Episode 212: SCOTUS shockwaves could shake Mass.
5/5/2022-- Today on The Horse Race, Steve and Lisa begin the episode by running through the newest fundraising numbers of the candidates running for statewide office. Plus, Lisa breaks down the results of the special election for the District 1 Boston City Council seat.
The MassINC Polling Group is out with new data on how parents feel about their children's academics and wellbeing in school. Compared to the last wave of education polling, Steve explains, this time around parents aren't quite as optimistic. In the fall, parents were largely confident their children would catch up and get back on track academically given the new all in-person school format. So far, reality has not quite lived up to those expectations. Read more about the poll at massincpolling.com.
Finally, the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade sent shockwaves throughout the country. Today's guest, Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now, joins the hosts to explain what the implications would be in Massachusetts if and when the landmark decision falls away.
This episode of The Horse Race was brought to you by Benchmark Strategies. Benchmark is setting a new standard as Boston's fastest-growing public affairs consulting firm. To know more, connect with Benchmark on Twitter @benchmarkBoston.
Full transcript below:
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:01:11] Today on the horse race. What would it mean for Massachusetts if Roe v Wade is struck down? Then a new poll finds that parents in Massachusetts are still struggling with COVID 19 impacts on their children. And many of those children are still struggling with mental health and their academics. It's Thursday, May 5th. [00:01:29][18.5]
Steve Koczela: [00:01:38] Welcome back to the horse race, your weekly look at politics, policy and elections in Massachusetts. I'm Steve Koczela here this week with Lisa Kashinsky, our beloved co-host. Jennifer Smith is out this week. It has been an extremely busy newsweek this week. We have election results, fundraising figures, endorsements, all of our favorite stuff here at the horse race. So, Lisa, let's get right into it. First up, we have election results, which came as a bit of a surprise to many people yesterday that there was actually an election going on. Not a whole lot of people voted. But at the end of the day, we did have a replacement for now State Senator Lydia Edwards, who won the District One City Council race in Boston. [00:02:16][38.0]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:02:18] It is Gabriela "Gigi" Coletta. She is Lydia Edwards, former chief of staff. She most recently worked as external relations manager for the New England Aquarium. She beat Tania del Rio in the District one Boston City Council race, which had kind of gotten a lot of press at the beginning because, oh, gosh, special elections on special election, so many special elections with Lydia Edwards also winning a special election. But then it kind of faded into the background. And as you said, a lot of people didn't quite know that there was an election happening in Boston yesterday. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has already congratulated Gigi for joining the city council and for joining the Short Turnaround Transition Club. [00:03:01][43.6]
Steve Koczela: [00:03:03] Yeah, some day we'll spend a whole episode on special elections. We have a lot of them here in Massachusetts. It's how a lot of longtime office holders win their seat initially. And it has the impact of kind of limiting competition and giving insiders a real head start, people who already have their networks established and can kind of mount a campaign on the very compressed timetables that special elections include. [00:03:25][21.9]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:03:26] Yeah, we saw that actually a little bit in this D one council race with Jorge Mendoza, who was the North End restaurateur who was angry at the mayor's policies and decided to launch a write in sticker campaign. You know, not long before the election and in his statement, he kind of blasted Gigi Coletta a little bit. You know, "the top vote getter is a career politician at age 29," he says. So there's definitely a there's definitely a lot to dig into with that. [00:03:53][27.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:03:54] It is also a wonderful time right now at this particular point in this particular month, we have new OCPF fundraising reports. It's something that we celebrate with, you know, drinking and dancing and lots of religious observances here at the horse race. So, Lisa, what do they tell us this month? What are the highlights, starting with governor? [00:04:11][16.9]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:04:12] The highlights this month are actually kind of the lowlights. You saw both Maura Healey and Sonia Chang-Diaz bringing in less money than they had in the previous months. In Healey's case, a lot less, actually. But don't get too alarmed about that just yet. It's April. So this is the first month of a new quarter. So last-- March the numbers were, I don't want to say artificially inflated, but a little inflated by big end of month and end of quarter fundraising pushes. That's where you saw Healey get over that $600,000 mark, which was eye popping in the governor's race here. Now she's back down to about $390,487. Sonia Chang-Diaz also dropped. She is back below $100,000 a month. She came in at around $71,814 in April. So again, we'll see kind of how this moderates out over the next few months. We're a few months removed from launches. You know, we're getting into kind of a lot of vacations and things like that. Geoff Diehl is also around on the Republican side, around $70,000 and there is no report available yet for Chris Doughty. [00:05:21][68.9]
