We’ve heard a lot on this site about which candidate for the 5th congressional district is best on the issues, and a certain amount on who’s raising the most money. Here’s what I haven’t heard much about: who is actually running a good campaign? Who is putting the resources they have to good use? Who is getting out into the neighborhoods and generating the voter enthusiasm that they are going to need on October 15?
That (along with whatever else is on your mind) is what I really want to hear about on this thread. Is your candidate running a terrific campaign? Do you wish the guy/gal you like most were doing a better job? Let’s hear it, folks.
Please share widely!
I just got mail from Emily’s LIst, and they endorsed Clark, which means they didn’t endorse Spilka. I wonder if both were considered, or if Clark just got there first.
The Sciortino ad needs a followup, soon.
I’m seeing a lot of Koutoujian visibility here in Walthamlet. I haven’t seen his TV ad yet, but no one seems to like it.
Everything I hear about Brownsberger, I hear on BMG.
The Sciortino ad doesn’t need a follow-up. It needs to spend the next two weeks saturating the airwaves in the district. Sure, it’s gotten a lot of play online and in the media, but I bet the majority of the voters in the district haven’t seen it.
I would think they’re planning on a big ad buy for the next 2 weeks and a strong ground game on election day. That’s what I’d recommend rather than another ad that would be hard-pressed to garner the same attention as the first.
Of course, I bet most of the candidates are doing the same – get their ads on high rotation and plan e-day efforts. The important question is what sort of groundwork have they laid to-date? Have they been phone banking and door knocking? Sending lit? It’s a low-turnout special election, so the team that can identify their voters and get them to the polls may carry the day.
It’s not great, but it’s not bad. He seems genuine in it.
Re: the Sciortino ad, it needs a followup because it’s so clever. It raised expectations for his next ad.
Clark was in months before and on the Watch List before Senator Spilka even announced. Senator Spilka practiced political etiquette and waited until the seat was open.
They were holding with two Democrat pro-choice women in the race until Carl’s Dad went viral.
Emily’s List acted in response to Sciortino’s great ad.
In defense of Brownsberger – best campaign website.
Miscellaneous:
Clark – doesn’t talk about accomplishments but has a good practiced if not rote message.
Koutoujian will have money and bodies – that’s what Sheriff’s do. He is better in person as a likeable/affable guy.
Spilka should have troops out for the close.
Anyone have a sense of the electorate? Anyone paying attention? What percentage will we see? Can they hit 25%?
How did the Sciortino’s ad lead to Emily’s List endorsing Clark over Spilka?
My post answered the question in the post upthread by JimC about Emily’s list.
Re: EMILY’s List. Clark has been close to them for a long time. I’m surprised it took them this long to endorse considering their usual track record of endorsements (Coakley already got the 2014 endorsement for Gov).
I don’t know if Sciortino is doing another ad. It’s clearly working according to fundraising and polling, but remains to be seen if it will wear on people. Creating a new ad now or in the last week seems like a poor use of resources when that money could go to a larger buy with the existing ad and more time spent meeting voters.
I’ve canvassed for Sciortino in Cambridge and people were very receptive. I encountered some Clark and Spilka leaners, but no one mentioning Brownsberger. Sciortino’s volunteers have been out a lot. I can’t compare to the other campaigns, but I know that Sciortino knows how to do ground game having had to win a write-in campaign a few years ago.
I think Sciortino definitely has the most momentum, but he started pretty far back and it will be tough to get in the lead. But, I think everyone who meets him likes him, so if he meets (virtually or in person) as many people as possible, he definitely has a chance.
Koutoujian’s ad is bad. They make it seem like he has the creepiest family ever – everyone blankly staring in weird directions, and his wife poorly lit staring at the back of his head. What he says in the last 15 seconds is irrelevant because your eyes are drawn elsewhere. Given his superior name recognition, I feel that his campaign has stalled a bit.
I think Brownsberger is running the worst race. He has self-inflicted so many wounds with horrible positions on major issues. He should have attacked Clark on civil liberties and gone after more of the Cambridge vote, which is an area Clark has hit hard. Also, having DFW pushing for you is never a good thing.
> I think Brownsberger is running the worst race. He has self-inflicted so many wounds with horrible positions on major issues. He should have attacked Clark on civil liberties and gone after more of the Cambridge vote, which is an area Clark has hit hard. Also, having DFW pushing for you is never a good thing.
