There are two big winners in the fundraising derby, it seems to me. This is in today’s Globe:
With 68 days remaining before the primary, [Martha] Coakley’s campaign, by 8 last night, had tallied more than $2 million for the month of September. Campaign officials said they could not yet break down how much of what they raised was for the Dec. 8 Democratic primary and how much was for the general election, on Jan. 19. They also did not disclose how much money the campaign has on hand.
$2 million in a month. Not bad at all — and, as the Globe says, that kind of fundraising “helps neutralize what was seen as perhaps her biggest vulnerability.”
Surprisingly, Alan Khazei is the other big winner — this via email (the Globe didn’t have this for some reason):
The Citizens for Alan Khazei campaign announced today that it raised more than $1 million. Khazei, who raised more than $1 million without taking a dime from PAC and lobbyist money, challenged the other candidates to join him in refusing to take PAC and lobbyist money.
A million bucks in a week. Pretty darn good, and IMHO enough for folks initially willing to write off Khazei as a curiosity to give him a second look.
Here’s the Globe on where Capuano stands:
US Representative Michael E. Capuano of Somerville, who had $1.2 million in his federal campaign account as of July – has raised more than $300,000 in the past two weeks and has $1.1 million left in his account, his campaign said yesterday.
So, unless Coakley has been spending at a truly epic rate, it would seem that whatever financial advantage Capuano started out with is pretty much gone.
Steve Pagliuca’s fundraising numbers are modest (about $200,000, per the Globe), but of course his massive personal wealth makes that a non-issue.
Meanwhile, Scott Brown’s campaign “said it had raised $154,525 since Sept. 12 and has $136,000 remaining.” That’s … nice. Of course, they should save a few bucks by having pulled the Newsmax ad. đŸ˜‰
Go Alan Khazei! I’ve been rooting for him from the start but wasn’t sure how strong his fundraising was going to be, which could have really crippled his campaign. People who wrote him off initially should watch out, Khazei may not been known by everyone, but the vast majority of people who know him love him, and I don’t think the same could be said for anyone else in this race.
<
p>Also Khazei’s stance on campaign finance reforms, and the fact that he is committed to living by that standard even though his opponents won’t, is a true show of the character of Khazei. It’s one thing to talk about how you would like the laws to be, its another thing to live that way, even if you are not legally bound to. We need more people like Khazei in all levels of politics.
You know the small things, like health care, education, the economy, the war… It’s great that he’s committed to only raising clean money and I admire his service record, but I absolutely refuse to vote for someone who won’t say where he stands on the major issues of the day.
need to do better on this point. The websites for Khazei and Capuano seem to completely lack an “issues” page. Coakley and Pagliuca are doing much better.
to Western Massachusetts.
Do they have to go much west of Worcester? Do they have to go west of Springfield?
<
p>People vote, not empty fields or forests. It’s certainly true that a Senator must represent all citizens, and that campaigning out there might be worth it if other candidates fail to get face time. Still, if I’m running for POTUS and both NH and FL are tossups, I’m not spending much time in NH, knowhatImean?
There you go again, getting all practical.
And Massachusetts is hardly the United States of America. I’m not going to expend my effort to knock on doors and plant lawn signs if I don’t see the effort coming from the candidate I’m choosing to support. If the candidate I am choosing to support cannot find the energy to come and introduce himself* to our area, perhaps he has no desire to represent rural Massachusetts.
<
p>*no need to debate the him/her thing again. I am supporting Mike Capuano, and that’s why I used a gender specific pronoun.
The candidate for STATE senator that doesn’t think the entire state matters – because votes are all that matters, isn’t someone I want as my senator. When folks from western mass criticize folks from eastern mass for being stuck up and full of themselves, this post is exactly what they’re talking about.
<
p>The truth is, the problems of Worcester, Springfield and Pittsfield, three cities in desperate need of a regional economic development plan backed by federal dollars are some of the most striking problems facing Massachusetts today and need to be front and center for our Senator. The issues confronting the rural population of our state, from how to pay for schools in a small community, access to healthcare, farm policy and tourism are critical issues for the entire state.
