I have a few ideas. The first one is that people finally got fed up with him. There are certainly enough things out there about him to make people turn away from him. He could have very easily alienated former supporters (I know two delegates who voted for him because they were already pledged, but do not plan on supporting him in the primary, or at least plan on taking a closer look at Lake and Bump) with his antics and not-so-progressive track record.
Another possibility was tweeted by David Bernstein: “Sources say Glodis instructed some of his delegates to vote for Lake to ensure he made the ballot, split liberal vote w/ Bump in primary”. This is always a possibility. However, I think that if Guy Glodis had all the support he claimed, he would have gone for the nomination. To me, this stinks of Guy Glodis covering his ass and making his loss seem like it was planned. This could have easily been intentionally leaked to make Guy look like he was in control the whole time.
It is also possible that labor defected to Bump. She certainly emphasized labor in her Convention video and speech, and this could have swayed union-affiliated delegates in unions that have not yet endorsed. If so, this would be very bad news for Glodis, since it means that he has taken a major hit to his base, clearing the way for Bump and Lake, especially for Bump, who would have a strong base herself. However, this scenario alone would not explain why Lake outperformed expectations.
Finally, there is the “women electing women” effect. Bump is a woman, which does help her get votes from women. While this is definitely present (one delegate near me said that she was voting for Bump because “she’s the only woman;” I’m assuming she means in the auditor primary, otherwise she forgot about Martha Coakley). The big question is whether this would have any substantial effect on the outcome. I’m inclined to say it didn’t.
In any case, all of these scenarios are bad for Glodis, except for the one David Bernstein suggested. Personally, I believe that Glodis is losing support, and failing to pick up new supporters. I really want to hear what everyone else thinks about this, though. In any case, we’ve got a real race on our hands. This race may turn out to be the most interesting and unpredictable one of the season
Wouldn’t it be better to say “exposed”?
How about, “Bump is the most qualified person for the job” or “Bump has a demonstrated record of acting on her progressive values”?
<
p>In my District* (where Suzanne is registered to vote), we know her well, and gave her 68 votes to 13 for Glodis and 7 for Lake.
<
p>*Berkshire, Hampshire, and Franklin; Senator Ben Downing
<
p>The Worcester Telegram has a breakdown by Senate District on page A3 of the print edition, but I can’t find it online. Maybe someone else can provide a source.
<
p>There are a lot of votes for Lake in the Worcester-area delegations, so possibly there’s some truth to the idea it was a Glodis strategy that backfired. It’s also possible, however, that these are just the people who know Glodis best, and don’t support his bid.
I can only speak for the 1st Worcester, where I voted, but I certainly did not see anyone going for Lake because they were instructed to do so. In fact, if anything, I heard some folks wanting to break for Lake but feeling obligated to vote for Glodis per their pledge. Not to mention, having run against the slate in my Ward, it’s safe to say to be on the slate you needed to be a pledged Glodis delegate.
<
p>That said, I think what happened is exactly what REALLY happened to Martha Coakley. He seemed too entitled. “It’s my turn” is not a winning strategy. Whether or not people believe Glodis is really qualified, no one has really given me a reason to vote for him other than I am from Worcester. I’m supposed to overlook his anti-progressive views because he’s from Worcester and we both support organized labor. Newsflash, we’re in the Democratic party. We should ALL support organized labor. But we should expect more and better than the bare minimum of hometeam advantage and wanting a new job.
First of all, I think that that’s a very loaded comment. I’m trying to do a poll of what people think are the objective reasons that Guy Glodis did poorly, and you go and throw in something very subjective disguised as an objective statement.
<
p>Here are the reasons:
<
p>1) Bump is not objectively the most qualified. While there is a strong argument that she is, there is also a strong argument that Mike Lake is, and even a much weaker argument that Glodis is. If you look at what Lake has done, you can see that his experiences are very relevant to the job; he managed the day-to-day operations of the White House budget, was a bank examiner, and majored in Finance, Management Information Systems, Political Science, Communications, and Entrepreneurship. He’s clearly very qualified. Bump has a lot of experience in state government, but less that actually applies to the actual office she’s running for. We can debate their qualifications for a long time, and still get no answer as to who is the most qualified.
<
p>2) If Bump is the most qualified and that actually had an effect on the way delegates voted, I should hope that she would get a much higher percentage. That she got 37% shows that either not everyone thought that she was the most qualified or that it has no effect on the results.
<
p>3) Bump is just as qualified now as she was months ago, so that doesn’t account for the apparent shift in momentum towards Bump and away from Glodis. While more delegates may have come to believe that she is more qualified, and that may well have been the cause, that falls under the “He lost a lot of support recently” answer.
<
p>So, I will not put a “Bump is the most qualified person for the job” or “Bump has a demonstrated record of acting on her progressive values” answer in this poll. I’m not about to give in to a loaded statement and make my poll subjective, and suggest something that I don’t believe about Bump, while I’m at it
You say
to describe my comments. I was not at all trying to disguise my support for Suzanne as objective — just my opinion.
<
p>Funny that my comment was rated 6 a total of 15 times (so far) and once as a 3 (yours). My statement is no more “loaded” than your poll. I’m just pointing out that your poll left out more than one reasonable explanation. I’m sure there are many others. Polls here are just for fun and to generate discussion. Don’t get your knickers in a twist because that’s how the group takes it!
You were essentially trying to get me to insert in a statement I disagreed with into the poll, by having it suggest that Bump is the most qualified. And, as I have explained in the previous post, it either isn’t a good explanation, or fits completely into other answers
I was a delegate in the Worcester and Middlesex district (Sen. Flanagan) and I can tell you that, at least in our district, there was no move to release delegates to Lake.
<
p>There was discussion of it on Friday night…I spoke with a delegate from our district who was working for Glodis and told me that Glodis wanted Lake on the ballot and that he was prepared to release delegates if they were necessary.
<
p>But there was no call in our district from the Glodis whip to release delegates to Lake. In fact, there was definite frustration when 12 of us voted (including me) for Lake and when solid Glodis delegates were found to have left the hall before the vote.
<
p>My impression was that Glodis’ people expected to win easily and that they were prepared to keep Lake on the ballot if necessary, but that they had no idea Bump was a credible threat to his victory. Once they got the idea that Bump had more support than they anticipated, all bets were off.
<
p>At least among the CMass districts, people were stunned that Glodis came in second.
Tim Murray got all but 3 delegate votes in ’06 and I would expect Guy to have done just as well…if Lake did well there…then Guy released his votes…if Suzanne picked up some votes, then Guy has some problems.
1st Worcester: Bump 4 Glodis 99 Lake 6
2nd Worcester: Bump 2 Glodis 87 Lake 22
…given that Bump was effectively shut out in that District, how did Lake manage to do so well? That doesn’t pass my smell test.
<
p>And thank you for the information,
She says in her comment where eight of the 22 votes in First Worcester came from. Remember Michael reversed them. I can’t speak for Lightiris and her community, but I would be astonished if they were directed by the Sheriff to vote for Mike Lake.
In the 1st Worcester, my town had 11 votes altogether–my bad count–and here’s how it went: 8 for Lake, 2 for Glodis, and 1 for Bump.
Glodis doesn’t talk to us. lol. đŸ˜‰
8 of those 22 were from my delegation (I’m the chair). Glodis is poison as far as we’re concerned. He is not popular among progressives in my town.
<
p>People love Lake’s energy and youth. We’re really excited to work for him here, and we’re ready to do that.
5 of those 22 were also from the City of Worcester. At least. Just from my loose count I can remember 5 Grossman/Lake votes cast from the City proper who are all active community members. We’re all fairly young, progressive, and fed up with the status quo. Frankly, speaking only for myself, the Glodis supporters in the City Committee worked hard to fill the convention with their folks, but did nothing to make the case to anyone else that their candidate deserves to win. As a lifelong Democrat, I have a hard time voting for someone with a republican record who just happens to be a union member.
string of Lake votes at the beginning of the roll because we’re the 3rd town (I think) to vote. Over and over, “Grossman, Lake.”
<
p>We’ll have to chat sometime about “Our Guy” and his Republican connections in my town. Unfreakingbelievable.
You so called Dem’s just can’t put your feelings aside. Everything has to be so personel with all the negative bs that you all have been spreading. What ever happened to working hard to support you candidate and who ever wins WE rally behing to support and carry them over the finish line ? No wonder why we as Dem’s are in trouble in Nov.
A Glodis supporter calling Lake/Bump supporters “So called Dem’s” – that’s rich.
just to get ahead is what I was refering to. We as (DEM’s) are not suppose to get so upset to the point where we start throwing the bs around. And yes Bump/Lake supporters were doing just that on Sat. I am amazed at the negative nonsense that we were hearing but if I suppose if I felt I couln’t get the victory in a room full of progressive DEM’s then I guess I would try to tear the other one down. So much for listening to our Dem leader Gov, who said that we as a party shouldn’t be doing that to ourseleves. Well, Glodis will win in Sept and we shall see if the party unites or takes a walk ????
Do you believe that the content of your comments, complete with taunts and insults to progressive Democrats, is constructively going to unite the party around Glodis should he win? If you are “listening to our Dem leader Gov” when he says “we as a party shouldn’t be doing that to ourselves,” why are you posting so negatively?
Then you must have noticed the long (6.00 / 1)
string of Lake votes at the beginning of the roll because we’re the 3rd town (I think) to vote. Over and over, “Grossman, Lake.”
We’ll have to chat sometime about “Our Guy” and his Republican connections in my town. Unfreakingbelievable
<
p>So, you can say this but when someone respones to your diatribe we are negative ?I am missing something here. Glodis, is a moderate Democrat and so am I. I will not run to another party like Cahill. I like Guy have worked for Democrats and will continue to. What this party is lacking is realizing we have to stop going after our own in such a negative tone that allows the “otherside” a chance to capitalize. Believe me they are going to have a decent showing in Ma, and around the country.
I am not denying that I have written critical things of Mr. Glodis. If you think for a second everyone in Worcester County loves them a little Glodis, you’d be delusional. Sorry to break it to you.