What horrible positions are you referring to? Ah, you mean he’s taken correct positions whether or not that will help him at the polls.
By the way, both Brownsberger and Spilka pushed back against Clark on the MA surveillance bill in the Lexington debate. Brownsberger also pushed back against all four other candidates on Citizens United. He is the most transparent of the bunch, has the most informative web site, where he is responding to comments from voters. None of the other candidates do that.
And while all five candidates have filled questionnaires from organizations, corporations and unions who endorse in the race, Brownsberger was the only one to make public his responses. We still don’t know what promises the other four candidates have made.
But we do know that Sciortino, Clark, Spilka, Koutoujian are seeking the very endorsements from corporations, unions and non profit organizations that were permitted as free speech by Citizens United – while at the same time speaking in opposition against Citizens United to leave the impression that they decry the influence of the same corporations, unions and non profit organizations in US politics.
Saying that Keystone XL isn’t a big deal is not the correct position. Believe that Chained-CPI is not a cut to benefits is not the correct position. Here’s a hint: you would get far more votes if you didn’t sound so smug. Sometimes, the unpopular position is unpopular because it’s wrong. I know, that’s, like, wingnut crazy-speak.
And what happens if Keystone XL is not built? The same oil will continue to be shipped to the US by rail. In practice, that will cause greater, not smaller pollution. Plus, it is a less save transportation alternative than a pipeline.
But some environmental organizations have drawn Keystone XL as a political red line. In essence, they want to use it as a wedge issue against Republicans. In the process, what will happen is that the MA-5 candidate with the best record on the environment will be hurt by this wedge issue – because he is refusing to pander on this.
All four other candidates probably know this full well, but they are refusing to take a stand on the merits because it would jeopardize their chances in the race.
Dont worry about personal attacks, just a sign the other bloggers are losing the debate.
No, the other candidates and their followers are unaware that Alberta oil is being shipped by rail as we speak, thru Massachusetts even. Who cares if a town got blown up a few months ago, they don’t care, it’s “symbolism”.
It doesn’t matter that Canada is promising to extract the oil, with or without Keystone. It doesn’t matter that Will lives the talk of a low carbon emmitting lifestyle by riding a bike to work or solar panels on his roof. Don’t you know it’s not what you do, it’s what you say that’s important to many here on BMG.
Will isnt suppose to give people like me the right time. Just pay homage to the extreme base and have war with Republicans. It’s what the others promise and it’s well received by many here.
.
Care to be more specific with that comment?
And isn’t union support a positive thing in a Democratic primary? Doesn’t our party support strong labor practices?
Citizens United was specifically about whether campaign endorsements should be allowed from unions, non-profit corporations and for-profit corporations. It’s as simple as that.
It was not about political expenditure limits, or political expenditure transparency, as some have spinned this. Look at the wiki page for Citizens United, it explains the context and the substance of the decision pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
By the way, the ACLU has the same position as Will – in support of Citizens United. And the ACLU itself is a corporation.
It is disingenuous for candidates to seek endorsements from these kind of organizations, while at the same time saying they oppose Citizens United.
Citizens United has nothing to do with “endorsements.” It is specifically about independent expenditures from the treasury of corporations, unions, etc. I have no idea where you are getting your contrary info (certainly not from the Wikipedia page you link, which is a pretty good summary), but it’s wrong.
David, yes Citizens United has to do with endorsements – because it has to do with the free speech of organizations, corporation, unions. And endorsements are a form of speech.
Look at the Wiki page again. It discusses the cases of “Fahrenheit 9/11”, an anti-Bush documentary, and that of “Hillary – the movie”, the anti-Hillary documentary. The first produced by a corporation, the 2nd by a non-profit organization. Neither made explicit endorsements. The question was whether the content of these movies constituted “electioneering”, and whether they should be allowed to be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.
According to the Supreme Court decision, these documentaries represent a form of speech, and as such they can be aired at any time.
The endorsements that our candidates are seeking from unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations are no different, and fall within the same free speech protection provided by the Citizens United decision. It is dishonest of these candidates on one hand to bash the influence of corporations and organizations in politics – and on the other hand to seek their endorsement.
The case is not “about” every “form of speech” just because the Scalia Five think unlimited spending of money is protected speech. Is someone who thinks Citizens United should be overturned thereby opposed to satire? Parody? Jokes? They all are “forms of speech.”