<
p>I’ve had breakfast in Northampton, Thanksgiving lunch in Springfield, Thanksgiving dinner in Hudson and lay my head in Brighton that night, so yes, they have to go farther west than Springfield. Thanks for this post L&LL, any candidate that ignores western mass doesn’t get my vote.
Berkshire county is in the Albany, NY Media market, so they will not be seeing your TV ads. The only way to introduce yourself to those voters is to go there in person. I mean obviously you don’t want to spend all your time there, since it is only a fraction of the state, but it is a region where retail politics matter and ignoring it would seem unwise.
West of Springfield is about 6% of the state’s population. West of Worcester is 16%. In a four way election those numbers are not insubstantial. Ignore those folks and their interests at your peril.
By “W of Springfield” do you mean “W of Springfield” or “Springfield and W”? I’m not playing gotcha, I just don’t know the answer.
<
p>And since we’re not binary, I certainly wouldn’t advocate to never go to Worcester or West — rather, to spend an amount of time commensurate with the number of voters and/or fund raising opportunities, not the number of acres. Don’t get caught up in this “visit every town” crap.
For Springfield, I took the Connecticut river as the dividing line.
<
p>For Worcester it was a bit more arbitrary, but it did not include Worcester itself and it did not include Fitchburg or other cities in the Nashoba Valley.
He hit the Westfield and Agawam Town Committee breakfasts and had open events in Northampton and Springfield. Seems like a pretty thorough Western MA swing to me.
<
p>In fact, Mike sat down with a number of people and spoke to them about a variety of topics ranging from Health Care to Afghanistan, everyone was thoroughly impressed with his positions, and even more impressed that he took the time not only to talk about his positions, but listen to the input of each individual as they spoke to him.
Didn’t hear a thing about it. Slipped under the radar here and here.
<
p>Is he sending out press releases about his visits? Are his press releases being ignored by our local media? If they are, he needs to at least send out a bulk email stating what his campaign schedule is. That way, those of us who are supporting him can stir up some local interest and raise awareness. When candidates come to Western MA, it is a big deal. Whenever they come, they need to use every available tool to make the most of it.
<
p>I agree that Capuano seems to be the candidate most in touch with the people he represents. He seems to care about who his constituents are, and what matters to them. Hopefully, the next time he comes to the area, we’ll have advanced notice and can send the word out through our own networks.
All she does is state vague generalities. Not very impressive. Where does she stand on the health care public option? She does not mention the crisis of climate change. She says nothing about foreign policy. On the economy, she says “we must tackle the economic crisis head on and to take all necessary steps to get people back to work.” What steps are those?
<
p>Unfortunately this is typical of her campaign so far.
<
p>Capuano, OTOH, has made his positions clear through his votes in Congress.
So Capuano won’t say what he will do, just what has done. Vote for me for Senator for the last six years?
<
p>Deval and Obama got by with platitutdes and catch-phrases during debates and speeches…but they had policy papers on their websites for those interested. I think a lot more people voted based on the first category than the second, but at least you had a choice.
<
p>Senate candidates (especially Khazei, who has ardent support despite refusing to articulate policy preferences on significant issues) seem to have forgotten that approach requires both categories. So far, I’m not seeing policy papers (more than one line) from any of these candidates.
that a candidate’s actual record on the issues is more important than promises made during the campaign. In the case of Obama, his record included an incredibly insightful statement in 2002 opposing the Iraq War. In the case of Capuano, it includes votes against the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and most recently against defunding ACORN (until the investigation is complete). It also includes real leadership on several issues. See his “About Mike” page (http://www.mikecapuano.com/index.php?/pages/bio) which also spells out his positions on issues.
<
p>This shows that Capuano has the values that I, as a liberal Democrat, cherish.
<
p>Are you saying that Mike is suddenly going to reverse these positions that he has consistently held, once he is elected to the Senate?
I agree with you quite frankly, that what somebody does (not says, to use your Obama example) is a good indicator of the future. I’m just surprised that he doesn’t feel inclined to mention any goals for the next six years.
<
p>I don’t think Capuano will stop being a liberal, but I am curious what he thinks a liberal should do to approach the issues that lie ahead, not just behind.
The recent past of Mr. Capuano is aggressive, enthusiastic, and well-directed leadership on high-priority issues of substance.