<
p>And I am questioning your bona fides in chastising US for negativity when every single one of your comments is nasty and negative. There. That clear enough for you? BTW, the question is rhetorical–don’t bother to answer. We all can read. You might be the first to take your own sterling advice: “What this party is lacking is realizing we have to stop going after our own in such a negative tone that allows the “otherside” a chance to capitalize.” As well, you may consider yourself a “moderate Democrat”–go right ahead, but you also reveal a level of hypocrisy that is rather stunning. You’ve done nothing but “go after” your fellow Democrats on this site.
<
p>Look, support Glodis. Others will support their candidates, and the voters will decide. Leave your knife and hatchet at home, though, okay? You’ll do your candidate much more good that way. Oh wait a minute–no, no, keep doing what you’re doing. Great job!
Told us there was a deliberate shift of some Glodis delegates to Lake; it’s certainly plausible. Glodis had representatives shadowing the Tellers and independently recording the vote.
I really think that’s just an attempt to cover up his embarrassing loss.
Which gives it more credibility, I think…
I’m sorry, but you clearly do NOT have a handle on the level of antipathy Glodis engenders among progressives in this area. When progressives have a say, Glodis does not get anywhere.
<
p>Glodis is NOT all that popular. How many times do we have to tell people this. Personally, I know of many Glodis votes from yesterday who will NOT vote for him in the primary. You have no idea how many people only voted for him yesterday because they HAD to. Indeed, he doesn’t even have one of the two votes from my delegation. lol.
I took my own tally as the votes were being called out and the difference between how Glodis did in the cities and how he did in the towns was striking.
<
p>In Leominster, Fitchburg, Gardner and Clinton, the tally was Glodis 54, Lake 2, Bump 2.
<
p>In the six smallest towns in the district, the tally was Lake 10, Bump 6, Glodis 6.
<
p>I’ll bet it was the same way in lightiris’s district, in that the delegates from Worcester went for Glodis and the delegates from the towns went for the others.
<
p>Obviously, the cities hold more clout, but Glodis is not popular in the towns, where the Dem committees tend to be populated by liberals instead of labor.
Let’s get real people. If Guy Glodis wanted to throw votes to Mike Lake, the last place he would do that is Worcester. Worcester is his base. Glodis had to win his base, and win it as big as possible. It would be incredibly embarrassing for Glodis to do poorly anywhere in Worcester. So forget about Worcester.
<
p>If you want to find out whether Glodis threw votes to Mike Lake, look in other conservative districts, where Glodis had surrogates who controlled delegates. For example, I’ve read that Lake did incredibly well in conservative Dracut. How did that happen?
<
p>Myself, I initially thought that even Glodis wouldn’t be so stupid as to throw away delegates that could have given him the Convention endorsement. I had thought that Glodis, however odious he may be, is not stupid. But you folks have me wondering.
I’m in that district and am pretty sure I heard Glodis from the delegates. Lake DID do well in other communities in 2EM as I recall.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The fact is simple, Guy has control over his Worc delegates much more so then any delegate from the towns. He is very well known and stronger in Worcester, and other cities. This is why he will win with Lake on the ballot. One can not get their message across with 25K, or even 100k once all the other races get up on TV.
You state, “Glodis did throw his supporters to Lake in Worcester.”
<
p>Let’s clarify what you mean. The city proper, as opposed to the towns? That is what your comment implies. “Guy has control over his Worc delegates much more so then any delegate from the towns.”
<
p>To my knowledge the city is all in either First or Second Worcester.
<
p>In First Worcester, Lake got 22 votes. Per Cara Lisa Berg Powers five of those came from the city. My best guess is that they were add-ons who were not with Glodis initially. Lightiris says where eight of the votes came from outside the city proper.
<
p>In Second Worcester there were a total of six votes in the whole senate district for Mike Lake.
<
p>If you mean the city, from the information that I have read here, that would mean that he threw, at most, eleven votes. Is Cara’s recollection faulty?
<
p>Is there anyone from Second Worcester ready to comment?
<
p>Or do you mean other muncipalities within Worcester County?
<
p>I am genuinely curious as to what you mean.
so there were delegates in the 1st& mainly in the 2nd Sen district of Worc where he represented as a Rep and Sen that went with Lake. Glodis is not dumb politcian, he knows that in a Dem Primary he needs to spilt the progressive liberal base getting Lake on the ballot does just want he needed. Look with Mumbles, DeNucci, and other progressive’s coming after him this is the best line up one could ask for !! Glodis will win in Sept – I will take all bets – cash only !!!
<
p>Are you suggesting that Glodis arranged for delegates in the 1st or 2nd Worc to vote for Lake as a way of getting Lake on the ballot?
<
p>If you are, how many oof the 1st Worc delgates do you claim did that?
<
p>Be specific in your answer, please.
That Glodis supporters want Lake on the ballot. But I am extraordinarily skeptical of your claim that “Glodis did throw his supporters to Lake in Worcester.”
<
p>Not quite sure if you are saying mainly in Second Worcester. I was forwarded information about a delegate who was clear that the vote for Lake was because the delegate felt that Glodis was not the best candidate. This was not a voter from the city.
<
p>Maybe you can respond to Lightiris about First Worcester. But at best, assuming that my recent information is accurate, at most only five votes from the City of Worcester, in Second Worcester went to Glodis.
<
p>On the surface, it appears that not only were you wrong, but were insulting to someone with a more credible position. From where I sit,
<
p>
<
p>was both inaccurate and uncalled for.
…there is a disturbing arrogance to the poll that doesn’t assume that many of us voted for Bump because we thought she was the best qualified, and progressive candidate in the race. I have seen all three candidates up front and personal, a number of times and have no affiliation with any campaign.
…”Does it matter?”…because with Guy having 800,000 in the bank…and growing, and Suzanne with only 50,000…Guy’s media will have a huge impact on the primary results.
<
p>History has proven that there is little correlation between convention endorsements and primary winners.
You say
without offering any evidence.
<
p>There is most certainly not a perfect correlation, though I have to believe there is some, probably significant, positive correlation. Also, how much history? Maybe things have changed. One obvious counter example is from four years ago, when Deval won the Convention, and (obviously) the Primary and the General.
<
p>Also, are you suggesting that we should vote for someone based on the size of their bank balance? I find that more than a bit odd. Glodis has been building his campaign account for years now, whereas Bump started only 5 months ago. I think her win at the Convention will make her fundraising efforts more successful. More importantly, having worked four years ago on the Patrick campaign, she understands that outreach has to be personal, and not rely overly much on “traditional” media — print ads, TV spots, and mailings.
<
p>It will be an interesting race. May the best woman win!
If you’ve followed any on the diaries on Glodis, you would know I’m an “anybody but Glodis” advocate.
<
p>As for “history” I don’t suppose US Senator Jim Shannon, or Governor Evelyn Murphy, or Lt. Gov. Gerry D’Amico sound familiar…although they all were the endorsed candidates of their respective conventions.
<
p>And speaking of evidence, and I say this as someone who will be voting for Suzanne in September, what evidence can you provide that winning a non-binding convention nomination boosts fundraising?
Pogo, you’re right, I should have been more clear:
<
p>I HOPE that
big prize winners and you all know this. In more ways it’s been a kiss of death. And if you think Bump& Lake are going to raise big money in the next month your really smoking too much. No one cares about this seat, and any money with go for Gov,Treasurer,Congressional seats before the State Auditor.
<
p>Pleae, stop the spin of making people think for one minute voters are outside the liberal towns, smaller cities are going to vote for Bump or Lake.
Glodis wins this seat with ease.
A lot of people were supporting Glodis, even though they don’t like him, because he was the inevitable winner. Now he’s not.
<
p>It’s too early to tell, but the convention outcome may have an effect similar to the Rasmussen poll finding Scott Brown down by only points. People realized he was viable and it changed the race entirely in two weeks. I wouldn’t expect anythign quite so dramatic, but Suzanne Bump’s win at the convention sends a clear message that Guy Glodis is eminently beatable.
IF you think that inner cities are going to vote a Susan Bump or Mike Lake both of whom have about $50 bucks between them over a well financed,hard worker like Glodis you are nuts. Never mind he has over $800,000 with at least $200,000 left to rasie in the next 2 months alone ! It’s all about NAME recognition and by the end of June all the NON insiders are gone away on vacation, so it will be just the lefty liberals that will be paying attention to a State Auditors race… Bump and Lake will cross each ohter out and Glodis will destroy them in the big cities. Good Luck in trying to tear him down. Lake on the ballot puts Glodis over the finish line in Sept ~~
statement can you ??? Lake, will come in second and Bump the lousy Sec of Labor will finish a distant 3rd. Money & name reconigition is all that matters on a down ticket race. Lake and Bump have neither, Glodis wins the seat !
in the Dem Convention also ?? What did Augusto Grace win by, wasn’t %83 to %17. And who won in the primary 68-22 ? Sec Galvin !! It will a Glodis victory, thank’s to getting Lake on the ballot.
for both Suzanne and Mike. If they each can’t raise a quick $50-100k off these upsets, I’d be surprised.
<
p>Plus, all the money in the world can’t put lipstick on a pig that would make voters want to kiss it. Glodis’s money advantage is only going to get him so far, so long as the other candidates have the ability in the race to show the public just how odious Glodis really is.
<
p>Finally, I’m not sure Glodis is smart enough or can put together a campaign competent enough to even spend $800,000 in this race wisely. Look how much he spent yesterday and still managed to screw things up…
…but I’m not sure about the fundraising bump you suggest. Remember Andrea Silbert 4 years ago, who surprised everyone with a strong 2nd place at the convention? She did not see any kind of bump in fundraising days or weeks after the convention. Let’s be honest, these aren’t big priority seats, compared to Gov or Congress…hell, it’s more important for you and I to give money to Carol Shea Porter in NH, to insure Dems hold onto Congress, then it is to give money to Suzanne so we can “keep” the Auditors position blue. There is only so much money that can be raised and there are a lot of priority races to give to.
For me to assume helping Carol Shea-Porter is more important than the auditor race, is to assume that one legislator amongst hundreds is going to make a larger impact on my life than my state’s auditor, who’s actually poised to have a relatively large role in state government, the kind of role that can make government more efficient and save a lot of money (which can in turn be reinvested to make government more efficient and responsive).
<
p>I actually find the idea that one congressperson, especially from a different state, would have a greater impact on my life than the state auditor to be pretty laughable notion.
