It’s all over in Worcester. Two days of speechifying, delegate wrangling, and rapid-fire tweeting have come to an end, and it’s now a slow-motion sprint to the September primary. Where do things now stand?
Winner: the BMG hive mind. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the convention prediction post, and to Kevin Mentzer for crunching the data. As a group, BMG’s prediction for the balloting for Governor was 38 (Grossman)-23.5 (Coakley)-22 (Berwick)-12 (Kayyem)-4 (Avellone). The actual result was 35.2-23.3-22.1-12.1-7. So we pretty much nailed it. Especially impressive were the facts that we almost exactly predicted the absolute numbers and the margin for Coakley and Berwick’s very close 2-3 finish, and that we correctly predicted the margin by which Kayyem would miss 15%. Well done, everyone.
Losers: Juliette Kayyem, Joe Avellone, and James Arena-DeRosa. There’s no sugar-coating this: anyone who couldn’t muster 15% of the voting delegates won’t be on the September ballot, and therefore has to be counted among the weekend’s losers. Avellone’s failure was no surprise – he wasn’t a factor in the caucuses, and never found (or even seriously looked for, it seems) a message that resonated with the folks whose votes mattered yesterday. Kayyem’s failure did surprise some, but at the end of the day, she, too, never really came up with a convincing rationale for her candidacy. “Bold” is fine as an abstract notion, and there’s nothing wrong with being younger than the other candidates. But neither of those without more is good enough, and the “more” never really materialized. Frankly, Berwick’s platform was always “bolder” than Kayyem’s, and one does have to imagine that the barely-concealed disdain for unions in Kayyem fans like Globe columnist Scot Lehigh hurt her with delegates more than it helped.
I confess to being disappointed that Arena-DeRosa didn’t make the ballot, since of all the Lt. Gov. candidates, his résumé struck me as the most interesting (though I never saw him, or any of the others, on the campaign trail). But he didn’t raise much money, and obviously didn’t generate the delegate enthusiasm necessary to clear 15%. So, onward.
Winner: Don Berwick. The only way he plausibly could’ve won bigger would be to have taken second place behind Steve Grossman. Nonetheless, he did way better than pretty much anyone (save the BMG hive mind) expected, and with Kayyem and Avellone out, he’s now got the “not a professional politician” field all to himself. He needs to quickly put some meat on the bones of (e.g., explain how he will pay for) his most dramatic proposals – implementing Medicare for all, ending child poverty, etc. If he can do that, this could be a much better campaign than most people expect.
Winners: Warren Tolman and Maura Healey. By all reports, both Attorney General candidates gave terrific speeches, and both got what they needed from the delegates: Tolman got a majority, and Healey was only a few points behind. The polls show them close. This is anyone’s race.
Loser: the DCU Center. Reports of the facility itself are not good. Perhaps most appalling, at least one (the only?) elevator apparently was not working, making it extremely difficult for people who have trouble with stairs to get around. That should never, ever have been allowed to happen. In addition, Charley and others relayed unhappy reports of terrible WiFi, non-functional electrical outlets, and so on. And for heaven’s sake, couldn’t it be possible for people to get something decent to eat, or to bring their own food, for an event that lasts most of a day? There must be a better venue somewhere in this great Commonwealth.
Winner: annoying Twitter hashtags. Yes, the hashtag “#DemVention” is painfully lame. But it actually worked really well. It’s not too long; it’s easy to remember (because it’s so annoying); and it’s very unlikely to capture unrelated tweets. *sigh*
Winner: the 15% rule. As I’ve stated before, I don’t really like the 15% rule. But the rule did exactly what it’s supposed to do: it winnowed the field of candidates by eliminating three who had not generated sufficient enthusiasm among delegates to the convention. Whether you think that is a good thing is a different question, but there’s no denying that the rule worked well according to its terms.
What else is on your list?
For the LG race, I was deciding between Arena-DeRosa and Lake and ended up going with Lake. I think Lake’s speeches are a bit too “stump speech-y” for my taste, but Arena-DeRosa was just really not on his game. His video had very low production value, and he didn’t seem particularly passionate.
I’ll be curious to see what happens with the AG race. Whereas no one really impresses me that much in the Treasurer’s race, I find both AG candidates rather impressive, and they both gave solid speeches.
It was exciting to see Don come within striking distance of Martha and would have been even more exciting if he eked out a 2nd place victory. Regardless, he exceeded expectations and gave the best speech of the day. I know several people who were uncommitted or leaning toward another candidate who decided to support Don after his speech.
The DCU Center as a venue was not great, particularly because of the lack of variety in food options. Thankfully, there was stuff in walking distance.
He introduced Deb Goldberg to kick off the substance part of the day, and was mentioned at least two other times by other candidates.
Can’t wait to see how his career unfolds.
♫Vote for Tito Jackson♫
(Myself included)
Nice building, but the problems people are citing were real, and the concessions (important in a long day where one can’t leave) were really inadequate.
That’s why I was happy that there was a Starbucks two blocks away….
then we have a serious problem.
… and was told I could not bring it into DCU.
Starbucks is announcing college tuition benefits for employees over 20 hours/week, today! Never buy their food, though…..not caffeinated enough.
😉
As I posted here, I think everyone who made the ballot has reason to be pleased with the convention.
David, in this sentence —
— you link to two different columns by ONE columnist (Lehigh) to make a general point about Kayyem fans. Not really fair, I’d wager.
The point is not that Lehigh is representative of “Kayyem fans,” but that she had certain “fans” like Lehigh who may have prevented her from acquiring more “fans” by alienating Democrats who don’t like to demonize labor.
Then it’s the point I disagree with. It’s a stretch.
I found Kayyem’s statements to be verbose but vague. She made me very nervous when she talked about silos and choices, and the alarm bells went off when I couldn’t get her or her staffers to clarify her positions. Lehigh’s support is merely another indicator of what I was seeing in her campaign, which I think was someone who was hostile to labor, local government, and local school districts.