<
p>The recent past of Ms. Coakley is … cue sounds of birds and crickets
<
p>A city government that has flagrantly violated state law regarding electronic communications for years — and Ms. Coakley can’t find anything worth pursuing. The same city government “loses” emails directly relevant to an active FBI corruption case — and the sitting Attorney General doesn’t do anything. A legislature awash in corruption — and silence from Martha Coakley (oh, I forgot, she did manage to indict Richard Vitale — taking care to avoid too much embarrassment to Sal DiMasi). Police, fire, and transit workers stealing of millions of dollars in brazenly fraudulent disability, pension, and retirement scams — and the minimum possible action from the Attorney General.
<
p>I don’t care what policy papers, platitudes, or catch-phrases Martha Coakley publishes, she’s already demonstrated to my satisfaction that she is far too little concerned about actually doing the job she was elected to, and far too much concerned about buffing her creds with Democratic party brass (regardless of how corrupt or inept they are). In my view, she joins Tom Reilly in demonstrating through her non-performance as Attorney General her unsuitability for higher elected office. I trust that in making that association, I also moot the gender card that she is apparently now trying to play.
<
p>I don’t need to read a policy paper from Mike Capuano, his record, demeanor, and public posture communicate more than enough to convince me that he is the best candidate of the field for our next Senator.
Hmm. Not really fair, I think. If you click through her generic issues page to specific issues (e.g., the “Equal Rights and Opportunity” page), there’s not only more specificity, but also a number of links to things she’s done as A.G. that are related to the issue. The organization could be better, but the information is actually available.
She, like Tom Reilly before her, is Attorney General.
<
p>As valuable as the contributions are that she enumerates on the page you cite, in my view these are not nearly as significant as the enormous items she’s missed (or passed on).
<
p>Massachusetts tax revenues are in free-fall. Rightly or wrongly, a fundamental obstacle towards raising taxes is the widely-held perception of pervasive and flagrant corruption.
<
p>In my view, her failure to address that perception in any meaningful way signals (at least to me) that she suffers from the same tin ear syndrome as Governor Patrick. She either doesn’t perceive — or worse, discounts — the deep volcano of resentment that Massachusetts voters have towards current state government.
A long succession of attorneys general have tried and failed to move to a higher office in Massachusetts, and I think this is why. As long as a large number of voters think there is some prosecution at any point the AG should have done, they refuse to move on and support that figure.
<
p>The ironic part of it is often the AG can’t do what the voter(s) want. In so many cases the process can’t being with the attorney general — legally it’s the job of a DA, US Atty., Auditor, Judge, or other function in the justice system — and any real and perceived corruption is laid at the feet of the AG of the moment.
I remain convinced that if Tom Reilly or Martha Coakley had made it eminently clear to local DAs that they wanted indictments, then such indictments would have happened. I think each of them instead signaled their disinterest in pursuing the various cases. Are we really to believe that Tom Reilly couldn’t find some way to indict Bernard Law, had he wanted to? With the enormous sums of money changing hands during the Big Dig, and especially after the ceiling collapse, are we really to believe that the hand-slaps were all that could be done? Rampant corruption still surrounds the legislature, with or without the highly-touted “ethics reform” steps (never mind the many associates and “friends” of Sal DiMasi). The entire administration of Tom Menino flips the public the bird regarding public records and laughs about it during a campaign (why I am I reminded of Tony Soprano?) — and Martha Coakley can’t find anything to pursue?
<
p>Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.
wow, impressive …
<
p>that Office of New Bostonians must have started the whole thing … (is there an Office of New Brooklinians? probably not)
<
p>in any case, the Kineavy e-mails are being posted online
<
p>anyway, I’m with Mike Capuano in the Senate race because he’s the best candidate in terms of experience and passion for progressive ideals.
Yes, the entire administration. Led by a mayor who said, as recently as last night, that he finds the public records law “questionable” — the law he instructed his administration to flagrantly violate for years, until the media spotlight forced him to reluctantly and belatedly give some ground.
<
p>The mayor is hoping that his 5018-mail smokescreen will distract attention from his decision to block archiving all emails on administration mail servers.