All station wagons are cars, not all cars are station wagons.
Wrong, fenway49. Endorsements are speech, money is not speech. How would you express an endorsement but by voicing it or by writing it?
Endorsements are speech. All the Justices agree to that. Justice Scalia may believe money is speech – if he does, he is wrong. Money can advertise speech, can promote speech, can publicize speech. But money is not the same as speech. There is nothing in Citizens United saying that political money cannot be regulated. But that is a common misunderstanding about Citizens United.
Take another example: Blue Mass Group is posting commercial advertisements on the side of the page, and has three owners as far as I can tell. This means Blue Mass Group is a quasi-corporation – or quasi-organization. Who knows if it is – perhaps David could clarify. But the point here is: Blue Mass Group may as well be a corporation, or an organization.
And if it is, before Citizens United, David, you, I technically could not have posted political messages in favor (or contra…) on this blog 30 days before primary election, and 60 days before general election.
Would that not be ludicrous? Of course either of us could post any message we want pro and contra a candidate, at any time. That’s exactly what Citizens United ensures.
It’s not about money being speech. Obviously money is not speech! It’s about being able to speak one’s mind, at any time, through a web site like Blue Mass Group that is (or could be) owned by a corporation or organization.
Your comments must be promoted and I cannot thank you enuff.
I do happen to agree with Justice Scalia that money is speech.
It is amazing how much you have gotten wrong in the past few comments. BMG predates Citizens United and both before and since given this is a political site you are likely to see MORE advocacy for prefered candidates in the days just before an election. In the traditional press there can be letters to the editor and editorial endorsements close to the election. The ads on BMG I believe are generated by Google and are based on topics being discussed. CU allowed independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, but endorsements are fine, including contributions subject to limits.
Newspapers are corporations. That’s precisely the point I am making: corporations, organizations, unions have a right for free speech, and this is what Citizens United was about. It is the opponents to Citizens United who claim otherwise.
Yes, Blue Mass Group is likely to see more advocacy and not less as election gets closer. But the law should be aligned with the practice.
During the Citizens United argumentation, the Deputy Solicitor General, speaking on behalf of the FEC, to quote from wiki, said that
“… the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union,” and further, “the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book”.
It is a preposterous position.
Koutoujian, Clark, Sciortino, Spilka should know better about the merits of the Citizens United decision. They have long years in government, and are well versed in law. Sciortino has been 8 years in the MA house. Koutoujian and Clark are lawyers. Clark is chair of an important judiciary committee in the MA Senate. Spilka has written more law than all other candidates put together.
But they already signed questionnaires from various organizations in the race (or corporations, or unions) saying that they oppose Citizens United. That’s why they find it difficult to change their position now. It’s not about the merits of the case.
And that’s, by the way, why none of them want to make these questionnaires public – even after the Boston Globe suggested on its editorial page that they and all political candidates should make such questionnaires public.
You put Citizens United to bed.
The first amendment exists precisely so they can do their work and express their opinions. CU going the other way would have had no effect whatsoever on the ability of papers to publish letters to the editor or make endorsements in their own pages. CU says that other corporations can purchase ad space in those papers directly advocating someone’s election or defeat whereas before they could not. Really, you are conflating that which should not be conflated.
with your understanding of Citizens United that I’m not going to bother to correct it all because, frankly, I have better things to do. I’ll just say this: if the Court had limited itself to the rather technical question that was actually presented in the case regarding electioneering communications, your understanding might be closer to right. But it didn’t – it went way beyond the question presented and went into a host of other issues.
All your stuff about what BMG hypothetically could and couldn’t do before or after CU is just not correct.
David, why do you think it is correct for BMG to allow political messages to be posted right before the election – but not for Fahrenheit 9/11 and for Hillary: the movie to be distributed right before election?
Where do you see the difference? All serve to voice opinions, all serve to inform voters. That’s the point of Citizens United.
If the paper, broadcast station, website is disseminating opinion via its own means that is free press. If someone has to purchase airtime or ad space from another medium that is different. BTW, don’t conflate Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Hillary movies either. The former was an expose on an issue whereas the latter in my understanding was more direct advocacy for the defeat of a particular candidate.
Whats the payback the unions get from these politicians?
(to borrow a line from eb3)
the large overlap between the arguments raised by “andreiradulescubanu” and DFW?