Steve Koczela: [00:05:21] That's right. We don't have a monthly report submitted for Doughty as of when we're recording. By the time this posts, there may be something in. But because his campaign actually submits their contributions closer to real time, we have a pretty good idea of of what he has reported so far. It looks like just over $20,000, maybe, maybe somewhere in the 22 to 23,000 for April. So considerably considerably behind what Geoff Diehl has raised and far behind what either Senator Chang-Diaz or Maura Healey have raised. So then moving over to what has what many observers were initially expecting to be the hottest race in town. Lieutenant Governor, I can't believe I just said that, but that's how observers were describing it. What are we seeing there so far? [00:06:06][44.5]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:06:06] Kind of the same story every month in this race, even though, again, not all of the reports are in yet at the time of recording this. But State Senator Eric Lesser is leading the pack again another month where he's over $100,000, he's at $114, 581 for the month of April. And this is kind of how it's been. He, you know, lesser is very well connected within the Democratic Party, the Obama network, donor network. So it's not a surprise to see him kind of leading this money race. It is a little surprising to see that it doesn't quite match up with the early polling in this race, though, which shows Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll leading the pack. Again, this is very early and a lot of voters are undecided, but she hasn't been doing as well in the money race. She has about $55,468 this month. [00:06:58][51.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:06:58] That's right. We have no report yet from Bret Bero or Adam Hinds. Tami Gouveia with just about $11,600 in the attorney general's race, we're seeing Andrea Campbell with an enormous advantage. Once again, over $190,000 compared to around 25 for Palfrey and just 16,000 around 16,000 for Shannon Liss-Riordan. That one actually surprised me a little. I was a bit surprised to see her fundraising kind of coming in even behind Palfrey's. [00:07:25][27.0]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:07:26] Yeah, that is interesting. And that's a change from what we've seen so far. Again, maybe it's the April thing. Maybe it's an indicator of something to come. I feel like we're going to need another month or two of data to really see this, but do remember that she has already put $500,000 of her own money into her campaign and could do more. So even if her fundraising is lagging, she does have the means to keep herself afloat. [00:07:49][22.2]
Steve Koczela: [00:07:49] Yeah, that's very true. And and certainly worth noting that she's not counting on those dollars. We also had some endorsement news. Lisa, what's the news there? [00:07:56][7.1]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:07:57] Our Revolution Massachusetts has endorsed a state rep, Tami Gouveia for lieutenant governor. We saw Progressive Massachusetts also endorse Tami Gouveia for LG, and both groups have endorsed Sonia Chang-Diaz for governor. So and you've seen this among delegates to where some of these, you know, very progressive policy-minded delegates are also choosing the two of them as their team. So this is it's definitely an interesting pairing. [00:08:24][27.1]
Steve Koczela: [00:08:25] All right. Well, certainly lots to keep track of at this point in the campaign cycle. But that brings us to the question, which we have yet to answer, despite asking it thousands of times over our decades, recording the horse race. What are we doing here today? [00:08:36][10.8]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:08:36] So first off, we'll be joined by Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now to talk about the draft U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion that would overturn Roe v Wade. And that was, of course, published by Politico. And what that would mean for Massachusetts. [00:08:52][16.1]
