Governor
- Deval Patrick
A solid endorsement on the first ballot was a tremendous victory for an outsider candidate like Deval Patrick. But he won that victory at the caucuses in February, not at the convention this weekend. He’s already been reaping the benefits of it for four months, in press coverage, volunteer enthusiasm, and lots and lots of contributions.
His outcome at the convention was a reflection of his caucus performance, and lets him continue as he was, with the same benefits of victory he’s already been reaping. Nothing new here, nothing changed.
- Tom Reilly
Getting barely a quarter of the vote was a devastating loss for the sitting Attorney General with a long history in the party. But it’s the loss he already sufferred at the caucuses in February. He’s already paid the price for it. His performance at the convention reflected that loss. As with Patrick, nothing new here, nothing changed.
- Chris Gabrieli
The stakes were highest for him. He just barely got on the ballot. It’s not a “victory”, but it means he gets to run. That’s obviously infinitely better than the other possibility he faced, of not being able to run.
Lieutenant Governor
- Tim Murray
He won the convention endorsement, and that possibly gives him a small boost. I don’t think it’ll be especially significant. If he’d won on the first ballot, solidly, it might’ve given him a bigger boost.
- Andrea Silbert
Coming in second feels good, and defied some expectations, but I don’t think it’ll have much effect. Maybe if some people doubted her credibility as a candidate, she’s gained their respect.
- Deb Goldberg
Coming in third feels bad, and gives her a black eye, but a small one that will probably heal quickly. People who already thought she was weak had that confirmed, perhaps. But she was very close to Silbert and overall I doubt she’s affected much by it.
Secretary
- Bill Galvin
As an incumbent running for re-election, he was expected and pretty much required to win overwhelmingly on the first ballot. Few people would’ve been surprised if he’d got 90%.
He got 70% – an overwhelming first ballot win. It puts him in exactly the same position he was already in, an incumbent running for re-election in his primary. It’s a very strong position. Getting 70% has no effect on him directly, but…
- John Bonifaz
… it means Bonifaz got almost 30%. And that does affect Galvin. Bonifaz, like Gabrieli, faced the possibility of being denied a spot on the ballot, or getting it and being able to run in the primary. By getting twice what he needed, though, Bonifaz did something else: he established himself as a far more credible challenger than most in the press or the party thought. What this means is the possibility of a real campaign, taken seriously by the press, that may actually penetrate to the public.
For Gabrieli, that aspect wasn’t important: he’s got the money to buy credibility and press. Bonifaz doesn’t, yet. His performance at the convention buys him what he can’t afford to buy with money – a real contest.
In summary:
Mostly unaffected: Deval Patrick, Tom Reilly, Tim Murray, Andrea Silbert, Deb Goldberg, Bill Galvin
Gained something significant: Chris Gabrieli, John Bonifaz
I only put Patrick and Reilly on the mostly unaffected list because for them, the effects already happened four months ago. If I were rating the caucuses+convention together, I’d list Patrick as the biggest winner and Reilly the biggest loser in the whole process.
I also don’t think the formal party endorsement makes much difference for any candidate. Sad to say, but our state party just isn’t very effective at supporting candidates. I just recently worked on a campaign endorsed and supported by the state party. MassEquality helped. SEIU helped. A well organized local town committee helped. The state party? From my point of view, not much. And if they can’t make a big impact in a special election for state rep, how much impact can they have on a statewide race in the state primary? My evaluations of how candidates were affected do not take into account any significant effect from the party’s endorsement.
(Disclosure: I am John Bonifaz’s campaign blogger)
I agree with everything here – it seems quite consistent with my take. You and I agree that Bonifaz is probably the one who exceeded expectations to the most significant extent (and I’m not on his payroll!) – and he’s the one guy I mentioned in my post that may see some tangible results from having done so. I do think that Patrick got something quite significant from the convention that he didn’t get from the caucuses, namely, a HUGE headline on the front page of both Sunday papers, and a huge photo in the Globe. My guess: that’s the first time a lot of “likely voters” really had a clue who he was, and that has got to help him. And I continue to think that Murray’s win on the second ballot is basically indistinguishable from a win on the first ballot.
We may just be having a semantic quibble on this one, and agree on the substance. Getting a nice headline in the Globe is good for Patrick, but he’s been getting those ever since the caucuses. His convention win just means he keeps getting them – we pretty much knew he would. So it is a victory for him, but I contend it’s a victory he already won months ago, has been reaping the benefits of, and with his convention performance, will continue reaping the benefits of.