<
p>He’s “not hiding anything” — except the communications between his top aide and Senator Wilkerson. You know, the ones the FBI keeps asking for. The ones that the FBI suspects reveal who was paying whom and for what.
<
p>The most important emails to and from Mr. Kineavy — the ones sought and subpoenaed by the FBI — are not being posted online, because Mr. Menino and Mr. Kineavy have worked diligently to ensure that they no longer exist. Oh, and of course it’s far too expensive to attempt a reconstruction from the disk surface of Mr. Kineavy’s machine (even though an industry exists to do just that). Why, there’s a good solid report from the “computer forensics firm” hired to recover the missing email (a firm that just happens to have close ties to Mr. Menino) explaining why a reconstruction is too expensive.
<
p>The point of all this is the shameful role of Martha Coakley in this disgrace.
<
p>Things like:
<
p>In other words, her need for the support of Mr. Menino’s political machine trumps whatever obligations she has as Attorney General.
<
p>I’m glad that we share enthusiasm for Mr. Capuano.
Do you really think an old-schooler like Kineavy is doing serious business via email? I’d be stunned if there’s anything terribly damning in there, even if he really was playing footsie with Wilkerson. These are phone-call people, IMHO. I could be wrong, but so could you.
Do you really think that the FBI would be demanding his emails from Ms. Wilkerson if they didn’t think there was something there? Do you think also find Mr. Turner “shrill”?
<
p>Of course you or I could each be wrong. Nevertheless, a large portion of the electorate believes, rightly or wrongly, that yet another episode of corruption is being swept under the carpet by yet more entrenched and corrupt minions. I lived in Washington DC when the Watergate burglary was dismissed as “just a two-bit break-in.” The cascade of self-serving dismissals and ridicule from public officials and their supporters — long before it was a national story — was strikingly similar to this current episode.
<
p>I would have felt better if she had made even a pretense of concern. Instead, her immediate and public contempt for those who feel as I do makes her attitudes towards all this clear enough to sway my vote. My point is that I am not the only Democrat who finds Martha Coakley’s stance disturbingly self-serving. The lady doth protest too much.
<
p>Here’s my prediction:
<
p>Mayor Tom Menino will go down, just like Buddy Cianci went down. He will go down just like Sal DiMasi, Tom Finneran, and Charley Flaherty went down. He will go down at the hands of the FBI and the US Attorney’s office. The feds will present compelling evidence of widespread and pervasive corruption in city affairs. Our leadership, including Martha Coakley (and Deval Patrick) will express their “shock” and “dismay” at the charges. When that happens, it will be a national story.
<
p>Hypothetically speaking, in that scenario, who do you think is more vulnerable to the inevitable onslaught of rightwing smear ads, Ms. Coakley or Mr. Capuano? Who do you think creates a larger vulnerability for distracting attention away from what the US Senate does about health care?
<
p>Perhaps I am shrill. I sense a deep cynicism and arrogance in Martha Coakley’s posturing on this that I want no part of.
<
p>Why should we risk any of this when Mike Capuano has a sterling record, is free of all this, and has been an outspoken and effective advocate of our perspective all along?
<
p>Mike Capuano is a far better candidate for this office in this state at this time.
with what an AG should actually do. Whether an AG “wants” prosecutions should not be a factor – if Coakley was the politically motivated cynic you imply, we would likely have seen a lot of activity in the areas you cite. Coakley by all accounts is extremely fair-minded and judicious – good traits in someone administering – or developing – laws on the public’s behalf.
:But in a reality based universe
you do the best you can and do it with integrity<
p>Martha Coakley has spent 23 years doing the gut wrenching work for the people of this state that is in the DA and AG’s office- It’s easy to criticize but she did the hard labor – working for those with no voice- Those who try to minimize her contribution are merely either ignorant or pushing an opponent- Martha is extraordinarily qualified but does not claim to be superwoman.
<
p>Some politicians may run promising everything and raising expectations and others just get it done- Martha’s the real deal.
She spoke at the labor day healthcare rally and was quite clear on this point. She also is on record on it in an interview this week with Jim Braude.
Capuano has co-sponsored the Improved Medicare-for-All bill HR 676/ aka Medicare E (for Everyone)/ aka single payer. This is a public option that puts people before profits and provides for responsible stewardship of hc spending. Is Coakley pledging to co-sponsor the parallel Senate bill put forth by Bernie Sanders?
