UPDATE: Sound files from tonight’s post-debate press gaggle:
Kerry Healey (She was first out — I only caught the last part of her remarks.)
Sorry this didn’t get up sooner. Here are some quick hits from tonight’s gubernatorial debate:
- First of all, I thought Keller did a terrific job moderating, firm and fair. Congratulations to Jon.
- It was a good format for such a short time; and it seemed like for the most part, everyone got a chance to express themselves — with the glaring exception that Patrick did not get to ask his question of the others. But as Patrick said in the post-debate gaggle, this was the most substantive of all the debates.
- The general impression was that Patrick was more specific than previous debates. I don’t know … maybe I’m too close to it, so maybe I wouldn’t recognize if that’s true. I couldn’t say he was more or less specific than before.
- Patrick claimed he doesn’t remember how he voted on the rollback vote in 2000. He admitted he “hedged” in the post-debate gaggle, because (as was reported in the Herald) he missed a few votes, and couldn’t remember which ones. Apparently he did indeed vote in 2000.
His non-answer is a bit surprising, because I can’t imagine how it would hurt him or help him either way. Make of that what you will …
- Patrick really had Healey on the run regarding the administration’s handing contracts to companies that hired illegals, and Healey blaming that on the AG. Yeah … that doesn’t look good. To my mind, that was worth a lot more than Healey’s number-gotchas.
- I don’t think there can be any question that we saw a different Healey tonight, at least at the beginning. She obviously wanted to tone down the negativity, and it was a hell of lot easier to take. And she scored some points, but her gotchas didn’t quite resonate. (Whether the % of local aid is 23% or 19%, 40% is a long way off.)
In the second half, however, it was still clear she has predicated her campaign on taking down Patrick. The realization that she hasn’t accomplished that has sunk in a bit, and she seemed resigned to that, to defending the record of the last four years, as with the student/teacher ratio bit at the end. If “two weeks is an eternity in a campaign”, as she bravely claimed after the debate, I suspect an eternity isn’t long enough.
- Grace Ross had several fantastic moments; perhaps the best was talking about the importance of on-demand treatment for substance abuse, and noting that the illegality of the subtance in question is only tangential to issues of addiction.
She’s outstanding because she truly represents a progressive framework of ideas: Everything she says fits with everything else so consistently. To have that represented so well and clearly in a high-profile event is very, very satisfying to me. Even the most progressive Democrats feel they can’t afford to be so honest and elegant in their thinking; it’s the third-party status that allows her to make perfectly sensible arguments that have absolutely no chance in the real world. But they should be heard.
Well, that’s it for now. I’ll have audio of the post-debate gaggle soon.
His answer was clearly not genuine, but, I mean, the tax rollback is a bogus issue anyway.
<
p>
Does anyone remember who sponsored the original ballot question?
Isn’t it always Barbara Anderson?
I think the rollback is a real issue — how he voted on it 6 years ago is not.
on that ballot initiative. I guess the point is that someone running for Governor should remember, but I’m not sure why or how the way one voted add’s anything to the debate.
turned out to be a disappointing choice for the post-rally libations and foodstuffs for two reasons:
<
p>
1) Turns out that the Patrick volunteers had reserved the entire dining room for themselves, leaving an hour’s wait. Yes, they had the debate on in the bar, but (as mbair said) unless you could lipread, you couldn’t follow it worth a damn.
<
p>
2) The place was mobbed (surprise! being right across from the DCU) so meeting folks was difficult as you had to wade through the crowd to get through to the bar. And waitresses to the booths at the bar area were scarce to nonexistent.
<
p>
Luckily, a few of us made our way to the 99 pub a short walk away and were able to get drinks in a somewhat quieter venue, and real food. But by then the debate was over. Oh, well. Someone will post the whole thing online, I’m sure, and I also heard elsewhere that C-Span covered it, which means the possibility of reruns.
<
p>
But we had a lot of fun meeting folks and laughing at Muffy’s body language. And as for the rally, the place was full to capacity and the Big Dog was awesome, even if he did insist on throwing a couple of backhanded plugs to his wife for her “bipartisanship.” Got a polite response. But it’s clear that he has a special place in his heart for Worcester.