She definitely did express a hostility to local government during the Cambridge-Somerville for Change candidate forum.
Local government is her husband’s area of academic expertise.
Maura Healey was the big winner. She nearly beat a well known and well connected politician. For her to have almost tied him, makes him a big loser. 2 months ago his camp
\aign seemed to think they could keep her off the ballot
Did they ever actually say that? I’d love to know the basis for that statement.
Proving socialworker’s point, I say.
1. Calling Tolman a “big loser” when he won the convention’s endorsement.
2. Suggesting, without any basis, that “his camp” thought they could keep Healey off the ballot. I’ve never heard anyone, inside the Tolman campaign or out, suggest Tolman would get over 85% at the convention.
Peddling conspiracy theories without basis is not OK, IMO.
Please.
Is (I think) meant to be contrasted with big winner, not taken literally.
You Tolman people are REALLY touchy. Go ahead, downrate that, but look in the mirror later. It’s true.
The Healey camp has waged a needlessly negative campaign of rumor and innuendo ever since the start of this race, forgive us for being ‘touchy’ but we are tired of people lying about our candidate’s record. I get downright Bob Dole mad about it.
I don’t see why she can’t just sign the pledge and move forward with a positive race already, it is quite clear the party is nearly evenly divided based on the results of the convention, I think we can agree on that. No need to make hyperbolic statements regarding a Healey insurgency, or Tolman was a big loser (he did get the endorsement after all), or that Tolman expected a much bigger victory. Seeing as there is no viable Republican challenger, I don’t see who a scorched Earth campaign benefits. It will leave a sour taste in the mouth of the defeated candidate and his or her supporters, and while the taste won’t be sour enough to lead to a defection to the no-name teabagger, it definitely will prevent the winner from getting a unified support from the party.
This comment is directed less at you JimC, than at the bennetts, socialworkers, and annewhitefield who make a Tolman victory sound like the second coming of Ed King. Can’t we all agree they are both highly qualified, solidly progressive candidates? I certainly think that about Healey, I’ve heard few argue the same from her camp about Warren.
I agree with most of that, but I have to add that the result was a moral victory for Healey. It was like Rocky going the distance with Apollo Creed.
Rocky II is in September, JC!
Socialworker’s comment was a gratuitous shot at Warren Tolman that was totally out of place after a spirited convention between two quality candidates. And JC is correct, I now react to such crap from Healey supporters (note I say supporters and not Maura herself -she has been and is a class act).
Tolman and Healey came out out of the convention as winners. Tolman for winning the nomination (in what was was clearly a well fought floor operation run by both campaigns) and for a great presentation to the Delegates.
Healey for a great presentation and, as a first time candidate, taking almost 50% of the Delegates against a well know Democrat. She’s a great candidate and would make a very good AG.
We have an abundance of riches in the Dem Primary for AG. I fail to understand a comment like socialworkers – you have a great candidate but you have to snipe at the opponent? Really? As someone who has been active in the Tolman campaign and worked the convention floor for him, I never heard any discussion that Tolman could or would try to keep Healey off the ballot. Total nonsense to say it (after the fact even worse) and speaks volumes about the lack of credibility of the commentator.
there are far more posts from Tolman supporters complaining about a “needlessly negative campaign of rumor and innuendo” than there are posts from Healey supporters which demonstrate extreme negativity, rumor and/or innuendo.
Case in point: this thread. One short negative post that met some of that criteria, but many more long responses decrying all the negative posts.
That is and has been my only major issue with the Tolman posts on BMG thus far. It’s bringing a certain level of whininess to an otherwise spirited, intriguing and exciting campaign.
I want far more of the spirited, intriguing and exciting posts.
I can point to at least four or five Healey supporters who regularly say little about their own candidate while bashing Tolman. You will find no atoan supporter on BMG who has said similar things about Maura Healey. I’ve long said my position is she would make a good AG-I think Tolman would be a better one. I’ve yet to hear similar things from the Healey trolls who regularly make a sport of Tolman bashing.
And Healey herself was fairly snarky in the Peoples Pledge exchange, put Tolman’s leadership on clean elections in quotes and what not. Haven’t seen Warren or one of his supporters call her leadership on LGBT issues into question, to name one example. But Tolman and his supporters are falling into the Kerry and Duke trap asking for a better race and failing to fight back. Sadly, the race we both want may never come to pass.
I guess what is negative is in the yes of the beholder. Maura is new to politics. That is a fact. Warren has been state rep and state Senator, I believe. Has been a political insider for a long time. Maura has worked in the AG’s office for 7 years and has never before run for office. Warren is the brother of the head of the AFLCIo, another fact. Maura is supported by the teamsters. Warren is a phenomenal guy. Several people from the party asked him to be the chairman a few months ago when John Walsh resigned. Warren is a qualified candidate for many political positions. I just don’t happen to think he is the better of the two candidates for the position of AG. The comment about keeping her off the ballot was said to me during the convention. I have no idea if it’s true. just something I was told. I don’t vett my sources in political rumoring. No negativity toward Warren, but strong support for Maura. Certainly no apology needed for that.
Ah, I see don’t let silly things like facts interfere with a good cheap shot. You presented this as a statement of fact and now admit you had no basis for it. And you are attempting to dump it off on “just something I was told”.
“I don’t vett my sources….”, now there’s a a fact to be proud of.
As ryepower12 said recently -” this is BMG. Up your game”
I wouldn’t ask you to vet your sources of political rumor, but I would ask you not to post as fact rumors you’ve decided not to vet.