<
p>This leads us to the question: How much is Coakley raising from contributors in health insurance and PHarma sectors?
<
p>Which leads to this: Voters in Massachusetts have been waiting for the results of her office’s publicly announced “AG investigation into” the obscene $16.4Mil payout to the former CEO of MA Blue Cross and Blue Shield (a non-profit public charity) Bill VanFaasen a couple years ago. source: http://www.boston.com/business…
<
p>The AGs office was also supposed to be investigating–and doing something to rectify, one would hope–the exorbitant $3Mil current salary that non-profit public charity MA BCBS pays to its present CEO Cleve Killingsworth. MA BCBS CEO Killingsworth and BCBS VP Andrew Dreyfus also are executives in the national BCBS Federation which includes for-profits. 44,000 people die each year due in the U.S. to not being able to afford health insurance. The state budget, not to mention family budgets, are being bankrupted by sky-high health insurance costs. As a nurse I care for the people who suffer more and then die prematurely. People are finally getting very angry about this and saying it. has. got. to. stop.
<
p>Maybe Martha Coakley hasn’t been interested in the MA BCBS investigation since she’s been gearing up to run for Senate. As we know running for Senate costs a lot.
This post is all conjecture. If you’re accusing Coakley of being in the pocket of the insurance industry, which is exactly what this post is, you need more than this.
It’s way past time for the public to insist on swift corrective action of our obscene profit-driven healthcare system and its Corporate Masters including VanFaasen, Killingsworth, Baker, Ullian. The apathy on this issue is appalling.
<
p>In response to your criticism of my calling out Coakley–it’s a pretty safe bet that almost all sitting politicians are in the pocket of the medical industrial complex of Insurance, PHarma, Medical supply & device makers, and over-paid medical specialists.
<
p>Think about it — who’s been abandoning the public good while things have gotten this bad????
<
p>Article here.
<
p>
Are you looking at a different website? Everything quoted below is directly from her website, and has detailed explanations to 3/4 questions you have – see below.
<
p>1. Public option:
<
p>”In Washington, Martha will work to expand access to those without insurance coverage by supporting:
<
p>an individual mandate and a public insurance option that will complement the existing employer-sponsored insurance framework by providing coverage to those that lack it.”
<
p>From: http://www.marthacoakley.com/a…
<
p>2. Climate change:
<
p>”Martha recognizes that climate change is one of the most pressing moral issues of our time. Our planet is in trouble. Martha believes protecting our environment must be a priority, not only for today but for future generations.
<
p>As Attorney General, Martha enforced the state’s environmental laws, helped spur the clean up and redevelopment of contaminated brownfields throughout the state, and led the way nationally on landmark environmental cases.
<
p>In Washington, Martha will support policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other pollution that causes climate change. She will fight to halt global warming, support legislation that creates a national market-based program to reduce global warming pollution, and promote investments in clean energy. “
<
p>From: http://www.marthacoakley.com/a…
<
p>3. Foreign policy: nothing presently on the website.
<
p>4. The economy:
<
p>”Improving Financial Regulation
<
p>A lack of appropriate oversight – both on the private and public side – was a major contributor to the financial crisis. Fast growth with little regard for predicable risks set the scene for economic chaos. Martha’s experience as Attorney General has provided insight into the market infirmities and unscrupulous conduct that precipitated the financial crisis. As Attorney General, Martha took on Wall Street firms who helped cause our economic crisis. She recovered tens of millions for taxpayers and victims of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and UBS for their deceptive activities.
<
p>In Washington, Martha will work to ensure that the government is no longer forced to choose between bailouts and a financial collapse. She will work with the business and financial communities as well as other stakeholders to develop and implement tough but fair regulatory reforms to prevent another economic failure and to give the government the necessary tools to protect investors, consumers, and the market in the future.