<
p>
You’re right that Reilly and Patrick could have come out differently. If Reilly had worked harder, if Patrick hadn’t worked as hard, maybe we’d have seen Reilly with 35% and Patrick have to go to a second ballot for the endorsement. I think if that had happened, it would’ve given Reilly a boost in the press and more confidence from volunteers, supporters, and party leaders; it also would’ve dulled Patrick’s luster somewhat, and he would be getting mildly less glowing press.
<
p>
But that’s what could have happened. What did happen is that both candidates got a level of support at the convention that confirms the status they earned at the caucuses, and both campaigns are in the same place now as they were before the convention.
I think David’s right that Deval gets a huge extra media boost from the front page sunday Globe picture and headline, which may be the result of the caucuses, but the caucuses only promised him about 40% of the convention vote, so there was a lot of work getting the neccessary ex-officio vote behind him too.
<
p>
And Tim Murray getting 49% on the first ballot was as much of an endorsement as 50% would have been (unless more than 90% of Goldberg’s supporter would have voted Silbert in the second ballot, which is very unlikely). I think he gets a small boost.
<
p>
Chris Gabrieli survives but I think he’s hurt his credibility a lot in the process, but probably not in a way the public will recognize. Actually, not many people knew he was even close to being eliminated, so it doesn’t change much really on his part.
<
p>
Bonifaz was the biggest winner thoguh, as he now seems like a legitimate challenger to the public (similar to Lamont’s strength in Connecticut convention) and it will likely be covered more as a real competition in the future.
A couple of variations on Cos’ points.
<
p>
1) Patrick – I would call the Convention an important success in its own right. As David alluded to, it’s true Patrick swept the caucuses, but a lot can happen to a frontrunner between February and June. Patrick stayed in the saddle, an accomplishment in itself. Additionally, seems to me Reilly could have fought a lot harder than he did; probably not taken the endorsement, but contested it strongly. Reilly would have been smarter to fight. This convention gave Patrick the appearance of complete dominance, i.e. a coronation; and when one sees the outsider being coronated, one generally assumes the battle is over. Bottom line: while Patrick had the endorsement locked, the manner of his win was a variable with real implications, most or all of which broke in favor of Patrick.
<
p>
2) Bonifaz – Just want to add that I’ll wager his speech was the chief factor in having him come out with 30% instead of scraping for 15%. Surprisingly to me, a lot of delegates came to this convention with no opinion and little knowledge on the LG and Sec State races: a blank slate. The campaigns had volunteers talking to people individually, but the importance of the candidate’s 5-minute speech cannot be over-emphasized. As for Bonifaz, he was on fire. My personal impression: I had already decided to vote for him, but with the unhappy feeling that his political bearing and self-presentation stunk. With his speech, he took that issue off the table, and I cast a happier vote. For delegates seeing the candidate for the first time, Bonifaz couldn’t have chosen a better 5 minutes to pull it together.
The biggest triumph that Patrick won was killing the “Electablity” canard. Many “outsiders” have won their conventions but in the end were pushed aside by the “electabilty demon”. One thing we can all be thankful to Kerry for was that he mortally wounded the electability duck. Another one who spent millions of his own money to secure a place on the ballot.
<
p>
Patrick won the plurality PERIOD.
<
p>
Patrick 58% for versus 42% against
Reilly 27% for versus 73% against
Gabrieli 15% for versus 85% against
<
p>
Partick won the right to run fair and square. As all Black parents tell their children “To be considered as equals you have to be twice as good”. Patrick coming out of the convention twice and treble as good than Reilly and Gabrieli made him an EQUAL in this race and has eliminated the establishment figures recourse to request him to “step aside” for a more “electable” candidate.
<
p>
As if the Dems estabs. have not learned yet that people get pretty upset after having worked their butts off for their candidate only to have the leadership step in and “place” their perferred candidate… This ended badly in Il-06 primary and I hope that the “powers that be” have learned their lessons.
<
p>
If Reilly and Gabrieli can rouse their troops and mount an equal or better grassroots effort then MORE POWER TO THEM. But, if this is going to be another exercise in winning the primaries on “technicalities” (from the top) and not even bothering to build their own field game but expecting all spoils goes to the winner… then we have a problem. If you can’t build your own ground game then you shouldn’t be running.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Nobody has questioned Deval’s electability among Democratic activists. That’s his strength. You may as well question Jack Hart’s electability among members of an Irish-American heritage group.