…winning the Massachusetts Auditor seat is more important for you than the possibility of the Democrats losing control of the US House of Representatives, which could happen if CSP and other Dems lose in November? To each their own, but I think focusing on control of the US House is more important.
<
p>He had way too many excesses. Between the bus and the original song, he ended up spending so much on things that were ineffective. I think he might outspend the other candidates greatly and still lose, because he’ll waste so much on frivolous things
<
p>Deval Patrick, 2006.
I’d like to introduce you to all the friends I wish I had, collectively called data.
he didn’t exactly present any data.
<
p>But I could present plenty of other anecdotes that shows a strong showing in convention and convention-like things often suggests a strong campaign, because at the very least it suggests a competent campaign. We could look at Ned Lamont’s convention when he managed to prevent Lieberman from bumping him off the ballot, too. Obama’s performances in the caucuses were tremendous — enough so that he swamped Hillary with delegates despite the fact that Hillary got as many (or more) total primary votes, if you looked at things nationally. Heck, just look at Texas, where Obama got more delegates than Hillary because of their caucuses, even though Hillary won the state’s popular vote in the primary. I’m sure I could dig up some others that aren’t just off the top of my head, and turn that into data that suggests there’s some method to the madness.
<
p>If a campaign is able to organize itself and surprise others at a convention or a caucus, chances are the campaign is a strong one.
but I suspect that there isn’t a particularly strong correlation with winning per se. That is, I hypothesize that the difference between getting 55% of the vote and getting 45% of the vote is pretty irrelevant in a two person race. Likewise, coming in first by 5% or by 10% in a 3-person race is likely irrelevant.
<
p>Sure, there’s a difference between getting 80% and getting 20%… but the convention endorsement? Nobody cares. The endorsement is irrelevant; getting lots of support is quite relevant.
<
p>Semantics perhaps.
Fewer people probably really care about that endorsement than there are people in the room. However, I still think that a stronger-than-expected showing at any type of convention or caucus event reflects well on the strength of a campaign volunteer core, particularly at a convention. For a campaign to do better than expected at a campaign, it probably had to run a slate during the caucuses, which shows the ability to reach a wide assortment of people and some staying power (the months between the caucuses and convention), and for a campaign to sway a large number of delegates between those two events, to get them to pledge their votes, can also show a strong campaign and — in someone like Lake or Bump’s case — a compelling message.
<
p>Is the convention itself that important? Only in terms of getting on the ballot and appealing to the people in the room. That’s certainly important, but not win-the-primary kind of important. However, I’d argue that if a campaign can be effective throughout the entire caucus and convention time period, it suggests a strong campaign with a compelling message, which is the real reason why I’d be willing to believe there probably is a strong correlation with campaigns that do better than expected at conventions and caucuses with ultimately winning elections.
Jim Shannon over John Kerry…Gerry D’Amico over Evelyn Murphy…Evelyn Murphy over John Silber (who just barely got 15%, but won the primary), Jim Shannon for AG over Scott Harshbarger and there are many other examples over the last thirty years, if anyone has more functioning brain cells than I.
1998 – Harshbarger gets both
2002 – O’Brien gets both
2006 – Patrick gets both
district. I was one of the two Hampshire County delegates. The other communities were East Longmeadow, Ludlow, Longmeadow, Wilbraham, and Hampden.
<
p>Ludlow’s always a bit conservative and authoritarian, and Glodis seems like he’s right up Petrolati’s alley. East Longmeadow and Longmeadow were mostly or all Glodis. Their state rep worked for the Hampden County sherriff’s office. I met one of my former high school students from EL, and his father works for the probation department in Springfield.
<
p>All two of us from Granby voted for Bump. We tend to go with our Amherst friends John Olver, Stan Rosenberg, and Ellen Story. Almost all of Stan’s district went for Bump. In spite of a lot of Glodis t-shirts handed out, there didn’t seem like a lot of support when he spoke.
<
p>Mike Lake was the most pleasant surprise. He delivered a very effective speech. He had a few good specifics in his speech. Bump also demonstrated a knowledge of what it means to be auditor and what she might do. Glodis clearly knew less. OFF-TOPIC: Does Glodis always sound like he ate a live rabbit and is choking on the fur?
<
p>Bernstein was all wet when he was talking about Glodis’s union support. He had a handful of blue-collar and law enforcement locals supporting and working for him; that’s a lot different than an SEIU or MTA endorsement. My guess is that fewer of his supporters are part of the party establishment, unlike Bump. The party establishment has more of an effect on how people vote at the convention than anything else.
<
p>
No, Glodis was running a fever and had a bad cold yesterday, according to the delegates in my area and the T&G.
All three candidates would make competent auditors.
<
p>I personally became convinced that, of the three candidates, Mike Lake would do the best job, and his vision for the office and plans as to how to use current technologies, such as an energy audit, and improving regionalization really make sense.
<
p>Mike took the time to talk to me in depth at a State Committee Meeting back in April, and I have been following all three candidates closely.
<
p>I came to the conclusion that Mike Lake that the in-depth understanding of current information technology & environmental technologies. I really like Mike Lake’s committment to a full energy audit, ability to grasp large quantities of information and process that information with superior competence.
<
p>You missed the fact that Mikes speech, video presentation, and materials impressed many delegates who are free to vote their convictions and not “owned” by a political potentate.
<
p>Did you see the “river” of Lake supporters pouring up to the podium for almost ten minutes? Good theater, good strategy, and great energy.
<
p>I came to the convention not fully convinced to support any auditor candidate and am now fully supporting Mike Lake. I am NOT alone in this. Don’t underestimate Mike Lake. He has “fire in the belly” for the role of Auditor.
Many of the delegates with me were prepared to vote for Bump, but they had encountered Lake himself and his whips on the floor, and that combined with the video and speech locked it for him. Smart, energetic, engaging, experienced–all good enough to garner our support (those 8 of 22 in 1st Worcester) and we’ll be working hard for him.
<
p>I spoke with other delegates, too, who believe Lake actually has the momentum here with his surprising showing. Certainly, he has the energy and the organization so far. Let’s see if he can parlay that into a real primary challenge.
If on the Thursday before the primary you read a poll that indicates Glodis at 30%, Bump at 25%, Lake at 5%, with 40% undecided–not an unreasonable assumption–will you still vote for Lake, which would could result in a Glodis win, or will you vote for Bump to get a 2nd choice, but progressive, candidate elected?
<
p>For the convention, I went back and forth between Bump and Lake, but on primary day, I’m voting for the progressive that has the best chance of beating Glodis. Now there is a chance that means Lake, but as of today, that means I’m voting for Bump.
Even if the poll was perfectly accurate, your numbers still allow for Lake to win outright, and also allow for Glodis to win by more than one vote.
<
p>So how again can you write “would” in the statement still vote for Lake, which would could result?
<
p>Perhaps there is no intention for a “would” — you simply meant could.
<
p>Realistically, there will be no solid polling close enough to election day to use polling as any sort of metric in deciding between Bump and Lake.
just what I have been saying. The two progessive liberal Dem’s will split and the moderate Demn will win. It’s really not that hard to figure out. All the spin won’t work, because Lake and Bump have no $$$$.
Amber – Can you tell me what you mean by a “full energy audit”? And can you tell me how Mike Lake will improve on what Deval Patrick has already put into place via Executive Order 484? It sure sounds neat when Mike Lake talks about it, but I’m left with the question — “where is the beef?”
Here is the link: http://www.electmikelake.com/m…
<
p>I haven’t gotten the hange of embedding them, but this should answer your questions!
Looks like Governor Patrick beat him to the punch by three years. Significant components include a 25% reduction in greenhouse emissions and 20% reduction in total energy use at state-owned or leased buildings by FY12.
<
p>Another highlight:
“Furthermore, the Program shall direct all efforts across state government to track and measure progress toward clean energy and environmental goals, develop long-term programs at state facilities to identify and implement cost-effective initiatives that will result in environmental improvement, and offer educational and training efforts necessary to carry out the provisions of this Order, and other related directives.” (p.3)
<
p>http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs…
that evaluates the implementation of these Executive Orders to be sure they are handled in a manner that’s meaningful and effective. Or not, depending on who’s in charge at the OSA. Mike Lake seems excited about taking on the challenge. I’m happy to let him take on the challenge.
<
p>The Office of the State Auditor
<
p>
OSA can Audit EEA and A&F’s conduct of energy audits, just like it can (and is required to) audit every program in state government.
<
p>But auditing the program that does energy audits is not what I would call “doing an energy audit.” It’s simply fulfilling the minimum duties of the office. DeNucci’s already doing this. Nothing in Lake’s proposal includes any new ideas.
<
p>Unless he wants OSA to do its own energy audits, which would be a waste of tax dollars. That kind of duplication of effort is the sort of thing OSA is supposed to help eliminate. If he has a problem with how the energy audits are being conducted, he should say that, or say he thinks this program is worthy of special attention the next time it’s audited. But proposing to do “energy audits” is either disingenuous or indicates a lack of knowledge about what’s going on in state government.
tax dollars if, and only if, it costs more than the mistakes and savings that it picks up. Perhaps two organizations doing energy audits would catch more areas to save money.
But the onus is on Mr. Lake to demonstrate that duplication of effort would be valuable here. If he gets elected, he’s going to have to demonstrate that to legislators much more skeptical than me before they’ll give him the budget for it.
So that may not be as big a problem as you’d think.
<
p>As for the ‘onus,’ right now I’m kind of thinking it’s on you, because I’m actually of the belief that we could spend 5x more money and effort on finding ways to become more energy efficient as a state government and it still wouldn’t be enough.
But unless he’s going to ask for more money, he’d have to re-allocate it from other areas. Meaning something else gets a less comprehensive audit. So then it’s not just a matter of saving more money than it costs, it also has to save more than would have been saved by whatever audit he’s taking money away from. So I want to hear what he’d like to audit less of. Unless he has unicorn powers like Charlie Baker.
<
p>If you’re going to throw out numbers, you’ll need a source. I don’t buy it. You’ve given me no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the executive branch’s energy audits.
<
p>Probably. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, either. Do you think DeNucci’s style of running the office was either the best way to run it in 2010, or the best way for someone like Lake to run it? I’d have my doubts. DeNucci was, from everything I’ve heard, not a bad guy and not a bad auditor, but inevitably anyone who’s in the same office, doing the same thing, for 30 odd years is going to get stale.