Steve Koczela: [00:08:53] That's right. And then we at the MassINC Polling Group have new poll data out just this week on K-12 parents in Massachusetts, how they think their kids are doing in school, both academically and in terms of mental health and a whole lot on COVID as well. So, shall we ride? [00:09:06][13.1]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:09:07] Let's do it. Giddy up. Jinks! [00:09:12][4.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:09:13] Hi, Jenn Smith. [00:09:14][0.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:09:18] Politico on Monday night published a draft U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion that would strike down the landmark Roe v Wade decision. And the public response has been resounding. Demonstrators are taking to the streets across Massachusetts. Lawmakers here and across the country are talking about passing new legislation. And abortion rights advocates are preparing for what could become a final decision. Joining us today to talk about the draft opinion and its potential implications for Massachusetts is Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now. Welcome. [00:09:52][34.1]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:09:53] Thanks for having me. [00:09:53][0.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:09:54] So, first of all, how are you doing? We assume the past few days have been a whirlwind, to say the least. [00:10:00][5.9]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:10:01] Yeah, I would say I. I'm upset, I'm angry. I'm not shocked. But it was shocking to read it. You know, we knew that this was coming. I wasn't surprised that this is the direction the court is heading in, but it just honestly feels different to see a 60 page decision eviscerating gender equality than it does to sort of know that it's coming. So I am I have slept a little bit more. I feel a little clearer. And, yeah, it's it hasn't been a great 36 hours. [00:10:35][34.1]
Steve Koczela: [00:10:36] And just getting back to here to Massachusetts for a second. One of the things that this that this would do, if this ruling approximates what ends up actually, you know, coming out is, you know, it would the situation in every state would be different. So here in Massachusetts, what would this mean for us? [00:10:55][18.5]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:10:56] Yeah. Really important question. So the first the first point is the ruling is not final yet. So access to abortion care is still legal nationwide until we get a decision, a formal decision from the court. Whatever happens at the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson, abortion care will remain safe, accessible and legal in Massachusetts because we have codified the right to choose in Massachusetts state law. [00:11:22][26.6]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:11:23] And can you tell us a little bit about what exactly is in that law, what services are available and accessible to people in Massachusetts? [00:11:31][7.6]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:11:32] Yeah. So really, the you know, the full spectrum of abortion care is available here. So we have a law that says you can get abortion care up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, basically without restriction. Both physicians and advance practice clinicians practicing within their scope of practice can provide care. You can get surgical or aspiration abortion. You can also get medication abortion up to ten weeks of pregnancy. And then if you are if you need abortion care later in pregnancy, and that is usually when there is something exceptional happening with with the health of the pregnant person or with the health of of the pregnancy, you can get that care if there is a threat to the life or health of the pregnant person or if there is what's in the law called a lethal fetal anomaly. [00:12:28][55.8]
Steve Koczela: [00:12:30] And with the laws changing, you know, state to state and that being the situation in Massachusetts, something that we've seen in some media accounts is the possibility that people would be coming to Massachusetts, you know, looking for basically looking for abortion services. Is that something that is already on your radar or something that you're anticipating kind of starting to happen happen down the road more? [00:12:51][21.1]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:12:51] Yes, it's happening. So there are patients who are coming from Texas to Massachusetts already because of SB8 in Texas. So basically in Texas, people are traveling to the surrounding states, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico for care. And it's backed up. You can't get care because the demand is so high. You have to wait weeks and weeks. So if you are from Massachusetts originally, but you live in Dallas, if your best friend lives in Massachusetts, you know, the easy thing to do is to call up a place where you have support and fly here to get that care. We know it's happening. We've never seen 26 states outlaw abortion care overnight, so we just don't know what it's going to look like. But it will change access here in Massachusetts one way or another. But it's hard to predict exactly how that will happen after Dobbs. [00:13:42][50.4]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:13:43] So other states that have abortion protections like Massachusetts are now taking steps to expand their abortion access funds and make their states safer for, as you said, those people who are going to come from other states like Texas, to seek that reproductive care here in Connecticut, New York, elsewhere. So what are these states doing and should Massachusetts follow