Vote for Brownsberger because of his transparent website and his willingness to respond to comments. Vote for Brownsberger because accepting endorsements from corporations, unions and non-profits is the same thing as thinking they should able to make unlimited campaign expenditures. Vote for Brownsberger because he’s OK with Keystone XL.
it deserves an IP check.
Also, in the off chance it isn’t DFW, there’s heavy chance it’s a sockpuppet.
the exchanges on this and other threads.
andreiradulescubanu: Blah, blah, blah. Endorsing a candidate is the same as spending unlimited money pushing that candidate. Newspapers, which are corporations, couldn’t endorse, even though they spent five years doing just that, with no prosecutions or even criticism, under McCain-Feingold and a hundred years doing in under the other laws the court decided to strike down even though they weren’t properly in the case.
danfromwaltham: Great job, andreiradulescubanu! You demolished them, andreiradulescubanu! The lib’ruls are running for the hills, andreiradulescubanu!
It reminds me of some of Socrates’s conversations.
” Endorsing a candidate is the same as spending unlimited money pushing that candidate.”
Not so. Endorsing is one thing, spending $$$ to push the candidate is an entirely different thing.
Yup.
“Vote for Brownsberger because accepting endorsements from corporations, unions and non-profits is the same thing as thinking they should able to make unlimited campaign expenditures.”
Straw argument, fenway49. Endorsements are not the same thing as campaign expenditures. Citizens United does not permit unlimited campaign expenditures. But that is a common misconception about Citizens United.
Congress can still regulate campaign expenditures – and the reason it did not do so, 3 years since Citizens United passed, should tell you volumes about the interest of both Dems and Repubs to have access to non-transparent, unlimited campaign funds.
“Unlimited independent expenditures that just happen to be during a campaign and about who should win a campaign.” Better?
What hasn’t happened in Congress over the past three years is due to about half the seats being occupied by members of a party that filibusters everything in sight just to make sure nothing gets done, and threatens default on our federal bonds to win policy outcomes it wouldn’t be able to get otherwise.
The horrors!
Someone go get me my smelling salts — I think I may have a faint.
Candidates should be free to seek endorsements from unions, non-profits and corporations. That is not the problem, ryepower12. The problem arrives when candidates seek these endorsements on one hand, and keep the questionnaires they signed secret – then they complain about too much influence of corporations or organizations in politics.
I’m fascinated by this topic. His ad – which I agree is excellent – is just that: an ad. How much should the fact that a particular candidate’s campaign consultants came up with the cleverest TV spot be worth?
I think it goes a little beyond clever. It tells a story. It tells you something about Carl as a person. About overcoming obstacles, about real family values, about the tone we should be taking in our political discourse, about so much more than just “clever”.
Yes, we should want more from every candidate than one amazing ad. But to dismiss the ad as the invention of consultants is to really miss why that ad is so brilliant.
I have a hard time imagining any of the other candidates pulling off this ad. Koutoujian? Brownsberger? The ad captures Sciortino well – his character as well as his positions. That’s what makes it effective.
Scott Brown at his kitchen table, in his sweater? Remember that – the one that pretty much sealed his 2010 win?
My point is that advertising is basically a game. Sciortino has hit the jackpot this cycle with by far the best ad, and has gotten immense national press and free air time because of it. In 2010, Brown was the big winner. Next cycle, it’ll be someone else. So it makes me nervous when a candidate stakes too much on the air war.
Only the statement that this is just ‘clever’. The Brown ad was effective at undercutting the Coakley/Democratic campaign strategy of tearing Brown down. But it didn’t do much to tell a story of who Brown was. Since Coakley didn’t really bother to spend much time telling voters who she was, that made this ad more effective.
The Sciortino ad is the foundation upon which you can build issues in a way that should give voters faith in who Carl is, what he stands for, what kind of leader he’ll be. If it’s the entire campaign, then he won’t win. But you can build a lot more off this ad than almost anything else I’ve ever seen.
To your main point, if this is all he’s got, it’s not enough. I don’t live in CD5, so it’s hard for me to know what else he has, but I suspect there’s more.
I think you’re misremembering the Brown ad. Watch it again at the link. Yes, it does a nice job of rebutting the hapless Coakley attacks. But Brown also gets his Mr. Independent, nobody’s team but yours, shtick in there pretty effectively. That’s, in part, why the ad was so good.
I thought the ad’s effectiveness was more in making the attacks look stupid than in telling a story about who Brown was, but what do I know?
