It all started here at BMG a couple of years ago. This site re-ignited my passion for politics and public service. It has led to my active participation here (which will continue throughout the campaign), my founding of OpenMass.org, my appointment to the Democratic State Party’s committee on Public Policy and now my campaign to represent the 35th Middlesex District (Medford and Malden).
I’m running to bring a new kind of leadership to Medford and Malden. I only know one way to do this; be up front about my position on issues, present a clear vision for the future and continue to work towards building a better community.
To learn more about my candidacy see my campaign announcement below and go to www.jimcaralis.com
My Campaign Announcement
Today I am announcing my candidacy for the Democratic nomination to represent the Massachusetts 35th Middlesex District (Medford and Malden) as our State Representative. I was born and raised just down the road in Everett, attended Everett Public Schools, graduated from Northeastern University and have lived in Medford for the last 8 years.
Early in my life I learned from personal experience the power of government to help families in need. I learned from my father the dream of emigrating to the United States, working hard, building a business and raising a family. I learned through hard work and perseverance the value of education and its necessity in achieving the American Dream.
As a candidate I offer up my experience as the founder of a successful software consulting company, founder of a non-profit (OpenMass.org), a member of the State Democratic Committee on Public Policy (appointed by Chairman John Walsh in 2007) and a promise to not shy away from my stand on positions or to run away from the Liberal, yes Liberal values of our party.
As your Representative I will focus on the following issues:
- I will fight for us on Beacon Hill to get the education funding that Medford and Malden deserve and work in our community to help children realize their potential.
- I will fight for us on Beacon Hill to promote government efficiency, accountability and transparency before asking our community to dig further into their pockets.
- I will fight for us on Beacon Hill for quality, affordable health care and work in our community to ensure all our citizens understand and make the best available use of health care options.
- I will fight on Beacon Hill to get the job training funds we need to help all of us through these tough economic times and work in our community to help train adults in the new technologies necessary to compete in today’s economy.
I look forward to working these next 6 months, reaching out to as many people possible, and earning your vote on September 16.
Jim Caralis, Democrat
Candidate for State Representative, 35th Middlesex District
www.jimcaralis.com
There’s already one progressive in this race. Why do we need two? The incumbent is entrenched as it is.
<
p>Makes no sense to me.
Why? I’m guessing Jim thinks he’s the best person for the job.
<
p>Good luck, Jim!
My campaign is about a a new kind of leadership: standing up for what I believe in, being up front about all of my positions and not shying away from the Liberal label.
<
p>BTW – I called Patrick a couple of weeks ago to let him know I was running. We had a good conversation and he was very gracious.
With two people running, we are definitely in for a lot more of the “old style of leadership”.
On Wednesday June 27, Ernie Boch, III asked:
to which one Jim Caralis responded
<
p>Last year in Everett the incumbent mayor was challenged by three other candidates. In that election the incumbent finished third in the primary.
<
p>I believe I’m the best candidate and I can’t sit on the sidelines because someone else declared.
changes your prediction in the first part.
Maybe you’ve just changed your mind.
did you mean “prescient” in reference to yourself? Were you considering running in June of last year? If so how does that mesh with the first sentence?
No slight to Jim, but another challenger effectively hands the race to Donato. Bad idea.
I’m a fan of the OpenMass.org website you created, and you’re a great contributor to the dialogue here.
Only person happy about this news is Paul Donato.
There’s already one great progressive candidate running for this seat, Patrick McCabe. His campaign has already gotten off to a good start, and he continues to gather grassroots progressive support within the community.
At the “there’s already a progressive running,” meme. It strikes me that progressives have always stood for an open and vigorous debate about the issues. With Jim Caralis in, the debate won’t be about just getting basic transparency in government, but about the best way to do so. In other words, it’s not about espousing basic progressive ideas, instead we have an opportunity to debate the best way to implement them. We can have an interesting conversation among progressives about what is best for the district and the state; we don’t have to tear one another down.
