Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Chang-Diaz Chases, Wilkerson Hides

By

Wilkerson nearly did lose it two years ago. She didn't bother to get the 300 signatures for a spot on the ballot. She ended up in a messy sticker campaign, which Chang-Diaz nearly won.

That's one lesson finally learned. This year, Wilkerson's campaign turned in 10 times the required sigs. “I wanted to dispel any notion as early in the process as possible of just how serious I am about this race,” she said in atoning for last time.

This race fascinates me. We had Chang-Diaz on for a podcast at Left Ahead! two months ago. The rematch is well worth watching for several reasons.

 

Sonia Who?

Last time, 15-year Senator Wilkerson was deeply established while Chang-Diaz was a school teacher who seemed to appear suddenly. Sonia's strong challenge made her background and her positions much better known. Now she comes in as the smart, knock-out Latina who almost beat the old hand.

She (and her campaigners including her mom) still have to ring every bell in the geographically large district, but she is much more of a known quantity.

 

Rascal Queen

This race is clean as old v. new. Both candidates have strong liberal to progressive goals and platforms. Wilkerson has a big advantage in bringing in projects with money for the district for years. Chang-Diaz says you can get all that without the scandal and ethics problems.

The question comes whether voters who have paid attention want to wink at yet another unethical Boston pol, as long as she delivers the goods. This devil-we-know answer could well be yes. However, no one can say the choice wasn't plain.

Chang-Diaz is going to have to convince enough voters that she can also deliver. She doesn't have Wilkerson's record. Then again, she doesn't have Wilkerson's scandals on record either.

From my perspective, I just wonder how long it would take Chang-Diaz to mesh with the senate and administration to become effective in the way Wilkerson has.

 

Rope-a-dope

Wilkerson knows she holds the seat firmly. Her non-campaign reflects that brightly.

Her website is from the past election. The only other presence so far is her stolid legislator page. Even on her campaign site, she plays it very safe — no issues, no apologies, no promises. She stresses only the cash she's brought in.

In contrast, Chang-Diaz has a fully formed site. She defines her positions, in no small part because she can't do the I-delivered-the-bacon list. She told us at Left Ahead! that she'd bring the battle of ideas to Wilkerson and continue to flesh out the issues with more and more specifics until the senator has to respond.

 

Affinity Program

Then there's the sometimes whispered and sometimes shouted racial issue. Wilkerson and her supporters are not shy about blowing the race trumpet. That's been a safe bet for years. Many precincts are heavy with black voters, who have come out in greater percentages for Wilkerson than other voters have for opponents. They likely accounted for the 767-vote difference last time.

As the Globe reported on this aspect:

“That's an extra dynamic for many people in the African-American community that this is our only African-American Senate seat,” said political consultant Joyce Ferriabough. “It plays heavily when Roxbury and Mattapan come out super-deep for Dianne.”

At the moment, Wilkerson is the only black state sentator here. If the opponent were a pasty-faced Brahmin, that might be a more powerful election argument than against a Latina in a city with a large and growing Hispanic population. Chang-Diaz has shown no inclination to stress her Hispanic and Asian roots or pit Latinos against blacks. Wilkerson may do that for her.

Both are liberals. Both are women. We'll find out this time how effectively Wilkerson can play her race again or whether she relies heavily on her delivery tab.

Even though she a generation apart from the stereotypical Boston pols, Wilkerson shares many of their traits. It may be that she can still pull the wink, wink, I may be shady, but I'm one of you act. We've seen that here for many decades from others of different cultures and races. It has often worked.

Chang-Diaz portrays herself as a stronger populist and a reformer. There's bit of subtlety to the contest, but it's a test for the voters.

Cross-Post Note:  This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. any notable changes in their endorsement lists since last time.  just curious whether that might signal a general mood change regarding ‘old’ support for wilkerson.

    • So far, no one is rushing forward. Yesterday, the Ward 5 Democratic Committee endorsed Wilkerson. She got two votes over the two-thirds needed for that.

      <

      p>There are other wards to decide. More important, neither candidate can count on these small groups of local party insiders having much of an impact.

      <

      p>The city and state politicians haven’t spoken up.  

