So, here's how I came down in my personal preference ranking (not a prediction of how things will turn out tomorrow). We don't have instant runoff, but here they are:
- Khazei
- Capuano
- Coakley
- Pagliuca
I'll discuss briefly from the bottom up:
Pagliuca was a lot better than I expected when we talked with him. He's got a plausible raison d'etre for his campaign: Financial system reform. He's got a strong idea of what he wants, and it's arguably stronger and differentiable from, say, what Coakley proposes. He's smart — the Bain guys usually are, aren't they? He's got a plausible reason why his skills are applicable to the Senate — convincing people to get on board a VC project might be similar to getting them on board with legislation.
But I still don't really think that a wealthy capitalist is what we need in the Senate. Someone here mentioned he would have done well to start some wonky/bleeding-heart Pagliuca Foundation to firm up his community/progressive bona-fides before running … maybe that would have mattered. But maybe not.
Coakley: I expected to be more impressed with her. But I think she managed the transition from policy-talk to politics-talk not especially well; I don't really get the narrative as to why her work experience would make her a great Senator. I don't have a good sense of her policy priorities. I don't have a good sense of her mission in the Senate. Wall Street … protect kids … huh? TK was Mr. Health Care … Coakley is … what, except that it's her next career step? Also, I found her answers about her role in Fells Acres utterly unsatisfactory.
And I just have to disagree with her answer on Stupak — that she'll vote against a health care bill if it's included. Coakley has said she'd wait for another chance to do health care reform. Well, that would be another 10-15-20 years. We know it. She's got to know it. On the other hand, it's also naive to think that Stupak will be seriously revisited or reformed if it's baked into the cake of Health Care Reform. It won't be. There is no satisfying, politic answer to this. It's just a question of where you bite the bullet. I don't say this lightly, but I take health care reform; it's more important.
Capuano: He's got tons of support on BMG, and he deserves it. He's an old liberal, right on Iraq and the Patriot Act. I like that. He's a fighter, combative, pugnacious, and none of that really bothers me. There are plenty in the Senate just like him. He's an operator, brings home the bacon; I suppose it's got to be done. TK sure did.
But when we talked to him, Capuano showed an unwillingness to re-examine his connections with Rep. John Murtha, who pretty plainly has used his position to benefit family members' lobbying clients. It's not even that Capuano played ball with Murtha — hey, in Congress, you're put in some awkward positions. I get that. But Capuano tried to turn that into a virtue, saying, Hey, it's not my place to judge others. And then, unbelievably, tied that to his positions on choice and gay rights. Uh huh. I don't think it's too much to ask that the next Senator represent the highest ideals and standards, not the lowest common denominator, or getting away with the absolute maximum within the rules.
Khazei: Our reasons for supporting him are here, and I held forth here. It has been remarked that in holding Coakley's and Capuano's public records against them, we are making the existence of such a liability. On balance, that's a fair point: Had Khazei been in office, he'd probably have a lot more to object to. It's easy to like the community/activism/puppies/kitties/balloons candidate. I know, I know.
But perhaps we need something new. Obama's victory showed the vibrancy and power of the progressive grassroots. Khazei's actually done that stuff before. He already knows the players, knows many of the Senators, knows how to deal with Congress from the outside. He has said explicitly that it's better to be a movement-style figure from the legislative branch than from the executive. And … if he wins … it'll be a self-evident proof of his ability to do just that.
Hey, we'll see. Glad to make his acquaintance anyway. Have fun tomorrow.
My impression is that most Khazei supporters prefer Capuano next, and most Capuano supporters prefer Khazei next, so you’re no exception. If I’m right about that, this is one of those cases where vote-splitting might change the result – one of the problems instant runoff would solve.
I am a strong and solid Capuano supporter. If I had to fill out an instant runoff ballot, I would vote:
1. Capuano
2. Coakley
3. Pagliuca
4. Blank
<
p>Khazei’s wonderful work in the halls of Congress was nothing more than lobbying for his own special interest (City Year).
<
p>This little math problem is one reason NOT to vote for Khazei:
<
p>If X = (average compensation for a City Year volunteer)/(Khazei’s compensation),
Then X = the probability that I will vote for Khazei.