…if only we had instant runoff voting. Or if there were some mechanism by which it could be objectively determined which candidate had the lead during the race and there were agreement that the other would drop out in advance of the primary.
<
p>Oh, well. Congratulations to Donato on the split progressive vote. It would have turned out to be a tough race for our side anyway.
But debating is only a small part of what we need. The goal has to be substantive change. And this isn’t the way to get there.
It must be understood that in this largely one-party state, the primary election is often effectively the general election. Having two candidates with very similar platforms gives the third a huge advantage. This was already an uphill struggle for McCabe. Unless one of the candidates drops out, the effort to bring a progressive voice to this district seems almost insurmountable.
Fine with the idealism of many voices at the table, but let’s get real!
about the district. This might be me thinking out loud, but I wonder if it could have the reverse effect. By having two smart, articulate candidates talking about progressive values, maybe that will force the third candidate to move his rhetoric a little?
<
p>For instance why did Donato vote against closing $85 million dollars in corporate loopholes? Or why didn’t he support stem cell research?
It’s not on the site yet, but I do support Stem Cell Research.
<
p>I am the only candidate to state my position on casino gambling (I oppose it). I know Donato has supported racinos, but I haven’t heard his stance on casinos.
<
p>
steven lynch.
that guy just zeros everything.
not that i’ve noticed. but maybe you’re looking at the wrong guy.
Okay, Ideals first. Yes this will cause more debate. Yes people should be able to run. Yes OpenMass.org is neat.
<
p>Okay, now how about some reality. By thowing his hat into the ring Jim Caralis will likely guarantee that Donato will be reelected. I am not saying Jim doesn’t have the right to run. But it’s the same formula — did Nader have the right to run in 2000? Of course. But does that change the fact that without him in the race Gore would have been highly likely to win. Of course not. To Jim Caralis I say this: you are making a choice where the most likely expected result will be reelecting an anti-marriage, anti-choice, anti-stem cell research hack.
<
p>There are perhaps three scenarios where this doesn’t happen, and I personally would advocate that people get together and work to ensure that the third is the one we get…unless Jim decideds that what is most important defeating Donato and decideds not to run.
<
p>Let me be clear, defeating Donato will not be easy for anyone to do. Spliting the progressive vote, even by a little bit will make it nearly impossible. Let’s not forget, that Carl Sciortino defeated Vinnie Ciampa in the district next to this one by a total of 93 votes. These important upsets happen rarely, and generally by thin marginis.
<
p>Okay, scenario one. Caralis and McCabe split the anti-Donato vote. It’s not even clear that the anti-Donato vote is equal to 50% plus one. But if it is, it is highly unlikely to be large enough to break in a way that Donato gets defeated. Result, Donato wins.
<
p>Scenario two. McCabe is not a real candidate and Caralis is, so the anti-Donato voters say “thank goodness we have a candidate who has a chance. Call this the Chang-Diaz scenario. Remember, 2006? Samiyah Diaz annouced a few days before Sonia Chang-Diaz against Dianne Wilkerson. But Chang-Diaz was the real deal and and Samiyah Diaz was a) a Republican and b) not taken seriously. Result was that Chang-Diaz got 44% and Samiyah got less than 2%.
<
p>But Patrick McCabe has already shown himself to be the real deal. He had kickoff with over 100 people last Fall, raised some good seed money 2008, and has been campaigning for many months now. Furthermore he has a core of local activists supporing him and helping organize his campaign. Furthermore, McCabe is not just a strong progressive, he has a background of leadership — West Point, Union Organizer, local activism — that make him just generally a super strong candidate. Conclusion: scenario two just isn’t gonna happen.
<
p>Scenario three: The reverse of scenario two happens. Progressives band together and tell Caralis that he can get his name on the ballot and campaign ’til the cows come home, but we are going to make it perfectly clear to every voter and every activist in Massachusetts that he is the spoiler (which is true) and should not be given support, encouragement, or time. He is the Nader. Of the 35th Middlesex district. Please, if we progressives have even the slightest ability to organize and plan (and if Caralis doesn’t wise up and get out of the race), let us get together and make sure we don’t lose this cause we split the vote.
