Healey- Came out OK at first, but when the piling on occured she didn’t seem able to handle it well. At no point did she lose it, but at very few points did she seem to be in control. The bad news is, she needed to be in control. Her attacks on immigration, taxes, etc. that she would like to be wedges in this campaign fell somewhat flat with a third and fourth party to muddle them. She wasn’t effective at slamming the legislature, and I think in fact this will come back to bite her. How can you control a group you show such public contempt for? She had a chance with Shonda, the Romney similarity question, and the 527 issue; I feel she failed to hit more than a two out single on any of them. Closing statement was decent, she defined the race in a two candidate sense but if the debates keep featuring everyone she’s pretty screwed. OUTCOME= -2
Mihos- Christy, my dark horse. First, Christy wants to do everything for nothing. If he and Gabs teamed up, I might figure they could make every MA citizen a millionare and earn votes accordingly. We’ll never pay tolls, and we’ll all live on The Cape. However, realizing he isn’t going to make all of us rich hurt…Christy had his ups and downs…But man, did he beat up on Healey. Even when he attacked both major party members, it almost always ended in an attack on the Romney/Healey administration. He did have his chance to hit on illegal immigrants (a bunk issue requiring lots of explanation IMHO), but he often was left hanging in dead air when there just wasn’t time for it in this format. Thank you Christy! His head up the ass ad was even brought up, and he just wants people to know the facts about the Rovian Repubs…Clearly he has it out for Healey, and the scary/great part is that I think enough people will listen to really hurt her. However, he did interrupt and came across somewhat defensive and desperate. Christy did pick up a few votes so far, but I’ll guess they were Mihos voters who just didn’t know it yet. It’s tough to call, but I’d say… Closing statement OUTCOME= 0- +1
Patrick- Patrick came out of this better than I possibly could’ve hoped. Wallace wasn’t as rough as I expected, and Patrick seemed to rise above the fray on most issues. When the arguments got the ugliest, he was standing by waiting for the nasties to subside to inject his level headed response to the issue. The Big Dig was a crystal clear example of this. When the question of his ability to deal with campaign criticism came up, he parried with real experience working under Clinton when the Congress turned. Healey needed to villianize him, and although questions came about it just didn’t happen. Patrick attacked Healey’s record as a member of the current administration and did it well. Whatever wasn’t perfect was covered by the minor party candidates, from who he had a lot of help tonight.The only criticism I would give was his inability to fit his points into the followup 30 second windows. He was cut off more than once. Closing statement was last, and rocked. OUTCOME= +2
Ross- Well spoken, versed on the issues. Overall, a better performance than I expected from her. Really, I thought she was on point for the most part. It almost scared me how much sense she made, how often she was mostly in line with Deval, and how that might look to the undecided voter. Fortunately, she went way left of almost everyone when she talked about the ‘fisher industry’ and how much those who don’t vote will count in this race. A fellow debate watcher liked her through most of the fray, but decided in the end she was stoned. However, she blew away any moonbat expectations most would have had. I don’t know how many votes she’ll take from it, but I don’t see her hurting Deval like Mihos hurts Healey. OUTCOME= +1
So there you have it. I have an obvious horse in this race, but I can say objectively that if the polls tell us anything, they tell us that Healey needs a few knockout punches.
Not one landed tonight. I pray, and pray, and pray some more that Mihos and Ross are in every debate until the general. And why shouldn’t they be, they’re candidates after all…? Healey’s biggest failure tonight was failing to make this a two person race. She tried, she really did, but…Mihos and even Ross shone. Not good, if you’re a Repub…Ross will never pull from Patrick what Mihos will pull from Healey, and she’s behind as it is.
I hate to use this measuring stick… But when you’re far ahead, if you didn’t lose badly you won. Patrick clearly rose above the fray tonight as both a classy, knowledgeable, and most importantly a BELIEVABLE candidate.
I proclaim a clear victory for DP.
In the spirit of EB3, please remember to recommend this if you like it. Otherwise this diary will be out to pasture within a few hours.
You had Deval Patrick standing off to the left looking like a governor.
<
p>
The other three were engaged in a cable-tv talk show. FOOD FIGHT!