<
p>
<
p>Hey, you’re the one who’s saying Lake can’t do all these things and that the office couldn’t afford it, yada, yada, yada, yada. If you want to keep throwing out those sorts of statements, you need to be the one who makes the case. All I’m saying is you could be wrong and there’s no reason for me (and others) to believe you’re right, so you prove it. Heck, I don’t even support Lake! I just think your line of reasoning is a little absurd.
Every bit of duplication in state government is a waste of tax dollars. I do give credit to Deval Patrick for trying to tackle this problem and make some real changes, after all the waste that built up over 16 years of Republican rule. But Deval Patrick needs another 4 years to finish the job.
<
p>Think about it this way. Each agency has its own administrator, its own receptionist, is own human resources director, its own labor relations person, its own chief financial officer, its own press person, its own government relations person.
<
p>Me? I want a State Auditor who will point out all that waste and duplication, and advocate for consolidation, not add to the waste and duplication. The last thing that we need is another hack, or someone so inexperienced in state government that he would propose to duplicate something that the state already does.
only the Sith deal in absolutes…
<
p>
Amber, you’re supporting Mike Lake because he is committed to a “full energy audit”, yet neither you nor Mike Lake (in the video to which you directed me) can tell me what that is, or what makes the only policy proposal that he has put forth any different from what the Patrick-Murray Administration is already doing.
<
p>And in the video, Mike Lake claims that one school district is wasting $200,000 a month in energy costs. Which district? And what does the State Auditor have to do with local school districts? Is Mike Lake going to hire a crew of energy auditors to go out and audit areas of city and town governments that are not under the jurisdiction of the State Auditor? The Republicans would have a field day with that one.
<
p>I went from Mike Lake’s energy audits video to look at his “innovation” agenda. It’s all of 3 sentences, and the only concrete idea is to have the Auditor’s Office share best practices among agencies. Quite frankly, it’s all fluff. Mike Lake apparently believes that, if he keeps saying innovation, innovation, innovation, people will think he has alot of innovative ideas. But it’s just marketing. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing unusual for a politician, but it doesn’t hold up under close examination. So I ask, once again, “where is the beef?”
I had a chance at our DTC to hear both Bump & Lake and ask questions. Lake couldn’t give me an answer on what management experience he had that would prepare him to lead a department of over 250 people.
<
p>Bump is much more qualified for the position.
That’s what he did as a Special Assistant to the President. He managed everything that happened in the day-to-day operations of the budget. If he can manage the US budget, he can surely audit the MA one.
He managed the day-to-day operations of the White House budget. That’s the money spent directly on WH operations, not on the entire US govt.
<
p>And note: day to day operations. He didn’t set policy for how the money would be spent; he just spent it.
I did speak to a couple candidates who had just become aware of Glodis’s history of bigotry toward other groups (women, LGBT, Muslims…) and that had shifted their impression of him. When I directly told my district’s whip that I though Glodis had no business holding an office as a Democrat given his bigoted past, the kid had no real answer. I guess they just never thought anyone would mind.
I heard from a poll watcher at the convention that Glodis threw delegates to Lake in order to do what Bernstein suggested above. Lake was not going to get the 15%. Bump alone would have been a formidable primary challenger. Lake and Bump together will split progressive/women, etc., voters and Glodis should end-up with the nomination. From what I have heard of Glodis and his political savvy, this seems very much within the realm of possibility.
…helps Bump or Glodis the most…
<
p>On the one hand, you’re correct, two progressives against the conservative…
<
p>But on the other hand…two men on the ballot has to help out Bump…
<
p>In the end, I think it’s a wash having Lake on the ballot…how many primary voters will know who he is…I can’t imagine him being able to advertise his message.
they’re just saying that now to attempt to save face. Personally, I don’t think it’s working.
<
p>Additionally, the notion that two ‘progressives’ will split the race in this election presumes that primary voters are going to know enough about this down-down-down ballot race to understand who’s “progressive” and who’s “hack central” (Glodis). I think it’s just as likely that having three candidates, two male and one female, could split the votes amongst some male voters on primary day and help Bump. Then again, I think it’s even more likely that voters learn the truth about Glodis and he finishes third, with only the votes of people who support hacks and bigots.
A friend of mine, who was positioned on the floor around a group of Glodis supporters, heard them moan and groan about being hung over after Guy’s Friday night bash continued on until something like 3:00 in the morning. That may explain why the Glodis supporters looked so listless and tired during Guy’s speech, and maybe even why Guy lost his speaking voice. I was up front by the stage, and his supporters weren’t even listening to his speech. The only other explanation is that the Glodis supporters were just supporting him because they were told to support him, they were just following orders, didn’t have their hearts in it.
<
p>I remember volunteering for Shannon O’Brien at the Convention back in 2002 and, after our Friday night meeting, Shannon’s team told us to get to bed early and get up early on Saturday morning for the Convention. That approach clearly worked for Shannon.
<
p>I heard some complaints about Bump not having sign-holders outside the DCU Center, and not having a Friday night party, like Glodis, or a Saturday morning breakfast, like Lake, but Bump had her volunteers everywhere inside the building, working delegates, and it obviously paid off.
In First Worcester there was a desire to have a “unanimous Glodis support” which is why you had to commit to vote for him to get onto the slate.
<
p>A few non-slate people got voted into Delegates, but they were still pushing hard.
<
p>So much so that I heard several people who switched or expressed desire to switch from Glodis to Lake who were told
<
p>”you can’t renege, you made a pledge”
<
p>There was NO RELEASE in First Worcester all of the switches were because of – add-ons or deciding to vote conscious.
<
p>Many more expressed desire to not vote for Glodis.
<
p>At the end of the day, Guy Glodis IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.
<
p>He is anti-women’s right to their own bodies, anti-CORI, held a “straight parade” he is anti-equality and while State Senator and Rep voted many times against working class people.
<
p>In any other state that qualifies you for hard right, not a Democratic Nomination. With Cahill debacle 4 years ago, I think people just needed a reason to not vote for him.
…to be unanimous for Glodis. I told Suzanne Bump a while ago that I would vote for her and did so. Let’s remember that delegates are ALL free agents once they have been credentialed. No candidate has the authority to “release” his delegates because he has no authority to hold them to begin with. Yes, if you were elected based on stating whom you would support then the ethical thing to do would be to stick to your pledge, but there is absolutely no requirement that you do so. Fortunately, I was selected as a youth delegate via the add-on process so I wasn’t beholden to anyone anyway.
I realize some may choose to be derogatory, almost make fun of others choices…not helpful, and it won’t ever make me like “your” candidate better; human nature, I guess. The snider the tone used about MY post the less likely YOUR post is to convince me. Think about it.
<
p>As to “how much detail” or “what kind of experience” or “what kind of degree” – each of us will rank what we find most important, and connect with the candidates of our choice.
<
p>But – and without naming posters or posts – lets keep the blood out of the water, and stick to why we are in favor of a particular candidate, and not make fun of youth, or voice-tones, or gender.
<
p>As to whether Gov. Patrick “beat” Lake to it by three years, I don’t recall Patrick suggesting using the infrastructure of the Auditor’s office to do that audit – so to me it seems like a synergistic use of an idea.
<
p>But then, I have never chosen a candidate due to:
<
p>1. Who endorsed that candidate.
<
p>2. The details of an espoused platoform of plan
<
p>3. The candidates gender or gender orientation.
<
p>I also have been snookered (John Edward – Mr. Portrait of Dorian Gray comes to mind as to me being “snookered”)so I am not suggesting I am infallible.
<
p>Also, in my opinion all three candidates are qualified to do the job, making this in some ways a luxury problem, or an “embarassment of riches”.
<
p>That all being said, Mike Lakes speech and video resonated with me, and absent an implosion of some sort, I expect to vote and work for him…not because I have anything against Suzanne Bump or even Guy Glodis. Both of them have considerable experience and some credible supporters.
<
p>However, neither Bump nor Glodis resonated with the kind of energy, passion, and idealism that I saw in Mike Lake.
<
p>Maybe given that I am feeling rather old, and rather tired, that energy and passion resonated far more than years on the Hill (which is NOT more transparent and NOT more democratic then the Hill was when I first began watching the Hill), or experience managing a sheriff’s department.
When you say that you support Mike Lake because you felt his energy, passion, and idealism, that I can understand. When you just repeat his talking points — like a full energy audit, whatever that is — it sets off my credibility monitor.
<
p>Like you, I support my candidate — Suzanne Bump — because I feel her energy, passion, and idealism. But she has enough of a record about which I can talk intelligently and honestly. Like the Joint Task Force on the Underground Economy that Suzanne Bump created, which gets state agencies that never worked together in the past to work together to share information about unscrupulous employers who put their workers at risk by, for example, failing to pay for unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation, and falsly treat their employees as independent contractors to get out of paying employment taxes. That task force has collected millions of dollars from those cheating employers, helped hundreds of workers get the benefits and rights that they deserve, and created an even playing field for employers who play by the rules. That’s energy, passion, and idealism made real, and making real results for Massachustts. And it’s not just an interesting idea, it’s something that has been achieved in state government, which can only be done by someone who knows something about state government, knows the way bureaucrats and agencies think and react, and knows how to make change real. That’s only one of Suzanne’s real accomplishments that puts me squarely in her corner.
<
p>Oh yeah, that and my belief that she is the only candidate who can defeat Guy Glodis, who is absolutely unqualified to be State Auditor and represents everything that is wrong with Massachusetts Democrats.
…why the second item in your list (about the details of one’s platform or plan) would not be significant in your decision as to whom to support.
I don’t understand why one would NOT take endorsements into consideration. I ma not suggesting that one should blindly follow the endorsement of a specific person.
<
p>To me an endorsement is a factor. If someone I know and trust endorses, that makes a difference to me. It can also tell me that a person is electable.
<
p>I look back to 2005 and when I learned of Congressman’s McGovern early endorsement of Deval Patrick. The Congressman and I discussed his thinking and it made a big difference in my decision. He knew Deval and felt that he would be both a good candidate and governor.
<
p>With all due respect to Deb, despite the fact that she might not take my endorsement into consideration, I would take hers. If Deb endorsed someone from Arlington that she had worked with and knew, it would be a factor in my decision making in a race.