He actually has political experience and legislative experience! Call out the presses I smell a rat! Seriously folks, he is way more qualified than her! I am really tired of this “not a politician” nonsense when she is running for an elected position and is-shocker I know-a politician now. Politician was turned into a dirty word by Republicans to take out long time Democratic incumbents who fought for their constituents. It’s part and parcel with an anti-government ideology that refuses to see public service as a noble calling.
I am proud Warren Tolman was a state rep and state senator. I am proud in that capacity he wrote and passed some of the toughest clean election laws, anti-smoking, gun safety, and women’s rights policies into law. He knows his way around Beacon Hill which will make him a better Attorney General. I am sick of career prosecutors who catch a few scalps and run for higher office-Tolman will really transform the office into a policy arm working on behalf of consumers and the middle class. Protecting us from the dangers of big business run amuck. I am proud he is a politician since he has a record I know and can trust.
There is no facts in many of the comments here. Should I have gone to Warren or Chris Joyce and said I was told that you guys thought you could keep her off the ballot. Much of what is said here is rumor and innuendo. JC says he can point to 4 or 5 negative comments from Healey supporters. Really? Where? Should be challenge each other on every point? You all seem to be a bunch of self appointed fact checkers, when you have no more facts than anyone else who posts here. When anyone posts in support of a candidate who the majority or people on these postings don’t support, it is predictable that many of you jump to this nonsense that your candidate is getting an unnecessary negative response. Is it negative to say that Warren has never tried a case in a court room? Is it negative to point out that Maura is openly opposed to casinos and Warren has not been clear on this issue? Is it negative to say that Warren has held multiple elected offices and had a losing campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Is it negative to say that Warren’s brother is Steven Tolman, state senator who now is the president of the AFLCIO. yes, Maura is running for political office. That makes her a political candidate and not a politician. Some people are career politicians and political insiders and some people run for office for a specific job. I want an attorney general who has been in a court room, who has been in the Supreme Court, who has been a high ranking member of that office.
Look up-post. JC noted several Healey supporters, including you, that post negative comments on Tolman. Unlike you, JC named his sources.
Ah, well yeah it is unless you can back it up with citations. You are making a statement of fact. Have you been following Warren Tolman’s career so closely that you know every case he has dealt with? What is your basis for this statement – or did someone just tell you (like your unsubstantiated claim that the Tolman campaign was trying to keep Maura off the ballot).
Well no but then no one was calling you out on that – so trying to turn the focus onto something else is the last resort of the person already losing the argument. And actually Tolman won his primary for LG and then the ticket of Harshbarger/Tolman lost in the final. Since the LG is paired with the Gov in the final, Tolman had no independent control over his fate in the final.
Yes we all have opinions and we post them as such. One of the appeals of BMG (for me) is that most commentators make a real effort to back up facts with links or other reference materials. You’re just throwing garbage against the wall and seeing what sticks.
It still escapes me why, when you have a great candidate, you feel the need to post unsubstantiated claims (Maura off the ballot, Tolman never trying a case).
That pretty much sums up your posts – grammar aside.
Have a nice morning.
It is not negative to say things that are true. It is true that Tolman has never tried a case in a court room. Do you have fact to the contrary. I like Maura for the reasons I have stated. Warren Tolman is a great guy, but not the right person for AG
Back it up. It’s not up to others to prove your points, it’s up to you. You have had several opportunities to post a link or other supporting evidence that Warren has never tried a case in a court room. Simply saying it doesn’t make it a fact. So shut me up, show me I’m wrong.
What you seem to miss is that your support for Maura is great, no problem with me there. You want to say that Maura has practical experience in the court room and within the AG’s office that makes her the better candidate – have at. It’s your opinion and and a good reason to vote for an AG.
Not sure what facts I don’t like? It’s factual that Warren has run successfully for State Representative and State Senator. It’s a well known fact that his brother Steven was a State Rep and State Senator and is now the President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. It’s a provable fact that Warren won a statewide primary for LG and on the ticket with Harshbarger lost a final election. I have no problem with these or any facts.
Your post is unnecessarily rude. I guess that’s okay because you post here regularly.
I am not posting facts, never said that I was. the posts here are supposed to be our opinion and analysis of the political landscape.
Do you read your own comments?
So now it’s your opinion that Warren has never tried a case in a court room? It’s your opinion that Warren held multiple offices? It’s your opinion that Steven is his brother and President of the AFL-CIO?
Whatever.
As advocates for newness in politics (like Maura Healey), BMG always welcomes new voices. But you don’t earn any points for Maura by going after the Highly Estimable striker57. He’s been around this block a few times and is a credible source of facts, opinions, and analysis.
Thanks jimc. I appreciate the comment very much. I’m a big fan of new blood – in politics, unions, community groups, BMG, whatever rocks your world. I learn something new on BMG on a regular basis. New voices with strong opinions and new ideas are the lifeblood of politics. Jump in. Have a strong opinion. Back up what you say.
By moving ahead as the only woman on the gubernatorial ballot. She has very good prospects of winning the primary, as it’s not clear to me that either Grossman (who hasn’t yet caught on with average voters, despite being well known and respected amongst the PLEOs) or Berwick (who blew dog whistles that 20% of the activists respond to but is unknown to the electorate and locked into positions that will hurt him in a statewide Democratic primary , let alone a general election) can win.
I don’t think Don Berwick was blowing dog whistles. I think he was throwing red meat to the progressives, and tugging on our heartstrings. He was good. Really good. I wanted to follow him into the beautiful land of social justice, but my head told me that if I really wanted to move the state in a progressive direction, my vote was better cast for Martha Coakley. Given the way she was able to move marriage equality from the AG’s office, I think she is someone who can actually move a progressive agenda once elected. I also think she can actually get elected in November, as I think Don Berwick would have an incredibly hard time beating Charlie Baker.
Baker has learned from 2010 and is more likeable and comes across more moderate. Hell, he’s talking about income inequality!