suit? [00:14:04][20.9]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:14:04] Yeah, well, pro-choice states around the country are doing something that I think Massachusetts is also poised to do, which I'm really excited about, which is making a state budget investment in access to care. So last week, I think it was last week or the week before, the House passed a budget that included $500,000 for what are called abortion funds. Those are funds that help people who need abortion care but can't pay for it, or they help with their travel costs or their hotel accommodations or childcare, but make it so that cost is not a financial barrier. We are, I think, poised to do that here in Massachusetts and I'm really excited about that. In some other states, we've seen investments in clinic expansion of clinic infrastructure and security. Hopefully that's something that we can do here again with state dollars. And then lots of people are talking about the law in Connecticut that was just passed, basically that would protect providers from out of state lawsuits if they provide abortion care. Let's say in Connecticut, if you're a doctor and a patient comes from Texas but gets the abortion care in Connecticut, someone in Texas could theoretically sue you. And Connecticut took steps to try to protect providers from those lawsuits. We are taking a really hard look at that. I think you will see something from us soon. We're trying to study the constitutionality of those laws, but we are very, very interested in, you know, working with the legislature to protect providers. [00:15:40][95.9]
Steve Koczela: [00:15:42] And, of course, time as on the legislative calendar is already ticking down. Are we expecting or are you expecting to see anything happen yet this session? I mean, this is very much a topical issue right now. Will things move quickly enough to pass something before, you know, before the end of session? [00:15:57][14.9]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:15:58] I would be surprised if it didn't. I'm looking into my crystal ball there a little bit. So I'm on the name that and this is not me with any insider information. This is just my belief that we heard strong statements from Speaker Mariano and Senate President Spilka yesterday and a strong commitment to care. So I think it's you know, if I was a betting woman, I'd say we're going to see some good progress this session. [00:16:18][19.6]
Steve Koczela: [00:16:19] And then moving back up to the federal level. You know, there, of course, Congress is very evenly divided, which is stymied, you know, legislation on a whole range of issues. Should people expect any anything to pass as far as new legislation in response to this potential ruling at the federal level? [00:16:35][15.8]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:16:36] I really want to say yes, but the answer, unfortunately, is no. So the House of Representatives passed legislation called the Women's Health Protection Act that would have unprotected access to abortion care nationwide. The Senate has not taken it up. As you said, it's evenly split. It will not even be able to debate that bill unless the back of the filibuster is broken. And I simply don't think that's going to happen. The work is in the States right now. The work-- the federal government, unfortunately, is not going to come in and save us on access to abortion. The work is very squarely in investing in state and local politics and investing in making sure that folks can elect leaders that they want because they have the right to vote. And there there isn't gerrymandering. I really think we have to be laser focused as activists on state work and not federal work. Right now. [00:17:29][53.2]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:17:31] Are blue states or pro-choice states, kind of the last stand at this point against all of the red states, the redder states that have these trigger laws and these, you know, anti-abortion laws that are going to take effect Roe falls? [00:17:44][12.8]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:17:45] It's a good question. Yeah, we are. I mean, it's it's it's hard to believe that. But we are indeed. We are the place that people are going to be coming for care when it's outlawed. And and we need to be thinking about people who can't travel for care and how they get access in states that have outlawed abortion. But yeah, we are we are the-- we're the wall trying to defend against what the Supreme Court is about to do. [00:18:12][27.0]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:18:13] So this is a galvanizing moment on both sides of the political spectrum. What does this all mean with the midterms looming? [00:18:20][7.3]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:18:22] I'm really worried that if if the Democrats lose the House and the Senate, that there is movement towards a nationwide abortion ban. And I think we should be really scared about that because there are frightening supremacy clause issues there that could result in banning abortion outright. I want to be really careful that I, I believe that if the filibuster exists, that it will be used to stop something like that. President Biden certainly will not sign a law like that. But but it is a scary prospect to think of the fact that votes are so gerrymandered. The people want more access to abortion, and yet they cannot elect politicians who represent their values. And those politicians are going to go to DC and try to take away the right to choose nationwide. And that is a really frightening prospect. I mean, it's really scary to think that my daughters have fewer rights than my mom did. I mean, it's just it's a stunning prospect. And I don't think we're talking enough about what's what's coming. [00:19:28][66.1]