I see your point, but obviously the substance of the candidates is so different. I think this is more like Wellstone and his ad.
Sciortino definitely got lucky by making a near perfect ad, but I assure you the campaign is not sitting back and just resting on that. They are fully mobilized for a ground push, and have been doing voter contact hard for about 6 weeks. A lot of the money remaining will go to air the ad because the ad is working and that’s a good use of resources. The other campaigns are doing similar spending with less effective ads. Sure, Sciortino is the lucky one on that front.
But whether an ad can help carry someone to victory is not so much reflective of the candidate. It’s about the engagement of the voters, which, during a special, is pretty light, especially when the local media has basically taken a pass on the race.
I’m confident that once voters get to know Sciortino, they will like him and many will vote for him. And if that ad helps make that first contact, then I am all for it.
But there’s a difference between being “clever” and effective. Clever makes it sound like a trick, while I’d argue that the Sciortino and Brown ads are effective at delivering the candidate’s message to the audience.
Having a good ad is no different from a good debate performance, a solid mail piece or a large group of volunteer door-knockers. They are all good vehicles for getting voters to understand who you are and why they should vote for you.
stay on message, do things that jive with your message. have a message that resonates — and resonate it loudly, so everyone hears. this was one of the most on-message, resonating messages ever.
It won’t win him the campaign, but it gave him a huge lift, giving him some kind of a shot.
What does Sciortino’s ad say on substance, exactly? Not much, except that he’s got a pretty cool dad who is a Tea Partier.
Is that Sciortino’s platform in this campaign? I thought it was Carl who was running in the race, not Scirtino Sr.
What does his ad say on substance, exactly?
Well, how about:
1. That corporations should pay their fair share.
2. He wrote the buffer law and is a huge supporter of a women’s right to choose.
3. He’s not afraid to take on the NRA.
4. He’s not afraid to take on the Tea Party.
5. He supports a bad on high capacity magazines and assault weapons.
6. He supports equal pay for equal work.
7. He supports civil rights and equality for everyone. T
So, basically, he’s a Massachusetts liberal and proud of it.
Seriously, dude, your posts offer nothing of any value and what you’ve written here is just plain lying. There was oodles of substance in this ad. You don’t get to make stuff up.
On the merits, I’ll give Sciortino the first part of #2 – he wrote the buffer law. Also #8, which you did not mention – he worked on passing a bill for raising the minimum wage. That is what distinguishes him among the candidates. For the rest, he is substantively no different. Or he does not mention it on the campaign trail.
Let’s be serious here. Passing pro abortion legislation and raising the minimum wage in Massachusetts – both good things, but not necessarily indications of great skill in overcoming political adversity.
Yet he’s looking good, with his new ad, and polling numbers indicate that Sciortino is rising. But let’s not kid ourselves. His rise in the polls is about style and not substance.
You didn’t claim it wasn’t different, you claimed there was no substance. As I illustrated, it had plenty of substance, addressing several issues.
Now you employ a strawman, picking a new ‘problem’ you have with the ad — the fact that while it addresses issues, it doesn’t go in depth.
I really shouldn’t go any further, rewarding your strawman, but I will point out this: no commercial have any real depth. That’s why they’re called commercials.
This was not a 42 page plan, it was a minute to spread his message (“I’m a Massachusetts liberal and proud of it” seems to be an honest assessment of that). To be frank, he got through much more substance than a normal commercial by addressing any specifics at all (the buffer bill being at least one), as well as the fact that he listed his position on numerous issues of import. Very few commercials do that and still manage to be entertaining at the same time. So this strawman and new complaint of yours is still lacking.
Not that that’s a shocker.
Or did you not really pay attention to the ad, and so you’re reporting on it from your rather sparse memory?
> “and so you’re reporting on it from your rather sparse memory.”
Good one! Thanks, you did not change my mind, but you made my day!
The ad is brilliant and it does clue people in to the idea that Sciortino is perhaps a cut above the standard pol. Yet the hard work comes after people see the ad. To a degree is the classic South Park underpants gnome problem.
Step 1: Make a great ad
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Win the election
We’ll see if Sciortino can figure out ??? before the primary.
“How much should it be worth?” or “How much do people think it will be worth?”
Those are two very different questions. We — especially engaged activists — might think our decision should depend on things like policy or talent, but many an election has turned on a clever line in a speech or an ad, or one that backfired badly.
