I find the “politics” of choosing (or not choosing) sides in the race for mayor to be fascinating. In the primary, we saw alot of what we probably expected based on demographics and electoral positions. Many minority politicians went with minority candidates, with the vast majority of that support going to Felix Arroyo and Charlotte Golar Ritchie. Many of the Southie/Dorchester Irish pols went with Walsh. Some with grudges or big ambitions (Collins, Michlewitz, Basile, and Moran) took what appeared to be interesting stances. Others, needing to keep the candidates from opposing their current ambitions, stayed neutral. But now, just three weeks from the election, many endorsements have fallen into place. Here’s the tally I have, including only elected officials representing Boston and former candidates for Mayor, along with their base geographical area.
For Walsh:
Petruccelli (E. Boston)
Fox- Boston (inner city)
Malia (JP)
O’Flaherty (Charlestown)
Lynch (S. Boston, Dorchester)
Forry (Dorchester, Mattapan)
Felix Arroyo (Citywide)
Frank Baker (Dorchester)
John Barros (Roxbury, Dorchester)
Golar Ritchie (Dorchester)
For Connolly:
DiDomenico (Allston)
Basile (E. Boston)
Collins (S. Boston)
Coppinger (W. Roxbury)
Michlewitz (N. End)
Livingstone (Back Bay)
Sal LaMattina (N. End, E. Boston)
Matt O’Malley (W. Roxbury, JP)
Mark Ciommo (Brighton, Allston)
Yet to Endorse:
Brownsberger (Back Bay, Fenway)
Chang-Diaz (JP)
Rush (W. Roxbury)
Henriquez (Dorchester)
Holmes (Dorchester)
Honan (Brighton)
Moran (Allston)
Rushing (S. End, Roxbury)
Sanchez (Mission Hill)
Scaccia (Hyde Park)
Capuano (North and West portion of city)
Cullinane (Dorchester)
Murphy (Hyde Park)
Pressley (Citywide)
Linehan (S. Boston)
Yancey (Mattapan)
Consalvo (Hyde Park)
Jackson (Dorchester)
Ross (Mission Hill, Back Bay)
The impact of endorsements is a subject that we could debate for days. Obviously not all endorsements are equal. Some listed above are, or would be, almost completely irrelevant. I personally think that an endorsement in itself is worth relatively little. However, a mailer featuring an endorsement by a popular politician is undoubtedly worth something, and getting an endorser with some juice to actually WORK for you can be worth a lot. To that point, I take away a few things from the current board. Connolly’s strengths on this measure are in the western part of the city and in E. Boston. There he has his most dedicated endorsers (early supporters and those who will work and raise money). Walsh’s strength is close to his home as well, with strength in Southie and Dorchester. Notably though, his team (of elected endorsers) is now extremely diverse compared to Connolly’s all-white male team. Now Connolly has A LOT of supporters of color, including several Menino operatives and black ministers. But when looking at the candidates’ peers, Walsh garners more support among minority pols. It also seems to me that Arroyo and Barros are working very hard for Walsh. Those endorsements look to be meaningful. On the other hand, I don’t see Golar Ritchie’s support being as big a deal since many of her major supporters have split off to Connolly.
Please follow me on twitter @kitty_oneil
listed as operatives, have grudges or big ambitions while Walsh’s are not? Here lies the problem which much of the postings on BMG.
reading comprehension IS becoming a big issue on BMG. As alluded to above, those who went away from what might have been thought to be their natural positions IN THE PRELIMINARY, largely did so because of their ambitions. Michlewitz and Moran backed CGR knowing that the first black mayor of Boston would be a huge deal, and that if she could get to the Final it would become a huge story. Being with her early would have been beneficial to them. This has nothing to do with Michlewitz’s later endorsement of Connolly. As for grudges, Nick Collins endorsed John Connolly because he holds a grudge against Marty Walsh for staying neutral in his State Senate race. Period. I’m not going to make up a Walsh supporter with a grudge against Connolly to achieve a manufactured appearance of objectivity. Would you have the Globe contend this morning that all sides were equally at fault in the government shutdown? Lastly, I’m not sure what your problem is with the label “operative.” Political operatives exist. I used the term to distinguish them from elected officials. That doesn’t imply they’re any better or worse people than elected officials. They’re just not elected officials, and I don’t have the capacity to review every “endorsement” by individual citizens.
should I go through you twitter posts? Get real.
Nick Collins. yes. Everything else, no.
Sorry, to point out what is painful obvious framing within your post.
My intention is not to start a fight on here. I can see from your previous posts that you like John Connolly. I’m leaning toward Marty Walsh. I do not work for the campaign (paid or unpaid), nor do I stand to benefit any more than your average citizen if he is elected. I posted what I thought was a relatively objective, fact centered post, with a little bit of commentary. After all, the website bills itself as “reality-based commentary.” I will say, with regard to my tweets, that I am completely disgusted with the media’s coverage of the race. I do not think John Connolly’s a bad guy. I do not think his supporters are any worse guys (and gals) than Walsh’s. That said, the reporting has been incredibly lazy. It has centered on relatively meaningless aspects of candidates’ biographies and ridiculous stereotypes.
