I would like to see Mike Capuano run for US Senate again in 2012. After hearing him speak at a small candidates’ gathering in Waltham back in October and being impressed there by his intelligence, simplicity, directness, and commitment I worked for him in the December 2009 primary. If he decides to run in 2012, I plan to sign on to support him once again.
But I wonder if, without hurting his political integrity, his public speaking couldn’t stand some improvement. His Popeye-like I-yam-what-I-yam style, while down to earth and endearing, betrays quite frankly a self confidence problem.
Late this week (the week of Coakley’s upset) Bob Oakes interviewed Mike on WBUR. Mike gave a fine analysis, I believe; but I couldn’t focus fully on what he said because I was so struck by the pattern of his delivery. I don’t have a real-life example of what I mean, but tell me you don’t recognize this pattern:
My name is Mike Capuano. You may say I’m not Mike Capuano. And that’s okay. This is a free country, and you may say my name is something else or that I don’t have a name or you might not say anything. And that’s fine. That’s what this country is all about. I’m just saying that in my opinion my name is Mike Capuano.
Everyone has speech habits, god knows, but this is one that needs attention and needs it soon.
The Mayor can’t get out a full sentence in standard English, but he’s on his fifteenth term (seems like, anyway). I heard Mike speak at a small event during the primary race. He did fine.
Sure, Mike “did fine” at those “small events” during the primary. He did a lot of them. But, need I remind you, it didn’t exactly translate to electoral success.
<
p>That kind of thing doesn’t cut it in a statewide race. You need more. It’s why Charlie Baker is in trouble if he doesn’t up the charisma factor somehow. And the author here is right: it’s why Mike Capuano needs some polish if he is planning to run for Senate in 2012.
I don’t think that because Capuano could not win a Democratic primary against Martha Coakley he could not win a statewide race against Scott Brown or some other candidate (or a primary against a different field of Democrats).
<
p>I’m not sure anyone could have beat Coakley in the primary, and it really had little to do with her being a charismatic candidate.
<
p>I agree with almost everything Wendy Kaminer said here:
<
p>http://correspondents.theatlan…
<
p>I think Capuano’s style would play pretty well in a statewide race against Brown. Would Scott Brown really play much better with working class crowds than Capuano? I don’t think so.
<
p>Dems will likely be more energized in two years, and Capuano may rub some people the wrong way but he would actually campaign, ask people for their vote, and not take things for granted. The luster will also surely come off of Brown in the next couple years. His first political move appears to have been connecting himself to an extremist birther, so he’s off to a great start.
<
p>
Given the short campaign and Coakley’s head start, the “small events” strategy wasn’t going to close the gap. However, with significant lead time it is a great strategy to connect to Democratic activists and line up some solid support for 2012.
<
p>I think I’ll keep my Capuano sticker on the car a little while longer.
Deval Patrick by no means deserves re-election, but even in a one on one race, the soaring rhetoric and charisma of Deval Patrick will just blow Baker out of the water. Frankly I have always found Deval’s rhetoric to be more passionate and soaring than even the President, hell it was the President who borrowed Deval’s turn of phrase and speaking style to some extent. In any case, that’s the big problem Baker needs to overcome, and Tim Cahill.
<
p>Besides that, Capuano’s problem is different from Bakers. Baker is clearly uncomfortable delivering political speeches, he lacks passion and he comes across as dull and boring. Mike is incredibly passionate, but he sometimes comes across as angry, and he talks so fast its hard to understand and can seem abrasive to those that don’t know him. Thats what he needs to fix.
<
p>Frankly for 12′ I would suspect that Tierney, McGovern, and Markey must be quietly happy.
that probably led him to develop a habit of shortcuts and slurs in his speaking pattern. Mike Capuano doesn’t have any such problem. I imagine that with some training, he could eliminate that from his speaking style, although at his age, he’d have to be convinced to want to.
I would strongly consider helping Mike, as I did in the primary, if he decides to run again. I went to two of his forums. In addition to liking his stand on the issues, I liked his willingness to be direct.
<
p>In fact, he could stand learning to be a little less direct. In a presentation course I once attended, we were told to never apologize for ourselves. Mike’s tendency to say “You may disagree with me. That’s OK” invites the audience to disagree. It makes you wonder if he thinks we should disagree. Does he know something we don’t?
<
p>Another tidbit from that course was that while not everyone is a natural superstar presenter, nearly everyone can become a very adequate presenter. I think Mike could become far more than adequate. Even with his apologies, he comes across as genuinely liking and caring about his audience.
is that on the radio or tv, time is short, so why include so many of these acknowledgments of possible disagreement? Better to repeat your point so people don’t forget it.