Let’s hope the voters reward these virtues, not the ones with the slick commercials or marketing packages or ones who have the support of special interests, who expect payback for their support.
in a landslide. Remember the Howard Cosell nonsense.
Brownsberger’s willingness to show us all how tremendously wrong he is on so many of the issues. It takes guts in a progressive district to run as the moderate in the hopes of progressive votes dividing up with other candidates. I am appreciative of how open and honest he is about that strategy, as cynical as it is.
Carl is running the best campaign. He was relatively obscure in most of the district at the start of the campaign and now has gained national attention which is pouring in additional money and support. He is gaining in the polls.
On the issues he is the leader in being progressive. Clark is mostly single note on women’s issues. Spilka about CHINS and her litmus test as a social worker. Koutoujian is the one talking about gun violence the most. Brownsburger has distinguished himself as an outlier on Citizens United and environmental.
Let us not forget Martin Long or Paul John Maisano – both pushing & pulling the candidates to the left and right of the progressive democratic pool of candidates.
Women’s issues are indeed rather important but I’m still surprised that every mailing I’ve gotten from Clark — and it might be half a dozen by now — focuses on women’s issues. What made her campaign decide to be so single-minded?
It burnishes her progressive bona fides as opposed to what I recall to be concerning views on privacy.
I also like Midge’s explanation below. Another aspect: it is tied to a story and stories make human connection.
One might conclude that, in a 5-way race, one simply needs a robust plurality to win. Possibly there are that many voters in the district for whom such an appeal would be decisive.
I think it’s because she knows it will resonate with the white baby boomer women who are worried that congress is going to roll back women’s rights and guarantee that demographic for her. She’s like their niece running for office and they all sit around so proud of her passion, drive, etc.
Peter Koutoujian called me directly to ask for my support, and we had a good conversation. Karen Spilka also called.
I spoke with Brownsberger, but I was unimpressed.
Clark and Sciortino did not call. I tired to call Clark, a staffer responded. Clark’s staffer asked me to donate. I then received more calls from Clark’s people asking me for money.
So, I think Koutoujian is running the best campaign, with Spilka a close second. I put Clark at the bottom, because I was annoyed by her aggressive fund-raising.
I would like to speak with Karen, she seems interesting and has some spunk in her answers.
Clark is doing a good job reaching all the white middleaged women in the district. I just saw her ad and she’s telling the story of growing up in repressed environments for women. She’s having tons of house parties and they are all telling their stories…”remember when we burned our bras?!” She’s reaching a large demographic of the district. An old model that works well with this population. I get it. She’s telling a story with which many identify.
I have received more mail from Clark than all the other candidates combined.
Unfortunately, the myriad of mail is focused on only one thing. Women’s issues. It’s sort of the same dog whistle campaign that other candidates use to urge votes for being a white guy against a black candidate, or any other race-gender-ethnic appeal. I think it’s awful. It’s also kind of dumb to send this kind of mail to a male baby boomer. Don’t they target their gender-specific mailings to women?
The people who are receiving this mail seem to be forming negative opinions, too. Even the women who would be moved by the argument that we need more women in Congress. Spilka could gain some of that support.
My town of Arlington seems to be a battleground between Clark and Brownsberger. Brownsberger represented us well when he was a state rep, and has a lot of support as a result. I am for Brownsberger, who has the support of a majority of elected officials based on the quality of his work as a state representative.
Koutoujian’s TV ad is awful. Sciortino’s ad is the talk of the town. Best campaign? Sciortino. Worst? Clar, who seems to be looking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by overplaying the woman card.
Women are not fooled by pretense and despite the target of the middle-aging post-hippy female demographic it is not a great sell to many in the district who are working class and identify with Spilka as a fighter with a very broad skills set as well as a legislative record. Winthrop and Woburn are in the district along with Weston (lean Spilka geographically and local media coverage) and Winchester (lean Clark geographically and local media coverage).
Has Clark actually championed and passed any tough legislation or does she just have the right look for a certain demographic to feel comfortable with (no snark?)
Sheriffs have resources.
Sciorino has skills, smarts and likeability. Can he overcome the deficit of being a state rep. with the smallest base? Depends who votes. By the looks of the crowds at events, it is still the older demographic that Clark forgot includes men and women who do not primarily identify with her monotone message.