<
p>
My understanding is that City Year is under the AmeriCorps umbrella and as such needs public funds to survive AND is a good cause. Calling this organization and the kids it serves a “special interest” reminds me of the CA Governor calling nurses and teachers that.
So how much does Khazei deserve to make? Seriously. How much should he make? Congressman Capuano will make $174,000.00 this year and I don’t see you calling for his pay cut, so maybe that’s fair? Actually, let’s do you one better, how about Mr. Khazei take a $241,000.00 pay cut, $100,000.00 less than the congressman, moving him from $315,000.00 to $74,000.00 a year. Now we spread those savings over the 1,400 City Year volunteers evenly; how much would their yearly compensation increase?
<
p>$172.00
<
p>You get ’em Pablo.
All of this talk about how wonderful Khazei was in getting support for AmeriCorps. He was lobbying for his own fat salary. Then to hear him with this self-righteous attitude about lobbyists? Humbug.
Though in fairness to Capuano, his unwillingness to re-examine Murtha ties cuts both ways. The minute candidates do this in a campaign they get attacked for “throwing friends under the bus” to get elected and open themselves up to disloyalty/opportunism charges. Capuano just may have shown how smart he is by accepting the small ding for sticking by Murtha rather than the larger hit for disloyalty.
<
p>That said, I also am:
<
p>1. Khazei
2. Capuano
3. Coakley
4. Pags
<
p>And I echo your sentiment that Coakley by far did the least with what she started this race, and Khazei the most.
Considering that he had a lot to lose from the start given his high-profile position as a Congressperson, yet was laboring under Coakley’s big lead in the polls the whole time. Khazei had almost nothing to lose.
<
p>Even if I agree with your overall assessment.
<
p>Coakley did not run a strong race, in my opinion, but if she wins I guess that will have been the point.
I agree per Khazei that he doesn’t have much to loose, but if Capuano looses this campaign he will still be a Congressma. Also he has significantly built up his statewide visibility and popularity – those sound like benefits to me.
I’m personally exited that today is the last day of robo-calls. I got 5 today alone, including one from Jack E. Robinson.
But very well put.
MassResistance has “weighed in on the primaries. It’s unintentionally hilarious. Just a few highlights:
<
p>Brown
<
p>Coakley
<
p>Khazei
That is hilarious!
<
p>Of course, in a scary kind of way.
Except Brown, of course. It’s worth following the link. They weren’t as concise in the rest of them, but they were equally scary and funny.
<
p>Here’s an excerpt from the bit on Pags:
<
p>
<
p>They hate Capuano most, but it’s not as quotable, so here’s the whole thing:
<
p>
<
p>Sounds awesome to me!
that the word marriage is in quotes. As if we can just choose any word that we don’t accept and surround it in quotes to express our distaste for the contextual definition.
<
p>How about: The “people” at Mass Resistance are clearly very “intelligent.”
<
p>Actually, maybe I could get used to this.
…they were TRYING to be satirical!
It’s been interesting canvassing one of the older suburban sides of Falmouth for Khazei. There are lots of people where I’ve been working who are very concerned that their vote for Alan will make it too easy for Martha. I’ve been suggesting that we have a once in a lifetime chance to introduce a new, but skillful, face into Mass’ representation. Quite a few have not really thought it through that far, not seeing outside the box of “which is best”,
<
p>But it’s heartening to see that I have not met one individual who doesn’t know that there’s an election tomorrow. And it’s heartening to see that there are a lot of people paying enough attention to feel pulled in two directions by Khazei’s attractiveness – Caps pulls one way, Alan pulls the other and they’d really like to feel confident that voting for Alan is the wise thing to do.
<
p>But, the area I’ve been working is college educated, either retired or near the end of their working years. They are, most of them, your classic blue Mass. voter.
<
p>I did canvass one person who has served high up in the town and regional police force. She was emphatically for Khazei. Did not like Martha at all.
I had an entirely different experience calling people in Falmouth as did the Suffolk folks.
http://www.necn.com/Boston/Pol…
<
p>Not one single person I spoke with was “pulled between Khazei and Capuano” In fact I never heard anyone even mention Khazei. Tomorrow will tell the tale.