<
p>
Kerry Healey needed a big win. She needed to look like a governor. She had home court advantage. This was the public’s first introduction to her in the race, and she didn’t look like someone who would be comforting or reassuring at a time of stress. Hijackers take two planes from Logan. The ceiling falls down in the tunnel. Governor Healey replies, “We really would have liked to do something about it. We tried every year. That evil legislature wouldn’t let us do anything.”
<
p>
Kerry Healey. A true can’t do spirit.
I think you captured it pretty well. Some quick comments:
<
p>
My wife nearly came out of her seat after Healy spent the first 15 minutes trying to ignore the “other two”. We both thought that looked bad, so I’m glad so many picked up on that. Deval — the “eye-contact” candidate — acted respectfully towards everyone, telegraphing with his body language his collaborative style. Healy sat in her seat so as to — as closely as possible — turn her back on Ross and Mihos; she seemed every bit the snooty Republican, and hopefully not just to me.
<
p>
I was thrilled with how Deval was (not physically, but politically) framed by Ross and Mihos on the left and right, respectively, and came out looking sensible, cool, pragmatic, capable, etc. Personally, I found my self agreeing with Grace Ross on many points, and yet I think her presence helps Patrick by letting people see two shades of liberal.
<
p>
Mihos kept it interesting, and — as you pointed out — did a lot of the heavy lifting when it came to trashing Healy.
<
p>
What fun!
Honestly, he was everything Reilly wasn’t when Reilly blew during his infamous debate. It’s probably because Mihos had a lot of good points and facts to back up his (legitimate) anger. I think he’ll jump over the 10% mark for next poll or two, which will be great since he’ll have to be invited to the next televised debate =p
<
p>
Deval won it though, even with Mihos having done well. It wasn’t just the fact that Mihos ‘won it for him,’ Deval did exceptionally well in general and by staying out of the fray, wasn’t damaged at all.
I do not think Deval did that well. I really think he was to general and stay out of the fray to much. I want to vote for someone who not only shows leadership but shows they have ideas and I passion for the job they might get elected for. And yesterday was the first time I did not see that passion in Deval.
You’re absolutely right, and by pointing that out you have changed my mind. Kerry “Muffy” Healey now has my vote. Have a nice day.
You are to funny. It so nice that when someone wants to make a there thoughts known and there against what the majority is saying this how they are treated.
But at least I passed third grade. I might not be the best speller, but I know the difference between “to” and “too,” and between “they’re,” “their,” and “there.”
<
p>
You’re allowed to have whatever opinions you choose. But when you come to a board like this (ie one where almost everyone has a specific ideological bent) and continually spout statements meant to sow doubt in other posters’ minds, you’re really just going to have to roll with the punches when people call you on it.
I’ve disagreed with many things that cmfost has said, and I’ve argued with him. But I don’t think that his comment–which acknowledged Deval’s passion in the past and didn’t suggest voting for another candidate–wanted the kind of response you gave, pmegan. And your response to his grammatical mistakes sounded pretty juvenile, ironically enough. Ease up.
As I said, everyone’s entitled to his or her own opinions You are too.
Glad to hear it, though I wasn’t feeeling much need for the affirmation.
<
p>
If you’re assumign that I’m a right-wing troll now, just read any of my past posts.
I never said anything about your political leanings. I just said that you’re allowed to have your own opinions. I’m a little uncertain why you’re so defensive, but whatever.
I’m a little uncleaer as to why you felt the need to affirm that I was entitled to my opinion. In my experience, that’s usually a given, particularly on a blog. And when someone says it, it’s generally code for, “I think you’re full of it.” When do you tell someone that they’re entitled to their opinion because you agree with them?
cmfost now acknowedges a virtue of deval’s but only in order to use it to criticize his debate performance. that’s what tips me off that he’s disengenuous–i don’t recall a lot of those acknowledgements when they might have been offered in support of deval. i don’t really want to lose anyone’s vote, so i’m all for going the extra mile to argue with people open to being persuded, but in this instant i have to agree with the troll school comment below: i’ve read enough of this person’s posts to have, let us say, major skepticism that s/he is someone open to persuasion or interested in pursuing anything other than sowing discontent. so i think thoughtful, serious posters like you should just ignore him/her.
Calling someone a troll is one thing. Criticizing spelling and grammar is elitist and rude.
What have you all done to my beautiful post?!? đŸ™‚
in troll school.
my spelling and grammar are not the best. That what you get when you go through MA public schools.