<
p>
And Tim Murray – whom I’ve never heard speak before – was the biggest surprise of all. Affable, winning (in a kind of “boy-next-door” way) and funny, it was evident that there is real friendship, mutual respect and admiration between him and Patrick. And the crowd was SO proud of having a local boy up there.
<
p>
The college kids (especially the small but extremely noisy contingent from Welllesley) were a hoot, too. The diversity of the crowd struck me in a way that I found moving and hopeful–a great cross-section of the state, all there in one room. And Diane Patrick was a wonderful speaker, apparently talking without a prepared script. In manner and style she reminded me a lot of the late, great Ann Richards. She’ll make a fabulous First Lady of Massachusetts (and while I’m on the subject, has anyone seen Mitt Romney’s wife since he ran for Governor? Is she even still alive? She seems to have dropped off the face of the earth).
<
p>
The organizers tried to put everyone who showed up to work, on the spot. They handed out phone-banking instruction sheets with ten numbers per person. The idea was to get everyone there attending the rally to call ten voters right away. I saw lots of people with cellphones out, calling, as we waited for the program to begin, and the Patrick campaign had the numbers of calls made posted on the scoreboard above us. It was inspiring and quite the motivator.
<
p>
I was very impressed with the organization, the turnout. A splendid time was had by all.
I was afraid Viva Bene wouldn’t work out. I work a few blocks away, have lunch there now and then, and didn’t remember seeing more than a couple of TVs, for one thing. I worked the event as a volunteer, and having seen the meetup thread, came over just to see if I could meet any BMG folks. Unfortunately, the crowd was too much, the bar service too slow, and we bailed out. On my way to the car, I spotted some co-workers in McFadden’s, and visited them for a few minutes. Some of the event crowd was there and they were showing the debate, but you still couldn’t hear it all that well. I don’t know what the crowd was like at the ‘Times last night, but it is a couple blocks further away, and they have good TVs there, including what looks like one big one in a separate room (for noise abatement) with comfy chairs. Just my $.02 for next time.
that any spot close to the DCU would have been packed with attendees from the rally and would have been too noisy to listen to the debates. As it was, some in the crowd tried to shush everyone when the debates began, but the noise only dimmed slightly and then resumed. I guess folks were too interested in talking to each other, and in a way I can’t blame them.
<
p>
I may go back to the Viva Bene with hubby for a night out, however. I was impressed with the menu and ambiance, and it is handy to several parking garages.
<
p>
I go to these things as much to meet people as for the politics, anyway, and I did connect up with folks from BMG. I also remembered that at least the best parts of the debate would find their way online, so no biggie.
<
p>
The TV room at the Irish Times sounds like a good possibiity. Perhaps as a meetup spot for Election Night? Do they have wireless access there? That would make it just about ideal.
Unless someone else from the area can weigh in on that (rollbiz?), I’ll take it on myself to look into it. I think I’m going to enjoy Election Night for a change, and don’t just want to sit at home!
Bubbly is more fun if consumed among friends.
I’m particularly fond of the sausage cacciatore, but the veal parm and baked stuffed eggplant are good, too. If you saw the menu, you know they have several creative seafood dishes as well.
Here’s hoping you’re checking your replies…I checked out the Irish Times, and I think this might work. Tuesday nights they don’t have live music like they do other nights — just a trivia contest that starts at 9pm — and nobody’s already taking the place over that night. They are willing to dedicate the TV at the end of the bar to election coverage (the room I mentioned is not suitable, and wouldn’t have the right cable/satellite or whatever hooked up to it for our purposes). They have a full “pub grub” menu, at least a dozen different draft beers and ales (including Wachussett Country Ale, Stella Artois, Guinness — of course!), and there is wireless Internet!
<
p>
Assuming it will just be a handful of us, we should be all set, and if there were more than a handful, we’d have enough of a quorum to command a second TV, perhaps.
<
p>
Whaddya think? My e-mail should show in my profile, if you want to contact me off-line. Thanks.
“First of all, I thought Keller did a terrific job moderating, firm and fair. Congratulations to Jon.”
<
p>
I just can’t agree with this at all.
<
p>
I was there in the studio before the debate started while he was explaining the rules to the candidates. He said that if a candidate needed to get something in, to make a certain hand signal and they would be put in the queue. He also said that there would be no filibustering or cross-talk allowed.
<
p>
Amazingly, Grace Ross was vocally put in the queue several times by Jon, but Jon kept deferring to Kerry Healey. You could even hear Deval having side conversations with Ross during the debate, trying to yield to her, but Jon turned it into a two-person debate by allowing the back and forth. Grace politely fought for her fair time while Mihos let himself get runover by it all.
<
p>
And is running out of time for the candidates to all have an equal chance to ask their opponents questions considered “firm and fair”?
<
p>
I think strictly speaking, that would fall under “loose and unfair.”
Yeah, I’m hearing this criticism a lot, so I admit maybe I missed something. I would say that Keller in general kept people from shouting over each other. And also, I think it’s OK that folks get a chance to directly respond to things that have just been said about them, which were of course disproportionally between Patrick and Healey. So that’s why I made my remarks.
But Jon admitted his bias early on when he sacrificed journalistic integrity for just plain idle speculation in suggesting that Ross had Republican assistance in getting on the ballot. He knew that was a bald lie, but never retracted his libel even when I pointedly noted the very structure to Green-Rainbow Party signature gathering efforts – which I personally was an integral part of.
<
p>
He’s a fraud and a liar. He always has been.
that seems pretty harsh.
<
p>
Although I do agree, it even came across on TV, that Grace and Christy got the shaft time wise.
<
p>
That said, I’m OK with that. I like that Grace and Christy are included in the debates, but I’m not going to cry if they don’t quite get equal time, I realize that’s not totally fair but in many respects they are lucky to be on the stage at all…
Keller just said on WBZ that he has received a lot of criticism over this, but that he intentionally let Healey and Patrick get the bulk of the time because “…according to the polls, almost 90% of the voters support one or the other.”
<
p>
In that case, shouldn’t have given Patrick twice as much time as Healey?
then he should have made that stipulation explicit at the beginning of the debate instead of pretending that everyone would have more or less equal time.
<
p>
On his blog, Keller also posted the following breakdown of the total speaking time for each of the candidates:
<
p>
Kerry Healey: 11 minutes six seconds (29%)
[in seconds, this comes out to 666 seconds!]
Grace Ross: 10 minutes 53 seconds (28%)
Deval Patrick: 10 minutes one second (26%)
Christy Mihos: 5 minutes 38 seconds (15%)
<
p>
Before I saw that Keller had posted this breakdown, I did my own research and tallied the word count from the debate transcript and broke it down by candidate:
<
p>
Healey: 3477 words (35%)
Patrick: 2833 words (28%)
Ross: 2401 words (24%)
Mihos: 1183 words (12%)
<
p>
Now, maybe Keller’s numbers are wrong or maybe Kerry Healey just speaks really quickly (and I mean really quickly — using both sets of numbers, on average Kerry Healey would have spoken at a rate of over 316 words per minute; according to wikipedia, even auctioneers speak at only about 250 words per minute).
Could you show me the link- I’d love to see that- especially with all his rhetoric about letting all the candidates debate. Ugh.
At least it seemed so in the parts I saw. I missed quite a lot of it (in our transition to the 99 to finish watching the debate and then eat something) but I agree with this assessment according to what I did watch.
His attitude has completely changed from his appearance at Faniuel Hall- I wonder what’s gotten into him.
I will agree with this in part.
<
p>
Keller was obviously giving advantage to Healey and Patrick in a blatantly systematic and unfair way, both in terms of getting them on the speaking queue and on how much time he gave them to speak.
<
p>
What was good about his moderation, though, is that his questions were good, he was good about preventing people from speaking over one another, and allowed candidates to answer direct questions.
<
p>
In the end, I wished I could have heard more from Ross and Mihos, but I think that this debate was more respectful, substantive and informative on the major candidates than prior ones. Despite his bias against Ross and Mihos, I give him a “B” for this debate.
He did keep things pretty much under control, but I agree that it wasn’t all that fair. There was really something about the way he moderated that made me feel I was watching a game show.
Well, the bus got me back about 10 minutes late…..But I marvel at how Deval switches gears and does it so eloquently….at 5:15 he’s in Worcester at the rally and at 7pm he’s standing in Boston…..back to focus and on point and I believe…..much more specific. I think Healy did him a great big service by making him discuss the meat and potatoes….no one is better at facts and number crunching than Deval…..
<
p>
I thought his speech at the rally was great….a new message, and very few repeats…from past speeches… the best for me was when he mentioned Healy and he once again….made every STOP booing and said something to the effect of No! No! that’s not what were about here. And then everybody was quiet and listened…to me how powerful that was…to instantly silence 7,ooo people with one word….
<
p>
I know we all believe what his question was going to be….at the debate tonight….
<
p>
I think she(KMH)was watching the clock and knew if she kept interupting…time would run out before they got to Deval….!!!
<
p>
I think Keller really let it get out of hand a bit towards the end…..It almost looked as if Mihos and Ross, weren’t there.
<
p>
Wow…..I’m watching Nightline…..they just showed Muffy’s “Garage” ad for the second time in 24 hours…..as part of a news show……first Charlie Gibson, last night and now Nightine….though tonight, they actually stated they believe that the ad backfired on Healy. GO ABC!!!! And the one against Harold Ford of Tennessee, is really low, too. did anybody elese see it…..?
<
p>
Boy I can’t believe how wired I am right now at midnight……
<
p>
I better stop, before I put you all to sleep…..
<
p>
Tommorrow I hope I get to tell you all my rally horror story….Let’s just say, “DOJ should come for the State Dems,” actually Phil Johnston..It felt like 1989 all over again…..
<
p>
Barb in Worc.
Do a user post on it.
See YouTube for “the” anti-Harold Ford ad.
First, let me say I didn’t watch this live. Instead of watching it live, I was doing a my own debate (well, forum) at UMASS Dartmouth – I sat on a panel discussing the state election with 2 professors, another student and the N. Bedford Standard Daily Time’s political reporter… so lots of fun. I actually think I did reasonably well =)
<
p>
That said, I thought tonight’s debate was very good. Despite Keller’s obvious bias toward letting Healey and Patrick talk, I actually think Grace Ross performed excellently. WHY WON’T SHE JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? Seriously, I don’t agree with all of her positions, but she speaks with real clarity and is very effective… why continue to diminish her potential when she could be doing real good in the world? I really feel as though she is a person who could get work done on Beacon Hill – if she had a (D) at the end of her name.
<
p>
Patrick did the next best. His critique on Kerry Healey’s administration hiring construction companies that hired undocumented aliens was pretty spot on and she looked like a real fool. He didn’t make any big mistakes and was about as effective during a debate as I’ve seen him.
<
p>
Next is Kerry Healey. She had a few effective moments and made some points that probably worked with the average voter. However, there were some moments where she got stuck and caught and didn’t look all that good. There was something she said that really, really bothered me (it was akin to when she said all public schools should be charters), but I can’t remember it. Can anyone think of it? LOL
<
p>
Shockingly, I don’t think Mihos did well at all. It wasn’t that he was particularly bad at any point, though he was stung once or twice. I just think he seemed to get rolled over – and Governors just don’t get rolled over. I still think he’s going to get around 10% of the vote, give or take a few points, but I’m sensing there just isn’t anymore traction – lest he invests a whole lot more of his kids’ inheritence (and uses it effectively).
<
p>
Still, it was a great debate – though I shouldn’t have watched it tonight (or should I say this morning? LOL).
Ryan, we can discuss this tomorrow (everyone – watch the Saint Kermit roundtable here Friday at 4:30), but the Democratic Party doesn’t want Grace Ross for the very reasons you and Charley praise her. Her clarity and effectiveness would not be favored by the entrenched politicians whose primary interest is keeping their jobs, not representing their constituents, and it would not be favored by the moneyed interests that provide financial support for the party and many of its candidates. The Republicans are not the only ones who have sold their souls to large corporations. (Besides that, the Democratic Party would have all but forbidden Grace from running for governor.)
<
p>
Now, someone wrote recently that, with a Patrick victory, we will have two parties in the state: the Democrats and the progressive Democrats. I am heartened by the fact that some of the Democratic “partisans” on this list have given Grace a fair shake, rather than just writing her off like much of the mainstream media (barely a mention in today’s Globe article). If the progressive Democrats really want put forth a political agenda that differs from that of the “regular” Democrats, I believe success for that agenda (which presumably addresses some of the issues Grace has raised) will come not from asking folks like Grace to join the monolithic Democratic Party, but from developing a strong Blue-Green coalition that shares a wide range of values and ideas AND respects the differences in structure.
<
p>
A couple of debates ago, Kerry Healey spoke about having a strong two party system in this state. Frankly, I don’t want a strong two party system; I want a strong three or four party system. That way, we can hopefully focus on the issues that are important, rather than which tent you live under.
She widens the discussion and does her party much service with her very practical explainations as to why a progressive standpoint is a good one (IMHO, the best one).
<
p>
In any other race (ie without Deval) she’d be getting a much larger percentage in the polls. I do hope she gets her 3% (that’s the amount needed for statewide status, right?)
<
p>
I want competition, I believe us Dems have got to EARN our creds – if our progressives aren’t doing the job, or the party isn’t doing its job, it needs to be held accountable, even if that means losing a couple elections here and there. I do want the Dem party to get some of the Unenrolleds to come back to fold, but like I said, we should have to work hard for every single one of them. Or at least, I plan to!
All they need is 3% or more in any statewide race. They lost their status in 2004 because the only statewide race was for President, but they will almost certainly get it back this year because they are the only opposition to the incumbent Democrats for Secretary of State and Treasurer. Similarly, the Working Families Party has the only opponent on the ballot for Auditor, so I will be very surprised if they don’t also get at least 3%.
It’s no wonder you never returned Charley. Let’s take a look at your logic. Grace Ross’s ideas are cogent, her platform makes sense and never contradicits itself, and it’s the most progressive available. Yet, Democrats “feel they can’t afford to be honest and elegant in their thinking.” Charely (and others: it’s not her third party that allows Grace to make her perfectly sensible arguments – it’s her integrity. Unless and until more politicians and more people of any and every political persuasion start to do the same, that is the reason why the best political platform available has no chance in the real world. Not because it comes from a third party, but because of the cowardice of political conscience, and just plain cowardice of folks like yourself who admit its value and refuse to accept it and support it anyway.
<
p>
Does it really matter if a Democrat or a Republican holds the governorship when Democrats have a veto proof majority in the MA General Court? No. Democrats could have passed ANY LAW they wanted at ANY TIME over the past 16 years. It’s not all on the heads of the evil and demonized governors. It must feel good to finally have a winner, but there’s big difference between winning and being a winner. Grace won’t win, but she’s winner. No double talk, no not remembering how she voted on important issues (and I guarantee you Grace Ross votes in every election – shouldn’t someone who wants to be governor vote in every election?), a genuine concern and genuine plans for real democratic reforms, and a willingness to promote policies that speak for the left out of our society – those of us in the bottom income brackets, those dealing with addcition, those living in poverty.
<
p>
The only reason Grace Ross doesn’t play in the real world is because too many Charleys still find the real world too hard to look at and admit that changing it requires giving up the privilege of power (maybe evening governing power for a time) because continuing on this path, even Patrick over Healey, isn’t going to make any real long term changes (and if you think I’m wrong, let’s see much of the tax burden has shifted to the upper income individuals and to the multi-billion dollar corporations after four years of Patrick – my guess will be little to zero). Eventually, Grace’s way is the only way out. Yet, Grace’s way, the Green- Rainbow way is major political paradigm shift based on true leadership (performing adaptive work, not just technical soloutions to the same old problems -see Ron Heifetz work Leadership Without Easy Answers).
She was far more forthcoming about her intentions than Deval, and she exposed flaws in the proposals of her opponents.
I thought she was far more cogent than Patrick.
True progressives would rally around her, but the truth carries less votes than good looks, smooth talk, and the Clinton imprimatur.
No, seriously, wicked lame.
<
p>
Anyone who actually has met the man and really listened to him (and watched him listen to others) understands the man is all substance and hard work.
<
p>
Frankly, you can say the same about Clinton, as much as I sometimes disagreed with him.
lost points for evading the tax rollback question. Sure, it doesn’t really matter and it was a dumb question, but giving an “I don’t remember” just made him look either extremely forgetful or like he was hiding something. Probably felt blindsided by the question or a little off his guard with the angle the moderator took.
<
p>
Also, I don’t really get the charities question… What was the point of that?
I saw the question as a check to see whether the candidates do in private what they espouse in public. A “do you do anything on your own to help those who need help” sort of thing.
<
p>
It does tell you something important about what a candidate is like as a person. If a very wealthy candidate is giving nothing — or virtually nothing — to charity, and talking about the need for more government aid in these areas or about “compassionate conservatism”, then my estimation of them as a potential public servant will be lowered by their failure to donate.
<
p>
What would impress me is seeing candidates increase their level of donations in the years when various Bush tax cuts took effect.
was watching the debate and voluntarily pointed out that she thought only Patrick and Ross were being honest with regards to the questions regarding charity….She then said I think ” those two should win” Patrick and Ross.
no one’s going to say “I don’t give to charity.”
I remember that I voted, but for the life of me I cannot remember how I voted on that issue, so I don’t blame him for not remembering.
exactly how I voted.
<
p>
I also remember that dog racing was also on the ballot in massachusetts in 2000.
get off of your high and mighty horse, saintkermit…
SK: First of all, the power I’ve got personally is jack squat — or at least, no more than anyone else here.
<
p>
Actually, changing the real world requires gaining power, which is something that Grace Ross simply can’t do — at least not currently. And gaining power requires working in coalition with people who don’t agree with you 100% on everything. That usually necessitates some rather incongruous positioning.
<
p>
But I’d rather stick with a major party — thereby working in coalition with other voters — and get some of what I want, than go with a minor party and get none. We learned that lesson, bitterly, in 2000.
That isn’t the lesson you should have learned in 2000. What you should have learned is that plurality voting is a bad idea that effectively disenfranchizes voters. If we had used Condercet or instant-runoff voting in 2000, people could have voted for Nader and Gore still would have won. If we used some kind of preferential voting, Massachusetts would probably have more Greens than Republicans. If we had preferntial voting of some sort, I wouldn’t be surprised if Grace Ross would beat Christy Mihos in first choice votes. Almost everyone I know (in my liberal bubble in Somerville) would prefer Ross to Patrick, but won’t vote for her because she has no chance of winning. Dropping the minor parties doesn’t help anyone. Switching our electoral system over to some kind of preferntial voting helps everyone.
and the Greens endorsed Deval, it wouldn’t surprise me if he got 20%-25% of his vote on the Green ballot line, thereby underscoring the importance of the Green platform/values amongst the electorate and causing him to want to tackle the issues that are most important to Greens.
<
p>
This is one of the major values of fusion – it allows the voter to show her support for a certain set of issues/values AND to vote for a candidate with a real chance of winning.
<
p>
I’d also argue that under a fusion system, if Deval received some significant percentage of votes on a Green ballot line (e.g. 20%), this would do more to build the Green Party than running a noble but doomed candidate that only garners 2% of the vote.
I’m not very excited about fusion voting, because it doesn’t really build the minor parties. It just lets people make a symbolic statement while voting for the same person as they would without it. Polls provide nearly the same information. To some degree, fusion voting discourages the minor parties from having their own candidates, because if they nominate the major party candidates then people will vote on their line, but if they nominate their own candidates then people will be worried about wasting their vote.
<
p>
Approval voting would be far more useful (the system where you vote for everyone you like and whoever gets the most votes wins). It provides essentially the same information without forcing the minor parties to step out of the election. I think having Grace Ross in the debates is probably better for the Green party than fusion voting with Deval on the Green line would be.
<
p>
Condercet voting would be the best thing for building minor parties. IRV would be worse than anything else (even leaving things alone). IRV does not prevent third parties from spoiling elections, but by promising to do so it would turn people off from considering systems that would work.
The Greens will just not run Democrats. The Green-Rainbow Party wants to get Green-Rainbows elected, not putting Dems on their ballot line and hope they recognize Green values after the fact.
<
p>
IRV > Fusion
Healey was in good form for the first 20 minutes or so, but she was clearly exasperated with a lot of the reparte, and not as quick on her feet. Her performance got worse, and the familiar persona came through. The frustration showed through in her body language and facial expressions. She did not come across as a likeable person for most of the debate and for the closing, though she had a lot of substance and was clearly well-prepared. She came across as a smart aleck at times. Deval had her on the defensive on the Big Dig and state contractors hiring illegal aliens, and he clearly got the better of her. But the Globe feedback poll as of now has Healey just 14 points behind Deval in terms of who respondees think won the debate. She benefits from low expectations, and she got attention for her line about the state house buzz cheering for Patrick this week because they think he will rubber stamp spending.
<
p>
Still this debate doesn’t appreciably change the dynamic. Perceptions are fixed at this point, and people see what they expect to see.
I thought Deval was kind tired and of flat lat night. Perhaps he made too many appearances earlier in the day. I was disappointed in his answer on the tax rollback vote. Why not guess and use that to make your point. Nobody can check how you voted and its clear how you stand.
<
p>
I thought Keller was awful. While he did let the candidates elaborate nobody got to elaborate more than Healey who consistently ran over time and got to rebut the others one by one. Ross was frequently cut off and Mihos was not given much of a chance. Am I mistaken or did Healey get to ask 2 questions at the end while time ran out for everyone else?
<
p>
Mihos had the best closing statement. He talked about why he is the best without mentioning his opponents.
<
p>
While Healey did well her lack of leadership is still glaring. It was always someone elses fault. Whether it is the legislatures or Attorney Generals job the governor is the strategic leader and is responsible for convincing them to work on what is important.. Her claims that Patrick distorted her position while she went on to make exaggerated assertions on his were comical.
<
p>
For me 3 debates is plenty. The candidates are not breaking any new ground.
Even debate junkie that I am I’m not really excited about the next one.
Nothing else that we can learn. But I’ll probably watch it anyway. More to see if Deval can get a good one in on Kerry like the holding money on contracters. Christy, who is good for a comment had a good one yesterday.
<
p>
<
p>
But getting new information, not so much.
I don’t think any reasonable person would now argue the public needs a Patrick/Healey head-to-head debate. The debate was largely between them, and frankly I’ve got debate fatigue. I doubt I’ll watch the last one.
I’m hoping someone here can help me understand Patrick’s linking of state aid and property tax.
<
p>
In each of the last two debates, Patrick said something to the effect that communities will receive an increase in local aid only if they cut the property tax. A few questions:
<
p>
1. Is this a new proposal? I haven’t been able to find this connection between state aid and property tax on his website.
<
p>
2. What percentages/ratios is he thinking about? Better yet, what about dollar amounts?
<
p>
3. Is lowering the property tax the only requirement, or are there others (increasing senior/low-income exemptions, smart growth initiatives, etc.)?
<
p>
TIA
During the past 4 years local aid got massively cut, pressuring towns and cities to raise property taxes – that’s not fiction it’s fact. Restoring local aid will allow for lower property taxes – to what extent that happens will depend on many factors and I agree most of those will not be in Deval Patrick’s control. Something tells me you already understand that much.
<
p>
Too bad you’ll miss out on the celebrations on the night of Nov 7, but I suppose you will have the company of that massive movement you are part of – democrats for Healey. Laugh out loud.
Looking at the data on the DOR/DLS website shows that the average property tax bill has risen at a fairly steady rate (including the last 4 years) for the last quarter century. That is one reason why I do not believe an increase in state aid will lead to a reduction of property tax.
<
p>
It seems to me that Patrick has admitted this as well in the past two debates, and hence the mention of making increased aid conditional on the lowering of property tax rates (not necessarily tax bills, but tax rates).
<
p>
Anyway, would anyone else be able to point me to the answers?
<
p>
Thanks again.