I agree that Clark is scripted. She’s one of the last candidate I’ve gotten to know in the campaign. I was surprised to learn about her so late in the campaign and being a lead.
I agree – women are not fooled, but if they don’t know Carl Sciortino, I don’t know if they would lean towards him over any others.
I hope to see Carl go to Washington. He is very skilled and likable. I don’t see any signs anywhere for him – that worries me though.
Signage always runs to the right of election outcomes. If not mistaken, the Markey campaign specifically avoided putting resources into signage.
I did see a giant billboard ad for him when driving up Rt. 93 a couple weeks ago. It was one of those electronic ones that changes every few seconds. It was right after his ad came out. I wonder what it costs to put it up there?! And did anyone actually pay attention?
I’ve done for Carl Sciortino – randomly across the district. It is difficult to tell where you’re candidate stands against the other candidates, as supporters of others are more likely to refuse or say they are undecided.
That being said it appears Carl is having a substantial surge.
Of the voters who identify for another candidate, Katherine Clark appears in the lead, followed closely by Will Brownsberger, (that’s a surprise in a Democratic primary), then Peter Koutoujian and Karen Spilka bringing up the rear. Her internal polls are seriously flawed.
Will Brownsberger has the 2nd largest war chest and will likely have TV ads appearing soon. Katherine has already saturated the airwaves and has little forward momentum left.. Karen Spilka is having serious difficulty with her fundraising.
Still more undecided’s than support for any single candidate.
If so, how are they breaking?
If its like most primary campaigns they are calling those most likely to vote in a Dem primary based on voting history. This includes both super-Dems and unenrolleds who habitually pull a Dem ballot.
Do you have data or just your phone-banking to support that statement?
Are you suggesting the firms used poor samples or other design flaws?
but hours of phonebanking random calls of likely voters in random areas of the district are somewhat similar to their financial support.
Clark – $482,307
Brownsberger – $386,183
Scorirtino – $355,270
Koutoujian – $309, 580
Spilka – $204,870
The accuracy of numbers for the candidate you are calling for can not be accurate. Voters that name another candidate are clearly favoring Clark and Brownsberger. Too close to tell between the two of them.
Thnigs can change in the next 2 weeks. We will find out for sure on October 15, but Spilka does not appear to be in the top tier by any measure other than her own internal poll. Yes
That was the report with Koutoujian and Spilka getting late into the race….I recall something like one month of fund raising for them compared to the top three who were early in especially Sciortino and Clark.
I would expect to see Koutoujian’s fin numbers high for this past quarter and Clark-Sciortino high with access to more affluent bases. Spilka represents more working class in her district and doesn’t have the Cambridge ATM that Clark began wrapping months ago.
Brownsberger consistently polls low with the exception of his passionate base. His numbers without PAC are admirable.
He really has only gotten in trouble with the small group of people who’ve seen forums and with those if us on BMG. His state senate and state rep districts covered a lot of ground in the 5th and people remember how awesome he is as a rep and state senator: as I’ve stated elsewhere, seriously too naive about the true intentions of the right or how DC works which gives me pause. But the average voter is just paying attention and only remembers that he knocked on their door or answere their call.
My first impression upon reading your informative posts is that you must be a partner in some Boston law firm and in between clients or court recess.
If you would be so kind, b/c your comments are in this thread and all over the place, perhaps a diary explaining Citizens United and it’s dire consequences toward free speech and expression. I would include some advocacy for Will Brownsberger too, like how the real problem is electing politicians who take PAC money and special interest money 365 days a year, while Will refuses these donations.
Do you mind if I call you Andre The Giant? Your presence in this BMG arena is just as impressive and I must say, as intimidating. But knowledge is a good thing and you certainly brought it here.
And he certainly doesn’t have the legal credentials that you speculate he might have. Am I really the only one who knows how to Google things?
Unlike you or me, Dan, Andrei Radulescu-Banu uses his real name in posting here.
He has a Linked-in page: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrei-radulescu-banu/a/98a/527
And a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/bitdribble
And he ran a brief but abandoned campaign for School Committee in Lexington: http://andrei4schools.com/
Though Andrei seems pretty damn smart in some ways (he has a PhD in mathematics from MIT!) but it appears he has no legal background. Here’s a pretty complete bio from his campaign site:
I see no reason why Andrei’s opinion on Citizen’s United should be given any special weight. We’ve got plenty of lawyers on this site who could offer more expert opinions.