Your middle-of-the-road safe Democrat isn’t going to offer too much distinction from Nice-Guy-Not-So-Bad Baker, and given how MA loves to have its GOP governors, and he’s Not So Bad, almost like a centrist Dem nowadays, why not give the GOP a chance again?
Don Berwick instead is making, yes, bold platform that shows us what we should be fighting for as Democrats, making that bright line between “The Democrat” vs. “The Republican.”
And, as we saw at the Convention and as we see in the passion and commitment of supporters, who keep growing, with this unambiguous and unapologetic progressive platform, he can and does inspire people.
I cannot tell you how many NON-Berwick delegates — for all of the different candidates–had universal, superlative praise for not just his speech but his call to action as progressives. And I think I have more than a few of those Not Berwick supporters seriously reconsidering.
He has the capacity to move people, and we NEED that if we want to get more than the most reliable voters to turn out, which is what we need to do if we want to beat Baker. I don’t think either of the other candidates has that, tho of course one does beat him in name recognition.
My partial uprate was to Pablo’s earlier commentary, and others, arguing Berwick is somehow weaker in a general. It’s not 1998 anymore-we can run a genuine progressive candidate and win. Case in point: Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick, who both beat center-right Republicans. Baker will be running in the true center, and it will be very difficult to beat him there. Instead, we need a candidate who can inspire presidential level turnout particularly amongst youth; people of color; and working class voters. It is doable-and Berwick has the best case to make that he can do it.
Going by Charlie, instead of Charles, means nothing to me if his main positions haven’t changed. I didn’t want him the last time, and don’t this time. Scott Brown sold his barn coat, pickup truck, nice guy persona to the voters when he won. How well did he wear once voters learned of his votes, and watched his behavior toward Elizabeth Warren? Not very becoming. Let’s see how Baker behaves when things get tough?
I’m just assessing how he’s reading (and what I’m hearing, and I’m here in Needham, where he went to high school, and where he LOST in 2010). He just isn’t coming across AS tone deaf as he used to be. Yes, Scotto didn’t wear well, and Baker is vulnerable as well. I’m certain that BMG readers and die-hard Dem activists won’t fall for his nice guy/”Not So Bad Baker” act, but I personally know a couple people already who are charmed/intrigued.
For everything you said about Don Berwick, I am glad he has fired you up as much as he has fired me up, you then go on to make the tired argument he is a weaker candidate than Coakley (who is DOA against Baker IMHO and our least electable choice), and that she is somehow the next progressive choice, when, with Avellone and Kayyem out of the race, she is clearly the most conservative in this field.
I strongly disagree that Don Berwick “would have an incredibly hard time beating Charlie Baker”. In fact, I think just the opposite — I think Charlie Baker will wipe the floor with her if she wins the nomination.
Ms. Coakley once again ignored the progressive base. When she did make references to it, they epitomized the arrogance that I find so offensive. For example, she said (to paraphrase) “I only needed 15% for the convention and I got it”.
In other words, “screw you” to the multitude of active Democrats who found either Steve Grossman or Don Berwick a better candidate. This apparent reliance on her poll standings among the general public is precisely the kind of arrogance that causes her to lose elections. That poll lead can evaporate in a matter of days, especially when an active Charlie Baker campaign puts her many vulnerabilities in its sights.
In my view, Don Berwick is a far stronger candidate against Charlie Baker than either of his remaining competitors. He offers substantive differences and substantive arguments to support his position on those differences.
I felt that Martha Coakley actively and personally sought my support, and every other delegate from Arlington. Of all the candidates, she did the most to earn my support, which I didn’t commit to until about three weeks before the convention.
And I give her credit for that. But outreach or not, on the ISSUES, she is definitely not where I, Member of the Progressive Base, want her to be.
So she has name recognition on her side, and she’s improved as a campaigner. But I find a much better total package, including on policy/platform, in Don Berwick.
http://progressivemass.com/2014govmain
All you cited was a bogus ‘more electable than Berwick’ argument, and marriage equality, which, in 2014 Massachusetts, no candidate in any party for the general election opposes. Coakley was on that train earlier than some, later than others, but no earlier or later than any of the other Democrats running-so it’s a wash. Maybe if it were down to her and Steve Lynch, her social liberalism is an asset. Here it just makes her part of an advanced socially progressive pack.
And on every other issue I strongly question her commitment to liberal values. When it comes to our civil liberties, she is the candidate who openly praises the Patriot Act and wants more government intrusion, not less. I question her commitment to progressive economics when she not only favors casino construction but went out of her way in an election year to stop a democratic approval of that policy change from reaching the ballot. She favors the status quo on healthcare, doesn’t have an education policy, is the most moderate on gun control, and has a poor track record of winning competitive general elections.
I really don’t get the appeal, beyond the patronizing glass ceiling trope. Surely electing a true liberal woman to the Senate outweighs electing a mediocrity to the Corner Office. I also don’t recall Elizabeth Warren making that self-serving plea to equality, instead she ran on her experience and policy positions and whopped Scott Brown, whom Martha Coakley couldn’t beat. And seeing him destroy himself in New Hampshire has convinced me she was one of the weakest candidates we’ve ever fielded to lose to such a surefire loser as he. Let’s think twice before jumping off the cliff again.
I’m with you every step of the way when you go into what a horrible candidate Coakley is. It’s shocking how vague and/or weak she is on policy. She’s yet to stake out any particular position/policy as her own. Her record of accomplishment as AG is flimsy (which, to be fair, comes with the job). Her disregard for civil rights, her coziness with various lobbying elements and her terrible decision to keep the casino repeal off the ballot (public opinion is swinging hard against casinos and her decision reeks of inside baseball) – it’s going to be a thing of ease to turn her into a pinata.
That said, this was and is a terrible field of candidates. No one of any real talent or vision has gotten into this race for either party or as an independent. I align most closely with Berwick, but he’s a hard sell on the leadership front, he could get pigeonholed as a one-issue candidate (though he’s not) and he can be a little dull. He’s the default liberal, not the liberal who seems likely to ignite the state behind a left-leaning agenda.