<
p>It would be great if we had IRV. We don’t. What we have is a test of the progressive community to see if we can show the discipline necessary to win elections in MA.
<
p>On one final note, I have no reason to believe anything other than that Caralis is running because he decided to run — that he was NOT put up by Donato. But when I say, okay, who benefits from this the only person IS Donato. Does someone know if there’s more to this?
<
p>So again, let’s please suspend the “we believe that anyone can run” nonsense and deal with the fact that actions have consequences. Jim Caralis’s actions make far more likely the reelection of Donato. And since they don’t make Jim Caralis more likely to win (chance goes from 0% to 0%), he needs to accept that what he has announced today is a campaign to reelect Paul Donato.
The idea that I would run to spoil a campaign is beyond ludicrous. Even so, I will answer your question directly. No, I am not running a spoiler campaign. Paul Donato did not “put me up to this”. I have had exactly one conversation with him and that was to suggest that our “Tax Holiday” money be directed to help veterans and their families while we are in a time of war. He reminded me that veteran license plate money went to veterans.
<
p>Let me also restate – I called Patrick to tell him I was running over two weeks ago. Is that consistent with running a spoiler campaign?
<
p>I’m not throwing my hat in the ring. I’m throwing everything into this campaign. Leadership roles are not given to those who declare their candidacy first.
You’re making this whole thing too personal, too about you and your motivations. It’s not about your motivations; it’s about consequences.
<
p>This is a question about the legislature and not about your virtue.
<
p>And speaking of the “declaring first”, yes, there are some questions about chronology. By declaring earlier, you might have avoided creating this mess in March. You knew what was going on.
FactCheck questioned my motivation for entering the race. That is personal and I answered it from a personal perspective. Simple as that. I’m in this race to win, that is what I intend to do and this is my final word on the spoiler issue.
Instead of defending your motivations, could you try to come to an agreement with McCabe? A campaign consisting of supporters and donors for both you and him would have a better chance of pushing one of you over the top. Two separate campaigns, spreading thin the resources and energy for such things, won’t be able to do it.
…which is that you are ensuring that Donato gets reelected. Why don’t you justify that, beyond just claiming you are not being put up to it.
<
p>And as far as leadership roles…ha! Leadership roles are not given to ANYONE when supposed progressives split the vote. Patrick McCabe might have been gracious when you talked to him, but I’m not about to be. Whether it is your intent or not, the ONLY thing you’re going to accomplish by running in this race is putting Donato back in office for two more years. Do you really not understand that???
<
p>Or do you feel like coming back with some more Ralph Nader sounding comebacks? You’re a spoiler whether you intend it, or understand it, or admit it.
and I’m sick of the “pigpile on the rabbit” because someone dares challenge your precious little candidate. Why not let the best man win? What the hell are you afraid of? Why not give the voters a real choice instead of YOU DECIDING WHO THEIR CHOICES SHOULD BE?
<
p>God almighty. Talk about hubris!
You’re taking it personally too. Now, we’re being “mean” and you have to “defend” Jim against the “bullies”. Jim’s a fine guy who has done great things.
<
p>Why isn’t this a question for you of progressive strategy?
After witnessing that verbal foodfight, KB, it would be hard for Jim not to take it personally, not after his motivations were so openly questioned. Really – that was quite a little tirade. As for me, maybe I am responding personally, because the O-factor (obnoxious) is going up significantly. I’ve work for people I like (Democrats all), and I don’t let the goofy labels get in the way. I happened to like Josh O’Brien a lot, and thought he could do a lot of good in Somerville/Medford, but I didn’t support him over the “he’s more progressive than that guy” label. I just thought Vinnie was a backbencher, a do nothing kind of guy who hadn’t done anything for the greater good – and he needed to retire. I’m not sure what the issues are with Mr. Donato, but I will always feel that competition is good and that it keeps people on their toes.