<
p>
As for anything else if you are going to tell me that I can not state my thoughts that is riduclous and not what this site and other blogs site are about. You can try and say I am a troll but I am not. You can try and call me a republican but I am not. I am also not a blind lemming who is going to flow whatever the person in charge of these sites say. What I am is a moderate democrat who is trying to decide who the best person to vote for is. So i will read all your comments and post what I want and if you disagree with what I say that is fine but do not go in to name calling and nitpicking just because someone may think differently then you.
<
p>
As for estolling a virtue of Deval Patrick’s I am just staing the facts through my own eyes. I have seen the other debate and all the TV commercials and to me in the debate he did not show the passion that he has in the past and to me I think that may of hurt him.
If someone who didn’t know better stumbled into the debate, s/he might have asked why Patrick was able to bring two friends along with him to debate Healey. I agree entirely that as long as Ross and Mihos are there, Patrick looks better and Healey is ineffectual.
<
p>
Patrick did a fine job, though one thing he needs to do is be a bit more forceful. There were a couple points where he had a “both sides bring up good points” attitude that doesn’t really work all that well in a debate, even if it’s the “correct” answer. Obviously with a big polling lead he needs not go on the attack like Healey is forced to, but he nevertheless needs to maintain a strong, forceful image as well as the inspiring one he has developed. I believe he can and will do so, but it’s something he should tighten up a little bit for the rest of the campaign.
I disagree that “both sides have good points” does not play well for Patrick.
<
p>
He’s running on a platform of collaboration, inclusion and openness “good ideas” from all camps. He’s in the lead and riding a post-primary bounce. Letting the independents and dissatisfied republicans know that he’s open to a variety of viewpoints will help him with those voters while not hurting him with committed lefties.
<
p>
I think Healey’s job is to differentiate herself from Patrick, and he serves himself well by not letting her do that on her own terms. I think he stole what little thunder she had last night whenever he agreed with her.
<
p>
I believe his approach left him looking like a Statesman and her looking like a frustrated pitbull.
Because immigration is a complex issue where both sides have good points. Deval has to prove to unenrolled voters — and yes, Reilly voters — that he represents the people and the Democratic Party, not just its most liberal wing. He can be forceful while still appearing nuanced.
<
p>
Granted, it helps to have Mihos whaling on her like a spurned suitor strung out on heroin.
Unless you have family who are illegal immigrants, or hire them, or rent to them as a landlord …. illegal immigration has zero impact on your life. It should not be a local political issue at all.
Immigration, legal and illegal affects wage rates and crime; education costs because local school must educate kids, whether immigrants or not; there’s the instate (and state supported) tuition arguments; the thorny issue of which wage and hour issues apply to illegal immigrants; security.
If the immigrant kids aren’t in my city’s school system, some other kids would be there instead. A wash.
<
p>
If the immigrant kids aren’t attending UMass at in-state rates, some other kids would be there instead. A wash.
<
p>
Minimum wage laws should be uniformly enforced for all employees and employers. The best way for the state to do this is to be entirely indifferent to immigration status. The state should assure immigrants that no interaction with state government, short of a felony conviction, will lead to their deportation.
Is your question serious or tongue in cheek? I could list a hundred ways immigration affects your life but most seem so obvious that I wanted to check whether you were joking before I take the bait.
<
p>
In addition to all the above reasons (which as I said, I’ll list if your question is for real), for some of us, immigration matters because we care. You won’t hear any candidates saying this, but I have a lot of empathy for immigrants.
<
p>
Years ago I was a social worker and one of my clients was a woman from El Salvador. In order to escape the poverty, war and oppression in her home country, she had worked her way across Central America and Mexico, mostly on foot, and saw traumas she can still barely speak of on the way. She was pregnant when she made the journey. Her husband had been killed by militia in ES. She came to give her daughter a better life.
<
p>
Once here she shared a two bedroom apartment with her parents-in-law, an aunt and uncle and their children. She worked cleaning floors at a big company that paid her below minimum wage, which they could get away with because as an illegal immigrant she was too scared of the INS to try to take action.
<
p>
Now Kerry Healey and Christy Mihos want to tell her she can’t drive, she can’t have ID, and if she gets stopped for jay walking she might get deported. Her daughter is lucky that she made it across the border before giving birth, so her daughter (who will be ready for college in two years) is therefore a citizen. But if she had given birth in Mexico, instead, Healey and Mihos would tell her she couldn’t get the same access to education that all the other kids who grew up here in MA could get.
