The one and only televised Boston Mayoral debate was on NECN tonight. It was tough for any candidate to breakthrough with 11 others in the “debate,” but I thought we were able to at least get some impression of each candidate. For fun (and to get everyone fired up and yelling at me!) I decided to give you my grade for each candidate’s performance.
[UPDATE by David: Here is the video of the whole affair (apparently the first part has some technical problems, but this is what’s available. Watch for yourself, then see if you agree with kittoneil’s assessment!]
Connolly (D)- came off as patronizing and soft. was trying to play to the yuppie crowd, but probably hurt himself by talking like his audience was 3 year olds.
Walsh (B-)- not the most articulate candidate on the panel, but I appreciated how he actually answered the zinger Battenfeld tried to hit him with. He also came off as honest and unafraid.
Conley (B+)- EB’s not going to agree, but I thought he came off as commanding and intelligent.
Golar Ritchie (A-)- didn’t have a ton to say content wise but was very smooth and polished.
Arroyo (C)- had a lot to say but said it too fast and with some weird blinking going on.
Consalvo (B)- thought he had good command of issues and wasn’t afraid to jump in and control issues within the debate.
Ross (B)- very intelligent performance. Will secure vote of certain segments but has little room to expand.
Barros (A-)- clearly not his campaign but really knew his stuff and had a great way about him. Very impressive guy who we could hear from again.
Walcak (B-)- makes some good arguments about management. Appeared composed and looked the part. Not polite enough for the format though.
Yancey (B+)- very well versed in city’s issues, though not sure why he’s in this race.
Clemons (D)- reverted to ideological, vague talking points repeatedly.
Wyatt (F)- had to be forced to speak. Tried to explain why he was in the race, but didn’t make much headway.
that your two best grades go to someone who “didn’t have much to say content wise” and someone for whom this is “clearly not his campaign.” Next up is Yancey, and you’re “not sure why he’s in this race.”
Of the pack I’m leaning Walsh, and the incumbent shows articulateness isn’t everything. My hope is that Connolly loses some support, but I really don’t know how many people are watching. The whole system seems absurd to me. The difference between the second-place finisher of twelve and the third-place finisher could be minute. What are we looking at here, 12.2% vs. 12.0%?
more like 25% for the two top finishers, and I assume that Mr. Wyatt will vote for himself and some other delusional Republicans and pathetic Homophobes will as well, but I can see Mr. Wyatt finishing with less than 20 votes (not 20%, but 20 votes total).
there are enough candidates with strong bases of support that I’d be surprised if two broke 25%. I’d even be surprised if two broke 20%. Some (Wyatt) won’t get many votes, but if the top two had 20% each that leaves 60% to be split among 8 or 9 decent candidates. That’s an average of only about 7%, with some above that average and some below.
My big question is the spread between 2 and 3. No. 3 could be just a hair behind No. 2 and nonetheless out of the money.
Conley did not endear himself to the Arts community last night by skipping the Create The Vote forum. The Paramount Theatre was packed to the gills (turning lots of people away), and Conley, Yancey, and Wyatt all skipped.
Arroyo, Connolly, and Ross were most impressive in my eyes. Golar Ritchie was terribly disappointing, and Consalvo and Walsh gave pretty standard, generic answers. Barros was pretty good. Clemons was never specific. Walczak was not in his comfort zone, but he got the crowd going by attacking the casino and how it would hurt the arts community.
that an allegedly top-tier candidate like Conley would skip an event like that one, especially after all the brouhaha that went into scheduling it. Disappointing.
I pretty much agree with your grades except for Conley. Danny Boy came of as someone with an condescending unexplained anger and who doesn’t like being challenged.
Other than that I think Arroyo did what he had to do for his base.
Don’t be surprised if this kid pulls off a second or strong third.
John Connolly cold implode in the next to weeks. He looked liked a wimpy school teacher last night.
to social,economic and racial justice. And he does it in Spanish. Ernie’s correct. Felix Arroyo is going to surprise everybody with a strong showing because he has a strong base that is building on the highest favorability rating of them all.
The only one who has directed a large, complex public agency? What about Charlotte Golar Richie? He needs to stop lying about the other candidates.
I am trying to get a sense of if the grade was for just last night or the campaign as a whole, because last night, I would have graded her with a D at best. For the entire campaign, her $500 from Emily’s List show her overall to in the D- to F range.
…based on what i read about the horse race. Stylistically I agree with the A-, maybe even an A+. Hell, the name of the game in a forum like this is to distinguish yourself from your opponents. She accomplishes that just by being on stage and she’s a decent commentator (at least last night). At the very least she saved herself last night, maybe even started a slow rolling of a bandwagon. Maybe.
Golar Richie speaks well, but says very little. I suspect her glibness is the leading reason she’s not running from the rest of the field.
is such a lot of crap, the moderators last night should be ashamed as:
I was educated in Catholic Schools. Hence the wonderful use of grammar.
Conley’s answer on NYC doing a good job balancing safety and civil liberties (around 19 min mark of second video) was scary, but he comes off as reasonable, which is scarier.
Of the first and second tier candidates (based on polling), he’s the only one I fear. His type of administration is not at all what Boston needs.
A few variations from the score card above.
Connolly (D)- came off as patronizing and soft. was trying to play to the yuppie crowd, but probably hurt himself by talking like his audience was 3 year olds. Ick.