<
p>
How does getting a majority of Democratic activists when you were the only one expending effort at the caucuses translate into electability in a state of ticket-splitters and unenrolled voters? He’ll get my vote if the nominee. I don’t see how he wins over my neighbor who mutters about a one-party state with out-of-control budgets.
<
p>
Nobody ever denied Patrick the right to run for governor. Frankly, with their delegate challenges and raucous booing after Gabrieli made the ballot, it was Deval’s campaign that was trying to keep candidates out of the process.
<
p>
PS: I voted for Reilly. If I could have done it again, I’d have not signed in and let our alternate (who was for Gabrieli) replace me. I see Reilly as slightly better than Gabrieli. I dislike Patrick. But the only candidate I am against is Healey.
<
p>
Niether did I. Nice of you to distort a comment.
Patrick did not make the challenges, Gabrieli did.
Hey, my state committeewoman didn’t know who made the challenges yet. So you’re really inside the loop.
<
p>
On the other hand, I don’t remember Gabrieli’s people kicking Democratic mayors out of any conventions.
TrueBlueDem wrote:
<
p>
I don’t believe it’s valid to conclude anything about who voted AGAINST any of these candidates. I’m sure there are many Patrick supporters who have positive feelings about Gabrielli and vice versa. Ditto for other pairings.
<
p>
I especially object to the assertion that 85% of delegates were “against” Gabrielli. I don’t know much about what goes on in the minds of people who attend conventions, but I expect there were plenty of those 85% who would gladly support Gabrielli (or Reilly) should Patrick not get the nomination in September.
Good to see you here on BMG!
I’m new to BMG, a voracious blog reader (from Michelle Malkin to Daily Kos, Instapundit to Talking Points, etc).
<
p>
I have no idea who “Cos” is, I have no idea who John Bonifaz is, I have no idea why anyone would want to be “Secretary of State” or what Bill Galvin’s job entails – besides patronage and steady paycheck without having a real job.
<
p>
But I think Cos has come up with a genius way to blog for his candidate. Maybe this is already done by other candidates, but I haven’t seen it, anyway.
<
p>
a. His comments are interesting! I mean, most of the partisans here for Silbert or Patrick or Gabs or Reilly are dreadfully promotional, offering zero insight, and only make “the unconverted” slightly dislike their candidate.
<
p>
b. He knows the action is mostly not on his race, and therefore doesn’t force the issue.
<
p>
c. By blogging on BMG, instead of on his candidate’s website (like the so-called “blogging” on Reilly or DP’s sites), people actually read it.
<
p>
d. He does a good job with disclosure.
<
p>
However, the strategy is not without risk. Making interesting comments means possibly alienating some readers. For example, if you’re DP and you have an “official blogger” who makes remarks on BMG, then those comments are fair game for newspaper reporters.
<
p>
What if a DP blogger posted: “We visited Brighton High today. This is the school where they just found a dead fetus in the bathroom. The staff seem to try hard, but the morale is very low. On the way home, DP mused that on one hand, he took a full scholarship to escape Chicago Public Schools, but the Dem party position is to oppose vouchers even for the worst-off inner-city kids. He knows we need to dramatically bolster the public schools, but still has a tough time seeing kids that remind him of himself who really have almost no plausible chance of realizing their dreams.”
<
p>
Well, we all know what would happen: a glimpse into a candidate’s real thought process would be hit the press somehow – “Deval considers vouchers!” And the blogger would be fired or shunted back to envelope licking.
<
p>
So perhaps “The Cos” blogging strategy is best for those in the low-profile races where there is low risk of a comment being amplified in the MSM by an opponent – simply because reporters (and readers) don’t care about LG, let alone Secretary of State.
<
p>
Would love thoughts on this…..curious about future of political blogging in low-profile candidacies.
<
p>
-GGW
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the best way to blog for your favorite candidates, whether you’re volunteering or being paid, is to write interesting posts. I don’t think most readers care much who I’m working for – I think they read me because I post things they think are worth reading, and that’s my goal.