Steve Koczela: [00:19:30] All right. Well, a somber note to leave us on, Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now. Thank you so much for joining us today. [00:19:36][6.5]
Rebecca Hart Holder: [00:19:37] Thank you. [00:19:37][0.3]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:19:44] K-12 students have been back in the classroom in-person for almost an entire academic year now, but that's not enough to undo the damage of the pandemic, according to parents surveyed and a new poll out Tuesday. So, Steve, our podcast co-host extraordinaire, crown prince of COVID 19 polling, talk us through this. [00:20:05][20.5]
Steve Koczela: [00:20:06] Stephanie Murray is going to love that you said that, by the way. She used to call me the crown prince of COVID 19 polling despite my repeated protests. But anyway, yes, we do have a new poll out this week. We did a poll of K-12 parents, just under 1500 parents. The poll was part of a series that actually goes all the way back to the beginning of COVID. And this was the sixth wave of the poll. So lots of data, you know, lots of at this point historic data and also how parents are feeling right now. [00:20:34][27.2]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:20:34] And right now, those parents are not feeling particularly optimistic, are they? [00:20:38][3.8]
Steve Koczela: [00:20:39] Well, not as much as earlier in the year, for sure. So in October, in November of this year, when we asked parents, you know, how do you think this year is going to go? Basically, we saw this burst of optimism where, you know, parents thought that more kids would actually be ahead of grade level by the end of this year than were even ahead of grade level at the beginning of COVID 19. And fewer would be behind grade level. So that has tapered off somewhat. And parents, I think, now have a bit more of a, you know, realistic, perhaps tempered expectation as far as what, you know, this year of in-person schooling can actually do. Now we see about just just under a quarter, 22% of parents saying they think their child is going to finish this school year behind grade level or is I should say is behind grade level right now. That is up a bit from the percent who thought that at the beginning of COVID. So basically you can look at it as COVID 19 has caused more parents now to think their children are behind grade level. [00:21:37][57.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:21:37] So is this like a problem with satisfaction with the schools? Do these parents think that schools are doing as much as they can, that the impacts of the pandemic are just too great? Or do they think that these schools should be doing more? [00:21:51][13.7]
Steve Koczela: [00:21:52] Well, by and large, you know, most parents, I think, are are content with how their school is performing overall. But then when you dig in to those numbers, there's a lot of nuance kind of hiding under the surface. So, first of all, parents whose children who think their children are behind grade level among that group, 62% of that group think that their school should be doing more. And that compares to just 27% of parents of kids who think their kids are at or ahead of grade level. So if you think your kid is behind, you're also more likely to think that your child should be-- that your school should be doing more. You're less satisfied on a whole range of measures. You're more likely to think your child won't be won't be ready for the next grade level and so forth. So in a whole bunch of different ways, parents whose children are behind hold different opinions than parents whose children who see their children as on level. [00:22:44][51.9]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:22:44] So something that previous polls have looked into and I'm curious about this time around, were parents more concerned about their child's mental health or their academics? [00:22:54][9.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:22:54] Yeah. I mean, there is still pretty high levels of concern about mental health. You know, if there is if there's good news, you know, if there's a silver lining, fewer parents are now concerned compared to basically a year ago. So in our spring semester survey in 2021, we saw 60% saying they were very or somewhat concerned about mental health. That number is now down to 47%. But then you stop and think about that and that's still really high. Like that's a really high level of concern. So certainly something to keep an eye on. This poll also found that mental health and academics are closely related. In other words, parents who are concerned about their child's academics are much more likely to also be concerned about mental health. So among