I’d love this race to come down to stark policy differences and a deeper discussion of what are our core civic values. My guess is with such a mediocre field, it will come down to atmospherics and retail politics.
saying that ‘all the candidates are on board with us on an issue, so it’s a wash’ is that it doesn’t recognize how hard a particular candidate has fought for a particular issue. Hard work deserves credit, after all.
Tell me what a candidate has done for an issue — not just if they support it. Tell me how much time they’ve spent on it and how responsive they’ve been to LGBT organizations and leaders, not when they signed on board marriage equality or another issue.
Tell me what they’re doing on less well known LGBT issues, like whether they were for or against us on public accommodations component of the transgender rights bill, or have consistently supported funding for programs ranging from LGBT seniors to people with HIV that have sometimes come under the ax, etc.
Yes, there are very few elected Democrats in Massachusetts at this point who oppose marriage equality, but the details on LBGT issues are still critical important… which means that it’s not a wash.
Grossman and Coakley have been real allies of the LGBT community, displaying true leadership and making important contributions on critical LGBT issues. They should get some real points on that.
I don’t want to take away anything from Berwick, but politics is and has to be more than “what have you done for me lately?”
Maybe, maybe not. That is, if a pol hasn’t done anything of note yesterday, it’s not clear that the pol in question should be (re)elected. Thank you for your hard work back in the day making our political region a better place, but since you aren’t moving us forward *now*, kindly step aside for someone who will.
Besides, if we only look retrospectively, we’ll never be able to bring in new blood, and that’s not a good outcome either.
Working backwards, “Grossman and Coakley have been real allies of the LGBT community… They should get some real points on that.” I’m grateful to both of them — but is there any reason to think that Grossman or Coakley will be more effective than Berwick as a governor of MA 2014-2018 in moving LGBTQ rights forward? Methinks that *that* is the important bit. That’s the important case to be made.
But I don’t think either of them fail that balance.
Let me start off by appreciating you included Grossman in your last paragraph-some Coakley supporters were arguing he has done little when he has been ahead of his time for quite some time. When Bill Clinton was signing DOMA with broad support, Grossman was setting up an LGBTQ caucus within the DNC and pursuing equal treatment for his employees at all levels. He was an early endorser of marriage equality and transgender rights as well.
My point on saying it’s a wash is not to bash the hard work of those who have been in public life longer and fought this fight more frequently but to say that LGBTQ issues are part and parcel with the entire spectrum of progressive politics. Berwick is the only candidate willing to address homelessness-whose rates are far higher in the LGBT community-particularly within the transgendered community. Only candidate willing to provide true Medicare for all universal health coverage, willing to tackle poverty and willing to provide true progressive education in a bully free safe space. In addition to that, he is a strong proponent of LGBTQ civil rights including equal accommodations.
I would argue his personal commitment and the length of that commitment is equivalent to his opponents-and his additional commitments to tackling poverty, homelessness, and health equity will have the most positive effects for the LGBTQ community and the commonwealth at large.
Of course you’re a member of the progressive base, that’s why I find your position difficult to fathom.
Like jconway, when I refer to seeking support, I mean taking public stances that advance progressive causes and differentiate the Democratic candidate from the Republican.
I see no evidence of her desire to attack the most pressing economic issue of this election: income inequality and growing wealth concentration — especially in comparison to Don Berwick and Charlie Baker. Her active efforts to advance casino gambling and block the casino referendum demonstrate to me that she is no progressive when it comes to collecting state revenue. Similarly, her response to Scot Lehigh’s questioning about how she will pay for the various education programs she talked about — “cut waste and increase efficiency” — has been a right-wing mantra for years (from both Republican and Democratic right-wingers).
In my view Don Berwick is better positioned on virtually every issue that counts, and he has none of Ms. Coakley’s vulnerabilities.
I encourage you to listen to your heartstrings — that part of you that Don Berwick inspired — and leave behind the “pragmatism”.
An inspired Governor Berwick, building on a progressive vision articulated so well by Deval Patrick, is in my view a compellingly more attractive alternative to a “pragmatic” Governor Coakley who will let others lead the way, plow the ground, plant the seeds, water the crop, and then step forward to “lead” the harvest.
Really?
I find that interpretation a tad harsh.
Mot of what I’ve heard from Berwick has been pretty up-front progressive.
What encoded messages did I miss?
She’s got near perfect optics on this one. All she’s got to do is beat two not-terribly-charismatic, sixtysomething white guys to get the nomination. In terms of fresher ideas, Berwick runs far ahead of the competition. If the primary were today, he’d have my vote. Yet he’s got a bureaucrat’s resume and little name recognition. I like some of the ideas he’s putting out there more than I like him as a candidate.
This is also territory Coakley knows well, going back to when she beat Tim Flaherty and Michael Sullivan in her first run for public office. She’ll play off Grossman and Berwick as Frick and Frack. Unless one of them can separate from the other, she’s not going to break a sweat. Kayyem – female, younger – might have peeled a meaningful chunk of votes from Coakley. There are voters interested in breaking the glass ceiling in MA politics, and I get why. Anyway, this is the field Coakley wanted. If she loses now she’s only got herself to blame.
with much of this. And I think it’s most unfortunate.
I have to agree that Steve Grossman, for all his substantive merits, isn’t terribly charismatic. But it’s an interesting thing about Don Berwick: one of the lessons to me at the convention was that he’s one of those guys who has it for a lot of people, but by no means for everyone. And reactions seem to be pretty binary (as indeed we see here in these comments). The people who don’t see it don’t see it at all, while those who do respond strongly and are confused when others don’t. (I saw it pretty vividly in my delegation, a lot of whom had never seen him speak before and who had preexisting commitments to other candidates. Many were excited and moved, and a few told me afterward that the end of the speech had given them chills or almost made them cry. But by no means all; there were others who were clearly not only unmoved, but baffled at the people who were.)
Of course, I have no idea at all what percentage of the voting public is going to turn out to have, as it were, Berwick receptors. But I don’t think it’s safe to dismiss him as “a not-terribly-charismatic sixtysomething white guy.” White and sixtysomething, sure, but there’s a reason he has fans, as well as supporters.
It sounds like I’m hyperbolizing, but I’m not. I heard from dozens of people how moved they were by his speech–these were the Coakley, Grossman, Kayyem, Avellone supporters who were left in the seats, as most of the committed delegates were on the floor.
At the Progressive Mass forum, one woman (who was undecided and skeptical) said she hadn’t seen someone with that kind of ability to connect and inspire since Obama in 2004 Convention. Another woman told me it brought her to tears. Several people flipped their votes or decided once and for all on the spot (me included).
There were similar reactions in Worcester. “Amazing”, “By far the most inspiring”, “powerful”. They told me they could see his conviction and his humanity and they connected with it.
He’s not a flashy speaker, he’s a good speechwriter, … I’m not sure what it is, but there is something that telegraphs really well.
Yes, there are people who go the “He’s just a pretty talker phony” (reminding me of how the President is often dismissed for being a good orator), but they are in the minority.
Being moved by a speaker is not scientific or objective; there’s bound to be variations in responses. But on the whole, even with non-supporters, I saw genuine connection and resonance with his speech.
Also, from my vantage on first balcony, I could judge the show of floor supporters pretty well. I was worried when I saw Kayyem’s contingent; would Berwick’s presence be puny in comparison? But then I saw the blue/yellow shirts amassing, and ultimately, his was a MASSIVE crowd up front.
My next, real and big worry was that this would leave the energy in the hall flat for him — and when there’s no energy, no vibe being returned back to the stage, it can kill even the best speech/speaker.
But. Even with all of the supporters spilled into the front section/before the stage, the whole convention hall was listening attentively, and was applauding more than just politely, but enthusiastically. It was markedly distinct from all of the other speeches, and many people (non Berwick people included) have affirmed my impressions.
I’m telling you, this 60something white guy may not read at first like an inspiring movement leader, but there IS something in him that just works and people are responding to.
Technically speaking, he’s also improved dramatically since he first started on the trail. I assume he’s been doing some speech coaching, b/c it’s so dramatic, and it was a fantastic expenditure.
Also, he’s endorsed by Marshall Ganz, and I really feel like he has absorbed those lessons about horizontal connecting in community organizing, and maybe that’s what comes thru.
Anyway. I am very fascinated by this — the ineffable quality of Presence and mysteries of Connection and the grounding presence of Authenticity, and how it all seems to be quietly but powerfully at work in Berwick.
Immune to the charms. I like Berwick, I respect him, but I’m not particularly moved or inspired. The speech struck me as a little odd and awkward, to be honest.
The only objective measure I have is the accounts told to me by others, which, of course, is anecdotal, but has been remarkably consistent, and, again, from all quarters, Steve, Martha, Joe and Juliette supporters. I like independent verification (“is it just me?!!”) and I’ve had it in spades.
I certainly think the first clause is absurd, since he will definitely get a lot of momentum as the liberal candidate and the most Democratic of the Democratic candidates. I also don’t think it will hurt him in a general. If you have to choose between two centrists, and one of whom has the maverick cache of being a centrist Republican who will bring ‘balance’ to Beacon Hill-you will go with that candidate over the centrist Democrat.
Ask Shannon O’Brien, Tom Reilly, Chris Gabrielli, and Mark Roosevelt how being centrist turned out for them?
… Yeah I’m DONE with that.
More Elizabeth Warren. Less Stephen Lynch. Thanks.
Mac D’Allessandro a couple of years back.
Warren is a tremendous advocate for the middle class. She doesn’t pull punches – but she also hasn’t advocated nationalizing the banks. Her policy prescriptions are pragmatic, achievable and appeal not just to the left, but to middle class voters generally, e.g CFPB, better interest rates on student loans. Berwick could improve his chances by losing some of the overwrought moralism and re-positioning himself around some achievable goals that reflect what most voters, not just a small slice of Democratic activists, in Massachussetts actually want.
Reducing poverty, establishing economic stability and reducing inequality, giving every person the same access to affordable healthcare and removing the bloat of insurance waste… These aren’t Elitist issues. These are middle-class issues. And they’re poor person issues.
What is it that you think Massachusetts voters actually want?
A continuation of this?:
A continuation of this of starved services and infrastructure and education
Do you think businesses –big and small– really want more and more of their costs going to health care, every single year?
These are solidly average voter pocket book practical issues. And if you think that an insurgent candidate’s loss invalidates the public’s hunger for more practical economic policy, then OK. And, Mac may have lost, but the very fact of campaigning pulled Lynch visibly leftward.
Just like Berwick has already pulled Grossman and, to a lesser extent, Coakley leftward on economic policies like health care reform, poverty reduction and tax/revenue reform.
For democratic and democratic leaning independents? I don’t. For a segment of progressive activists, sure.
I don’t know where you spend your time, but I spend a lot of mine with people who aren’t progressive activists at all. I talk to small business owners and Chamber of Commerce types and people who’re worried about their taxes and their kids’ schools and their property values. Single payer and casino repeal are bread-and-butter issues in the Gateway Cities. This stuff isn’t the equivalent of nationalizing banks at all, and while I’m sure that Baker at least will attempt to make the case that it is, I hope that fellow Democrats will have a more nuanced and a more realistic take on both issues.
So far as I could tell, we had pre-9/11 security and it worked just fine. I came in a main door at a regular time, and there was nobody checking bags and no set up to do so.
Imagine that. 1000s of people coming into an arena post 9/11 and invasive procedures weren’t needed in the name of so-called security.
With Berwick establishing himself as a solid candidate it means the general discussion just moved to the left. The race is no longer who can race to the center.
Loser – Apple. They could have stepped in an shown themselves to be a platform for voting – instead they sold the product and gave no support (I assume – no one seemed to be trying to help at least).
Losers: 1st time delegates who didn’t fully understand the process. I didn’t realize I would have PLENTY of time to wander around looking for something (not that there is much open in downtown Worcester on a weekend). Heck, I had time to hop in my car and go home and take a nap.
He is so important to this race and he will be an amazing governor.
It was expected, because of the Apple technology you referenced, that the first ballot voting and counting would be much quicker than it turned out to be. But this convention was not typical by any stretch and shouldn’t be considered as such. It’s been a long time since there were so many open statewide offices with so many candidates. Not since 2002 has the day dragged on so long.
It won’t be anything like this for at least four years. 2015 and 2017 will be quiet issues and platform conventions. 2016 will have no statewide officers running at all, not even a U.S. Senate race. In 2018 I imagine we’ll have at least a couple of incumbent Democrats renominated with relative ease.
By the time another convention like this year’s comes along, the technology likely will have advanced so far that it will be run very differently.
I was in a meeting two years ago where the presenter took a poll, and we texted our answers, and the results appeared dynamically in a bar chart on his slide.
Which is not to say that we will do that in four years, but the technology is already there. We’re just too cheap to invest in it.
In a meeting the poll doesn’t have any major real-world consequences. At the convention you have to be sure to get it right, because candidates could be left off the ballot as a result of the count. Hence keeping an official paper record.
My understanding is that, while it’s true that the MDP has lagged in adopting certain technology, nobody expected the general failure of Wi-Fi at the DCU Center this weekend. The plan was to have the votes (which candidates got how many, not who cast them) transmitted to backstage as the voting was happening and get approximate results much sooner.
We could have lined up, by area, and punched in our own votes to wired terminals. People who needed help with that could have gotten it.
I get what you’re saying, but don’t excuse them. This is a failure of will. The party organization (local, state, and national) would rather spend the money raising more money than investing in the type of infrastructure that would make this easy.
has won a lot of elections lately, but it’s a small organization with a small staff and a small office suite. The DSC has some incredible people on it, but it skews to the over-50 demographic and virtually all those people have full-time jobs outside their MDP efforts.
Perhaps they could have done it the way you’ve suggested, but a massive (and massively wealthy) organization this is not.
I was told that it would be easy to bring food into the DCU Center, but I didn’t realize just how easy it was to do so. Thankfully, I was able to go out and get the food I had in my backpack in a friend’s car. I was happy with the “in and out” privileges, which I found out a few days prior when inquiring about food options.
david already mention the BMG hive mind, but I want to expand on this to include the whole BMG community. Thanks to Kate I knew where to go and when things were happening. Thanks to the voting I had a pretty good idea about how the voting would shake out and could talk intelligently with seasoned veterans who were predicting a Coakley win or Grossman getting over 50% on first ballot. Thanks to other posts I understood the whole second vote process and could explain it to others who had no clue. Next time we just need BMG buttons so I can introduce myself to others and start to put some faces to some of your names. Thanks for helping me look intelligent.
Geesh! The guy was endorsed for Governor. How can you not say that he’s a winner? It wasn’t an accident that he was endorsed, either. Steve Grossman worked very hard to earn the votes of so many delegates. Of course, he’s the winner.
Steve Grossman is a good guy and an effective political leader. I just don’t see how he came out of the convention as a winner, despite the endorsement he claimed by default at the end of the night.
The next morning, he was on On The Record trying to go negative on Coakley. The argument was that you don’t want to vote for Coakley because she is just a prosecutor. I just don’t see how Steve Grossman can raise his likability when he is going negative on Coakley, but I don’t see how Steve Grossman can win unless he successfully pries voters away from Coakley. He now has a more powerful Don Berwick taking away progressive support, and Berwick is going to be the hot topic for the next couple of weeks.
From what we’re seeing already, I expect Steve to run a negative campaign, Martha to run a lackluster campaign, and Don to run a positive campaign. Steve has been going negative on Martha for weeks now, and it always makes me like him less.
With someone pointing out policy deficiencies of another candidate and, frankly, I’ve never understood why anyone does. It’s easy for Berwick to be “positive.” He’s been playing with house money the whole time. His supporters should be happy Grossman’s hitting Coakley. Otherwise Berwick would have to do it himself.
usually hurts their target and themselves as well. Don Berwick should and will sit back and let Grossman go negative -he benefits from it while talking issues.
He might draw contrasts, but he is a gentleman and having known him for several years I find it hard to imagine that he will become the negative candidate.
you have to exceed expectations in some interesting way. Berwick certainly did that; I’d argue that both Tolman and Healey did as well; etc. But everybody knew going in that Grossman would be on top after the first ballot. So, obviously, kudos to him for a successful caucus/ex officio strategy. The big question, though, is what it gets him. A lot of people thought he’d clear 40% on the first ballot; he didn’t. Is he stronger today than he was pre-convention? I’m not sure. It’ll be interesting to see if the next poll reflects any sort of bump for him. Frankly, I’d be surprised.
I don’t think a clear win is diminished because people who were paying attention were expecting it. I also don’t know anyone who thought, once it was clear we had five candidates going to the convention, that Grossman would clear 40%. The campaign itself expected what it got: a showing in the mid-30s and a win by more than 12 points over the nearest competitor, which is hard to do in a five-way race. By the numbers, Grossman’s convention win was more decisive than Katherine Clark’s primary win last October.
