Governor Deval Patrick declared recently in a television interview that if state legislators were given the chance to vote now, his casino bill would pass.
But an informal Globe poll of all 19 members of the legislative committee that will consider Patrick's proposal showed that it would probably get a negative vote that could prove difficult to overcome.
"There's a lot of strikes against it," said Representative Barry Finegold, a Democrat from Andover and a member of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies who does not support the governor's plan to license three casinos.
"I don't think the issue is dead," he said. "But it needs a whole lot of convincing."
Interviews with members of the influential panel present a microcosm of the debate that is taking place on Beacon Hill and illustrate the large hurdles Patrick faces, chief among them House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.
Twelve members of the committee said they are inclined to vote against the proposal, unless wholesale changes are made, such as reducing the number of casinos in the plan, giving more gambling proceeds to cities and towns, or allowing the state's racetracks to add slot machines. Three members said they are leaning in favor of the proposal. Four said they are on the fence.
In a positive sign for the governor, a majority of representatives and senators on the panel said they are ready to listen to Patrick's case. And several committee members said the negative sentiment on the panel may be a result of what they see as the low-key approach the governor has taken to selling one of his cornerstone proposals, holding no major public events since unveiling the idea in September.
"It's more than a bit premature to be talking about how any committee is going to decide on an issue before public hearings have even occurred," said Kyle Sullivan, the governor's press secretary.
Patrick's administration said it has been speaking with legislators, but most of those on the committee said they have not been contacted by the governor on the issue.
"It's interesting to me that the governor proposed it, but he has not been crusading for it," said Representative Ellen Story, a Democrat from Amherst who is opposed to the proposal. "He proposed it, and that was almost the end of that."
There are indications that Patrick is starting to ramp up his efforts by testifying at a legislative hearing next week.
Committee votes can be unpredictable, given the internal workings of the Legislature, where votes are frequently driven by the wishes of leaders. An unfavorable vote from the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies would hurt the bill but not necessarily prove fatal; House members could, by amendment approved by the entire chamber, vote to overturn the committee recommendation and take up the bill.
Legislators on the committee said the environment could also change quickly if DiMasi dropped his opposition to expanded gambling. That seemed unlikely this week.
"His views have not changed," said DiMasi spokesman David Guarino. "He remains skeptical, and will review this with a skeptical eye."
The governor's legislation, which was filed in October, would license one resort casino in Western Massachusetts, Southeastern Massachusetts, and metropolitan Boston. Patrick says each casino could generate $200 million to $300 million in licensing fees every 10 years. He is also counting on another $400 million a year for state coffers, gambling revenue that he would use for property tax relief and roads and bridges.
Proponents of the proposal argue that the state needs new sources of revenue. They also cite the amount of money Massachusetts residents are spending at Connecticut casinos.
"I'm all for it," said Representative Robert Nyman, a Democrat from Hanover and a member of the committee. "It's a way to bring some money back into the Commonwealth."
Representative Harriett L. Stanley, a Democrat from West Newbury, has been opposed to gambling expansion in the past, but is now leaning toward the proposal for the financial benefits.
"I have been transitioned a little bit," Stanley said. "The governor's plan is pretty well thought out, [and] we need additional sources of revenue."
Committee members against the idea cited several reasons, saying they do not trust the revenue estimates supplied by the Patrick administration, which did not conduct an independent study and has provided little explanation of how it arrived at its numbers. They also argued some local businesses and resort communities would be negatively affected by the competition from casinos.
Several also disagreed with the governor's priorities for distributing the money. Patrick wants to use about $200 million in casino revenue to offer tax breaks to nearly 1 million homeowners. Legislators would prefer to distribute that money to cities and towns in the way lottery proceeds are used to hire teachers, build libraries, and expand town services.
Much as they were in the same-sex marriage debate, legislators are also torn over a vote that could change the perception and character of Massachusetts.
"It's not an easy decision," said Representative Jeffrey Sanchez, a Democrat from Boston who is leaning against it. "People see Donald Trump is coming, Las Vegas is coming. There's a whole theater around it that people are interested in. But at the end of the day, the house wins. And the state isn't the house."
Some acknowledge that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe will probably build a casino at some point, even without state approvals. Representative James M. Murphy, a Democrat from Weymouth, is leaning against the current proposal and said the state should consider only negotiating with the tribe.
"The fact that the tribe [building a casino] is very close to a reality and the state might not get any revenue from it, that really ought to make us move this timetable up," said Senator James Timilty, Democrat of Walpole, who supports almost every aspect of the proposal. "The reality now is that it's coming . . . and the state ought to drive that discussion."
The Legislature has been lukewarm to proposals for expanded gaming, but this proposal is broader and has been filed by a popular governor whom many legislators helped send to office.
"On a good day, I'm a skeptic on this stuff," said Senator Mark Montigny, a Democrat from New Bedford. "But I'll give them a chance, because I respect this governor so much."
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