I don’t want to start a fight. You are the only one insulting people kitty. You are insulting elected official, you insult me. It’s only you. So please enough.
While it’s nice that you can neatly package any elected office to “need” to have a motive to endorse Connolly, it’s obviously not the case. You know what’s crazy. On both sides officials want the best for Boston, some thought Richie would be the best to lead, when she didn’t make the final two spots, people (and you know they have brains in their head) made a decision. That’s it. That was my original comment to you, all the other insults and innuendo is you.
That was in response to your original comment of “Here lies the problem which much of the postings on BMG.” I’d note that all of your recent posts have been partisan anti-Walsh, so I’m not sure where you get off insulting my post. The comprehension comment was a response to a complete misrepresentation of the post. I’ll stand by my characterization of endorsements being driven by grudges and opportunism in the case of 3 of the many endorsers (Collins grudge v. Walsh and Michlewitz and Moran for Ritchie, seeing an opportunity). As to “it’s nice that you can neatly package any elected office to “need” to have a motive to endorse Connolly,” you’re way off base as well. Again, I’ll stand by my original view of the Collins endorsement. I frankly don’t even blame him. Walsh wasn’t there for him in his political time of need, and now he’s not there for Walsh. No surprise. Forry on the other hand, decided to endorse Walsh. I don’t blame her either. I never said, and do not believe, anything other than belief in Connolly is behind his endorsements from DiDomenico, Coppinger, Michlewitz, Livingstone, Sal LaMattina, Matt O’Malley, or Mark Ciommo. I don’t think I’m not “getting real” to think that 3 or 4 of 37 Boston pols made their endorsements based on a grudge or an opportunity.
it’s just fact that you disguise a partisan post as being objective. Sorry if this upsets you.
Plus, please try to find any negative reference that I made to any specific politician for endorsing Walsh. Hint: YOU WON’T FIND ONE. It just you.
You seem reluctant to admit you support him, but frankly you’re starting to sound like DFW during the Senate primary where we had to wait forever to get a pro-Lynch diary out of him rather than just bashing Markey at every turn.
I have pointed out very specifically on campaign finance concerns in comments, those were ignored, I then made a couple of posts on the topic. I needled Connolly on the same subject on a post when he was about to take 500k.
My issues are campaign finance, which was attacked. I highlighted how people used Citizens United against candidates (which i wholeheartedly agreed) then turned their back when it was their candidate. Poor form, including David.
In the non-stop attacks I’ve added binding arbitration, I believe that with the charges being levied against Walsh he should have a strong response and tell voters/constituents why he thinks that’s the way to go. During the 1st debate his response was “no comment”, so therefore according to BMG, Walsh obviously won the debate and I was a Connolly cheerleader. — wrong again.
New wrinkle after the debate was that Leigh noted that Walsh used the same binding arbitration to try to undermine the Municipal Health Reform legislation, which was wildly supported by progressives and and large part of Deval Patrick’s reforms. It was joking listed by the editors as one of BMG 5 points to turning around the MA economy. I didn’t write a post, I did add a comment. The editors at BMG have so far declined to discuss the topic. David noted that Leigh was not liberal, which really doesn’t address anything.
That’s my summary. Carry on.
that you have in fact insulted a great many people on BMG in the past few weeks, many of whom are well intentioned, longtime contributors. Most particularly, you’ve insulted just about anyone who disagrees with anything you say on this race, as if your word is the gospel.
I think we can safely add Kitty to that list, for making sweeping accusations against her that have absolutely no merit. Stop digging, Johnk.
no trolling please.
I apologize if i offended you in any way. My feeling is that there is a lot of groupthink that does on during elections. Seems that those that do not conform are ridiculed. We saw it during Obama’s first election here and during Patrick’s during the primary on his first run for Governor. I’ve been here for a decent amount of time myself. It was Patrick’s first run that brought me here in the first place.
My only intention is to highlight that I don’t feel that on either side you need an ulterior motive to support a candidate and it seemed to be framed that way. My entire comment categorized by Ryan as sweeping accusations and insulting is:
That sums up why I commented.
As for Ryan enough is enough, he’s again doing the us vs. them attack, I really don’t appreciate it. Kitty don’t fall for it. I haven’t engaged him since he attacked my first post on campaign financing. i don’t understand why he fells the need to continue.
Cullinane is for Walsh.
I figured as much, but couldn’t confirm it so I left it out. I’m guessing a Rep. in his first month in office isn’t getting much media play with his endorsement!
Walsh is getting some big ones.
“State Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz of Jamaica Plain, City Councilor Tito Jackson of Grove Hall, and state representatives Russell Holmes of Mattapan and Carlos Henriquez of Dorchester will endorse Walsh as early as Friday, the people with knowledge of the decision said.”
Per Facebook: