In alphabetical order:
Gabrieli
- Best: took good advantage of Patrick’s mistake in asking about going negative.
- Worst: peeking over Patrick’s shoulder to read his notes – and then admitting he had done it on camera. Made him look like a trickster. You could see that he immediately regretted having said anything about it. And it was even worse in the press availability afterward – he was asked about it three or four different times, and repeatedly said “I probably shouldn’t have said anything.” Got that right.
Patrick
- Best: his lines about “that’s a nice theory, but I live in the real world” struck me as effective rejoinders to Gabs’ positions both on tax cuts and on charters. Also, his closing statement was a strong, concise summation of what makes his campaign different.
- Worst: no contest here – his gaffe in asking his opponents why they’re being mean to him. Gave them free reign to chastise him for being overly sensitive while pointing out policy differences. A twofer that he never should have allowed them.
Reilly
- Best: Reilly did well on taxes. Agree with him or not, his “voters have spoken” position resonates, and neither Patrick nor Gabrieli had an effective answer to it.
- Worst: his peculiar obsession with a public safety bill that no one has ever heard of. He got very agitated about something that 99% of viewers are unfamiliar with, and as a result just looked jumpy.
Overall
Reilly needed to stop the bleeding from last week’s awful performance, and he probably did that. So the debate is a clear net positive for him.
Patrick, as everyone in the world has noted, seriously miscalculated with his “going negative” question, especially since he didn’t seem ready to back it up (if you’re going to ask that question, get specific and ask Gabs whether he thinks Tim Cahill and half the congressional delegation are “rabid” and “out of the mainstream”). So it hurt him – but probably not all that much. He did well in the rest of the debate, and had some very good moments. In particular, his closing statement – the last of the night, luckily for him – was strong.
Gabrieli did fine (aside from the note-peeking gaffe), though the jocular, likable guy with the sense of humor who showed up last week was absent this week, in favor of really-fast-talking policy-wonk guy who has a ten-point plan for every issue under the sun. Memo to Chris: ten-point plans are important, but without more they don’t win elections. If they did, John Kerry would be president.
Likely overall impact: minimal, though Reilly’s free-fall may have been halted. This remains a close race.
I thought his best moment was his answer to the question about tracking.
<
p>
A dumb question, but Reilly’s answer connected to his life story and common-man themes and made him more three-dimensional.
I thought that was a pretty good answer too.
Reilly’s best moment of the night was the student tracking answer. I would argue that it was the most genuine moment for any of the candidates in any of the debates.
as I discuss in this diary.
<
p>
Additionally, I think you are off base with respect to the public safety bill. Specifics of the legislation aside, Reilly’s question made Patrick appear simultaneously soft on criminals and wishy-washy on the substance (he support the bill but would veto aspects of it). It also had the additional benefit of producing Deval’s “Did you hear what I said?” line, which, after a minute of tap dancing on all sides of the issue, seemed a little arrogant.
I thought the “Did you hear what I said” line wasn’t bad. That said, if we have to pick a “winner,” I wouldn’t disagree that it was Reilly.
Remember little kid sports? The Most Improved Player award? That’s what Reilly got last night. His performance was good, but this was only underscored by how terrible he was in the last debate.
<
p>
I do agree that the tracking answer was great, though. Pulled my heartstrings, and I really dislike the guy.
Patrick’s answer was dodgy and to punctuate it with that line and a roll of the eyes didn’t play well in my book. However, it may be perspective. Patrick supporters probably saw exasperation, while I saw a guy who doesn’t like to be challenged. . .a point he reinforced with his awful question about the tone of the campaign being too mean.
<
p>
Speaking of THAT question: not only was it bad strategy, it was highly presumptuous. He opened the question by reminding Reilly and Gabrieli that the three candidates had previously pledged to support the eventual nominee and now he (Patrick) was coming under attack. It almost seemed like Patrick was inferring that he was cruising to victory on Tuesday and that the other guys should start making good on their earlier promises. Just a really strange, weirdly delivered question. . .