<
p>
I do want to clarify that I do blog on John Bonifaz’s web site, and that I’ve been blogging on Blue Mass Group for much longer than he’s been running, and will continue to blog on Blue Mass Group after this campaign is done. I’ve covered several other campaigns on BMG and posted about a variety of other issues, and by the time Bonifaz hired me to be his blogger, I was already a well known member of this blog community. I understand that this site is not the same thing as Bonifaz’s campaign site, and when I post here, I write with a general audience in mind. I don’t simply repeat the same things I say on Bonifaz’s site (or at least if I do, I really don’t expect those to be frontpaged :). If I were to crosspost something nearly the same on both sites, it’d probably be something about election reform issues that I think is important for a general audience.
Hmmm…where can I get THAT gig?
<
p>
Congrats!
I agree with a previous comment. Cos, this is a great post. I also happen to agree with most of your assessments- I do think that the Convention can effect the way activists, donors, the press, etc. view the candidates. That being said, I’m not sure that the Convention results did actually have (or will have) such an effect. Even though I think you accurately assess the “winners” and “losers” of the Convention, I wonder if three days from now or three weeks from now the Convention’s losers will be the frontrunners on the campaign trail.
<
p>
Here’s my take on a completely different set of possible outcomes, none of which I completely subscribe to, but many of which I think are distinctly possible, if not probable. For the record, I support Patrick, Goldberg and Galvin, but I’ll do my best to be as contrarian as possible and simply play devil’s advocate.
<
p>
It’s August 15, 2006:
<
p>
Governor:
<
p>
Deval Patrick:
<
p>
Even in the polls with the other two candidates, but still has much less money than the other two. Gabrieli and Reilly hit the airwaves all the time, attacking Patrick and driving up his negatives. Every other press hit mentions Ameriquest, Coca Cola or that he’s a millionaire. Will the Cape, the West and the limousine liberal subrubs be enough for Patrick in a 3-way race?
<
p>
Tom Reilly:
<
p>
The convention is forgotten. He is the name everybody knows, he’s got $4m for ad-buys, and the only questions are (i) will his record help him or hurt him, and (ii) will Gabrieli take enough union and urban support from him that he begins to look weak.
<
p>
Chris Gabrieli:
<
p>
The fact that he got 15% + 17 votes at the convention doesn’t mean anything because now he’s just 1 of 3 candidates… and the richest of the three. He spends the others into oblivion and prays that Reilly will decide that Patrick is more of a threat than Gabrieli and only go negative against Patrick.
<
p>
Lt. Governor:
<
p>
Tim Murray:
<
p>
The prohibitive favorite- as he was before the convention. Perhaps he got some good press hits from the convention, but the real impact is that the press saw his strength. The race is his to lose.
<
p>
Andrea Silbert:
<
p>
She surprised many by beating Goldberg, but the press didn’t seem to notice. A few pieces I saw simply said that Murray won and then listed Goldberg and Silbert in alphabetical order as also-rans. She finds herself as a non-Murray candidate with some money in the bank, but not as much as Goldberg. She has to attack Goldberg.
<
p>
Deb Goldberg:
<
p>
Although the 3rd place finish hurts for a week, Goldberg still finds herself as the best-placed (due to her money and endorsements) to take on Murray… but, she can’t do it with Silbert getting just as much (or more) support than she’s getting. Goldberg has to attack Silbert.
<
p>
SOS:
<
p>
Galvin:
<
p>
Nothing has changed. Galvin quietly checks to make sure that all of his local leaders, union leaders, etc. will still turn out the vote for him and he doesn’t worry about Bonifaz unless Bonifaz gets the money necessary to get his message out.
<
p>
Bonifaz:
<
p>
Struggling to overcome a word-of-mouth campaign. Will he only be the darling of some activists or will he have the cash to be able to reach a majority of the Democratic voting electorate? Although he pulled 30% at the convention, it’s August 15th and he’s pulling 10% in most polls.
<
p>
This is not what I want to see happen, especially because it would mean bad news for at least 2 of my 3 candidates, but I think it might happen. And, more to the point, if it does happen this way, it will mean that the convention didn’t mean much at all.
Full Disclosure – I am a Silbert supporter
<
p>
You write that the Press didn’t notice Andrea’s accomplshments on Saturday. I guess you didn’t see today’s Globe. Scott Lehigh nailed it when he wrote “…Silbert made people sit up and take notice. And on a day when her rivals seemed bland – and in a hall where even some longtime officeholders quickly lost a crowd preoccupied with the main eventof the gubernatorial contest – hers was no small accomplshment.”
The article is without question positive and very good for Silbert. There is no argument there. But let’s not make it sound like she was the focus of the article. She was a mention in an article devoted to Patrick.