that same group we talked about a bit ago, the parents who think their child is behind grade level among that group, 74% are say that they are very or somewhat concerned about their child's mental health also. And that's far, far, far more than parents who see their children as at grade level or ahead of grade level. Two other groups who are more likely to be concerned about mental health are parents of children with IEPs or individualized education plans and parents of children who are learning English, so ELL students. Both of those groups are also much more likely to be concerned about their child's mental health. [00:24:20][85.4]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:24:21] That says also interesting and there's even more. So parents are also divided on whether to prioritize safety or getting back to normal. Talk about that. [00:24:31][10.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:24:32] Yeah, we asked a whole lot about COVID on this poll. You know, we've been looking at, you know, COVID safety and COVID protocols as they've evolved over the last couple of years as a part of this poll series. And we looked at it a couple of different ways in this poll. One was just to ask, you know, how concerned are you about your children getting infected with COVID while at school? And on that one, we found that there were some differences, both by race and by income. So white parents and Asian parents were the least concerned about their child getting infected with COVID. Black parents were the most, and Latino parents were kind of somewhere in the middle. But then when you broke each group down by income, you see that that across the board there are splits in terms of how concern, for instance, black parents under 75,000 versus black parents over 75,000. The same with Latino, the same with Asian, the same with white parents. [00:25:24][52.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:25:25] In every case, lower-income parents are more concerned about their child getting infected while they're at school. That also relates to this question which you mentioned, which is basically, if you oppose the idea, which many people have offered, you know, should we be accepting more risk so that our kids can have normal lives more or less? Or should we be limiting risk so that we can protecting protect our kids from infection? You know, that question is kind of at the core of so many things, like what should we be doing about masks? What should we be doing about vaccines? You know, a while ago it was even, should we be having school in person? This question was kind of the crux of all of it. So when you pose that to parents, you see lower-income parents, more likely to say we should limit risk. So parents under $50,000, we should limit risk rather than accepting more. Whereas other groups of parents with higher levels of income are more likely to say we should accept more risk. You also see the same thing with white parents and Asian parents again, where they tend to be more on the 'accept more risk,' black and Latino parents more on the 'limit risk' side. So lots and lots of interesting kinds of push and pull that I think, you know, there's really no easy way to write a headline and say, like, this is what everybody thinks. This is where parents are, because it really depends on which parents you're talking about. [00:26:48][83.0]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:26:49] So what does this all mean in terms of policy? And I'm talking masks. [00:26:54][5.0]
Steve Koczela: [00:26:55] Yeah, masks certainly are the one that we've seen in, you know, kind of bandied about the most lately and have been the most divisive, whether we're talking about them on transit or on airplanes or in this case in schools. So we asked basically support or opposition for a range of policies, including masks. And we see here as similar contours to what I've what I kind of mentioned as far as accept versus limit risk or risk of infection, where, you know, white parents are less likely to be supportive of a range of different, you know, potential mitigation measures than are parents of color. So, you know, overall, everybody is kind of on board with providing rapid tests for families to take home. That's one that has almost universal support. But then below that, there are some you know, there got to be some pretty wide gaps. And the biggest gap is on the question, as you mentioned, of mask mandates. There you have 50% of white parents who say that they support the idea of requiring all students and staff to wear masks. Black parents, that figure is 80%. So a huge gap there. Two thirds for Latino parents and 71% for Asian parents. So white parents by far the lowest. I think that's also useful to keep in mind when we're talking, you know, particularly about Boston, which of course, is something that there's been a lot of back and forth about. You know, Boston at this point still has a school mask mandate. And there have been some questions as to why. But, you know, the vast majority of parents in Boston are parents of color. And this poll shows us that there's a big difference when you're talking about, you know, all parents which or you're talking about white parents or you're talking about parents of color. If that's who your school population is made up of, then you have a pretty strong majority supporting the continuation of school mask mandates. [00:28:43][108.4]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:28:45] So speaking of mandates, what about vaccines? [00:28:47][2.7]