    • In this race, Wilkerson is going to get most of the institutional support. She’s the incumbent, and her voting and accomplishment records ensure that her colleagues and the big advocacy groups will stand with her.

      <

      p>It’s not so much about which candidate they like better personally, but rather not being willing/able to oppose someone who’s stuck her neck out on behalf of you and your friends in the past.

      <

      p>Is it right? Not always. But the power of incumbency is strong, largely because it gives you a record that you can take back to those who you want support from and remind them of what you’ve done for them. Chang-Diaz can say she’s just as good on the issues (and as far as I know, she is), but it doesn’t carry as much weight as a record.

    • Dianne Wilkerson is really a white, upper class woman living in California?  

      <

      p>Ah! Wait.  Clearly they’re not the same.  Here’s the dead giveaway, the woman in Califoria says “…her  goal is to meet your expectations with the highest integrity.”

      <

      p>Looks like the domain owner subbed out pages to two Dianne Wilkersons, no?

      • It looks like another slip by DW. A domain machine, dynadot.com, took this in July 2007.

        <

        p>I’m betting Wilkerson’s crack offices ignored registration renewals and the domain lapsed. The realtor could snatch it up; I bet she was on a waiting list.

        <

        p>I’m also betting that she doesn’t know the senator is hanging off her domain, probably through the old DW site server. The realty woman resolves to 72.34.160.23.

        <

        p>Someone buy our senator a clock and a calendar!

  3. And now the South End News reports that only 428 of those Wilkerson sigs were certified as real.

    <

    p>If there were enough good ones, why fake thousands of other?

    <

    p>Ethics? We don’t got no ethics! We don’t need to show you no stinkin’ ethics!

    <

    p>It’s like she wants people to mistrust her.

    <

    p>By the bye, Chang-Diaz turned in 427, without the fake ones. Each only needed 300.

    • Don’t raise the ethics flag just yet.  Sigs are ruled invalid for all kinds of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were fake.

      • No one needs to raise an ethics-issues flag with her. Hers have been flying for many years. Whether it is incompetence or stupidity or carelessness makes little difference. She’s been on the wrong side of personal and political ethical and legal issues for so long that she should prove herself. There’s too much baggage to assume she’s honest.

        <

        p>Oddly and to this current question, many of her supporters don’t care. Her delivering liberal concerns can be plenty for many. The question in this election then boils down to whether voters want to take a chance on Chang-Diaz, a chance that they can get the same or better representation from someone who does not have the moral and ethical shortcomings.

        <

        p>It’s tough for Sonia. Dianne has a lot of pots of money she’s moved to the community for 15 years. The ethics issue is abstract in that context.  

    • The city is legally allowed to stop certifying signatures as soon as they reach 420 (140% of those required to qualify).  The remaining signatures are not “fake” — they are simply uncertified because they were not necessary.

      • Here and at Universal Hub, this has gotten kicked around. Apparently, we’ll never know how many of 3,000 were real. It really doesn’t make such difference. There’s no incentive for anyone to spend time and effort finding out.

        <

        p>I’m still fascinated with how and why DW’s folk turned in that many, real or otherwise.

        <

        p>–fear of failure after the near loss two years ago?
        –needing to set the tone after not bothering to get sigs last time?
        –a renewed effort with new campaign staff?

        <

        p>Given her history of cruising through campaigns, I suspect she wants to do at least the minimum this time, but not much more.

        <

        p>Maybe if she pops her head out and makes a few public statements, we’d know. …representative of her constituents and all that.

        <

        p>On the other hand, her previous strategy seems to have been to avoid public comment and debate, relying on just, “Look at my bacon.” That’s worked.

      • Well, that’s very interesting then, that they chose to certify 8 more than they had to. Was it just so that Wilkerson would officially have one more signature than Chang-Diaz?

        • I’m left wondering whether she’s overcompensating or whether she’s really beefed up her usual asthenic campaign group. I bet it is the first.

          <

          p>Sonia told us she was wired, ready and taking the battle to Dianne. If both sides are ready to rumble, this could be a good one. It could even smack of a mini and local version of Hillary and Barack — to lefties, machine v. newbie, differentiating similar platforms. I’d dig that.

Archives