Senate candidate tidbits

david   |   Thu, Nov 12, 2009 5:56 PM EST

A couple of items that haven’t yet been remarked upon, but are nonetheless interesting.  At least I think so.

Favorability ratings for the candidates (from the Suffolk poll (PDF)).

Candidate: Fav/Unfav/Undecided/Never heard of

Capuano: 38/18/28/16 — net +20

Coakley: 57/21/15/7 — net +36

Khazei: 11/9/29/51 — net +2

Pagliuca: 35/18/30/17 — net +17

Brown (R): 15/8/28/49 — net +7

Robinson (R): 9/17/26/49 — net -8

Personal wealth of the candidates (excluding primary residences, which do not have to be declared on the financial disclosure forms) — candidates need only report ranges, not actual values:

Capuano: $1.4M – $3.1M

Coakley: $212K – $262K

Khazei: $347K – $1.1M

Pagliuca: $259M – $765M

Brown (R): $1.1M – $2.7M

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post.


Recommend 0

Discuss

9 Comments . Comments are closed.

  1. Another interesting item ...

    in the Republican race Scott Brown is trailing "Undecided".  Maybe Brown could try to request a debate against "Undecided" to try to peel away votes?

    Undecided 47% Brown 45% Robinson 7%

    johnk   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

  2. Please note Martha Coakley's disclosure error

    Matt Visor reported in today's Globe that Martha Coakley improperly understated her assets by at least $200,000 (emphasis mine):

    Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state&#8217s top lawyer, acknowledged yesterday that she improperly filled out a federal financial disclosure she submitted to the US Senate as part of her candidacy in the special election.

    The Globe reported yesterday that Coakley was the only candidate, in disclosures due to the Senate by this week, to report that neither she nor her spouse had any reportable financial asset worth more than $1,000.

    But her campaign said Coakley failed to list $200,000 to $250,000 in financial assets that are held by her husband, Thomas F. O&#8217Connor Jr. The campaign said Coakley also failed to note a retirement account she holds that is worth $12,000.

    This strikes me as a significant change in the substance of a front-page BMG entry regarding the personal wealth of the candidates. Perhaps an update/correction is in order.

    somervilletom   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

    • that's the same article David linked to

      Yet he didn't mention the headline/main subject of the article.

      jasiu   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

      • Coakley says she erred

        Coakley says she erred on disclosure November 12, 2009 08:21 PM

        By Matt Viser, Globe Staff

        Attorney General Martha Coakley, the state's top lawyer, acknowledged today that she improperly filled out a federal financial disclosure she submitted to the US Senate as part of her candidacy in the special election.

        The Globe reported today that Coakley was the only candidate, in disclosures that were due to the Senate by this week, to report that neither she, nor her spouse, had any reportable financial asset worth more than $1,000. [...] Zaroulis attributed the mistake to a discrepancy between what Coakley has had to report to the state as a candidate in Massachusetts, and the more in-depth information required of federal candidates. It is nonetheless a somewhat embarrassing omission for a perceived front-runner who oversees the state's legal affairs.

        This is kind of information Martha and her husband would have exclusive access to and not the kind of information she could expect an aide to obtain.  This is a Martha fail on financial disclosure, not for any purpose, just incompetence.  

        At least she didn't blame someone else for this error which is what she did explaining her "no" vote against health care reform in the house "vote"....

        I have said, then let somebody explain that that was the strategy. Let someone say, well, we knew we had this problem but this was the only way to move forward on it.

        neilsagan   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

      • Oh horror.

        Someone incorrectly filled out a form and thus understated her assets by about $200,000, thereby making her still much less wealthy than any of the other candidates in the field.  When the error was discovered, it was promptly corrected.

        Struck me as non-news.  YMMV.

        david   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

        • struck me the same was as Bob's spelling post ....

          that's why I commented about it in his post.

          But at the same time you thought an endorsement by Pelosi merited the same attention as the Cobert moderating a debate story.  Just saying.

          Okay, this is getting old even for me (and that's saying a lot) I do tend to harp on a subject way to long.

          That's unless Bob posts about Capuano's pants not being pressed well during a campaign stop or something to that effect (see I can't help it).

          Have a good weekend!!

          johnk   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

        • Marthapologism? What is Coakley's position on HCR/abortion access on final bill?

          If this was newsworthy - Caps vote for HCR Saturday, hammering Coakley for saying she wouldn't, and then saying he would vote against HCR with Stupak in the final bill - and such potent news that it was capable of turning voters, which is how it was presented here at BMG, then this piece of news on financial disclosure is certainly worth citing with comment.  

          Coakley made an error, and no other candidate made the error, on a financial disclosure form.  I'm willing to discount the RNC's FEC complaint until the report is released but this problem is substantive. Martha doesn't deny it, in fact she takes responsibility for it.  

          Martha should get credit for taking responsibility for this error in contrast to how she did not take responsibility for her hypothetical no vote killing healthcare reform in the house.  

          Why hasn't BMG followed up on that issue by contacting the Coakley campaign and asking how she would vote in the Senate on a health care bill with Stupak, and how she would vote in a final bill with Stupak?  

          Capuano has answered those questions definitively. We don't know Martha's position on the nexus between abortion access and healthcare reform. I would expect BMG, that has been pro-active in this particular issue from the start, to make the calls and press for answers. Why back off now?

          neilsagan   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

        • Yes...

          Someone incorrectly filled out a form and thus understated her assets by about $200,000, thereby making her still much less wealthy than any of the other candidates in the field.  When the error was discovered, it was promptly corrected.

          This just re-enforces, at least for me, that Coakley isn't in it for the money and, furthermore, that money probably doesn't occupy prime real-estate in the landscape of things she cares about.  

          petr   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Wed 23 May 11:51 AM