Since you are someone I know and trust if you came to me and talked about your candidate I would be more than happy to give that consideration. On the other hand, if someone says that we all “have to” vote for the person the local bigwig says to that’s frankly a turn off.
All I gotta say is that it works both ways. Yes, I consider the endorsements of elected officials whom I admire, like Barney Frank and Joe DeNucci. But I also take notice when people that I thought I knew make completely strange endorsements. Now I can understand Jim McGovern and Tim Murray supporting Glodis, although it disappoints me, because Glodis wields such incredible power in Worcester County, which is their base. But the purported progressives on Guy’s endorsement flier make me wonder about their true political colors. Why wouldn’t we wonder about someone supporting a candidate with such a misogynistic, homophobic, racist world view? What is it? He can win? Is that what it’s all about? Do we Democrats stand for anything?
I’m told by a good friend (a “usually reliable source”) that some of the people who appeared on a recent Glodis flyer are furious that he used their names without permission.
I remember DeNucci as the guy who was auditor during the Big Dig and never found anything to really complain about. If Bump does win, I hope she does a much better job than him.
If someone whose opinion I respect comes out and supports/endorses a candidate, I listen to what they had to say, and if there is sufficient “meat” I ponder it.
<
p>But I have never chosen a candidate because of an endorsement, either locally or state wide or nationally.
<
p>Now, that may just mean I am “ornery” or of an unusually independent nature, but it is true that I have never chosen a candidate primarily or solely because someone endorsed that candidate.
<
p>The reasons someone gives for chosing a candidate, if those reasons hold up after I do my own “due diligence” can have impact. But due to significant life experiences of mine, I am not able to “just take someone’s word” for anything, including which candidate to support.
<
p>No disrespect to anyone intended at all; I just cannot pass the buck in that fashion, I must do my own independent due diligence.
<
p>Besides, if I am truly convinced a candidate deserves an all out effort, I really do give my all and have to be careful not to over extend myself given my somewhat fragile health and other factors. Therefore, my decisions are extremely thoughtful and personal, and reflect the reality that I was born and educated in another state and do not have a sense of tribal loyalty that impacts my decision making in Massachusetts.
<
p>And – Oh yeah – political “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’ of a sort resulting from having been sooooooooo wrong about John Edward’s integrity.
They often feel like an attempt to “trap” my vote before the field is set. That was my first sour taste for Glodis. I sometimes choose to pledge my support at caucus — I think people should know what they’re voting for — but that’s only if I have a strong preference for someone. I regretted doing that four years ago when I was pledged to Reilly even though I wanted to vote for Gabrieli so that he could get 15%.
<
p>I would be happy with Bump or Lake as auditor. I think they’re two progressives with strong values, relevant experience, and sound judgment. I ended tipping for Lake mainly because I can’t shake my doubts about how aggressive Suzanne Bump would be in stamping out any shenanigans she found in Deval Patrick’s government.
It’s up to you. I was happy to do so this year for Deval Patrick and Steve Grossman. It’s just another way to identify their “ones” without having to call you and move on to contacting/persuading others.
As a strong supporter of both Patrick and Bump, I felt a bit uncomfortable when Suzanne announced she was opposed to some aspects of the transportation reform package. It felt like a family feud. It is, however, evidence of her willingness to disagree with the Governor when she sees a better way to do things.
You can be “your own person” without wanting to antagonize your friend and ally on something important. Bump may be independent, but she’s still human. Of course, Lake is clearly ambitious, and may be in no hurry to antagonize Democrats on his upward trajectory.
<
p>I don’t agree with electing auditors any more than electing judges. We need arbiters who do not owe favors and thanks to those they’re supposed to oversee.
<
p>As for what an auditor should be, and how s/he should be selected, see Canadian Auditor Sheila Fraser.
Of course no one is forced to vote anyway.
<
p>But back in reality, most of the Worcester delegation, wanting to keep their position in the city party and/or favorable standing among the head POLS mean that people stick with the agreement they made.
<
p>In my district, there was more then “heat” there were explicit reminders of that fact.
If delegates made an agreement they should generally stick with it. In my case I DID stick with a commitment I made and was pressured to switch for the sake of town unity – not a convincing argument.
Menino had “his” delegates vote for Bump and yes there were Glodis supporters voting for Lake.
Its nice to live in this Candy Land world where we speak about Democrats as if they all share our values just some resonate more than others.
<
p>I would like to have the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
<
p>But when someone has a record of explicitly advocating hate and marriage inequality towards Commonwealth residents and votes to take away Women’s rights over their bodies, it needs to be said, often and out loud.
<
p>That we are ok that a Democrat can oppose our platform and still be considered for our nomination speaks more to us as a party then it does to their audacity.
<
p>That someone who is a lobbyist for insurance, a former employee of Bush White House advisor Andy Card, a lawyer for convicted racist predatory Citigroup and benefactor of big oil as the “progressive alternative” to Glodis speaks to how far our politicians are from our values.
<
p>I guess I am just naive to believe in always voting for the DEMOCRATIC candidate in these races.
Interning a long time ago for the Republican State Rep who represented you in the legislature (which Card did at the time)is a little bit different than touting your experience in the Bush White House as your major qualification for office.
<
p>Before you start mudslinging, you may want to review your own candidate’s record.
And where are the rationalizing away the Lobbyist for insurance companies and working for Citigroup especially in the period when they were fined for their predatory lending? No rationalizing for that?
<
p>I have never worked for my Republican legislator no matter how many I have had over the years…
<
p>Just not good enough for the “progressive alternative.”
He touts the appointment.
Mike Lake has spent more time working for Republicans than for Democrats, and he’s running based on his experience in the Bush White House.
<
p>This would be the same Bush White House that did things so terrible to our country that even BP can only dream of emulating them. Guilt by association doesn’t work when your guy’s got nastier associates.
I guess its my Blackness speaking, I find it unacceptable to defend CitiGroup’s preying on poor communities of color.
<
p>It must be my crazy progressivism, but working as a lobbyist for an industry that kills Americans, impoverishes those it doesn’t kill and only exists because those lobbyists have done a good job of muddying what Health Care means is no Democratic values.
<
p>With oil gushing from gulf coast and her financial backing from oil executives, I guess that is the environmentalist in me.
<
p>But I have always had an uneasy acceptance of liberalism that excuses working for anyone to “get by” and accepting that preying on communities of color as long as you say the right things in the right places.
<
p>That Lake was a Clinton appointee who was reappointed during the transition as opposed to Bump who applied for a job with a Republican is the least of my problems with her candidacy.
<
p>In truth its that the more I learn, like that her firm is still a lobbyist for the worst companies of our Commonwealth to her ethics troubles that lead me to know she isn’t a progressive.
<
p>That her entire message at the convention was Glodis sucks and I am the only person who can beat him is probably the best signal as to what sort of auditor she would be.
<
p>I am sorry that people’s fear of a Glodis victory is crippling the ability to do research on these things… but I encourage you to continue doing so anyway.
And I just can’t get past the working for Bush part.
<
p>Real Democrats didn’t do that. He could have quit at any time and gone into the private or nonprofit sector, back to college, or to work on a campaign if he had a progressive bone in his body.
<
p>If he was as impressive as he claims, he had plenty of options other than working for Bush to get by.
…his position was administrative rather than political. If I were in the WH and the new President wanted to keep me I would be honored to continue to serve my country.
Please be advised, I am an avid supporter of Suzanne Bump.
<
p>I also think I know her fairly well, since she has been my stepmother for the past 25 years.
<
p>Having admitted that, let me say this.
<
p>Suzanne did some state level lobbying for general insurers after she left the State House. I recall auto insurers and business liability insurers being clients mostly. If you go to her insurance lobbyist employer’s web site health insurers are not mentioned as a part of the client base. To my knowledge she never worked for health insurers.
<
p>Suzanne left Citigroup to volunteer for Shannon O’Brien as an organizer, focusing in part on organizing minority community support for Shannon because Suzanne placed great importance on having a Democrat in the corner office, something that too few Democrats worried about for twenty odd years. At least too few to get a Dem elected. I repeat, Suzanne left a good paying job to go work for Shannon, not hosting fancy fundraisers, but doing community organizing.
<
p>Taking the few entries on Suzanne’s resume where she actually tried to make money and claiming that she has spent her life shilling for the man is completely unfair. If anything Suzanne has been too willing to put working for progressive candidates ahead of making a good living, at least that is what my father liked to say (half-jokingly).
<
p>To leap from Suzanne’s actual record to accusations of profiting on denying sick people health care is frankly absurd and anyone knowingly making that smear should be embarrassed.
<
p>If it was a simple mistake about Suzanne’s background due to limited information, then such concerns (incorrect though they are) are obviously more understandable.
To the best of my knowledge, Mike Lake only worked in the White House in Clinton’s time there. I’m not 100% sure about that, so if you have anything that disproves me, please post it. But please don’t put out baseless accusations to fight back against criticism of Bump for working for a Republican legislator who later became a prominent figure in the Bush administration
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta…
I checked after I posted that, and realized that he graduated in ’02, which meant that he would have had to work for the Bush White House. Sorry for that
“Mike Lake has spent more time working for Republicans than for Democrats, and he’s running based on his experience in the Bush White House. “
<
p>This statement is 2 things, and neither of them is the truth. It is however, proof that a) all Bump and her team can do is to waste their time going negative on Lake as she slowly loses progressive support, and b) you’ll say anything, even if it’s not true. Don’t even start saying you’re not on Bump’s team – I saw you on the convention floor in a Bump T-shirt.
<
p>Mike Lake worked for Bill Clinton’s White House for almost a year, and a few weeks during and after the transition to train his replacement at the Bush White House.
<
p>After that, he worked on numerous campaigns for Democrats, including being Angus McQuilken’s finance director, raising money in Chicago for John Kerry, being Mike Festa’s finance Director during Festa’s District Attorney campaign, and helping out Barack Obama during the 2008 election. He’s been supportive of countless others with his money and his time.
<
p>Patrick, if you really like Suzanne Bump, tell people why. In a Democratic Primary, trying to smear a fellow Democrat only makes you look desperate.