Did the “person who served high up in town and regional police force” say why she did not like Martha? I often chat with Martha’s police detail at visibility events because my dad was a state cop. They absolutely love her and talk about how much they’ve enjoyed their time with her. I’ve also been at phone banks with quite a few folks who have worked with her over the years and often heard them say that she is in fact Presidential. Interesting how one hears what one wants to hear.
<
p>Today I called North Hampton, highly educated and informed voters, several were college professors, all Coakley. Hmmmm, one of us is being mislead.
I think the bias of a some towns will be very important in this race. Capuano and Khazei are going to do very will in Somerville, Cambridge, Boston, and Brookline.
<
p>I still think that Coakley will win, but I am very suspicious of the 14-point gap and Khazei’s single-digit finish.
I think Capuano will kill in Somerville-its his hometown after all, and in East and North Cambridge. He will kill in Boston too-possibly enough to get him the race if Coakley’s support is collapsing. He might even do well in Franks district if he is stumping for him.
as frontrunner. Everyone who knows politics understands the double edge sword of frontrunner status. Martha has been hit from every side and every possible twisted and skew of her cases, from Fells Acres to the first Grogan indictment and yet because of her strong state record of achievement, personal likability and known integrity by folks who have actually worked with her rather than the spin of her opponents, she has remained in the lead. I’d say not a bad race for a tough yet polished candidate (yes I did plagiarize that description from one of the newspaper endorsements-can’t remember which one at the moment).
NECN has great new polling from Suffolk. Of course you have to watch a Pagliuca commercial before viewing.
http://www.necn.com/Boston/Pol…
I think this race has been very, very tame for her. Only in the last two weeks or so has she faced any sort of ‘heat,’ which is much less heat than other similarly important races I’ve witnessed in the past. This is no slight against Coakley in the race; indeed, I blame some of the other candidates for not going nearly hard enough at her. There were plenty of cracks in her campaign they never even tried to squeeze through.
Attacking the lone woman in the field with sky-high favorables wouldn’t reflect well on the attacker. I don’t think Capuano, Khazei, or Pagliuca were willing to take the hit to their own favorability rating and reputation to do it. They were aware that such a course of action would let a third person through.
<
p>Had Coakley-Capuano gotten truly nasty, that would have been Khazei’s opening. It didn’t, though.
is not a good electoral strategy. Who said I thought they should have “gotten truly nasty?” I just think they should have challenged her a little more. One can’t be afraid to mix it up in politics, I don’t care whether the person they’re mixing it up with is male or female. There doesn’t have to be nastiness involved, just a critical look at one’s words and (better yet) record.
<
p>This is the very same reason why we’re now dealing with Susan Collins in the Senate instead of a fairly liberal democrat in Maine who had a strong track record in the House before he challenged her — the vote that really would have won health care. He ran a timid campaign and lost against someone who could have been defeated, because he was afraid of appearing as a big meanie to a woman. With the right message and focus, that wouldn’t have happened. If candidates want to run that kind of a lackluster campaign, my advice to them is not to run, doubly so if they’re challenging an incumbent or better-known front runner.
Mike has definitely not been afraid to pull punches and its one of the reasons to like him. Hopefully he can show a man can be tough on his female opponent and still win.
did you actually read Ryan’s comments?
<
p>
<
p>Now, maybe you disagree with that. But it sounded like you were agreeing with Ryan, while also saying that Cap took the race to Coak. But that’s the opposite of what Ryan said. And, FWIW, I don’t think Cap was particularly combative vis-a-vis Coak in this race; rather, I think he decided he either didn’t want to win by going hard at her, or thought that it wouldn’t work.
to strike in this campaign, especially for any of the candidates that needed to get their name recognition up over the course of a very compressed schedule. Go out early and negative, and you’ve just put an impression in everyone’s mind of who you are before you actually get to meet them in person. Wait, and the clock runs out on you. I think if the race were 3-4 weeks longer there would have been more shots taken at Coakley, and maybe Capuano too if the polling had changed.