Walsh (B-)- not the most articulate candidate on the panel….He also came off as honest and unafraid. Not the brightest bulb on the circuit….we need to do better.
Conley (C+)- EB’s not going to agree, but I thought he came off as commanding and intelligent. Oy!!!!
Golar Ritchie (B-)- didn’t have a ton to say content wise but was very smooth and polished. Wrong skills set for Mayor of Beantown.
Arroyo (C)- had a lot to say but said it too fast and with some weird blinking going on.
Consalvo (B)- thought he had good command of issues and wasn’t afraid to jump in and control issues within the debate.
Ross (B)- very intelligent performance. Will secure vote of certain segments but has little room to expand.
Barros (B+-)- clearly not his campaign but really knew his stuff and had a great way about him. Very impressive guy who we could hear from again.
Walcak (B+)- makes some good arguments about management. Appeared composed and looked the part. Smart and innovative….new solutions needed for old problems.
by Walczak’s “management” talk. Sounds like exactly the technocratic crap that gives me shivers every time I hear it.
What is the proper language you’d like to hear that says ‘extensive experience as a leader of a multi-million dollar organization’. I think Walczak’s best pitch is that with strong progressive values he has led large organizations to make an impact. Is that concept a problem for you or just the way he talks about it?
I actually ask in part because my sense is that some candidates for governor, Juliette Kayyem in particular but also Grossman and Baker, will be making competence, leadership, and ability to get things done the cornerstones of their races. I’m curious on what connects and what doesn’t.
I’d like to hear from a mayor is not dog-whistle bashing of unions and those who’ve stood with them. Right after Walsh had to go through the obligatory “I’ve stood up against the union position” lines, Walczak bursts in with, “I’ve been a CEO,” which to my ears went over about as well as it did when Joe Avellone trotted it out in Lowell two months ago. He goes on, “We need a manager, we need a manager to hire skilled managers, Marty Walsh can’t negotiate with unions, tra la la la la.”
Bill Walczak has an impressive resume, but he strikes me as pretty arrogant. He can frame his candidacy however he likes, but to this Democrat talking up “management” and demeaning labor is not going to fly. And he wants to close firehouses, expand charters (which are basically vouchers with a fig leaf), and so on. Again, no longer a Boston voter but if I were Walczak wouldn’t be on my short list. I don’t hear “strong progressive values” as much as technocratic contrarian. He sounds Bloomberg-esque to me.
Grossman, from what I’ve seen so far, is running not on managerial competence alone but on progressive policy like sick leave and minimum wage.
I think you’re overstating Grossman’s campaign on those issues as I think all Democrats will support them. He is smart to get out there first though.
Your point on Walczak comparing being a CEO to “standing up to” labor is fair. I do think the next mayor is going to have a hell of a time negotiating labor contracts, though.
I hear people talk about labor pay as a progressive issue. It is, but the money has to come from somewhere. I don’t hear any of these candidates talking about a 2-1/2 override.
We all need to be concerned that if nobody is going to increase revenue substantially (I’m not buying that massive funds are coming through PILOT increases), where are higher labor contract dollars coming out of? Schools? Housing? Other layoffs? Programs? ’cause it’s not coming from the state or fed.
Are we ready for a 2-1/2 override? Will labor keep their members in line to support it? Will they go door to door and work as hard for a tax hike as they are for Marty’s election?
The specific details, you’re right, it’s a tough issue. But this society has the money, we just distribute it inequitably and refuse to pay for public goods. I don’t think the way out of our problems is to crush union pay and benefits down to Wal-mart levels.
About Grossman, I’m not saying he’s the only one for MW and sick leave. Just talking about how he’s framing his candidacy, which appears to be on progressive policy. Saw him at a forum a couple of weeks ago and he said (again) min. wage and sick leave are the most important things we have to do as a state. Other candidates went more down the “I’m a good manager” road you were talking about.
In February 2013 John Connolly announced his run for mayor branding himself a as former teacher, and the media has fallen in line and helped him perpetuate the brand ever since. It is the prerogative of a political candidate to create whatever image she or he wants. It is the responsibility of the press to report not only on that image but also on facts that underlie or belie it.
Here are the facts as far I can determine them:
1995 Harvard University
1995-7 Volunteer at Nativity Mission School in New York City
1998 Boston Renaissance Charter School – teacher?
1998-2001 BC Law (overlap, I know)
2001-2004 Ropes & Gray – Associate
2004-2007 Hanify & King – Associate
May 2007 – October 2012: Schofield Campbell & Connolly, LLC – Partner doing business law
November 2007 – Current: City Council-at-large
Since 1998 John Connolly has been in the business of law. He has been an attorney. Until last November, he was a partner in his law firm while he was collecting $87,500 salary as a City Councilor. His practice was business law.
My point that all of our major media — Globe, Herald, NECN and more –have just repeated John’s story about being a former public school teacher rather than do any reporting, including in last night’s debate. My point is that voters deserve the real story about candidates so we can cast votes based on facts.
Is it too much to expect?
I don’t think the format (12 candidates!) allowed for much substance. All you could really get was a quick impression. Thus, the polished, commanding candidates did best in my opinion. By no means do I think Golar Ritchie was the best candidate, for instance, but my thought was that this was the first time most voters (who watched) would have ever heard her speak. These types of forums are all style and no substance.