<
p>Predatory Lending
<
p>Martha understands that unscrupulous actions by large housing lenders – trying to market and sell products that were doomed to fail – was a major contributor to the financial collapse. As a result of lending misconduct, many hardworking families have been forced into foreclosure and many more homeowners are at risk of losing their homes. As Attorney General, Martha brought actions against fraudulent mortgage brokers and those who employed foreclosure rescue scams. Martha also brought first in the nation enforcement actions against national lenders who sold risky loans using deceptive sales tactics. She pressed for legislation to provide relief to homeowners facing foreclosure and to create an abandoned property registry to address the public safety problems created when homes are abandoned.
<
p>In Washington, Martha will work for loan modifications when appropriate, so people can remain in their homes. She will also support enhanced regulation of mortgage products and disclosure laws so that homeowners can better understand their mortgage terms.
<
p>Financial Security
<
p>Martha believes that consumers must be armed with the tools they need to protect themselves from irresponsible financial practices and unwise personal planning and spending. Unrestricted use of credit and credit cards – pushed upon the nation by an industry that itself became addicted to the fees generated – has become a formula for disaster. Martha’s experience as Attorney General has taught her that we cannot rely on the financial industry to fix this mess.
<
p>In Washington, Martha will provide consumers the tools they need to regain control of their financial security. “
<
p>From: http://www.marthacoakley.com/a…
The more Khazei remains a cipher, the more people like him.
I wedding-crashed a Khazei event with a friend last night in Back Bay. He was introduced by State Rep. Smitty Pignatelli (from Pittsfield) and Sheriff Andrea Cabral.
<
p>Khazei fielded questions in the course of a 30-minute talk, explaining his position on Afghanistan (no more additional troops, administration must provide an exit strategy before getting more money), Cape Wind (he’s for it), and women’s rights (he’s pro choice).
<
p>He said he was for “universal health care” but did not specify which particular legislation he supports. Ditto for stopping greenhouse gas pollution/global warming.
<
p>After speaking, Khazei hung around for another 45 minutes shaking hands and answering questions. I went up to him and asked when he planned to make his positions known in detail on all the important issues. He replied that he and his campaign are in the process of completing his position papers to place on his website in the next week, and “I’ve only been at this about a week, so we’re still catching up –but we will catch up very fast.”
<
p>He has less politically-polished speaking style than a traditional pol, and more Howard Dean-like enthusiasm and vision. Most interesting to me was his call to keep Massachusetts as a national leader on everything from bio-technology, to business entrepreneurship, to GLBT rights, and his view that part of a Senator’s job is to continuously engage citizen activists on a national level to get legislation passed (which he noted Democrats, including Obama, have not been doing as aggressively as The Right).
<
p>Also impressed by his no-PAC no-lobbyist money pledge, after which he slammed the current election financing system.
<
p>I’m now going to make it my goal to meet every candidate in person (invited or not!) in the next month.
Easy when you have major donors like the Tish family in NYC-1 million in 1 week? That’s only possible if you have the big guys on your team- They have done lots of arm twisting- I know many who feel like they will be betraying City Year if they go against him. They’ve gotten the phone calls- Khazei has developed connections with all the big philanthropists
and the mediaE.J. Dionne and Arianna Huffington are BFF’s – also the editor in chief of Time- Already HuffPo has front paged him- but what has he done for the people of MA? He did one thing well- but where is the time in here? The biggest problem for women in politics is raising money- The Coakley team worked hard and brought in 2.1 million and I”m betting mostly MA money-What was the front page of the Globe? Khazei- The biggest story was a woman double raising her competition. Khazei knew he was running for months- this isn’t something that just came up- Martha’s team got over 20,000 signatures by volunteers- not paid employees- This kind of commitment comes from friends and colleagues who respect and admire her hard work and integrity over many years- lots of them with no glamor.You are sounding like Ernie Boch, III.
<
p>What evidence do you have that it is harder for a woman who is an incumbent AG to raise money than a private citizen?
<
p>What evidence do you have that “Khazei knew he was running for months- this isn’t something that just came up” or that he obtained contributors from people “who feel like they will be betraying City Year if they go against him?”
<
p>If Khazei earned the respect and admiration of philanthropists, journalists and non-profit colleagues who respect his work such that they’d contribute to his Senate campaign, all the power to him.
<
p>It’s much more impressive that as a private citizen he raised over one million in a week than is Coakley raising over two million in a month when she’s the sitting AG.