<
p>All that aside – instead of pelting Mr. Caralis with a barrage of ill chosen and angry verbiage…the more effective and polite way to “check him out” would be to invite him for coffee and chat with him. Perhaps an understanding could be reached? But guys like Factcheck just burn bridges and practically guarantee an opposition with the heels dug in.
<
p>
So you say you don’t know what the issues are with Mr. Donato? Let me bring you up to speed. Since being reelected 16 months ago, he has
<
p>-voted AGAINST making emergency contraception, ie ‘plan B’, available over the counter at pharmacies.
<
p>-voted AGAINST the buffer zone law, which protects patients and staff at woman’s health clinics from physical harassment by protesters.
<
p>-voted FOR sending the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman to the voters
<
p>-voted AGAINST closing corporate tax loopholes that major multinational corporations are using to get out of paying their fair share and shifting the burden to the rest of us
<
p>-voted AGAINST the Governor’s proposed Municipal Partnership Act, which would have provided significant property tax relief to MA homeowners by giving towns and cities the right to levy hotel and restaurant meals taxes, if they so chose.
<
p>I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Donato has a TERRIBLE record on our issues; he has to go.
<
p>Moreover, his district, the 35th Middlesex in Medford and part of Malden, is one of the 2 or 3 most progressive districts in the state currently held by a DINO. Therefore, it should be one of our best pick-up opportunities this cycle, assuming we (the progressive movement in MA) field a first-class candidate and work our butts of for him or her.
<
p>When McCabe declared last summer, it looked like all the pieces were falling into place; he is a true progressive, as well as a war hero, his campaign has taken off, and he seems to have as good a shot at knocking off Donato.
<
p>A third person in this race could jeapardize that. That’s the reality- there’s no way around it.
<
p>If we are serious about replacing Donato with a Representative who will go to bat for the reproductive rights of women, the legal rights of LGBT citizens, and get serious about the crisis that is municipal finance in this state, we’ve got to unite behind ONE challenger. I’d prefer that challenger to be Patrick McCabe, but if Jim were that candidate I’d get behind him.
<
p>This seat should be OURS this cycle. Instead of fighting each other, I say let’s do this right.
No. That’s not how politics works. The whole primary should be teaching people how not to behave…because you may need these people at some point. We should be in the business of making friends, not frenemies. The bombast against Mr. Caralis was sophomoric and unnecessary.
<
p>Now – let’s look at this. I’ll agree, Donato’s not really my cup of tea either, but if this is, in fact, “one of 2 or 3 most progressive” districts – how did Donato get elected? The reason I ask is that I’ve lived in Malden and my husband’s family is from Malden; I’ve seen the same folk on the Democratic Committee over there for years. I’ve also got family in Medford, over by Tufts. Neither Medford or Malden would ever be confused with Cambridge. I don’t know how you’ve ID’d your vote, but I know this area pretty well. You’ve got a fair number of older, Italian and Irish families in both cities, a longstanding African American population in West Medford, and a rising number of immigrants, who either don’t vote, or vote less than progressively. Michael McGlynn has been the mayor over there for decades, so it’s not exactly a hotbed of insurgence. So this begs the question – how did you ID the vote to ascertain the progressiveness of the area?
<
p>Just one more thing; no one is entitled to this seat. It isn’t “ours.” It will go to whomever the people choose. Your job is to package the message appropriately and getting into a foodfight is no way to start.
…but if I’ve overlooked something, I apologize.
<
p>By your putting ‘problem’ in quotation marks, I see that you either don’t share my sense of urgency in replacing Rep. Donato with someone with a more left-leaning political orientation, or you don’t see a three-person race as more uphill than a two-person one. Either way, I respect that, but also respectfully disagree.