<
p>
This is a voice I’ve never heard, and never expect to hear, as part of this campaign: my voice and those like me who think that newcomers to this country should be given a fair shake, maybe even an extra hand, and that all the anti-immigration fervor sets the stage for immigrants to be exploited for cheap (or even slave) labor by big companies and coyotes.
<
p>
And that ALL of us here, every one, are descended from immigrants, and we should care what happens. (Can I tell you how crazy it makes me when I hear some Irish guy from Southie whose great grandparents came over during the famine going on about “send ’em all back”?)
What I probably should have said above is “… illegal immigration has zero [b]negative[/b] impact on your life.” I basically agree with you and would like the state to welcome all immigrants, and be indifferent to their ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ status.
You favor a total open door policy? Did you check the link I referenced?
I looked at your link, and recognized the argument, which is not new. Essentially it amounts to: immigrants put Americans out of jobs (I don’t see how the color of those unemployed Americans matters), which raises crime, etc.
<
p>
The problem is that I have yet to see, in that argument, and assessment of the economic impact of immigration if immigration were legal. If every immigrant could demand fair wages, maybe even organize/unionize, if immigrants were stuck with the worst jobs and working conditions because they are cornered by their situation…THEN what? The company is hiring hiring Jose and firing Jamal because they can get Jose to work for $5 an hour and Jamal, knowing his rights as an American citizen, demands $15. If Jose started demanding $15 too (which he should!), then what?
<
p>
Sort of reminds me of the stats about the the cost of drugs to society, which always assume drugs are illegal, and don’t try to predict the effects of drugs in the context of legalization.
I can see how immigrants could depress wages.
<
p>
Imagine if you could move to the country of Elbonia, where the standard work week is ten hours, and the starting salary is $100,000. Now imagine that you were asked to work 15 hours, and for only $90,000. Would you organize a union to oppose this egregiousness?
<
p>
It’s a lot easier to accept a crappy job and wage if your current job and wage is crappier, and that is what is often the case with immigrants to this country.
I posted the link, principally because it’s a peer reviewed article from a reputable source. It also, generally speaking, supports the Liberal argument against “open door” policy. (i.e. open door harms the lower economic members of US society)
<
p>
BTW, I’ve very libertarian views on immigration: very open door on immigration. The study I’ve cited contradicts my ideology to a point. That’s why I found the earlier poster’s disagreement with the study interesting.
<
p>
I think one can, as a matter of policy, adopt ‘open door’ or not after weighing the effects on wage inflation. But, you’d be hard pressed to technically disagree with the study unless you have more economic degrees than the authors and the peers who reviewed the data.
At least the way I’ve always heard the story, she came here on someone else’s passport, or a forged passport. That means she was illegal.
<
p>
So I’ll never support any restriction on illegal immigration, because had such restrictions been in place a century ago, I wouldn’t be here today.
A correlation (strong or otherwise) does not equal causation.
<
p>
I don’t have a link, (sorry) but I know research done by Ruth Milkman from UCLA on the janitorial industry on declining wages showed that the conventional story of immigrants taking well-paying union jobs from African-Americans was not the case. Instead, the jobs increasingly became non-union and lower paying first and then immigrants came into the picture. That it was the de-unionization campaign that caused the change not immigrants.
<
p>
Here is her homepage
Okay, Ron, I got ya. I’m still not sure I agree — like Deval, I think that there are really points to be made on both sides of the issue.
<
p>
That said, if someone appointed me Queen of the States, my rule on immigration would be something like this: anyone can come here anytime they want to work. After arriving here, they have some period of time — maybe 3 years? 5 years? — to get on their feet. At the end of that period of time, if they are making a go of life in the US, give them permanant residency, otherwise, toss ’em out. (With some possible exceptions for people seeking amnesty or in other difficult situations.)
<
p>
While they are here, we should make sure 1) they get treated equally by the law (regarded wages and so forth), and 2) the humanitarians amongst us should give them a hand up. I’d support public funding of job training, ESL classes adn the like.
<
p>
there’s no way a view like this would fly with an electorate that views immigrants as “stealing jobs” (as if by virtue of having been born here you somehow are more deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
<
p>
End rant.
