I confess to being surprised by the fervor of so much of the commentary on this site regarding the LG race. I know almost nothing about the four candidates.
Since the LG job has few responsibilities, and since the likelihood of any one of these four ever becoming Governor is fairly modest (for a rough approximation, multiply the likelihood of getting the nomination times the likelihood of the Dems winning this year times the likelihood of the Dem LG someday ascending), I find myself asking just two questions:
1. Would any of these four people be all that bad a Governor someday? I mean, we’re the party that nominated John Silber and Shannon O’Brien, so our bar seems to be set fairly low.
2. Which of these people would most strengthen a ticket headed by Deval Patrick or Tom Reilly? (And would some of the LG candidates be better running mates for Reilly, and some better for Patrick?)
We haven’t elected a Governor since 1986. Sorry, but I can’t get too exercised right now about who might be our gubernatorial nominee in 2014.
so I would not underestimate the importance of the office.
and as is Kerry Healey. I made this very point in an earlier post to this site, which I’d link to if I knew how.
<
p>
Sure, LG is a potential stepping stone, but none of these folks is going to have any real power anytime soon, and maybe never. The LG candidates’ strengths or weaknesses as potential running mates to our possible gubernatorial nominees are much more relevant to me than what they might do as Governor in January of 2015.
<
p>
In political terms, what would our LG wannabees bring to a ticket headed by Patrick or Reilly?
and as is Kerry Healey. I made this very point in an earlier post to this site, which I’d link to if I knew how.
<
p>
Sure, LG is a potential stepping stone, but none of these folks is going to have any real power anytime soon, and maybe never. The LG candidates’ strengths or weaknesses as potential running mates to our possible gubernatorial nominees are much more relevant to me than what they might do as Governor in January of 2015.
<
p>
In political terms, what would our LG wannabees bring to a ticket headed by Patrick or Reilly?
IMHO, we should be as involved and “exercised” in our own little local board races all the way up. Most of them want to make it to the big table and they often can add support to a statewide campaign. We as dems need to keep our eyes on the prize, in this case it is the corner office. You may be correct in your assertion that they may never have any real power, should that possibilty alon stop us. They could.
<
p>
Are you being serious about your last question? Just off the top of my head Andrea Silbert as well as Mayor Murray could bring ummmmmmm VOTES to the table to win the general. You don’t think they picked Hillman (over Brown) for his striking looks do you?
For votes? Murray, I understand, he has organization in worcester.
” In political terms, what would our LG wannabees bring to a ticket headed by Patrick or Reilly?”
<
p>
So that means after September right? IF she makes it past Sept., she will have votes to bring. For the record, she has organization.
They all have organization at this point or what else have they been doing?
<
p>
I meant votes above and beyond the others. You could make a case that Murray has organization in worcester (weak spot for both gov candidates) that’s been in place for more than the last year. On the other hand since he just started another Mayor’s term I’d like to think he’d be with us whether he got the nod or not.
<
p>
Silbert’s organization seems to be mostly fired-up kids. I’m a fired-up 20something myself but by and large young people don’t vote. Energy != success. I’m not saying she has less vote-grabbing ability than the others, just that I don’t see why she’d have more.
I think most campaigns need active 20-somethings to fire up their campaigns. I mean we have a ton of energy and dedication and are thirsting to learn our way around.
<
p>
I have volunteered on numerous campaigns over the past 4 years. I’ve been helping Patrick & Murray this year, and might go down to PA to help Casey (cause I have a friend on that campaign). But, back to my point – All campaigns including Patrick & Murray are fueled by 20-somethings, so Silbert is in good company.
I’m a Patrick and Goldberg guy myself and both campaigns have a huge number of 20somethings among their campaign staff and activists. More than in past years I’d say, what with young dems being pushed into action by seeing Bush screw everything up. Plus, it’s hard to pay anyone but an idealistic 20-something the wages some of these campaign workers get when you consider the hours they’re putting in :).
<
p>
But your average 20something doesn’t bring much to the table besides energy. 20 year veterans who enjoy being local power brokers might have 500 or 1,000 votes in their back pockets. They’ve developed their lists over time and have people who consistently go to the polls for them. The 20-somethings have probably a dozen votes in their pocket and have to work hard for the rest.
Your right we definitely need to put in the hours since we don’t have the networking that established veterens have. But like you said . . . we tend to work for nothing.
Among people who follow the statewide races, yeah I can understand why you say Murray probably has the upper hand in “vote getting” for Worcester, but in terms of the general population, I honestly can’t see any candidate having an advantage over the others from the general population. Ask some of your friends who don’t follow this race too closely and you’ll find (at least I have) that many people can not name any of the 4 candidates for Lt. Gov.
<
p>
To sum it up: I think this race is wide open and itâs hard to discount anyone at this point.
To say that Murray and Silbert will bring votes to the table ignores a ton of factors yet to be determined. Who gets the nod for the Gov. nomination plays a huge role in this. While Murray may get some votes from Worcester, if Reilly gets nominated, it’s probably in his better interest that Goldberg or Silbert gets nominated (white Irish guy syndrome). Goldberg and Silbert draw from a similar demographic, but watching both speak and interact with people…I have to say that Deb has a leg up on Andrea.
<
p>
Personalities and looks do play a part in this too (appealing to the average, general election voter-base). You want personalities to complement each other. No offense to Sam Kelley, but can you imagine a “Kelley/Reilly” ticket? I’m dozing off just thinking about it.