<
p>Notice I didn’t say that 35th Middlesex was one of the two or three most progressive districts in the state, as you misquote me. What I actually said was that the 35th is one of the most progressive districts WITHOUT progressive representation. There are not many districts that I am aware of where the politics of the constituency are so out of whack with those of their elected representative on Beacon Hill (though Paul Casey in Winchester and Sen. Scott Brown in Needham also come to mind).
<
p>You ask, how did Donato get elected if he is so much more conservative than the district? Easy. Donato was elected a long time ago, and the district has changed. Donato became Rep in 2000, but he’s served a long career in Medford politics, lasting three decades. I believe he started out in ’76 with the school committee and worked his way up through city council, council presidency, and finally became mayor. So the answer I’d give you is 1) When Donato ran for rep, he’d built up a tremendous amount of loyalty through is long career in public service. That loyalty is now being tested because of his obnoxious votes. And 2) The district has changed demographically since Donato was elected. See: Vinnie Ciampa and Carl Sciortino. Somerville used to look a lot like Medford; now it has more in common with Cambridge. Ditto for Arlington. Medford and Malden surely haven’t changed as much as either of these two communities over the past few years, but, slowly, they are changing, too. Though I don’t live in the district, I have a number of friends in the area who, like me, are students and young professionals. The answer to your question is, I got my knowledge of these communities the same way you have: personal experience.
<
p>Lastly, I don’t remember being part of a food fight, but I won’t argue the point with you. What I will say is this: By saying the 35th is “ours”, I mean shame on us, the MA progressives, if we are unable to make a strong run at a seat where the demographics are so favorable to us. But I think you know that, too.
<
p>I plan on making every effort to see that the 35th gets a new representative next January who’s politics are not only more in line with my own, but more in line with what I understand to be those of the people of Medford and Malden. I hope you’ll join me.
<
p>Do you really find that question all that difficult to answer? The power of incumbency is powerful indeed. He’s been in office for nearly ten years. A lot’s changed since then. The state’s gone much further to the left on everything from glbt rights to even reproductive rights. The power of the church has sharply declined. We’ve elected a new Governor, who came in as an unabashed progressive (what’s happened since then is a different story, but it does go to show how much this state has change in the after math of Mitt Romney, and the Church’s sexual abuse scandal.
<
p>
<
p>Unfortunately, that’s just not the case. A 3 way race often, probably even usually, results in numbers that don’t reflect the will of the people – 50% + 1 voter. If McCabe and Caralis split the vote, losing the election, but still got more votes combined than Donato, it reflects an election where the will of the voters were perhaps denied. That’s what KBush, FactCheck and DaveS have been trying to say. And they’re right. We unfortunately don’t have instant runoff, or any other system to enforce the person who wins a race actually got a majority of the population’s support. So, in light of that, we have to carefully consider who we’re going to support being in a race, as well as who we’ll vote for, because there’s a lot at stake here and, sadly, political races can be very complicated for the average voter.
The question is why did he decide to vote Yes at the concon? Do you think it was just his own conviction, in spite of his constituents? Or did he gauge that his constituents were strongly anti-gay marriage? If that’s the case, then, unless things have changed enough since then (and they certainly might have, no doubt many of you have moved there just to vote him out), then maybe McCabe would be too associated with the gays running his campaign (who are those mysterious people you met, David? Spill the beans, what’s their deal?). If he’s seen as a tool of the gay activists, inserted in the race at their behest (smart of them to pick a straight guy) to knock off the much-loved former mayor, he might be doomed. Maybe Caralis won’t be tarred like that, he might benefit from that “not-supported-by-gay-activists” bump, and actually have a shot at getting enough of the Donato vote plus his half of the progressive vote to win.
you’re that egg and sperm guy, aren’t you? Just admit it.
<
p>And, if you are, please remember you were already banned once.
<
p>There’s no gay conspiracy going on; that’s lunatic talk, and it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with this race. I don’t know any of ‘teh gays’ who are running the shots behind McCabe’s campaign, so get off that rocker please.