If only there was an attorney on this site who had some deep experience with Constitutional law, perhaps maybe someone who clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. I’d love to hear what they have to say about Citizen’s United . . .
I think what is important in this campaign, which is likely to be a very low voter turnout, is who is knocking the most doors, identifying the most voters, and has the ground game to get out their vote on the 15th. Given that it is impossible to say who is running the best campaign. The answer will come on the 15th.
I will say that Katherine Clark is boring me with her Johnny one note mailings. Carl’s ad was great, Karen Spilka and the boxing gloves with the pearls over them did nothing for me. Hate robo calls and got one for Carl from Ken Ellison, who is probably known by very few in Massachusetts. Also got a robo call for Katherine Clark from a woman’s political group. I have worked on many political campaigns and I am volunteering on Peter Koutoujian’s. What I would say about his campaign is that we are running a campaign similar to the winning campaigns of Deval Patrick, Elizabeth Warren that coupled with Peter’s presence makes for a very powerful campaign. The only poll that was not internal was the one done by Emerson which has Clark at 24%, Koutoujian @ 19%, and Spilka @ 17% with 47% undecided and a margin of error of over 4% meaning that these three candidates are for all intents and purposes tied. I think that poll is probably the most accurate. The next 2 weeks will be the test and on the 16th we can say with certainty who ran the best campaign.
Do you have a link?
I don’t have the link, but Bernstein posted it in Facebook a week or so ago. I think if you google Emerson college CD5 poll, you would find it.
I have been called personally twice by Carl Sciortino. I have shaken hands twice with Peter Katoujian at Alewife during rush hour. I have seen Katherine Clark twice at two local house parties. I have seen the Sciortino ad. I have spoken with Will Brownsberger in person multiple times (enough to know I do not like how he thinks, and I’m a rabid progressive). I have read many letters to the editor in support of either Will Brownsberger or Katherine Clark from local pols in town, but not for others in the Arlington Advocate. I have had people come by to talk or have seen dropped literature from Peter, Katherine and Will. And I live up a steep hill. No presence from what I can tell from Karen Spilka. Although I don’t pay attention to the Robocalls or the literature I have received…it seems multiple pieces, nearly identical from Katherine so those ones did stand out. And the call from Rep Ellison also stood out, although perhaps in a bad way…where are the endorsements from Massachusetts pols? So as far as I can tell, all the candidates, except Spilka have a good ground game. But Arlington seems to be a choice between Katherine or Will (multiple friend arm twisting for one or the other either by phone or facebook or email postings)…although personally I’m on the fence between Carl and Katherine. Although I won’t be too unhappy with any of them when it’s time for the real election.
If you are all about and only about women’s issues, vote for Clark. If you want to have good policies and laws for everyone, then vote for Sciortino. Simple.
and it looks like Koutoujian is doing pretty well in the money race — over $600K raised and more than $560K COH for the primary. Sciortino’s ad seems to have helped his fundraising, and Clark loaned her campaign $250K, so her cash on hand number looks a lot better than it would if she was just relying on donations. Brownsberger didn’t raise as much as the others, but has OK COH. Spilka’s new #’s don’t appear to be online yet.
Story is here.
As a Koutoujian super supporter, I could not be more happy. I think people on this site, have very much underestimated his appeal to voters. he is good and solid on the issues that I care about; gun safety, victims right, women’s rights, the environment, mental health, rolling out the ACA, etc. He has been an effective legislator and has made an amazing difference in the sheriff’s office since his appointment by the Governor
What was the question? “Who is running the best campaign,” not “who would be best.”
Okay, I admit I’ve been out of state for the past 9 days, but it seems to me that Brownsberger has been doing many things right.
He seems to be everywhere pushing his natural strengths, which are considerable. Beyond that, he has constructed counter-narratives to many of his weaknesses, for instance on Citizens United and Keystone.
I personally an not convinced by any of those, but I believe he has neutralized these and other issues as liabilities for most primary voters. Indeed he is positioning himself as the best candidate on climate; while I find that appalling in a way you have to admire the technical virtuosity.
The missing piece, which is huge, is GOTV. But so far I have to give it to Brownsberger on points, Scortino’s extraordinarily good TV spot notwithstanding.
If you google polls for the 5th CD, you will get a Wikipedia page that lists the details of the 4 polls that have been done and who commissioned them. Interesting. Don’t know how to do a link, but thought others might want to look at it.