Nor do I see how Berwick comes out a big winner by your metric: he did exactly what anyone who’s been paying attention for the past month expected: he made the ballot and came close to Coakley in delegate count. By Kevin’s “range of votes” table Berwick’s final score, like Grossman’s, was smack in the middle of the BMG prediction range. If Grossman gets no bump for a clear win, I don’t expect Berwick to get one for finishing third. Either voters are paying attention to the convention or they’re not.
I really don’t see how either Tolman or Healey would be a big winner under your theory either. We went in expecting a close vote and a wide-open primary, we came out with a close vote and a wide-open primary. No expectations exceeded there.
They both, IMO, did a good job and got a nice hand, but I think the sound of the applause had more to do with the fact that it was the only two-person race: each of them had support from half the hall. For all other speakers, at least 2/3 of the hall was with someone else and limited their reactions to polite applause.
I certainly think that Healey, who has never run for office before, did remarkably well by showing a nicely-produced video, delivering a well-received speech, and getting about 48% of the vote against a guy who has been around the State House for a long time. I’m also not sure that people really expected the vote to be that close, though maybe you have a better sense than I do of where expectations were.
As for Tolman, in a sense he won by not losing – and that is a real thing. He needed to get the convention endorsement, and he did. He needed to deliver a good speech, and he did. I didn’t list Grossman as a “winner” both because it’s too obvious (I like these posts to talk about stuff that isn’t part of a Globe headline), and also because I’m not actually sure he met what at least some of the expectations were going in.
we’re in any danger of this site being stuck at a Globe level of analysis just for pointing out, in passing, that the guy who won the gubernatorial endorsement had a good day. It strikes me as trying a bit too hard not to be trite. Grossman may not have exceeded expectations, but he certainly met them. Tolman, though I support him and agree that he “won by winning,” arguably underperformed expectations, so it’s hard to see him as a “winner” if Grossman’s not.
I largely agree with your take on the AG race but I don’t see Healey’s performance as all that surprising. She may be new to running for office, but as a candidate she has some obvious strengths. She’s been in leadership positions in the AG’s office for some time, with a solid record of accomplishment. She also benefits from some demographic contrasts as a woman and a member of the LGBTQ community who’s younger than Tolman. I think everything we’ve seen lately has shown she’s a strong candidate, so nothing that happened on Saturday should be much of a surprise. I expected Tolman’s margin to be a little bigger, perhaps, but not that far from what it ultimately turned out to be.
It would have been a much bigger story had he not win, and he didn’t win as big as he needed to. I expect a spirited and sadly, nasty primary to determine the winner. That said, it may be a more interesting race to watch than the Governor’s.
In your view, what so Berwick and Grossman need to do to beat the Coakley momentum?
If Grossman had 50%+1 on the first ballot, he’d be a “winner” by david’s (reasonable) metric.
Winning is a sliding scale based on expectations.
I don’t recall the last time anyone got 50%+1 on the first ballot in a five-way race.
Question: would perceptions of Grossman’s performance be different if the second ballot had taken place and he’d won an overwhelming victory?
It was strategically very wise of Coakley to withdraw. “Endorsement by acclamation after the other candidate withdrew” doesn’t carry much PR oomph, whereas “demolished the other candidate by 25 points in a head-to-head matchup” does. Fair or unfair, them’s the breaks.
on my own post. It doesn’t mean we should buy into it here. I hold this sophisticated group of observers to a higher standard!
That’s the whole dang point. If you meet expectations, you’re not a winner. You’ve got to beat expectations in such a way that you’re in a better position to win your race in November than you were before the convention.
Grossman isn’t. Coakley isn’t. Berwick is. Kayyem and Avellone most certainly aren’t.
It’s just “spin” when everybody declares their favorite candidate a winner because they beat expectations, especially when they try to lower expectations going into the convention.
In politics, expectations don’t matter. Polls don’t matter. Votes matter. The winner is the person with the most votes. It’s that simple. Grossman won the convention. He received more votes.
It seems to me that the top of the ballot is now a three-way race between two centrist (in comparison to Mr. Berwick) candidates who have long public records and are well-known to voters (again in comparison to Mr. Berwick).
A theme I hear often (especially here) is that “pragmatic” considerations make either Mr. Grossman or Ms. Coakley (depending on who is making the comment) the better candidate against Charlie Baker (another “pragmatic” centrist).
It seems to me that this sets up a dynamic where the “pragmatic” center splits between Mr. Grossman and Ms. Coakley, and creates a hole that Mr. Berwick can push through in the primary — Ms. Coakley has already written off the passionate progressives, and Mr. Grossman is already focusing on her. It looks to me as though Mr. Berwick can stay above the fracas between the two “pragmatics”, strengthen his already impressive strength among we “true believers”, and streak to victory through that hole.
In the general, I think Mr. Berwick can turn out the large number of potential voters that Mr. Baker, Ms. Coakley, and Mr. Grossman choose to avoid — working class people getting shafted by the relentless exploitation of the moneyed “pragmatic” candidates from both parties.
Massachusetts is a liberal state. Unenrolled voters are more liberal here than other states, and the number of strongly partisan GOP voters is vanishingly small compared to the number strongly partisan Democratic voters.
I think this race is Don Berwick’s to win.
Yes, it’s just like a torque equation with varying lever arms. As somervilletom has pointed out, in multicandidate elections, the one with the most distinct position can win.
Also note that it could remain a similar 3-way race into the general. McCormick, who has started to register on the Globe polls though not on the one from Suffolk, would also be in that cluster near the center unless his positions evolve in a different direction.
Politico link
Someone reported seeing an elderly couple literally using their hands to crawl up the steep steps in one of the nosebleed sections, and another person reported that someone tripped on those ridiculous steps and barely avoided serious injury. And then there was the segregation of people in wheelchairs, which also occurred in Lowell last year. The concessions have been an ongoing problem.
Can’t the state committee convene a group to solve the venue problem?