<
p>
And, finally, money. Which LG candidate has the most money to offer their counterpart? That kind of explains why Chris Gabrieli’s name keeps coming up. If fundraising is the gauge, then Andrea brings something to the table. But, we all know about the kind of financial clout that Deb Goldberg brings. Then again, a lot hinges on how much money these candidates spend on themselves prior to the primary.
Reilly better pray he gets the white Irish guy in my opinion. I never got the white Irish guy team phobia anyway. I’ve seen no evidence, polling or otherwise to show that Mass residents turn away from double the blarney, so I tend to think it’s a safe assumption that no one has ever probed. What Reilly needs is someone who appeals to Democrats, as he has clearly shown he has no capacity for. After all, ‘politics’ is not his department. It is Murray’s, and he appears to have energized the base, has significant party endorsements and I think his field will give the nominee (whoever it is) a significant head start. And speaking of Irish, how’s this for an Irish ticket for St. Pats day:
<
p>
Patrick Murray
for Massachusetts
<
p>
That might be a real ticket to energize the base, and it would be the greatest fake Irish name since….John Kerry.
Has a Jew ever held a statewide office in Mass? I am only a 30something but I can’t recall one…any help?
but come on, and the answer is yes
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this for the past 15 minutes, and can’t come up with a single example of a Jewish statewide elected officeholder in Mass. I’ve been following Mass. politics since the 70s, I can certainly remember all the Govs, LGs and AGs in that period, and most of the SoSs, Treasurers and Auditors, and none of them were Jewish. So when you say there have been Jews elected statewide in Mass., exactly whom are you referring to?
<
p>
NOTE: I have no association with any of the 4 LG candidates and most definitively am NOT raising this as either a pro or con for any LG candidate in the current race, simply as a matter of historical fact.
He was the only one. He was the AG in the ’50s and he died in office, I think.
Of course VOTES are what it’s ultimately all about. But how would Silbert or Murray help Patrick in a race against Healey and Mihos? What kind of voters would they bring to the Democratic ticket that it wouldn’t get anyway? Why did you mention those two and not Goldberg and Kelley? And how would the different LG candidates help or hurt Tom Reilly if he’s the nominee?
<
p>
Again, I care much more about the political benefits these folk might bring to our ticket than I do about what kind of Governor they might be some distant day in the future. First we have to win.
here
I couldnât agree with Publius more with this last comment in reference to the LGâs potential as governor. It is foremost about what the candidate brings to the table as an LG. Furthermore, I think that when an LG candidate does appear to be interested only in boosting their political resume that voters are turned off. The candidate who comes to mind first in regards to this view is Dr. Sam Kelley. I get absolutely no impression whatsoever that this man is hoping that winning the LGâs race is the next step in some kind of self serving political agenda; I think he is just committed to helping others.
<
p>
Dr. Kelley spent far more time listening to Democratic leaders and activists at the Democratic Campaign Institute than any other candidate. He was at the DCI all day Saturday and was the only candidate to attend the second day including sponsoring a great lunch and delivering a strong speech around his beliefs. He is connecting to people personally, as I guess a medical doctor can. As far as getting the vote, as I posted before, Dr. Kelley received 52% of the North Andover straw poll vote where there were over two hundred people. Silbert had 34%, Murray 13% and Goldberg 1% in a tightly run annual vote that has correctly picked the surprise winners in other years (Bob Massie launched his rise to the Democratic Primary victory there in 1994). So letâs give Dr. Kelley some credit-he works hard, says clearly what he believes in and knows the issues.
<
p>
As Deval says, for people to come back to politics and to feel confident in their public officials and to trust in their public officials is crucial. To achieve this we can not replace bad leadership with ordinary leadership. In my opinion, a doctor is certainly beyond ordinary and certainly trustworthy. This race IS wide open, so lets not throw Dr. Kelley and Deb Goldberg aside, they are good people who have been on the trail meeting people face-to-face for some time now and I would be happy if either one of them was my Lt. Governor.
Dems are very lucky that Mihos is in this race. He will draw over 10% of the vote and that will have a big effect on Healey. Mihos is going to influence the general more than the LG pairing will. That being said, Dems need an LG who appeals to independent, suburban voters. Silbert fits this role well. And I can see Goldberg or even Kelly having some of this appeal. But Murray worries me on that front. If Dems need an LG to rally blue-collar and traditional Democratic voters… it’s game over.
<
p>
And regarding a Jew holding statewide office… doesn’t John Kerry as LG and US Senator count for something?
if the best we can do is an ag from the 50’s and a catholic senator in waving the jewish statewide candidate banner, then this election for lg is already groundbreaking. Add a female lock on the AG post and this might just be a new era is Massachusetts. Irish politics is dead, just don’t tell Menino, DiMasi, and Trav, or Romney. I think we need to be realistic about what we can expect from an lg candidate. No one will go in to the booth in November and vote for or against a gubernatorial candidate based on the balance or excitement of the lg candidate. We do need an lg who will work 24/7 for the ticket, who can babysit all the traditional constituencies so they feel loved, is well regarded when speaking for the ticket, can flesh out the resume of the person at the top, might have some expertise in an area of importance to the voters, and will be a pit bull doggedly nipping at the opponents heals. This is a role Cellucci played well with his elected experience contrasting to Weld, and I thought Gabrieli did well with his policy wonk focus and his energy.