Immigration is like terrorism or crme — it’s not much of an issue for people living in urban areas where these things have such an effect. Rather, it’s an issue to inject fear into the sub/exurbs, whose only understanding of these issues comes from watching Lou Dobbs.
<
p>
As long as Fox and the GOP are pushing this (and boy did Wallace seem upset at the idea of more brown people coming into America last night), it’s an issue.
…”Christy, you have GOT to stop mixing the pain pills and Red Bull!” :>)
that after the election we should bundle Christy and give him a good ole fashion, Sonny Corleone, ass kickin. This is the rich guy who wants Jane ‘doesn’t have a pot to pee in’ Swift, to pay his legal tab.
Let him do a little of Deval’s bidding, but really, a backhand is in order.
When Deval wins we should all go down to the cape and by a slurpy from one of Christy’s store just as a way to thank him. Christy Mihos won that debate for Deval. He made Healey look so bad that he made it easier for Deval to win. The winner of that in terms of subsantance and passion and wanting to win the election was Chirsty Mihos. By default because of how bad Healey looked Deval was the winner of the debate in terms of how it will effect the polls.
Christy is my hero right now… and unlike Healey I don’t mean that in a snide, b*tchy way!
source
<
p>
Said differently, should Ralph Nader have run for President in 2000?
I think a better analogy might be Ross Perot: a self-financed, right-moderate candidate who amuses people, but also comes across as relatively unstable.
<
p>
Nader didn’t pull any votes from W, where Perot pulled a fair share away from Bush and, to a lesser extent, Clinton. Mihos obviously hurts Healey, but he will draw some support from Patrick as well.
Polling I saw showed that Nader drew nearly a quarter of his votes from Bush, about half from Kerry, and the rest from folks who wouldn’t have voted for either.
I wasn’t discussing the impact of the vote, I was correcting Wookie’s assertion that all of Nader’s votes came from Gore. I’d add that in Florida, the same statistics apply. Which both contradicts Wookie’s point and the assertion by some with the nader campaign that those who voted for them wouldn’t have voted for Gore anyway. It was a mix.
I found this interesting analysis of 2000 exit polling:
<
p>
I would have guessed that it would have been much more in Gore’s favor.
<
p>
However, I stand by my contention that Mihos is more like a Ross Perot character than a Ralph Nader.
Anything that pisses Barbara Anderson off is just fine with me :-).
<
p>
But, yes, the situations are comparable (though in reverse). However, I’m sure Dubya is thrilled Nader ran. I’m not going to shed any tears over Mihos running.
I agree with most of the comments here. Christy Mihos doesn’t seem to be running for governor. He seems to be running to give the GOP a slap in the face. The most amusing (shocking?) part of the debate was when Christy was yelling “PEOPLE ARE DEAD KERRY! PEOPLE ARE DEAD!” during the debate on the Big Dig. I thought a fight would break out. To be sure, Christy made it fun. I look forward to more debates with him in them.
<
p>
Healey seemed arrogant, cold, and unable to connect with the average voter.
<
p>
Deval did exactly what he had to do. And he won that debate…no question.
I had no idea what Christy was up to, but now it seems that this race is entierly about keeping Kerry Healey out of the corner office!
<
p>
Sure, he got in a few barbs about “the democrats” and “both my opponents from the major parties”, but did he actually have anything bad to say about Deval? I remember at one point he STARTED to say something that sounded like it was going to be a slam against Deval, but he stopped mid-sentence and then started ripping into Kerry again!
<
p>
Go Christy! Democrats owe him a fruit basket or something.
Here
Apologies to Steven Colbert.
as he didn’t really participate. I did learn that he was a black male though. I also learned that Ross is poor or that she doesn’t work that much. I learned that Christy is a tanning freak. And, I learned that Kerry Healey takes wicked deep breaths before speaking. Cover up that neck, girl!
Knowing Deval and having listened to him speak in community meetings and other venues, I am always disappointed in his debate performances because they in no way show his warmth, engagement and humor that so clealy shines through in person.
<
p>
Perhaps it was good political strategy to sit back and watch the fray, but it was not in keeping with the passionate man Deval is. The race is his to lose, so not making any mistakes, rather than impressing is seen as the way to go. It takes the fun out of the campaign.