Along with how many other LG candidates positively? This was not a wrap up piece, it was focused on her and why he thinks she did great.
<
p>
Also, this is the paper of record for New England, not a progressive weekly.
Briefly let me just say it was a unifying convention in the sense we will all come together in September.
Governor
Deval didn’t win as much as he suspected but did win solid support. If you were their you heard him light up the room with an amazing speech which may cause his delegates to go out into the state with alot more ambition.
Tom Reily stayed the same in my book which may actually be a win to his camp.
Chris Gabrieli was the main attraction and can now go out and say he earned his spot in the race. People who thought about supporting him before the convention will probably pull the trigger now and he should build some momentum.
<
p>
LG race
Tim Murray managed to win the convention even though he has less money then the self funding Goldberg and the fundraising genius Andrea Silbert. He looked realy strong at the convention and so did his support. As people focus on the governors race as it intensifies people might look back to the convention and say yeah that murray he’s my guy.
Silbert earned the spot as one of the opposers to the mayor. While they should be happy that she made it you can’t help but think they wanted Golberg out of it so they could pose as the alternate
Deb Goldberg couldn’t possibly of done worse at this convention really. This isn’t me being partisan this is just what happened. Even with all that money and her big ass banner right next to the stage she still managed to skrew it up. Instead of Going for the Gold Golberg got the bronze, who knows if Kelly was still here she might not have placed at all.
Bill galvin is going to win regardless so I don;t even want to talk about that race.
While Patrick was chasing after delegates at caucuses this past winter to establish credibility, Reilly who already has the credibility was chasing after money. Gabrielly used his own money to buy his way in.
<
p>
In Patricks case, the name recognition and the bounce at a convention would be the first step to gain any credibility. He worked the caucuses well and was rewarded for his efforts as the endorsed candidate. Even if the endorsement is historically the kiss of death for democrats it is a badge of recognition that can be used by him to raise money both locally and nationally. Strategically, it was a success for Patrick
<
p>
In Reilly’s case, many progressives noses were out of joint because of the impression he turned his back on the party by not actively campaigning in the caucuses. As, the only non millionaire candidate he probably had no choice but to use his only real resource of time to raise money during that period . He gambled that his long time democratic supporters like Tom Menino would find the 15%. He exceeded expectations, made a great speech and raised a lot of eyebrows in the process and gained a much needed boost. .It was a success for Reilly.
<
p>
In Gabrielli’s case, lets call it “reverse inclusion” where money taints the process. Enough said.
Gabrielli on the ballot kills Deval.
Reilly has no other skeletons in closet, if he has any.
The remainder of primary will be attack Deval’s record/background.
<
p>
All parties, including Deval, did a great job at convention. DEval fought hard to keep Gabs of the ballot.
Those of you who drink the Kool-Aid believe this is some ethical thing re: getting delegates votes and vote switching and keeping delegates out of convention.
Wrong! It’s called politics.
In every single post about the convention? Spare us, please.
This is a thread about winners and losers at the convention. I comment that Deval did great job but he is the loser because he could not keep Gabrielli off ballot. I also said i didn’t think going any candidate was unethical in seeking votes.
<
p>
This opinion is not welcome by some because it is “unsubstantiated rhetoric”.
<
p>
See how too much Kool-Aid can make a person intellectually blind.
<
p>
Oh, and don’t forget to rate my post with a 3.
It’s not about whether people agree or disagree with you. The reason your comments rub people the wrong way is that, whatever opinion you have, you just state it brashly and briefly with no elaboration, no reasoning, and plenty of snark without humor. You may have thought it through but it doesn’t show in what you write. So it just feels insulting to some readers.
If I was to comment that the New York Yankees are the greatest baseball franchise ever, do I need to recite every World Series, every great player? No. Because I assume my reader knows this.
<
p>
And you know why Gabrielli hurts Deval.
<
p>
Sorry about being insulting, but i find so much naivetĂƒÂ© and self-righteousness on here that I really feel I am doing people a favor.
<
p>
Introducing them to the real world.
<
p>
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
<
p>
Don’t forget to rate this a 3.
