If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it does that make Martha Coakley a self-serving hypocritical attorney general and even worse governor?
I don’t know because her opponents aren’t letting us know.
Gut check time Steve-O. You have the dough. Get a narative and sell it. Sell it hard. Go after Martha for unethically using her power for personal fame and attention. Compare prosecutions to her own misdeeds. Her campaign account screw-up. Her sister being paid to mismanage it.
The right ad people can make her look like Cruella DeVille/Richard Nixon hybrid for what she did to political opponent Tim Cahill.
You should be doing this also Julie. You have the charisma and the experience to argue it. I’m not sure The G-Man (Hey, Grossman’s gangstah name G-Man. Nah, who’s kidding whom? He’s just plain ole Steve) Anyway Steve has the money Julie doesn’t have.
Get those researchers and ad people and spin-masters and fact checkers and attack attack attack.
Don’t be afraid. It is your duty.The woman is mad. Mad I tell you. Only she ain’t gonna tell us that and everyone else is busy with their own lives.
It’s up to you two. Not Charlie Baker. Not me. You. Her opponnents. It’s your duty to educate the electorate.
Negative campaigning is a myth when you pointing to one’s record which also attacks character. That is what Martha needs.
Screw the party. Don’t let them shut you out. The party is not the registered Democrats in this state.
Time to dump the 15% rule.
JimC says
… but it’s essentially correct. Someone needs to emerge as the alternative to Martha. Steve seems more likely, at this point, but Kayyem still has a window to emerge.
The caucuses worked well for Deval. Of course he was helped by Reilly, who essentially skipped them. Martha won’t do that.
Christopher says
I don’t think it’s in his nature, and meanwhile they have to work together as fellow constitutional officers.
Strongly disagree about dumping the 15% rule. The party is in fact all registered Dems, both activists and voters, and any registered Dem can participate in the caucuses. We don’t want a free for all, but on the other hand are pretty generous with ballot access.
JimC says
What’s the argument for dropping it? If we don’t have one, there’s really no need to have a convention, ’cause God knows nobody reads or adheres to the platform.
Actually maybe that is the argument. But I like the convention, and I support the rule.
johnk says
have so far run a front runner campaign. Middle of the road BS answers to questions. I had thought Kayyem brought more to the table but hasn’t shown anything, that’s disappointing. But after the last poll where Martha has blown the doors off this thing. It’s time to leave the half-assed answers behind.
HeartlandDem says
While I agree that MC’s opponents should call her out on her record, flips and flops, I also think MSM has an empty seat to fill at the table for that tactic.
Berwick should step-up and fire some shots across the bow at the candidates mentioned above and parry with his merits…..soon or else he’ll join the cluttered graveyard of best qualified, least likely to get elected – could’ah been a contend’ah candidates that litter the MA landscape.
fenway49 says
We have to get to the convention and see who’s in the primary. There will be plenty of time for, ahem, drawing distinctions then.
Berwick, I agree, should try to distinguish himself from ALL of the other candidates to give people on the fence a reason to break for him even though he’s an unknown quantity politically.
Mark L. Bail says
It’s OUR party! Ernie and DeFranco can cry if they want to, but the convention is still important. People still get together, meet each other, network, etc. During primaries, not so much. It’s campaign against campaign and too often advertisement against advertisement. Keep people in the loop. Keep the convention. Keep the 15% rule.
Jasiu says
It ensures that anyone who gets through the convention has enough of an organization in place to make a serious challenge in the primary.
socialworker says
If a candidate cannot organize well enough to get 15% of the delegates at the convention, they have no ability to organize a primary campaign. The convention is a pool of Democratic voters who invest themselves in the process, know the issues, care enough to show up on a Sunny Saturday in June (June 13th this year) and vote. The candidates attend caucuses and organize delegate support and then make their pitch live to the convention. The convention is a good test for any potential candidate. If you want a voice, run at your caucus. Caucuses start this weekend. Check the party’s website for your caucus.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
it’s a rule made for back room deals. Suddenly the candidiates sound like the scalpers outside the Garden.
“Who needs tickets? I mean delegates?'”
“I need 200 here. Can you help me out?”
“Sure I can help you out.”
“Are they good, can we trust em”
“Oh yeah, they’re good. I have them in a cage right now”
“Okay, how much?”
“For you?’.. You’re not gonna turn around and sell them to someone else right? Make me look like a chump”
“No. Ah ah I would nev….”
“Ahh I’m just fuckin with you. But seriously here is what I expect for these 200.”
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Have Joe DiNucci give her a boatload of delegates he controlled to get her what she needed then, then, hold press conferences telling the world he was dick.
Christopher says
The State Auditor controlling a boatload of delegates – really? Paging johnt001, we could really use your hearty laughter right here:)
Christopher says
How many conventions have you attended? How many times have you been a delegate? How many local caucuses have you attended? I strongly suspect the answer is zero to all three. Are you even a registered Democrat?
Mark L. Bail says
without the 15% rule, it was all back room deals. Candidates releasing delegates to vote for other candidates. It was stupid.