<
p>Why do I think Donato voted against equality at the ConCon? Because he’s an old fart and a homophobe, who knew he had the protection of incumbency and thinks mightily high of himself. That simple enough for you?
It comes down to how strong that old fart constituency really is there. My point is that the wrong candidate might galvinize them, the right one (Mr. Caralis) might charm them.
<
p>I read somewhere here that McCabe was as the last concon, and not many people that weren’t deeply involved were.
<
p>And my understanding is that that topic was banned here because of the inglorious behavior that it caused, and maybe being brought up too often. We (“they”) have hopefully successfully avoided repeating those mistakes anew, as hard as it is for us to contribute to the blackout of the issue. Btw, since people seem to find them amusing, here’s the latest, at Ed Brayton’s blog. That’s all we have to say about that.
have you lost your mind? oh wait… never mind. Why I’m even bothering to respond at this point, I don’t know, but it’s important that people realize your warped sense of reality and, excuse me for being rude, barely-lucid insanity. Also, this goes to show that just ignoring trolls, and concern trolls, doesn’t mean they’ll go away – you’ve been gone from BMG for months, banned for what I thought was for good, and found your way back. Sadly.
<
p>But, anyway… The extent to which McCabe comments on marriage equality on his website:
<
p>
<
p>He has literally one word about equality on his entire website, and the word “marriage” isn’t even in it. Clearly, he’s the crazy, gay-loving candidate of the bunch, and thus why we need Jim Caralis to save us from him. Ahh!!!
<
p>Oh, wait, Jim’s comments on the matter are even more extensive.
<
p>
<
p>Oops. He must be one of them crazy, gay-supporting heterosexuals, gondammit.
<
p>Also, for your information, a great many people who cared about equality – and weren’t particularly linked to it (gay, friends of many gay people, etc.) showed up to the last ConCon. At one point, the number probably measured over 50% of the entire pro-equality crowd, when these wonderful and almost entirely straight group people marched, and sang, for what was right. You’d miss that, though, because you’d probably just assume they were all stricken by Teh Gay, because only dem gays congregate together and think they deserve rights and stuff.
<
p>Most sane, rational people realize that when inequality exists in this world, it effects everyone and makes everyone less free. But, as I’ve said before, you’re neither quite sane nor rational, as you’ve established quite clearly in the past (before you were banned)… so I’m not going to waste any more words on your homophobia, or the ways it seemingly finds its way into posts that have absolutely nothing to do with glbt rights.
<
p>
The facts will be out there soon enough.
against the sentiment of his constituents. How do I know? The phone calls and letters to his office were something like 4 or 5 to 1 in favor of equal marriage. Politicians, in my experience, only do that very, very rarely.
<
p>Why did he vote yes? Let him tell you himself. Donato was interviewed by NECN the day before the final constitutional convention in June, right after having been called into the Governor’s office for a one-on-one chat.
<
p>Donato said “I’m not changing my position, I’m going to vote for what I think is right, even if it costs me my political career.” On live television. The man’s either got serious guts, or thinks he’s totally invulnerable.
<
p>I’m hoping that if it’s the second, he’ll be proved wrong in September.
<
p>
full disclosure- I have supported Patrick McCabe ever since I first met him during the marriage equality struggle, and I attended his campaign kickoff this past summer. I plan on volunteering for his campaign as the race heats up.
Oh, here’s where I read that he arose out of the marriage equality struggle. What was his role, davesoko?
was involved in grassroots efforts in Medford trying to convince Rep. Donato to switch his vote before the last constitutional convention. Why do you ask?
What was his connection, what was his motivation, who was he working with, who did he connect with, who was his friend, who became his friend, why did he care enough to get involved?
