Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

LG June Money

By

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,087,491.74

Receipts: $17,763.75

Expenditures: $48,130.65

Ending Balance: $1,057,124.84

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $476,548.08

Receipts: $52,991.00

Expenditures: $54,021.76

Ending Balance: $475.517.32

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $353,917.53

Receipts: $80,936.89

Expenditures: $48,688.16

Ending Balance: $386,166.26

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Hillman.  Run the numbers any way you want, Hillman tops any of those people.

  2. I get why you don’t like the fact she’s willing to spend a million + on her own race… but I don’t get why you continually berate her. What has she done to you? What has she done in the race?

    <

    p>
    I haven’t been paying close attention to it, but she hasn’t said anything that just didn’t make sense. She hasn’t fluanted her money like Gabs did (with his 15.36 million dollar “little” joke).

    <

    p>
    As far as I’m concerned, she’s right on the issues. She’d balance the ticket as far as male/females are concerned. She’d help whoever wins the nod be able to take on Healey/Hillman dollars.

    <

    p>
    Regardless of why you don’t seem to like her, I suggest leaving your prejudices and biases aside when your trying to make a serious analysis. I’m just sayin.

    • your argument for Goldberg is:  * her “issues” are right  * she’s a girl  * she’s rich

      <

      p>
      Nobody here will question her gender or cash flow — but in which issues is she right?  Substantial stuff please, and outline where she’s not only right but also distinct from Silbert and Murray.  Both parts are important, because otherwise a Democratic primary voter has no choice but to be “right” if Goldberg’s “right issues” are also the “right issues” of Silbert and Murray.

      <

      p>
      Goldberg’s entire campaign has been “my family used to own Stop & Shop”.  She simply doesn’t have the private experience of Silbert, nor the public experience of Murray.  I’d also love to hear how anyone who saw her convention video can think she’s anything other than condescending and out-of-touch with those of us who work for a living.

      • Ryan can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he was making a case to vote for Goldberg. He was simple making a case not to “berate her”. You criticized him for not demonstrating Goldberg is better than the other candidates, but that wasn’t his intention. His argument was only that she’s a good enough candidate to not deserve ridicule. I’m a Silbert supporter, but I agree with Ryan on that point.

        <

        p>
        There are, of course, other candidates who deserve to be berated like, say, Reilly and Gabrieli đŸ™‚

  3. I think Andrea is the best candidate of the 3, but I don’t see how Tim Murray raising the most money in the month (more than the other two combined) is an indication of bad fundraising.

    • …real bad PR.  When you say you raised X and in reality you raised 20% less, it sends a very strong signal that you’re not hitting your fundraising goals.  Hence the fundraising problem.

      <

      p>
      Especially true when you are the endorsed candidate of the convention and you are last in cash on-hand.

      • Honestly, no one is paying a lick of attention to the LG’s race.  Nothing these folks do short of robbing a bank or kidnapping a baby is going to create bad PR.

        • …how that Worcester Telegram reporter feels about being “used” by the campaign to publish a political spin.  Yes, they have a PR problem because they probably have one pissed off reporter.

  4. I am getting real fed up with the pro-Andrea bias here at BMG. First of all what were the stated goals of the Silbert campaigns? Did she meet what she reported her goals as? Also this article fails to mention that Tim still outfundraised her and Goldberg by a significant amount this quarter. And how much is Silbert self financing her candidacy?

    <

    p>
    This is a very misleading article and I expected better from BMG.

    • As to the articles here, if you think you can do better, please feel free to post away. Just create an account and click on “Write a New Post.”

    • This is a user post which was frontpaged. For heaven’s sake, if more users write diaries that happen to like Silbert, that’s their perogative.

      <

      p>
      Write something yourself if you want to talk about another candidate. If it’s good, it just might be frontpaged too. Just please, please stop whining!!!

    • if it exists (and I’m not saying it does), or even if there are accusations of bias (which there obviously have been), then the folks in charge will generally be ultra-sensitive to that, and hasten to publish anything that shows they don’t have a bias.

      <

      p>
      Witness, the NYT and its weird oscillation between super-liberalness and Bush-chearleading. The reason, imho, is because the editorial board does have a liberal bias, however it is fearful of being perceived as such, so it constantly over-compensates.

      <

      p>
      In any event, the bottom line is just as Lynne said: go and start posting substantive offerings of your own. Then, if you find that you, and other Murray supporters, can’t get front-paged, even though your entries are rolling in critical acclaim, then take up the cudgel again.

      <

      p>
      But first, post.

      • I can post as many Pro Murray articles I want, its the fact that this article WAS frontpaged and IS misleading and inaccurate.

        • Please identify how my post is misleading an inaccurate.

          <

          p>
          I’ve included purely factual information about the OCPF data.

          <

          p>
          I’ve included opinion about my view on the impact this data will have on the race.

          <

          p>
          I’ve expressed my opinions about the candidates.

          <

          p>
          Others have challenged, rebutted and affirmed what I have written.

          <

          p>
          Like you, I’m a far cry from a random, new-sign-up poster like some are here.  Your profile lists 32 comments, in some of which you make valid, strong and persuasive pro-Murray statements.  But it doesn’t appear that you’ve written any user posts.  I’d encourage you to try, if you wish, writing a user post because the quality of your comments shows that you have a lot to say.  I’d imagine even Bob might promote your thoughts, especially after this thread…

        • Just last Friday this story was front paged by David.  Great ink for Tim.  And if memory serves (hey at least I did the research to find link above–more than you did when you spouted your whine), Tim has gotten a number of front paged postings on his Bill of rights and other issues.

          <

          p>
          Nope you are wrong.

        • I think what you are trying to say is, you are sick of the many users at BMG who favor Silbert. That is not the same as saying the site itself is biased towards Silbert, which is a different beast and which I haven’s seen a case for.

          <

          p>
          I’ve no doubt that due to the pressures of maintaining and growing this blog, what the proprietors of this site really have a “bias” towards is clean, interesting debate that attracts lots of participation, far more so than cheer-leading for any particular candidate, which tends to be boring.

          <

          p>
          So, again, why don’t you provide some of that good debate and make our hosts happy. You may just win a few converts among us biased readers as well.

  5. What I found misleading about the posting is that Murray has outraised all candidates since his entry into the race. So if you can say Murray has had “trouble” raising money, then Silbert, who has raised less, must be having “trouble” as well. I won’t include Goldberg in this discussion for obvious reasons.

    <

    p>
    If you want to be critical of Murray’s spending then that is a different arguement. But in terms of “raising money”, since December Murray has raised about $575k while Silbert has raised about $430k.

    • 430K ain’t a bad 7 months for a first time candidate.  Granted, she’s been active in politics for a while and knows a lot of people, but w/o anyone oweing her anything, that number is impressive.

      <

      p>
      But I do think that Bob’s comment/question about Murray’s troubles is just that – a comment from a partisan who favors Silbert and thinks that to be defined as a “success”, Murray ought to have raised more.  Combine that with the deception they pulled by claiming to have raised 25% more than they actually did, and you’ve got an even larger issue to deal with.

    • …now they pay the price.  Life in the big city.  Murray’s spokesman was 25% off in telling people what they raised–that’s trouble. 

      <

      p>
      The fact is that just over two months before the primary is Murray is a long third in cash on hand for TV.  OK, if you believe “field” wins a downticket race–Murray maybe lokking OK.  But for those of us who don’t see how a LG campaign with 4 or 5 paid staff and a bunch of interns can build a GOTV that impacts a 750,000 voter turnout–Murray needs to raise lots more money.  And to be fair in my analysis–so doesn’t Silbert.

Archives