.

In the Middlesex and Suffolk district, Bachrach won on both ballots, followed closely by Barrett. Roosevelt came in with less than 15 of the district's 106 delegates both times.

And the Suffolk and Middlesex district ultimately supported Bachrach after narrowly choosing Roosevelt on the first ballot.

Voting district are used for ease in tabulating delegates at the convention; a majority of total voting delegates is necessary to receive the party's endorsement.