<
p>I ask because I want to know who he will be beholden to if he’s elected.
that there are more than a few scenarios that create situations where the best man – or person – doesn’t win. Situations where splitting the vote happens is real, and I can think of several national and local situations in which they happened. Gore losing. Stephen Lynch winning… even local school committee races. I just wonder if there can’t be some sort of compromise situation – McCabe runs first, then if he doesn’t win, Caralis runs in two years? That would be good, too, so Jim could spend this time beefing up his resume (which, no offense, is a bit weak – the netroots stuff, I swear, turns off even more voters than it turns on, and it’s the only major thing Jim’s done). Unlike the other major situations that cause the best candidate to lose – ie Swiftboating – this is one of the situations where we, as progressives, grasp the jaws of defeat from victory, or however that slogan goes. It hurts our reputation as a movement, and of course it means we elect less progressives to seats where they can make a difference.
<
p>I would never tell Jim to get out of the race, because I do believe anyone should be able to run, but there are consequences to our actions and one of them here, if we end up losing to Donoto in this race, is the fact that the progressive community in that district and beyond will be very angry – and it would certainly hurt Jim’s ability to run, and win, in the future, should McCabe lose. Again, I’m not telling Jim to drop out, in fact I already wished him luck (and only engaged in this discussion because the conversation’s been extended beyond where I thought it would be)… I just have to admit that I think it likely that if two progressives run, even if one of them gets less than 10% of the vote, it will cause us to lose to Donoto, which is unacceptable.
you can even use instant run-off voting in case a few more progressives announce. Then the winner of the progressive primary can go against Donato in the Dem primary. I bet it would get 100% turnout if you held it at McCabe’s house again.
My apologies for the lack of warm and fuzzy messages emanating from this blog. Some folks aren’t terribly polite, Jim, which the last time I checked, never cost a dime.
<
p>As someone who has worked on insurgent campaigns in this area of MA – let me say “thanks” for running and may the best man win. I worked for Josh, back in the day, when he tried to beat Mr. Ciampa. We didn’t win – but that was then, and this is now.
<
p>I think dynamics can change dramatically from year to year. With the dramatic increases in property taxes (and very incremental changes in unrestricted local aid, post 9C cuts in 2003)you may find people open to listening. I think your family is much like many in the area – self-made. Your father built his family-run business the hard way. There’s a great “bootstraps” story there. I think you can connect with the voters on bread and butter issues – because that’s the message right now. The Governor’s budget flatlined unrestricted local aid – there were no favors in there for homeowners. If you hit these doorbells with a bread and butter message – with the others touting their “progressive” credentials – you could win this thing right out from under them. It’s happened before and it can happen again.
<
p>Good luck. 🙂 I wish you well.
<
p>
don’t run on bread and butter issues? What issues do progressives in Massachusetts run on that fall outside of the bread and butter category? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
Why don’t you ask Jim if he’s running as one of these “progressives”. My guess is that he’ll surprise you. If Jim isn’t running as one, then we have no story here.
As Ryan said, we are all free to run for office; however, we are all also responsible for the consequences of our actions. If, by Jim’s running, we lose our best chance to unseat a decidedly unprogressive rep., then he bears responsibility for that. I doubt that he can honestly say that both he and Patrick can run in this district without negatively impacting the other. That’s the point; it’s ultimately a question of honesty.
You’re kidding me, right? This young man pulls papers to run, makes an announcement and then some of you respond as though he was polluting the Charles, corrupting America’s youth and forcing Burger King to stop making Whoppers.
<
p>And I have a chip on my shoulder?
<
p>Rather than cast aspersions on Jim’s motivations or give him the progressive’s test (what it is, a secret handshake or something?) why not bloody talk to him yourself instead of absolutely insuring that you will have a motivated and pissed off opponent. And I might add, the sense of entitlement is just mind-blowing. That’s the kicker out of this whole conversation.
<
p>I’ve just witness a three-way race in which the incumbent lost badly. It can happen. Three ways or more, changes the dynamics. But the hyper over-response makes it look like you’re afraid to compete.
have no concerns about Jim’s “progressive credentials” or motivations.