It’s way past time for the public to insist on swift corrective action of our obscene profit-driven healthcare system and its Corporate Masters including VanFaasen, Killingsworth, Baker, Ullian. The apathy on this issue is appalling.
<
p>In response to your criticism of my calling out Coakley–it’s a pretty safe bet that almost all sitting politicians are in the pocket of the medical industrial complex of Insurance, PHarma, Medical supply & device makers, and over-paid medical specialists.
<
p>Think about it — who’s been abandoning the public good while things have gotten this bad????
Yikes! Looks like Mike Capuano needs some help.
<
p>$$$ are important, but number of donations is even more telling. Not to mention whether they are in state or out of state donations. Martha Coakley may have raised 2 mil, but if those people can’t vote in this election, it means much less.
I’d much prefer a $20 donation from out-of-state than a $10 donation from in-state.
If you value money over people. I’d much prefer two $10. in-state donations, than one $20. out of state donation. That’s 2 votes vs. no votes. Those 2 contributors of $10. can theoretically be representing hundreds of other MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS who are looking for the same type of representation. That $20. donation from out of state means nothing. It theoretically represent people who don’t have a voice in Massachusetts politics.
<
p>In a short special election season, money buys communication with the voters. As a candidate, I value votes. As a politician, I value people. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t see the tactical difference, given the above quotation.
<
p>
<
p>Indeed. I’d much prefer two $20 donations from out-of-state than two $10 donations from in-state. We can play this game until the left margin is 95% of the page width.
I was under the impression that you find no value in the details of who the donors are, the only value is the money. It is true the money is important, but it’s not the only important thing. That’s why I said…”if you value money over people” ( I suppose I could have worded it differently)
<
p>If you think that makes my argument a “strawman” argument, then so be it. I’m not going to find some derogatory remark to fling back at you. Arguing on that level is of no value.
that you seem to value many in-state donations over the total value of donations.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Both quotes imply that fewer dollars is OK if those dollars came from many in-state contributors. My point is that I’m not so sure… I think that more money is more important than more in-state donors. That’s why I wrote that I’d rather have a Jackson from out-of-state than a Hamilton from in-state. Dollars equal I’d rather have many in-state donors, but I think more money is more important than more in-state donors. I surmise that you disagree. ‘sOK.
I worked on the campaign for one of Capuano’s primary competitors in his first congressional victory. I think he is the candidate who least needs campaign cash to win.
<
p>Why?
<
p>- he is a very savvy campaigner who will leverage 100-percent of his strengths: a clear record of votes in Congress, loyalty from his district (Somerville in particular), and mental toughness. He will run a tight, uncomplicated, consistent, focused campaign (already visible in ads touting him as “the candidate with a record most like Ted Kennedy”)
<
p>- I suspect he has made a deal to secure the unofficial backing of the rest of the MA delegation, who will help behind the scenes to deliver him a significant amount of votes in every district.
<
p>- he is much more intellectually capable than his rugged urban exterior might imply to some people, and rarely gets sufficient credit for his intelligence from political/media elites.
<
p>- he is a strong retail politician who gets votes in places like the Town Committees cited by Hayduke above. I suspect he will have an advantage over the other candidates speaking directly to Seniors.
<
p>My current take is that Coakley still is a Paper Tiger with some quick easy money from EMILY’s list, and that she doesn’t yet command Cap’s depth of loyalty among as many voters. This could change, but Cap definitely is a political iceberg: most of what he’s got is beneath the surface.
<
p>Khazei could be anything from a legitimate populist candidate, to spoiler, kingmaker, or flop after 30 days; he does seem to have an enthusiasm edge. Haven’t heard much of Pag’s, but by all accounts he’s got a cold beer waiting for him in December, courtesy of Al Checchi, Steve Forbes, Michael Huffington, and Richard Tarrant.
Coakley’s numbers seem to represent a short term surge from her most ardent supporters and the PAC contributions she is likely to get from the women groups. I would say Capuano has more to watch out for from Khazei since Capuano needs to be the ‘progressives progressive’ to win the race and he seems to be losing ‘new boston’ voters to Mr. Flash in a pan.
I’m a bit lazy, but almost all the comments here so far deserve a 6. This is one of the more consistently thoughtful discussions I’ve seen of late and am quite impressed.