Your tendency to jump to conclusions is insulting, but you haven’t heard my feelings (and there’s another conclusion you jumped to). I was simply telling you why people react to you the way they do – and why I think someone else did flame you, even though I didn’t. I haven’t rated any of your comments “3” in this thread, either. So, take it or leave it. What I tell you is true, and if you ignore it, people will keep flaming you and you won’t have much impact on their thinking. If that’s your goal in commenting here – to annoy some people, piss others off, be dismissed by everyone who doesn’t already share your views, and occasionally lauded by those who do – go right ahead and attack what I’m saying and don’t listen to me. (I guess I’m jumping to a conclusion here too – that you aren’t interested in listening – but it’s not that huge a jump, it’s based on past exchanges.)
Just for the Yankees comment.
Cos, it has been written extensively here and in the real world of how Gabrielli in the race hurts Deval. A big undecided will be between Gabrielli andf Deval. Reilly can sneak by.
<
p>
Because I am brash I am held to a higher degree?
I find myself (!) with EBIII on this one in terms of the comments 3 to 6 “Scoring” – the only scoring should be based on whether it’s INTERESTING.
<
p>
His view on winners/losers is plausible and, since it takes on the Conventional Wisdom as represented by BMG, geez, it’s interesting.
<
p>
Also, why “3 to 6”? Why not “1 to 4?” It’s like MCAS. Instead of 0 to 80, MCAS is scored 200 to 280. That way if you get a 204, they don’t have to say you got a “4 out of 80.”
<
p>
I think EBIII’s brash analysis may – I emphasize may – be off-target.
<
p>
What if the on-the-ballot Gabs decides his best shot is to drive up Reilly’s negatives on TV? What if DP makes a handshake deal with Gabs to pick his job in a DP administration – chair the Board of Ed, free hand to do the biotech thing?
The explanation in the “Use the Comment Rating” thread was that Charley, Bob, David, and a few trusted others have the full spectrum of ratings of 1-9 or 10. We only have the middle ratings, so that we can’t trash a comment off the radar just because we don’t like it.
<
p>
Uh, no. Far from it, in fact. I think we can all agree that relevance ought to play a huge role, too. And what about civility? I think that really ought to play a role in scoring a comment (and does, when I rate).
<
p>
For example, “drinking the Kool-Aid” comments are grotesque, and are the chief reason I down-rate EB3’s comments. Not for his brashness or his reasoning, but because they are insulting. And not in a “ooh, you opened my eyes to the truth about my candidate and the cognitive dissonance stings” sort of way, but more in a “ooh, you called me a bad name” sort of way. And that sort of behaviour is, I believe, off-limits in this sort of forum. Or should be.
It seems that if I was in favor of Deval , on this blog, I could say whatever in wanted before the convention, without worring about critical commments.
<
p>
Even something like this,”I’m really pissed at those Gabrieli people asking people to vote for Chris on the “first” ballot, implying there will be a second ballot. BTW don’t forget to vote for Deval on the first ballot…”
<
p>
But, express an opposing opinion and look out, it is open season.
<
p>
Ernie Boch is correct, there has been plenty of speculation, on both sides on who was (or if) anyone was hurt when Chris got in.
<
p>
But you know what? It was only the Deval supporters who kept saying stuff like “Chris isn’t playing by the rules”???
<
p>
My question to them was if it wasn’t by “the rules” how did he appear on the ballot at the convention?
<
p>
Opinion is just that, opinion. Maybe you don’t like my opinion. That is fine. But apply the same standard to the Pro Deval as the Pro Chris or the Pro Tom.
<
p>
Just my 2 cents worth…
I was somebody who accused Gabrieli of not playing by the rules, and I stand by my statements.
<
p>
You are correct that, technically, the rules were obeyed (to the best of my knowledge, at least). It’s the “gaming the system” that I deplored. Gabrieli wasn’t just trying to convince delegates to vote for him. I have no problem with being asked to vote for candidate X on the first ballot. The problem, to me, is that he was running TV ads to gain name recognition and thus virtually shame the party into allowing him on the ballot.
<
p>
In essence, I strongly suspect (but of course can never truly know) that a lot of Gabrieli’s votes came from delegates who didn’t necessarily think he was the best man for the job, but rather thought the state party would be embarrassed by accusations of being un-small-d-democratic if Gabrieli failed to make the ballot.
<
p>
It’s this behaviour that I disliked, and it was this behaviour that was not committed by any other candidate.
Is exactly what Cos just pointed out to you. I salute him for having the tact that I didn’t when I posted my comment.
