Let’s face it: either Silbert or Murray would complement either Gov. candidate. Murray would be good because he’s more seasoned politically and has a decent record, Silbert is good because of her experience in job creation, her story and, frankly, her gender. (My gut, though, tells me a Reilly/Murray ticket wouldn’t be so hot, but that’s another story…)
The question is: what will voters be looking for? Is being an advocate for cities and towns what people want? Is having a record of innovation and job creation what people want? When we talk about wanting to invest in transportation, does arguing that you’ll be an advocate in DC on behalf of MA for that trump arguing that you’ll advocate for Worcester and New Bedford for commuter rail? (On that issue, the truth is that it WILL take federal $$ to do those things, but you also have to be a local advocate.) I think Murray and Silbert will differentiate themselves on the trail. Murray will play to voters’ everyday lives with meat-and-potato(e) issues like $$ for schools, cops and firefighters; Silbert will play to voters’ everyday concerns about jobs, health care and education. BOTH are core to our democratic values, BOTH need to be a part of our general election message, and BOTH are legitimate.
I don’t know if field orgs will play a role here. Although I’ve said in the past that a large difference in $$ will win the day, that will only happen if there’s a large difference in the $$. Field will play into the convention, but that’s such an inside-baseball thing that no one outside of us crazies pays attention to.
I also don’t think the gender vote will be split between Goldberg and Silbert – voters were able to differentiate between two Cahills in 2002 for chrissakes!
So, there’s my take on this interesting race that I’ve been trying to follow. Most of my info has come from this and other blogs, which is a bit sad, I suppose… But hopefully places like WBUR, Greater Boston, and other local cable and news outlets will pick up the reporting slack. Even the new WRKO may be interested, since they seem to be renewing a local focus!
Thanks for listening…
The “heat” generated on this blog on the DA race make the LG debate seem lame and tame.
I agree that both Silbert and Murray and would be great additions to either of the gubernatorial tickets.
<
p>
However, I think that there has to be at least some concern in the Silbert/Goldberg camps about a splitting of some of their vote. Both are women and both, I believe, are Jewish. For the same reasons I am sure Murray wasn’t too excited about the possibility of Mayor Sullivan of Westfield getting into this race a few weeks back – both are white, Irish males and would naturally split some of their vote.( I got this western Mass town and mayor right this time..hahaha)
<
p>
Last time around in 2002,I am sure Shannon O’Brien was thrilled with the huge gubernatorial field for the primary.
This is a great blog, but the one major problem I’ve had with it is that the BlueMass Group bloggers seem to find it impossible to take Deb Goldberg’s campaign seriously. She may not have as many supporters on this blog as Silbert or Murray, but she has a strong field operation and support from many prominent MA political leaders. Brookline is a large town, almost the size of some small cities, and being a selectwoman there is a challenging job, especially when you consider that (unlike a mayor) a chairman of the board of selectmen cannot make executive decisions — he or she has to bring the group to consensus solutions and work with different parts of government to achieve results. These skills would certainly help a Lieutenant Governor. Deb is raising money (she had roughly $135,000 at year’s end, which is not as much as Silbert’s or Murray’s, but is still plenty to help move the race forward), but this race will not be won only by money; it will be won by who has the best field operation and the support of Dems on the ground, and Deb stands an excellent chance of being that person.
I don’t agree that we’re not taking Goldberg’s campaign seriously (I can’t speak for our readers, of course). I noted months ago in this post that Goldberg had already lined up some impressive Dem establishment endorsements that were likely to help her.
<
p>
It would help us a lot if we could actually talk to Goldberg. We’ve asked repeatedly for an interview, and have emailed back and forth with her staff, but so far no luck. We will keep trying.
My post is not meant to be a pro or anti LG candidate dialogue, but strictly centers on the tactics of a political campaign. I don’t see the LG race, or any down ticket race like AG or Sec. of State, as a classic “field” campaign. First I want to define what I mean by a field campaign…one in which the likely voters are defined, then a persuasion campaign targets them and the voters are then ID as supporters, undecided or supporting others (in the traditional 1 to 5 ID scale). Then on election day, poll watchers monitor the voting rolls and determine which supporters have not voted and “knock and drag” the supporters to the pools to vote. If you have a different definition of a field campaign, Iâd be interested in learning about it.
<
p>
Realistically only campaigns with a small geography…State Rep or State Senate…maybe Congressional campaigns, can manage to put together an effective field/GOTV campaign. Only statewide campaigns with lots of money (or help from an outside group like unions or churches) can put together such a field effort. But first statewide campaigns will spend enough money for a saturated media campaign, which in MA easily can run into a couple of million dollars.
<
p>
Given that Silbert has a reported $300,000 on hand, Murray has $240,000 and Goldberg has $135,000 on hand; I don’t see any of them having the resources to fund both an aggressive media campaign and a successful field effort.
<
p>
Do you think sinking money into an aggressive field campaign would be better spent than a statewide media campaign? If so, can you cite any successful statewide campaigns anywhere that won solely on field and not media? Even Wellstone struck an electoral cord with creative TV ads. What he lacked in money to saturate the media, he made up with creativity that resonated with the electorate.
that if Goldberg wanted to, she could self-fund to the extent that she could run both a media and a ground operation. Won’t it be interesting to see if she decides to do that?
Field is always important, but I feel in this race that it is even more important than in a Guv or Senate race, since the Lt. Gov race tends to be low-profile. I’m sure all the candidates will invest in media, but I imagine that (unless we see Reilly or Patrick endorse a Lt. Gov candidate) the one with the best field operation will win. I do concede, though, that the unknown variable is the fact that, while the Lt. Gov. race tends to be low-profile, there will be many voters out for the Gov race and media efforts may help with these voters who like Patrick or Reilly but are uncertain about the LG candidates.
We asked Goldberg for an interview months ago and she hasn’t been able to find time in her busy schedule even to pick up the phone and talk to us. Deval Patrick managed to find the time. Andrea Silbert found the time. Ms. Goldberg should step up if she wants to be taken seriously, and her supporters, in MHO, should encourage her to do so. I personally would like to hear what she has to say, and I guess so would our whatever-thousands of readers.
I believe each Lt Gov candidate will have 10 minutes to speak at the convention, and in conjunction with field strength, is an opportunity to break from the pack. Murray may have the double edged sword of best-known/highest expectations.
<
p>
But I love horse race talk 🙂