<
p>What does concern me is the fact that in no uncertain terms Donato wins a 3-way race. Period.
<
p>We’d all do better to focus on that fact and figure out the best way to overcome it than to question each others motives and half-smear those willing to put themselves on the chopping block of a public campaign.
<
p>That being said, Jim and his supporters need to understand that their reception is vastly different that if there were not already a declared, running, progressive challenger to Donato. For those of us who want to see a progressive in this seat, Jim’s announcement does not raise our hope of achieving this shared goal.
Was it Campaign Obama that leaked that pseudo-Clinton memo to the press, or Campaign Clinton that was mistakenly overheard commenting about “coughing up another whopper, gagging on another gaffe”?
<
p>not trying to make light of the important conversation going on here, but when i get to the eleventy-seventh iteration of the same set of arguments, i either have to make a joke or turn off the computer and get a life. hmmm, maybe for variety, i’ll do both. i’ll let you all debate the order in which i accomplished these actions. 😉
…so without knowing the district at all, I expect that the claim that the incumbent wins a 3-way race is solid. The incumbent’s family, in-laws, close friends and business partners probably get him close to 50%. Not like a state-wide or national race, where (as said above) a third entrant can realistically change the dynamic.
<
p>Jim, I talked to you about the Iraq war at a blogger event a year or so ago and I liked your responsible viewpoint. I wish you good luck in your endeavors, and I hope you will more carefully examine and/or communicate why you have chosen this time and place to make your move.
This is what you get, this is what you get, when you mess with us.
First let me say thanks to those that have passed along kind thoughts today. To those that are concerned about my entrance into the race, you may not believe it, but I understand your concern. However, I believe that I have can win and we are going to work as hard as possible over the next six months to make this happen.
<
p>I’m taking this race very, very seriously but as many of you know I do have a sense of humor. So, I’m just wondering when the repbublicansforcaralis site goes up. Kerry and Mitt, this is your chance!
The last time Donato had a primary challenger was in 2000, which was the year he was first elected to the seat. In that primary, there was only a 50-vote difference between Donato and John Carey.
<
p>John Carey later ran as an Independent in 2004 and got 34% of the vote with practically no campaigning. Donato does better in general elections because he may draw Republican support based on some of his conservative views.
<
p>As of yesterday morning, I was looking forward to a Democratic primary that would provide a great opportunity to unseat Donato because:
<
p>1. The demographics of the district have changed.
<
p>2. The progressive activists in the district (most supporting McCabe) have found each other and are now involved in the local Democratic ward and city committees.
<
p>3. The progressive activists in the district have had some campaign success (Carl Sciortino, Pat Jehlen and Deval Patrick).
<
p>4. McCabe is a progressive candidate with a military and labor background that may help him connect with “blue dog” Democrats.
<
p>5. McCabe, his wife and the progressive activists working on his campaign are well-connected to the community through involvement in non-political organizations.
<
p>If Archie (James) is a true progressive, where the heck has he been? We could have used his help on a few campaigns!
“Mike in Medford” – from what it sounds like you and Patrick are active members of the community and good friends. But to say that Jim has been missing in action does a disservice to you and to the people that Jim has helped write resumes for, the people that have learned new skills to help them get a better job (which I am one that he helped), to the many people that now have access to information on what’s going on at the state house and within their communities. If you looked at his website, you would see that the Chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party thought highly enough of Jim to appoint him to the public policy committee and the week dig named him a Good Bostonian for his work in the community.
<
p>This dog as they say will not hunt. I’m sure you will use this post to launch yet another attack. While you are doing that I will be helping Jim campaign door to door.
Yes, Patrick and his wife are very involved in the community. And yes, Patrick and I are now what I would consider good friends.
<
p>I’m merely saying that Jim has been missing on the local campaign trail, and I question his commitment to progressive values.
<
p>By the way, I have looked at Jim’s Web site (and continue to do so quite often) and think it provides a great service.
I notice that you just joined.