I totally agree that it was a bad question, but I didn’t really see the framing of the question quite like you do. I’d like to actually see it quoted in full, but the transcript isn’t up.
If I come across it, I’ll post the relevant section and a link.
it was a really bad question for lots of reasons.
I cringed when I heard Patrick’s “character” question and I am a canvassing, phone-banking, caucus-going, Patrick delegate who is totally committed to his candidacy. But I relaxed shortly thereafter, when Gabrieli made that snarky remark about Patrick spending his money on a home in western Mass. while he, Gabrieli, generously spent his money getting himself elected. This from a man who has two very expensive homes already. It served only to remind me of the obscene amount of money Gabrieli is throwing into paid volunteers, robo-calls, polling, television ads, and swag. Then, as a bonus, Gabrieli admits that he is peeking over Patrick’s shoulder to check out his notes. It almost made Patrick’s character accusation seem plausible.
<
p>
I still didn’t like Patrick’s question, but feel that he dodged a small bullet because of Gabrieli’s subsequent pettiness.
<
p>
Thanks, Gabs.
here. (I had to re-post it.)
I wonder whether the real winner of the debate was Patrick — chiefly because Reilly did well enough to remain competitively in the race. Notwithstanding the polling showing Reilly voters going to Patrick, my sense is that a two-way race between Patrick and Gabrieli would really be a huge help for Gabrieli — as long as this stays a three-way race, this seems a race that’s Patrick’s to lose. Or am I reading way too much into this?
that I think it’s a big overstatement to say it’s “Patrick’s race to lose.” But I do think that Reilly’s strong performance has the effect of helping Patrick. Gabs clearly wants this to be a two-man race (it even says so on his website).
Patrick’s “that’s a nice theory, but I live in the real world” was probably effective, because it aggravated the hell out of me. Chris emphasized specific proposals in this debate, at the expense of going over his career experience again, opening him up to the line. But the idea that even one voter came away perceiving Chris as a wonk without experience drives me nuts. This guy has run businesses and nonprofits, with direct responsibility for salaries, health insurance, performance, etc.; gotten bills through the legislature; rallied the legislature on stem cells; gotten teachers, parents, and school boards to agree to extended day; etc. etc.
<
p>
I also liked when Chris said something to Deval like, there you go again with reasons why we can’t do something; I have plans for how we can. And he explained the innovation approach to policy: instead of blanket supporting or opposing an idea, you find a district that wants to try it, help them set it up, and measure the results.
Why isn’t the reaction to “the voters have spoken” “the voters spoke on clean elections, why aren’t you pushing that instead of just pandering on tax breaks?”
<
p>
Would work very well for Gabs or Deval, since both are outsiders compared to Reilly.
Good point!
<
p>
Here I’ve been pushing for clean elections all year, and hadn’t thought to make that connection as a rejoinder to Reilly. I really wish one of them had used it.
Reilly argued the case for clean elections all the way to the SJC and Won! Supreme Judicial Court Ruling: Fund or Repeal Clean Elections article in Boston Globe 1/26/02 by Rick Klein , he writes ” Attorney General Tom Reilly whose office defended the state in the court case, said the”SJC has made clear that the Legislature’s duty is to eithwer fund or repeal the Clean Elections Law” “As a Clean Elections supporter, I personaly hope the Legislature decides to fund the lawand avoid a further constitutional showdown” Reilly said.” (Sorry I can not give you a link to this article ,I am just learning how to use a computer!)
<
p>
Clean elections has NOT been a campaign issue. Heck, I’m pretty sure I’m voting for Patrick, but if Reilly had come out hard and early with a “let the voters decide” platform pushind a tax roll back and clean elections, he woulda had me. The point of the critique isn’t that Reilly hasn’t done enough, but that if he is going to use “let the voters decide” as a campaign issue on taxes, a push on clean elections would help.
<
p>
(Cos, did you got Brandeis? I think I know you…)