What backroom deals are talking about?
socialworker says
I have been at every convention, nominating and issues for the past 8 years. I am very active in politics, a member of the state committee. The only time I have ever been asked by a campaign to vote for someone I did not support, was the Defranco campaign so she could get her 15%. She did not even come close to 15%. In that campaign, I am sure there was pressure for everyone to get out of the race so Elizabeth Warren could have a clear shot and not have a primary. It is likely that that involved some back room deals, but I am not privy to any of that.
jconway says
You admitted De Franco contacted people she should’ve known had no desire to support her and that she got nowhere near 15%. That’s piss poor organization and delegate work not some conspiracy or cabal. I respect some of your posts but the De Franco and Clark conspiracies are becoming mini-birther moments amongst the states progressive community. A good friend from U of C worked for her campaign (after initially backing Massie) and admitted they got smoked fair and square and he went right on over to work for Liz. He backed Carl in the primary and went right back to work for Clark. We’re on the same team after the primaries and conventions folks.
fenway49 says
socialworker was making: that people have been delegates without being pressured to vote for candidates not of their choosing because someone “higher up” cut a deal.
Is it really that suprising that DeFranco supporters, sensing they weren’t likely to hit 15%, would start asking delegates to vote for her “just so she gets on the ballot and the voters get to choose?” I’d be surprised if they didn’t do that; it’s the only course left to them when convention balloting’s about to begin. No conspiracy theory needed.
socialworker says
there are no back room deals was my point. Yes, DeFranco people were asking delegates to vote for her because they felt it was only fair she get on the ballot because she got the needed signatures.
As for Katherine Clark, for me there are things that happen that I will never forget or forgive. There was no conspiracy just sleazy adds by Emily’s List, who is now supporting Katherine’s old boss, Martha Coakley, now that might be a conspiracy.
99/100 I get right on board when my candidate loses the primary with the democratic victor, but there are occasionally people who I will not vote for. Katherine was one of them. I wrote in Koutoujian.
jconway says
I clearly misread what you were trying to say and apologize for that. I also felt similar about Coakley and wrote in Capuano (since I got my ballot four weeks before the general) and then worried in horror after the race got close that I might’ve elected Brown. Had he won by a few hundred votes I’d have felt really bad about myself.
De Franco coulda been a contenda but she didn’t drop it and is now trying the same act with Tierney. It’s a tired one.
Mark L. Bail says
conventions and never received pressure.
I went to support Elizabeth Warren about whom I was and am very enthusiastic. So were my delegation. Why would I want to change my vote? By the convention, I already had antipathy for DeFranco as well.
Unless you have a party boss pressuring you to change your vote, there’s no problem as Fenway points out. No problem with DeFranco’s people asking for support. No problem with people giving it, unless they already pledged support as some delegates do when they run.
jconway says
I think Kayyem has more to gain and less to lose by being the first to jump. As a woman she is insulated from the inevitable sexism charge and ‘angry man’ image that MC employed against Capuano in the Senate special. Grossman risks hurting the nice guy congenial image he has cultivated. Kayyem is running a front runner’s campaign and is in third or fourth place in reality, time for her to shake things up.
Bernstein has the money count FWIW
kittyoneil says
I will be extremely disappointed. Martha Coakley does not deserve to just walk into the Governor’s office without having to make her case. If I were Grossman, I’d be extremely concerned that I’ve been around forever and held high profile positions and still trail by 45% to someone with some baggage. I agree with a lot of what others have said-including that Grossman ought to go negative and that he may not because it’s not in his nature.
fenway49 says
That’s all these polls really get at right now. Grossman’s still unknown to many respondents. After the convention, with the ballot set, there will be nearly 3 months to change that. Most voters won’t tune in until mid-summer anyway.
At least according to Kate’s straw poll, Grossman’s neck-and-neck with Coakley among activists.
woburndem says
It is funny to read the comments since I have been one of the most disappointed by Martha’s failed Senate race. Yet I am supporting her now, the reason being that the others just do not have the ability to get it done. Steve is a great person some one I do respect but please since last years convention where his speech was a total dud he has shown he is like watching paint dry. Charlie Baker will likely clean his clock in any debate and thus swing the un-enrolled voter. We all know this is the block you must win to be Governor. Sorry to say Ms Kayyem is like experiencing Tom Reilly all over again. I listened in on here con call several weeks ago and I thought I was listening to a reread of green eggs and ham. The substance was just not there. I then have to look at the team these candidates have surrounded themselves with and honestly as a Dem Activist I see Martha rising to the top fast. I do believe she now has the fire to run the entire table and has the style and charisma to keep Charlie Baker off balance and chasing his own tail. So no there is no one else who has demonstrated the tools necessary to win in November. So I am with Martha.
fenway49 says
I thought Steve Grossman’s speech was surprisingly good and Coakley’s not very interesting (“It’s my birthday!).
jconway says
Of Martha Coakley?
I think you gotta disclose if you’ve visited Washington or Colorado lately before you post.
Christopher says
…are the people of CO and WA known for a lack of charisma?
fenway49 says
legal smoking of marijuana, a big joke leading up to the WA-CO Super Bowl.
theloquaciousliberal says
I think the implication is that one must be stoned out of your mind on all that legal marijuana to think that Martha Coakley has a high amount of style or charisma:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLmE2FCYiX9EXhlnCGcefs8_kEIt_bkfDbgiXnL5f626ml-Fo5
pogo says
Often when candidate A attacks candidate B, both often suffer while candidate C gains. Kayyam and Grossman beating up on Martha maybe great news for Berwick.