<
p>
first and formeost. I would note that any Bump supporters “going negative” on Mr. Lake have done so in a satirical fashion, satirizing the negative smears of Bump that supposed Lake supporters made in the first instance.
<
p>look closely at Mr. Lang’s comments and the comments he responds to and you will see that he replying to anti-Bump smears on this thread, not instigating going negative.
You wrote “look closely at Mr. Lang’s comments and the comments he responds to and you will see that he replying to anti-Bump smears on this thread, not instigating going negative”.
<
p>I read through his comments. Did you??
<
p>I quoted Mr. Long [not Mr. Lang], and answered his false accusation with a fact. I looked at his exact words to make my response. What are you talking about?
<
p>Is your point that accusing Mike Lake of working more for Republicans than Democrats is somehow satirical? If so, please enlighten us. I see no sarcasm in it.
at the top start by simply saying that Suzanne has a good chance to win.
<
p>Much further down he replies to a Lake supporter substantively about Lake’s desire to do energy audits. Nothing very smeary in all of those comments.
<
p>Then, much, much further down he replies to the poster blackjew who initiated the negativity with a long laundry list of largely unfair comments on Bump. Long was responding to the initial salvo by another commenter. And every other comment about Lake working for Bush follows a Lake supporter trying to smear Suzanne by association to a past employer. So yes, Long is clearly mimicking the Lake people, who took the lead in going negative, at least on this thread.
<
p>The sarcasm is in the assertion that Lake’s republican tainted resume is critical to the analysis. It is jeering at the idea that Suzanne’s work for Andy Card is somehow decisive of anything.
<
p>Again, Long, not Lang, is replying to Lake smear artists using their own flawed logic against them.
<
p>At least that is how I read the thread.
<
p>Am I wrong? Did Long start in with the resume cherry picking? Or was it in fact Lake supporters? You know, those wide-eyed idealists (sarcasm!).
…just the one where Patrick asserts that:
<
p>”Mike Lake has spent more time working for Republicans than for Democrats, and he’s running based on his experience in the Bush White House.
<
p>This would be the same Bush White House that did things so terrible to our country that even BP can only dream of emulating them. Guilt by association doesn’t work when your guy’s got nastier associates.”
<
p>As I explained in my comment above, this statement by Patrick Long is simply a lie. That’s it’s lie is not disputable, because there’s no question about how long Mike Lake spent working in the Bush White House (just long enough to train his replacement).
<
p>You think that lying about Mike Lake’s record is somehow funny? Sarcastic? I don’t.
<
p>Or are you saying that it’s ok for Patrick Long to lie?
<
p>Patrick also said this, in another comment above:
<
p>”Interning a long time ago for the Republican State Rep who represented you in the legislature (which Card did at the time)is a little bit different than touting your experience in the Bush White House as your major qualification for office.”
<
p>This is not a blatant lie, it’s just incendiary hyperbole that happens to be highly misleading. I’d like to see where Mike Lake touts working for the Bush White House as his major qualification for office. Of course neither you nor Patrick can show me that, since it exists only as a figment of his imagination.
<
p>I’ve read all the comments above – and whether you agree or not that Suzanne Bump’s experience makes her tainted or not, there’s little or no argument on whether she in fact had the jobs people ascribe to her. That’s not the case for Mr. Long assertions – Patrick’s just making stuff up about Mike Lake, stuff that isn’t true. He’s lying.
<
p>So, I’ll ask again: Do you think that lying to people about Mike Lake’s record and experience is funny? Sarcastic?
mrstas,
<
p>Mike Lake touts his White House experience as a major credential.
<
p>Mike Lake conveys the impression that he had a crucial role in the White House.
<
p>Mike Lake was twenty-one when Clinton left office.
<
p>Twenty-one yearolds, no matter how brilliant, do not hold key White House jobs, unless they have connected or wealthy patrons. (just my thought on this based on what I have seen)
<
p>I am not aware of any such patron for Mike Lake.
<
p>It appears that Mike Lake also worked for GWB for sometime after the transition.
<
p>Mike Lake makes little mention of his tenure in the White House under GWB.
<
p>Key White House staffers do not get held over by new adminsitrations, especially when they are as partisan as the GWB/Cheney admin.
<
p>I think Mike Lake is being overly general about his White House experience and creating the hazard that people will view it over-postively. Perhaps he wants people to draw a falsely overgenerous impression, perhaps he is unaware of the danger his presentation is creating.
<
p>I also think context matters and your unwillingness to examine the full context of Mr. Long’s comments in this thread is regrettable for that reason.
<
p>I also think Lake supporters calling Bump supporters (on this thread) desperately negative is utterly outlandish, since it is Mike Lake supporters who are being the most unfair on this tread. Certainly Mr. Long’s remarks are easily as valid as the incendiary hyperbole from Lake supporters about Suzanne Bump on this thread.
<
p>Also there is no question about Suzanne’s past jobs because she discloses them on her website and elsewhere. Mike Lake is much less forthcoming about the fact that he did work under GWB.
<
p>Finally, let me just say, I do not resent Mr. Lake for staying on under GWB. It appears that he had an awesome job for a young man in the White House and, at the time, none of us knew that GWB was going to become the anti-Christ. At the time GWB was just a repbulican who almost seemed like a nice guy. It is unfair to blame Mr. Lake for associating with the disaster of a President that GWB became since Mike Lake had no way of knowing what was about to go down.
“Mike Lake touts his White House experience as a major credential.
<
p>Mike Lake conveys the impression that he had a crucial role in the White House.
<
p>Mike Lake was twenty-one when Clinton left office. “
<
p>Agreed.
<
p>”Twenty-one yearolds, no matter how brilliant, do not hold key White House jobs, unless they have connected or wealthy patrons. (just my thought on this based on what I have seen)
<
p>I am not aware of any such patron for Mike Lake. “
<
p>Ok, this is your thought. Do you care to provide even a shred of evidence, or should we accept all your thoughts as fact? Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, a talented 21 year old could, in fact, be appointed to an important position in the White House based on competence?
<
p>I’ll provide a counter example, or two. Rahm Emanuel wasn’t 21, but he was a senior policy advisor in the White House, at age 34. Which is pretty close to Mike Lake’s current age. In 1993, David Anderson (who hadn’t yet graduated from college), was Director of Television Services in the Clinton White House. George Stephanopoulos, at a wise old age of 32, oversaw communications staff and strategy for the White House. Of the 450 staff in the 1993 Clinton White House, 63 were under age 24.
<
p>See: http://articles.latimes.com/19…
<
p>So, let me ask this another way – since the Clinton White House was known for hiring young, brilliant, and energetic staff for all sorts of really responsible and vital positions, is it really that much of a mental stretch for you to think that they might have hired Mike Lake?
<
p>I do agree with you on one thing – Mike Lake had no wealthy or connected patron.
<
p>”It appears that Mike Lake also worked for GWB for sometime after the transition.
<
p>Mike Lake makes little mention of his tenure in the White House under GWB.
<
p>Key White House staffers do not get held over by new adminsitrations, especially when they are as partisan as the GWB/Cheney admin. “
<
p>Mike Lake worked for the White House for a few weeks after President Bush was sworn in, to help with the transition. Since his role was both important and non-partisan, I assume he felt a duty to stay on and help train his replacement. He doesn’t hide this fact, nor does he make much mention of it, because his tenure there was so brief. Mike Lake also helped President Obama’s staff in the transition after the 2008 election, but he doesn’t mention this either, because his experience there was quite brief.
<
p>You’re right that few staffers are held over, but then again, most staffers have partisan positions and thus wouldn’t be – something that’s not relevant in the context of Mike Lake’s actual position.
<
p>”I think Mike Lake is being overly general about his White House experience and creating the hazard that people will view it over-postively. Perhaps he wants people to draw a falsely overgenerous impression, perhaps he is unaware of the danger his presentation is creating. “
<
p>Actually, he’s been very specific about what he did in the White House. When I’ve heard him talk about it, he usually says something about being in charge of the building but not the policy, and having the White House credit card. You’re clearly not listening, or not paying attention. I don’t blame you, since you’re supporting your stepmother and not looking for a candidate to support, but lets not ascribe your lack of attentiveness to other voters. I think it’s quite condescending.
<
p>”I also think context matters and your unwillingness to examine the full context of Mr. Long’s comments in this thread is regrettable for that reason. “
<
p>Context matters sometimes. It doesn’t matter when a person is clearly lying, as Patrick was. You can try to excuse his lie by pointing to context, but the context doesn’t excuse his lie or your defense of it.
<
p>If you’re saying that Patrick said two truths and a lie, and you want me to acknowledge the truths as I call him out on the lie, then say so. Excusing his lie because someone else used hyperbole is simply ridiculous.
<
p>”I also think Lake supporters calling Bump supporters (on this thread) desperately negative is utterly outlandish, since it is Mike Lake supporters who are being the most unfair on this tread. Certainly Mr. Long’s remarks are easily as valid as the incendiary hyperbole from Lake supporters about Suzanne Bump on this thread. “
<
p>There’s a lot of nonsense being thrown around. It doesn’t give Patrick Long an excuse to make stuff up out of thin air. One hyperbole doesn’t give excuse to one lie. His remarks aren’t any less false because they’re in response to someone else’s statement. They’re just factually, demonstrably false. [Note – since I called him out on it, neither him nor you have defended his actual remarks. Instead, you’ve engaged in some sort of shell game to excuse the specifics and examine the larger topic. I take that to mean you also think that his specific remarks are indefensible.]
<
p>”Also there is no question about Suzanne’s past jobs because she discloses them on her website and elsewhere. Mike Lake is much less forthcoming about the fact that he did work under GWB.”
<
p>Where on her website does she disclose that she worked as a lobbyist? Where does she disclose her clients? Right, she doesn’t. She doesn’t have a comprehensive resume, but instead, she has highlights. This is not unusual, because most candidates for office have done far more in their lives than most website visitors would care to read.
<
p>Mike Lake’s website is the same in this regard. It doesn’t have a comprehensive list of every place Mike Lake worked for two weeks or more, because that list would be far too long. Mike has never hidden that he had worked at the Bush White House, but since his tenure there is best measured in weeks, as opposed to months or years, it doesn’t seem to merit inclusion. You may disagree, but if you argue for full disclosure from Mike, then I expect you to demand the same from the other candidates, including your stepmother. She could start with a list of her lobbying clients.
<
p>”Finally, let me just say, I do not resent Mr. Lake for staying on under GWB. It appears that he had an awesome job for a young man in the White House and, at the time, none of us knew that GWB was going to become the anti-Christ. At the time GWB was just a repbulican who almost seemed like a nice guy. It is unfair to blame Mr. Lake for associating with the disaster of a President that GWB became since Mike Lake had no way of knowing what was about to go down.”
<
p>I agree, and I’d further add that Mike Lake was there to help with the transition, and he stayed on for a few weeks to make sure the handoff went smoothly.
I have to say that I agree with you to a large extent, mrstas, and I don’t think there’s a more rabid supporter of Bump on here than me. I think that we all have to calm down and take a deep breath. But let’s not ignore the fact that Mike Lake himself, in one of his Northeastern University biographies, stated that he “counts himself among only four individuals reappointed by President Bush after the Clinton administration.” Lake Northeastern University Bio See that? One of only four individuals from the Clinton White House reappointed by George W. Bush. That’s not Patrick Long saying that, that’s not me saying that, that’s Mike Lake saying that.
<
p>Now, if Mike Lake was really a VIP in the White House, and George W. Bush re-appointed Lake to that VIP position, then Patrick Long has a good point. If, however, as I believe, Mike Lake had a position in the Clinton White House just one step above a Northeastern University Co-op student, then Patrick is really making a mountain out of a mole hill. I have to agree with you, mrstas, that Mike Lake has overly exaggerated his White House experience, but we both have to agree that it is coming back to haunt him.
“Now, if Mike Lake was really a VIP in the White House, and George W. Bush re-appointed Lake to that VIP position, then Patrick Long has a good point.”
<
p>No, he still doesn’t. Mike Lake had an important, but non-partisan position that is administrative and managerial, but not political in nature. There aren’t many such jobs at the White House, but he had one of them. Mike was re-appointed by George W. Bush to help with the transition and to train his own replacement. When that task was done, so was Mike Lake’s connection with George W. Bush and his White House, which is why Mike was only there a few weeks.
<
p>Does that make sense?
The issue is really not that whether it makes sense but rather whether it is convenient. For those supporting other candidates, it’s inconvenient that this is the case. Look for this mischaracterization of Lake’s employment at the White House to continue to pop up here with increasing frequency. It’s political Whack-a-Mole.
Your explanation makes sense. It’s Mike Lake’s characterization of what happened that doesn’t make sense. It’s Mike Lake who claims that he was one of “only four individuals reappointed by President Bush after the Clinton administration.” If, in reality, he was “re-appointed” to train his replacement, his claim is just one more exaggeration, making it look like he was so valuable that the Bush White House had to keep him on board. Lake’s die-hard supporters just can’t see the problem with his inflated resume. I think it’s a great accomplishment to have worked in the Clinton White House, and he should get credit for that, but to imply that he was running the White House for Bill Clinton “managed the day-to-day operations of the White House” is just unbelievable. Lake is stretching the truth and that’s a problem for him — and us if he were to win the nomination.
1) He was, in fact, re-appointed. His job was vital and it was important to keep him on during the transition and for a bit longer.
<
p>He said he was re-appointed. He was re-appointed. Is your objection that he doesn’t specifically say that he was re-appointed to train his replacement? It doesn’t change that he was one of four people re-appointed.
<
p>Remember, it’s Bump people bringing this up. Mike Lake doesn’t bring up his Bush appointment, because it was short. You want him to explain in more detail something he doesn’t bring up himself??
<
p>This whole re-appointment flap, like lightiris says, is all about misconstruing Mike Lake’s actual employment for political gain.
<
p>2) Mike Lake managed the day to day operations of the White House.
<
p>Every time I’ve heard Mike mention the White House, he explains that he had control over a $54 million dollar budget (far more than the $17 million the auditor spends, btw) and was in charge of the building itself, as opposed to the policy wing.
<
p>Even David Bernstein, who cast a pretty skeptical eye on Mike Lake’s resume, said this about the whole topic:
<
p>”So, what’s the bottom line? I certainly can’t conclude that Lake is lying about his experience. Nor would I necessarily say that he has puffed it up (through omissions or hyperbole) more than many other pols.”
<
p>http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta…
<
p>Is your problem that someone who doesn’t know what the White House does, and is unwilling to research it for more than 15 seconds on Google, might misunderstand what Mike Lake actually did? Furthermore, because someone might misunderstand it, you want Mike Lake to explain his White House experience in more detail??
<
p>This is what Mike’s website actually says:
<
p>Mike completed his final Northeastern University co-op at the White House. Because of an exemplary accounting system he produced while serving there, Mike was appointed by President Clinton to serve as Special Assistant for White House operations. Mike gained firsthand knowledge of what it takes to manage a complex government agency and eliminate inefficiencies. Mike effectively managed the day-to-day operations of the White House, re-designing and improving processes and systems for the $54 million government agency.
<
p>This explains what Mike did. There is nothing misleading here, and if you think people will confuse his role for that of the White House Chief of Staff, then that’s your issue, not his. Mike makes his actual role clear.
<
p>Again, ultimately, it’s what I said to Bump’s stepson in one of my other posts. You can’t critique Mike Lake for not providing the deep details of what he did in every job he ever had unless you demand the same of all the other candidates, including your own. If you’re a Bump supporter, start by demanding her full list of lobbying clients.
<
p>One last thing – in my opinion, since website space is free, I think every candidate should post a resume overview and a more detailed description. I don’t make the rules though, and I’m not sure a more detailed description would do anything more than provide fodder for the candidate’s opponents.
MrStas,
<
p>You’re right that my comments about Lake’s tenure under Bush would be indefensible, and would be lying, if I had known the truth. But I was only working from what I’ve seen/heard from Mr. Lake, which makes it sound like it was a long time.
<
p>I sincerely apologize for misinterpreting his statements. I also guarantee you that if a high-information voter like me can make that mistake, other voters will too. Note some of jumbowonk’s comments in this thread. Jumbowonk had the opportunity to learn more, and did so. Most voters won’t have the opportunity or won’t care enough. If you are who I think you are, you’ve been in politics long enough to know that.
<
p>Yellowdogdem is right that I’m making a mountain out of a molehill. But Mr. Lake can’t really complain about that when it’s what his own puffery leads people to believe, and when I’m simply responding to ridiculous attacks on my candidate by the Lake people.
<
p>And yes, I’m a Bump supporter. I never denied that or attempted to, and frankly I’m a bit annoyed at the accusation that I would. I’ve been open in my support since January, at least.
<
p>Re: your comments about my lag time in responding:
Other priorities. I was busy learning how to crawl through the mud and fire an M4 while under nuclear, biological, or chemical attack.
This week of National Guard training at Ft Devens makes me a war hero by some people’s standards, so show a little respect.
There is nothing inherently wrong with working for a Republican or as a lobbyist; both are honest livings. Besides this was Andy Card long before his “you don’t roll out a new product in August” days. Don’t attach a lobbyist too closely to their clients; like lawyers they work for whomever hires them and are not involved in the decisions of the company. If no candidate is perfect enough for you maybe you should run next time.
There is in fact something inherently wrong with working as a Lobbyist for Health Insurance Industry, working for Citigroup who preyed on Communities of Color and financial backing from the oil industry.
<
p>That we in Massachusetts are so willing to have strong values of justice and yet demand so little of our Democrats is the problem.
<
p>That so many are willing to rationalize and excuse it away will only mean we will continue to nominate the Cahill’s in the future.
<
p>I am sorry that Democratic values mean so little that even protecting the financial interests of health insurance companies over people, defending racist financial assaults on those who can least afford it, and being funded by oil companies is ok. For my values this is just isn’t.
“While this is definitely present (one delegate near me said that she was voting for Bump because “she’s the only woman;” I’m assuming she means in the auditor primary, otherwise she forgot about Martha Coakley).”
<
p>Hi there,
<
p>That was me you heard, I assume. I didn’t forget about Martha Coakley (that’d be difficult), but she was unopposed. Bump was the only woman in a race.
<
p>That wasn’t the only reason I voted for her. As others have pointed out, it’s likely that Glodis, Lake, or Bump would make fine auditors. I chose Bump because she has experience, she’s worked in the Patrick administration so she knows how to accomplish things within it, and her convention speech (if not her video, which struck me as just weird) really impressed me.
<
p>”The big question is whether this would have any substantial effect on the outcome. I’m inclined to say it didn’t.”
<
p>Good question. I wish I could say I vote color/gender/minorityblind, but until we have equal representation, I can’t. I know some other female delegates I spoke to weigh gender as heavily as I do. I wouldn’t be so inclined to dismiss the “women vote for women” factor — but I might amend it to be a little more sensitive to the fact that Bump is a great candidate. How about “women vote for experienced, qualified women”?
…only to point out a factor that potentially put her over the top. I don’t actually think that it was a prominent factor. Personally, I just think people were fed up with Glodis’ bullshit and began to look elsewhere. And then they found out that they liked what they heard from Mike Lake and Suzanne Bump.
I think this can be sort of a success for Glodis. Menino sent in his “troops: to vote for Bump, Denucci endorsed her the day of, and she also appears more to the average Democrat and liberal base. So for Glodis to statistically tie her I think can be a good thing. If I am Bump I am somewhat concerned.
Her video was poorly made and I can’t believe the voices were not in sync. You couldn’t understand any of the voices in the video either. What was the message? I dont know…. Glodis’s video was clearly the best…. . Her most important day and she screwed it up. She’s also not the best orator either.
She’s not a slick politician like Glodis. Which makes her win even more impressive.
<
p>People who support Bump support her on the merits, because she would be the best Auditor, but a lot of people support Glodis because he has the money to make a good video and some pretty fliers, so they’ve only heard his side of the story and only seen him presented in a very flattering light.
Aman86, I haven’t seen you around here at all before. It shows that your account was created on Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 11:37:57 AM EDT. That was only a few days after this was posted: Auditors Race Getting Personal, and judging by the comments, even less time after it was promoted. That article had a poll. Also, you have only commented on this article.