<
p>If Capuano doesn’t go for the Senate, I would love for him to be higher profile in the House, to have more leadership opportunities.
My standard greeting to all our Congress people includes “Please appear on TV more.”
While I was a big Capuano supporter during the primary, and nearly voted for him in the general, I am starting to think that at the end of the day he might be better suited for the house. While he clearly was the most prepared and able for the job, I think a Senator needs to be able to utilize a bully pulpit and be a more public figure than a Congressmen and I think he is better suited at being a major figure in the House. God knows he could move up quick because of his relationship with Pelosi and one could see him take over if Clyburn or Hoyer steps out of the picture. Its clear his MA colleagues seem to like him a lot and I am sure he has the loyalty of a lot of key progressives across the caucus.
<
p>I think a Tierney, McGovern, or Markey would be more logical since their appeal expands beyond Boston and they have much more effective rhetorical styles. Tierney’s speech on Darfur is on youtube and is truly a great speech compared to the usual dribble Congressmen say.
<
p>that said I still like Mike and if he runs again he’s got my vote.
http://www.westenstrategies.com/
<
p>Drew was my Psych 101 prof at Michigan and is absolutely brilliant when it comes to political communication. The Dems should put him on retainer.
in 2012.
<
p>Mike would need to choose for which seat he is running. He has a solid lock on the Congressional seat and is well regarded in his district. It was also the district with the strongest results for Coakley.
<
p>So the question would be, is Mike ready to give up his seat and challenge Scott Brown? This is not saying that he would not win, but that the decision to run or not is very different in 2012 than it was this year.
<
p>The question beyond Mike and whether he would run or not would be if he were to run is there a strong enough bench to fill his seat? Even as a more conservative voter (I have voted for Mike each of the last two elections) I see that there is no shortage of strong potential candidates to fill his seat should he run.
<
p>So the question comes down to – Is he willing to risk a very secure Representative seat to challenge for the Senate? Too soon to tell but will make for interesting watching.
…the most likely House member to run in 2012 is the one whose district has disappeared after the next census.
where was Mike during the special election campaign? He seemingly vanished into the ether after the primary.
<
p>Was this non support intentional with an eye towards 2012?
At least Khazei showed up at the end. I don’t know if either Pagliuca or Capuano ever appeared again after the obligatory post-primary presser.
or it may have been file footage .. can someone else confirm.
events with her toward the end, including one in Davis Square, recorded a robocall, and did a lot of fundraising
<
p>I dont remember the details but I had this same concern and called his office. They ran into a lot of problem getting this covered in the media.
Maybe it was a ‘professional courtesy’ since his wife is a reporter.
Which is why I would prefer a different candidate for 2012.
Maybe Capuano should be out campaigning when Martha is employing a rose garden strategy? He does have a job in Washington.
while Martha vacations, and he should do this in his spare time and on weekends while she vacations.
The question shouldn’t be whether Capuano campaigned for Martha–he did–but whether she campaigned enough for her own candidacy. The question of his effort implies some nefarious plot or assigns some small blame for her loss. The fact is that David’s candidate in this race refused to campaign during the primary and for most of the general and this contributed significantly to her loss.
<
p>
<
p>Her decision–and those of her strategists–to day after day refuse to connect to people on a human level and to take for granted the voters of this state didn’t exactly translate into electoral success. She didn’t cut it. And her apologists can try to deflect valid criticisms of her–as they did throughout the entire election–but it’s hard to argue that she was more successful than Capuano would have been. Capuano 2012 fellas.
Are you talking to me? As you’ll recall, I backed Khazei in the primary. So … not sure what you mean.
Not a perfect candidate, and not a perfect primary campaign, but his actual strengths include authenticity.
<
p>I’d hate to see that Ken-dolled over and doubt doing so would end well.
If he wants to be a Senator, he needs to raise money. Lots of it. Or get the Fair Elections Act passed. Or, preferably, both.
He wasn’t prolific, but he raised a decent amount. He was not going to win that primary under pretty much any circumstance. Meehan, with his $5M war chest, probably would have handily lost the primary. He definitely raised enough to win a primary, just not this primary. I think he would be fine raising money for a general in 2012.
who ‘knows how to get things done’ at a time when the electorate is none too pleased about dysfunction in Washington and the Democratic base is irate over Congress NOT getting things done. That was somewhat politically tone deaf.
…that’s EXACTLY why I supported him in the primary. With no transition period to speak of he knew the issues, the players, and the process, and could move his staff across the Hill.
of why he lost. It was a big gambit that, predictably, did not pay off. A small number of voters liked the “I’m the insideriest insider in the race” strategy; most, IMHO, found it at best odd, and at worst a good reason not to back him.