Steve Koczela: [00:28:49] We asked about vaccine mandates basically in two ways. We asked about a vaccine mandate for students. That was the thing that got the lowest level of support of any of the ideas that we put out there. And then also vaccine mandates for teachers and staff. That one got a bit higher support with 61% total. That was 54% for a vaccine mandate for all students. You know, the topic matters because we're not really close to a point yet of having enough students vaccinated to keep schools safe. And there's big differences by demographics that kind of point to which schools will be at greatest risk. You know, if there is, God forbid, another serious wave, particularly younger students, are much, much, much less likely to be vaccinated at this point. We asked, you know, grade levels so we could break the data down and our data kind of follows the contours of what state reporting shows. For students kind of in that kindergarten to second grade range, among among parents in the K to two range we found 45% saying, yes, all of my children are vaccinated. You get up to parents of 11th and 12th graders, it's 75%. You know, there's some imprecision because parents have kids of multiple age groups. But in general, that that contour is again about what the state level data shows. We also find lower-income parents less likely to have to report that all their children are vaccinated. Rural areas, gateway cities, you know, none of this is different than what the state is showing, but it just once again kind of highlights where the risk is going to be the greatest going forward. [00:30:27][97.8]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:30:28] Any sign that this is going to change? [00:30:29][1.5]
Steve Koczela: [00:30:31] Well, we did ask about future vaccination plans. We asked parents who didn't say all of their children are already vaccinated, you know, are you planning to have your children vaccinated? And most parents whose kids were not already vaccinated said, no, they're not planning to. There's still some progress to be made based on parents who, you know, do say that they're planning to. But it's about, you know, it's about 2 to 1 right now saying, no, we're not planning to. Right now, the figure is 62% of parents said all of their eligible children are vaccinated. 9% said no, but I plan to have them vaccinated, and 19% said I don't plan to at all. The reasons they gave for that were, you know, pretty standard if you've been following this stuff, you know, it's, 'I don't think there's enough research. I just want to wait and see. You know, I want to-- I want more information. My child's too young. They don't need it. They're safe. You know, I don't believe COVID's real,' you know, conspiracy theory kinds of things were also kind of in there. So a whole range of different reasons. But I think some progress can be made. But there's a lot of parents who are still going to be a tougher holdouts at this point. [00:31:37][66.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:31:38] We could talk about this all day and then some, but that's all the time we've got right now. Steve Koczela, thanks as always for breaking down the numbers. [00:31:46][7.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:31:46] Glad to do it. And that brings us to our final segment this week. And based on millions of listener interviews and extensive research from our market analytics team, your favorite segment, too. And that, of course, is trivia. Lisa, what do we have this week? [00:32:00][13.6]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:32:01] It was billed as the hottest race in Massachusetts. But how much do you really know about the state's second highest ranking job this week on the horse race, the first in a series of trivia questions surrounding the office of drum roll, please. The lieutenant governor. [00:32:17][15.9]
Steve Koczela: [00:32:18] And the question is for this week for 10,000 trivia points. Who was the first lieutenant governor in Massachusetts? [00:32:24][5.5]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:32:25] I will lose that one because I don't know. Sorry, MApoli, but I hope you know this more than I do. [00:32:33][7.8]
Steve Koczela: [00:32:34] Someone's got to Google and be like, of course everybody knows that it was whoever it was, but if you know off the top of your head to get 10,000 extra trivia points above and beyond that. [00:32:43][8.4]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:32:43] I get zero trivia points. Luckily, though, that's all the time we have for today. I'm Lisa Kashinsky, here with Steve Koczela. Don't forget to give The Horse Race a review wherever you're hearing us now, subscribe to my Massachusetts Politico Playbook and reach out to Steve and The MassINC Polling group for polls. We're off next week, but we'll be back in your ears on May 19th. Thanks for listening. See you then. [00:32:43][0.0]
[1810.1]