<
p>
I come here for good conversation with politically astute people. I’ve gotten, and tried to provide, insight into the campaign and events like the convention. There is a level of information and analysis here that we just won’t find in the MSM. But when I look at the new comments in every convention related thread and see you saying, in essence, “OMG REILLY!!1 DEVAL SUX DRINK THE KOOL-AID MOONBATS!!1!!!1” it tends to rub me the wrong way. I would love to hear why you support who you do, and what weaknesses you see in other candidates. There’s people here whom I disagree with but respect because they make good points. But I think I speak for more than just myself when I say that it doesn’t hold a lot of water when you let your emotions drive and stuff reasoning and logic in the trunk.
“I would love to hear why you support who you do, and what weaknesses you see in other candidates.”
<
p>
1. Why do I have to support another candidate? I don’t.
2. I have commented numerous times on my problems with Reilly, Mihos, Deval, Healy, and Gabrielli. Here and other places.
<
p>
Roll-Another-Bone, I mean Rollbiz, you see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear.
<
p>
‘If they’re not with us they are against us’ mentality is a bad thing in politics when taken in excess.
<
p>
That is the mindset in Washington that is killing this country. As hard as the Republicans in this state try they will only turn this state in to a devisive, angry, hate filled population if they can exploit the Kool Aid drinkers. But they have been very sucessful in using that tact in capturing the corner office.
For
<
p>
<
p>
It does nothing to improve the conversation, isn’t funny, and isn’t interesting. It’s just trolling and throwing around potshots, and that’s par for your acerbic course.
<
p>
Hence, the 3s.
because I think your comment is over-the-top as stomv points out, but you do make good points.
<
p>
Just stop with the snarkiness. Please.
<
p>
You’ll win a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
Those of you who drink the Kool-Aid believe this is some ethical thing
on anything. Relax.
Implies cultist to the death. You and I both know this, and I’m sure you’re smart enough to understand what makes it offensive.
It is what we call a metaphor.
<
p>
You soooooooooo make my point.
Thank you
Thank you
Thnak you
Wow, this became an exceedingly childish exchange. I personally find repetition to be boring, whether it’s cheerleading for one cadidate or attacks on the other. If you’ve said it already, ask whether it’s worth saying again. That goes for “Yay Deval!” or “Deval’s a wingnut!” Both are annoying and don’t contribute to the conversation. But they’re not beyond the pale.
<
p>
But the name-calling? The Kool-Aid comments? Come on…that’s just useless, and it brings down the level of dialogue. Ernie, I wasn’t going to give you any threes, but when you started calling rollbiz “Roll-a-Bone,” I thought that I was back in seventh grade. It’s neither funny nor clever. It just clutters the discussion.
Get it Right!
Calling somebody an asshole is also a metaphor, you know.
<
p>
You might want to review the “Rules of the road“, especially the part that reads
<
p>
I think most people around here are aware that when you say other BMGers “drink the Kool Aid”, you are insulting them, whether or not you mean it as a metaphor.
<
p>
What do you think you are accomplishing?
Political professionals make a list of pluses and minuses of each candidate in the race. Money, name recognition, appearance, age and any any other thing that you can think of. Each political campaign year is similar but always different. The choices that are available to all campaigns (MONEY!!!, media, field, direct mail to name a few) are based on their budget and what they think will work best for their candidate against the current field. Try to approach it dispassionately. As if you were deciding which candidate you would select as having the most weighted advantages less any weighted minuses that would cause you to to select a favorite (oddswise) at this point in time. Might be more entertaining and meaningful as observers than my dad’s better than your dad
that we seem to have bogged down into. I love elections but this blog is losing some luster regarding this race.
<
p>
Remember in 1993 very few experts thought there would ever be a Mayor of Boston named Ray Flynn.
A portion of this thread appears to have been removed. I’m all for that–it added nothing and is better off the page. But I just wanted to ask the moderators–is this indeed what happened? Or is my computer having an error and reverting back to an earlier version of this page?
<
p>
Thanks.
As somebody that didn’t go the convention (am I the only BMG reader that wasn’t a delegate?), I’d like to note that Patrick picked up something significant:
<
p>
Prior to the convention I’d noted that many Patrick supporters seemed committed by not necessarily passionate. Apparently his speech ignited the crowd, convincing doubters and converting the committed into accolytes.
<
p>
The energy he generated will be hugely important for a candidate that has to build a real field operation and grassroots machine in order to defeat a party insider and a multi-millionaire in the primary.
<
p>
Sounds like he really solidified his volunteer base (amongst other things).
I wasn’t a delegate either. đŸ™‚