<
p>Please tell us more about yourself. I don’t wish to throw around accusations lightly, but it does seem that you are either affiliated with the Glodis campaign and aren’t disclosing your support, or that you are merely a fake campaign account
<
p>Also, some proper spelling and grammar would be appreciated
The “He’s our Guy” song really wasn’t that good. Glodis’ vide was decent political theatre, but I really don’t think it was that effective at actually convincing people.
… and hers was the only video to suffer that problem — got me to wondering who was in charge of the A/V system — oh, wait, we were in Worcester, weren’t we? đŸ˜‰
<
p>Lake’s video froze in the middle. Not the same problem, but a problem nonetheless. However, I feel like it’s just a problem in the system, not Glodis interfering
You didn’t give any weight to my wink.
<
p>I was joking, not making an accusation! Come on, lighten up! If we can’t have a little fun while we’re campaigning, it’s going to be a long, hard grind.
In the weeks leading up to the convention, I had been leaning towards Mike Lake. He’d been to multiple Young Democrats of Massachusetts events. Not to mention, he was the only candidate who called me personally to ask for my support and to address any of my questions or concerns. As a first time delegate I was more than a little impressed by this, but I refused to allow that to sway my vote. I was determined to make an intelligent vote.
<
p>The other two candidates were not nearly as diligent with their outreach. Two supporters from Bump’s camp called me in the weeks leading up to convention, but I was never committal and they never really pushed me. It was a simple OK, thanks, I hope you’ll consider her. I don’t know maybe that’s the way you do things, but I was hoping they might try and engage me. Kudos that they called.
<
p>I was way more surprised that Glodis’ camp didn’t reach out to me until days before the convention if you can call a mailer reaching out. It was well put together, but for someone with so much money and support, I was disappointed that I didn’t get called. To me, that no one called speaks volumes about his level of grassroots support. Maybe I’m wrong, I’m only one voter. Maybe my phone call got lost in the shuffle.
<
p>In the end, Mike Lake’s hard work paid off. He was well received at the convention. In my opinion, he outperformed his two primary opponents and that’s what explains his receiving 25% of the delegate votes. All around me I heard “this guy has a bright future.” Some in my district told me they were now going to support him, while others said he needed to lose one first or that he was too young. This conspiracy theory that Glodis instructed his supporters to cast votes for Lake sounds like a good story, but that’s all it is. I find it hard to believe that Glodis wouldn’t want to reach 50.1%.
<
p>In hindsight I think it’s safe to say that outside of Worcester much of Guy Glodis’ support was soft. To me, this race is wide open. I hope the voters will get educated, that we’ll have an opportunity and more time to get more substance from each of these three candidates. Who knew I cared so much about the auditors race? I just hope the voters will care enough to pay attention. And to the rest of us moonbats, let’s keep it respectful. Please!
<
p>State Auditor Denucci were going to miss you.
<
p>Best,
John H Kleschinsky
Membership & Outreach Director
Young Democrats of Massachusetts
And voter from Ward 5 Everett, MA
And to be fair, these are my personal comments and do not reflect the opinion/support/endorsement of or by YDM. I should not have included my signature on this comment. It was strictly out of habit. Apologies in advance for the confusion.
It just goes to show Bump did not put in the necessary effort in to make a well rounded video. There was no message received…
Believe me, I watched it more times than I cared to in the weeks leading up to the convention. The audio was always fine. Something went wrong with the video on site. I have no idee of why. I agree it certainly detracted from the video’s impact, if it even had any.
<
p>I know most of this because I am part of the Bump effort (full disclosure an all that).
I did not attend the Convention. My roommate did. My roommate is not one to take orders from anyone. Roommate had a conversation with a Glodis supporter. The Glodis supporter was saying nice things about Mike Lake and told my roommate that he might vote for Mike Lake. My roommate took it as a suggestion that the Glodis camp would be perfectly happy with a Lake vote.
(if my memory serves)… his video emphasized the sweat that it takes to be an activist or an organizer. Meetings, door knockings, meets and greets, clip boards, phone calls, all that jazz. I’m no Glodis supporter, but I appreciated that Guy seemed to be tipping his hat to the folks in the room, who have collectively put in centuries of time working hard to fight their good fights.
<
p>The song was lame-o, his antics and behavior juvenile, and his policies not-so-Big-D. He was never going to have my vote, but hats off to a solid video — clean, well put together, and a clear message that Guy understands the hard work of electioneering. So, in the spirit of saying good things about all of our fellow Democrats, there ya go.
Especially the first part that all but explicitly said “I”m going to hustle for votes in the general, unlike you-know-who”
Well, the song was a part of it. That was the main part I didn’t like. And I guess I didn’t like the video because I knew enough about him to see through it, so that influenced my opinion on it. Could it be convincing? Yes. Could it convince some of the most active people in the MA Democratic Party? No.
Perhaps Glodis’ mistake was assuming that tactics that have worked for him locally in the past would also work with the statewide convention delegates. While I was a Bump supporter going in, I do see how someone going in uncommitted could have been swayed by either Lake or Bump, but nothing I saw from the Glodis camp would have tugged me their way (A bus? An original song?).
<
p>I’m reminded of the Middlesex caucus for Register of Probate back in September 2008. One candidate (I’ll leave the names out of this, but you can search BMG for the details) had a bunch of food and drink available, bussed in supporters in t-shirts, and there were even accusations of some underhanded tactics during the later ballots. I’m not accusing the Glodis camp of any of this, but making the comparison that what may have worked for this candidate locally did not work for the larger audience at that caucus.
Are you serious? One of the candidates at that Middlesex caucus had a bunch of food and drink, and nobody told me? You mean that I went to Hack-a-polooza, the Middlesex County Woodstock for hacks, and I was unaware that I could have had some free food and drink? What an embarrassment!
I was an alternate in a Central Mass delegation so I did not get to vote but I know what went on in our delegation. Two of my colleagues who wanted to vote for Bump ended up voting for Glodis because:
1. Our State Rep was strongly for him and pushed it.
<
p>2. One of them had a close friend who was working for Glodis and she did not want to alienate her friend.
<
p>3. Our town has had trouble keeping an active party and they did not want to split the town on the issue.
<
p>However if Glodis was releasing delegates, it sure was not apparent in our delegation.
I deny the premise of the poll… who thinks he did poorly? Does anyone think Glodis sees his path to victory going through the state convention, which is dominated by left-leaning activists?
<
p>I don’t think he would have altered his strategy one bit whether he won or Bump won. He has the most money, and he’s going to play with the lead and hit it down the center of the voter fairway. He doesn’t need party faithful to win in September.
The guy has been cultivating the “party faithful” for years, with Christmas cards, calendars, phone calls, and glad-handing at every State Committee Meeting. He was doing this because he didn’t care about the Party endorsement? I don’t think so!
<
p>If what you’re saying is that he will be going after the unenrolled voters, I think you’re right on the money. It’s his only chance.
<
p>Sorta makes one wish for a closed Primary system in Massachusetts…
Yea, maybe I overstated not caring about the party faithful… I guess I was saying he didn’t need them.
<
p>He is going to play the conservative democrat card all day and focus in the 50% unenrolled in the state.
<
p>It is either supposed to be “our” candidate or not… our system is just screwy.
While no one expected any candidate to run away with it, the key difference was the lat endrosement of Bump by Joe DeNucci. An endorsement from any current office holder, especially one as beloved as Joe who held the office for 24 years, was HUGE for the undecideds.
As you may know, I am new to posting here (all of my comments and diaries about the Auditors race) I have to tell you, I thought the BMG was THE BLOG! But with the low number of respondents to this poll (which has been up for 3 days!!) speaks volumes of it’s perceived reputation.
<
p>I mean the Auditors race is the hot topic of the Democratic Primary.
<
p>As I review the posters…a lot of hot wind by the same couple dozen of exclusionists. So much for being the party of inclusion.
As you said, you are new. I personally think that 69 is quite a decent response.
1) You have to create a user ID and be logged in to respond.
2) I expect that many readers who did not attend the convention did not feel that they had enough information to respond. I feel that we try to discourage uninformed responses.
<
p>It’s up to 70 now.
It’s climbing at 75!! Woo Hoo!!
A lot of people don’t respond to polls online because the ballot box is usually stuffed by one side or another, IMHO. Remember the online polls that would have Scott Brown winning 70%?
<
p>Check the “BMG Traffic Report” on the left menu. Lots of people come here on a daily basis.
<
p>
Folks, be real for once and put your progressive feelings aside. Guy’s vote will not come from the 4,100 delegates that were the “true insiders” in that room. He has always been the moderate Democrat that will not tow the line to just fit in. The problem with “certain” Dem’s is they can’t accept this position. If you think that Mumbles, DeNucci,(certain Labor groups),and the BS that was being spread on the flor on Saturday didn’t give Bump the edge your living on another planet. The good thing is Glodis’s camp got to see how his opponets plan to play and with over $800,000 and climbing he will be able to combat any other BS they throw.
Besides, they both can’t raise more then 100k between the both of them so good luck in beating Guy. In a down ticket people you need $$$, especially when 2 liberals will draw from each other. If you think that they will draw from Guy’s base your really dreaming. Let’s try to keep this a clean race with open and honest debate. So far, it’s not looking to go that way and we will continue to beat each other up so bad that the R inthe race will have a field day with whomever the voters decide on in Sept.
… to share your venom with us.
<
p>Your kind of poison is exactly why thinking voters will look the other way.
<
p>I am a Bump supporter, and I am voting (and working) for her because she is the most qualified candidate. Period.
<
p>Wake up! In this day and age, it’s not about who has the most money in the bank. Think Scott Brown. It’s who is best at personal outreach. The fact that your guy has been doing that for years and came in 2nd is a bad sign for you.
<
p>Your assertion that Convention votes were thrown smacks of damage control.
<
p>May the best woman win!
Long string of taunting attacks? Check
Meritless condescension? Check
Insulting hard-working Democratic leaders (Menino)? Check
Hypocrisy (“keep this a clean race”)? Check
Copious grammatical, spelling, and other errors? Check
Lazy tying (would it kill you type “money”?) Check
<
p>This is a classic in the pantheon of counter-productive cheerleading posts.
This is a quote from Guy from that Phoenix story a few weeks ago…
<
p>”I acknowledge that I’m an underdog at the convention,” says Glodis. “But some of the weaknesses at the convention may be strengths in both the primary and the general election.”
<
p>