Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. to what the AP article states:  Deval meeting with LG candidates.  He was approached by one candidate and is now meeting with all three.  This is typical Deval.  He doesn’t play games.  Former LG candidate Sam Kelley is supporting Deval on the campaign trail.

    <

    p>
    If you’re going to post, make it correct.

    • I know what the AP story states. If you can see closely, there is a question mark in my title. I”m merely curious if people think he may be picking a running mate or not based on the suddenly newsworthy story that Deval is meeting with all 3 LG candidates.

      • Will let the voters choose who they want to be LG.  Isn’t that rather obvious?  No question mark is necessary because the question is misleading.  The title should be “Deval meeting with LG candidates” and nothing more.  Sheesh.

  2. If you were him, who would you pick?

    <

    p>
    If this were pure who he’d actually want to be his LG, my guess is Silbert. 

    <

    p>
    If this were who can help him GOTV Central MA, then Murray. 

    <

    p>
    However, his offer to Deb Goldberg could be basically, “You are currently perceived as a clown by most party insiders, but if I pick you, it’ll catapault you in respectability; I’ll spend all my money now, and if our ticket wins, you agree to pony up $4 million in the general election; even if we lose to Healey, you’ll be in a Gabrieli-post-2002 position as a trusted Dem hand, which will get you invited to some of the more elite cocktail parties going forward.” 

      • Deb Goldberg is an excellent candidate for LG, as are Tim Murray and Andrea Silbert.  So was Sam Kelley. 

        <

        p>
        I’ve met all of them and will not be disappointed no matter who wins the nomination.  I’m willing to bet that Deval Patrick has met with them and understands that each one has separate strengths.  He is the type of person who will assess the merits of each potential nominee and wait to see who the voters pick.

        <

        p>
        On a personal level, I found Deb Goldberg to be the most personable and aware of her audience.  I found Andrea Silbert to be the least aware.  I have friends who are supporting different candidates for different reasons.  Tim Murray has an outstanding track record as mayor.

        <

        p>
        It is wholly unfair to attack Deb Goldberg.  She is intelligent and hard working.  She has significant achievements and experience under her belt.  If you feel the need to call anyone a clown, try Romney.  He’s got everyone beat in that category.

      • First, would you concede that it’s possible both to endorse someone for reasons other than personal respect?  Or is your contention that all political endorsements are done purely b/c the endorser thinks “he/she is the best person for the job”? 

        <

        p>
        If the former, then the fact that someone has many endorsements is relevant, but not dispositive.

        <

        p>
        Second, it’s true that I can’t name where I developed the idea that Deb Goldberg is perceived in a certain way by many party insiders.

        <

        p>
        However, it’s certainly public record that the Globe, Phoenix, and Weekly Dig response to her convention appearance/video was “Hokey,” “What the f— is she doing?“, and an overall “What The F—?” 

        <

        p>
        I didn’t Google for more than a few moments, so I suspect there were some other similar reactions, including some here on BMG. 

        <

        p>
        Would you agree that it’s rare for a pol to get two literal “F—” references from a single political moment? 

        <

        p>
        Three comments of course does not prove what party insiders think, and it’s about one event, not a whole career.  Again, however, it’s relevant, and would suggest it is at least plausible that others would agree with the commentators. 

        <

        p>
        [P.S. Once again the “3” rating used not to reasonably evaluate a comment, but to strike down those with whom you disagree]. 

        • I gave you a three rating because you called a qualified candidate a clown without basis and without links, seemingly for the hell of it.  As far as I’m concerned, citing links to the Glob, the Pheonix or the Herald doesn’t make any case whatsoever.  I happen to know many intelligent people who support Deb Goldberg and who understand she has many positive qualities for the LG slot.  If you want to try for some form of intellectual post about her issues and why you feel they are dumb, great.  Otherwise, you deserve a three or less.

          <

          p> 

  3. I think it would be a mistake at this point in the campaign to risk alienating supporters of either  of the other two candidates.  Although, I must say I would like to see more Democrats do this in future campaigns, before the caucuses.  A hotly contested LG race is a waste of resources when most people really aren’t paying attention at all to that race.

    • I disagree completely.  A hotly contested race is actually good for everyone.  It keeps the race focused: from the media, to supporters, to general voters. 

      • With all due respect Wonkette, if you think the current race is keeping “focus” on the LG candidates, you must run in different circles and follow different media outlets than I do. 

        <

        p>
        What media is covering this race?  What general voters (not on political message boards) can even name them?  The morning of the convention people in my delegation were practically flipping coins prior to the vote.  I had one longtime activist refer to the LG race as “That mosquito that keeps buzzing in your ear.”  Come November, no one’s going to vote for or against the Gubernatorial nominee solely on the LG running mate. 

        <

        p>
        I like all three candidates, but our priority and our “focus” has to be on the top spot if we are really serious about winning in November.

        • We had a chat about this in my office and one theory was that Deval wanted to emphasize that the Dems had three qualified candidates for Lt. Gov, far better than Romney’s pick in 2002 aka this year’s Republican candidate and that whoever won would be listened to and utilized, not marginalized.  Another theory is that it was a good reminder of the abortive “ticket” from earlier in the year.

          <

          p>
          In short, why have one running mate when you can embrace three!

    • I disagree – a contested LG race could be good or bad, but more often than not I think it would be good, including this year.  Each of the candidates will be better prepared, and have a more experienced staff and field organization, by the general election campaign.  The winner of the primary will have better name recognition, have made their mistakes and learned, have their message laid out to the press and their press relationships figured out.

      <

      p>
      There’s always a danger of negative campaigning knocking the candidates down, but it doesn’t look like we’ll have much of that in the LG race this year.  I do fear it in the Governor’s race, particularly due to Gabrieli’s obscene spending cap.

      <

      p>
      (I gave your comment a 5 because I think you contributed to good debate, not because I agree with the opinion you expressed)

  4. …if he’s not going to pick one?
    If he was approached by one candidate, why doesn’t he just say “No” to that one candidate?
    If I’ve got the chain of events right, then this has to be either a real consideration of a running mate… or a PR stunt. Are people saying it’s the latter? What am I missing?

    • Now there’s an egomaniacal image if ever there was one. Will’s right to ask these questions. Why agree to meetings unless he’s considering tapping one, unless his intent is to look like an all-important power-player in the press?

      • by meeting with all the candidates he has the opportunity to appear as the front-runner and he is also alleviating a possible tense situation, by alienating one candidate and her supporters.

        <

        p>
        Smart move on his part.

Archives