As I’m fond of doing, I herewith offer some ideas on who won and lost last night, other than the people who actually won and lost.
Winner: John Connolly. No, he didn’t win his election. But he ran a solid, generally upbeat campaign, from which I’d imagine he learned a lot. (As someone on NECN noted, he was caught flat-footed by the Golar Richie/Barros/Arroyo trifecta; he probably won’t make a similar mistake again.) A lot more people in and around Boston know who he is now than when he was a city councillor, and that positions him well to run for a different office, or run again for Mayor, or for City Council (as Michael Flaherty just successfully did after losing a race for Mayor). He’s well-positioned to continue to play a significant role in the public life of Boston, if he wants to.
Loser: The Boston Globe. Obviously, the Globe’s editorial page was 100% all-in for Connolly, as were most of its opinion columnists; even the reporting sometimes seemed weirdly pro-Connolly. But the Globe’s endorsement and all the punditry apparently did nothing to stem the momentum that all the polling (except the Globe’s) showed was swinging to Walsh. Even today, the Globe still can’t quite believe that the force of its argument failed to persuade. The Herald’s endorsement didn’t do anything either. This all further bolsters my previously-expressed view that “newspaper endorsements don’t mean sh!t.” And speaking of the polling…
Loser: The Globe’s pollster, UNH Survey Center. Sure, it was a couple of weeks ago. Still, the Globe poll that showed Connolly up 8 looks an awful lot like a genuine outlier. Nobody else at that time had Connolly up anything like 8 points – not even Connolly’s internals. David Bernstein raised serious questions about this pollster long ago. It’s time for the Globe to move on. Maybe they should consider…
Winner: Emerson College Polling Society. They didn’t poll in Boston. But they did poll in Virginia, and they showed McAuliffe up by 2.2 points the week before election day, incredibly close to the actual margin of 2.5. In contrast, most other pollsters showed McAuliffe ahead by 6-7 points; some showed him even further ahead. It was a lot closer than most people thought, but Emerson nailed it. Well done, guys.
Losers: Casinos. Obviously, East Boston and Palmer both rejected casinos. But beyond that, yesterday’s results have without question given a huge boost to the anti-casino forces around the state. Milford votes in a couple of weeks to decide whether to accept the proposal from Foxwoods to compete for the eastern license; expect a full-court press from the anti-casino folks there. The momentum at this point is clearly on their side.
Winners: Felix Arroyo, John Barros, and Charlotte Golar Richie. They didn’t make it past the preliminary election, but their decision to back Walsh was widely, and I think correctly (as I said at the time), seen as a game-changer for Walsh. If they had gone with Connolly, or if they had not coalesced around a single candidate, the result last night could easily have been different. And they delivered: the three of them not only generated good publicity for Walsh, they worked hard on the campaign trail, and the results map shows that it worked. Brent Benson on Twitter reports that of the 59 precincts that Golar Richie won in the preliminary election, Walsh won 56 last night; of Barros’s 11, Walsh won 10; and of Arroyo’s 23, Walsh won 16.
Winner: Organized Labor. It’s popular to describe labor as a drastically weakened movement that isn’t really relevant any more in today’s elections. I think it’s fair to say that that’s not true, at least around here. It wasn’t just labor that propelled Walsh to victory. But labor surely played a very substantial role.
Winners: Progressives. Bill De Blasio won big in New York City. The lunatic right-winger Ken Cuccinelli lost in Virginia. And around here, beyond the mayor’s race, the top two vote getters in the at-large Boston City Council seats were progressive women of color. There’s of course more to do, but overall, last night was a pretty good night for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Mixed verdict: moderate Republicans. On the one hand, Chris Christie easily won reelection in New Jersey last night, and thereby became a serious contender for the 2016 presidential nomination. He’s the most credible contender that the non-crazy wing of the party has had in years. But on the other hand, Ken Cuccinelli came shockingly close to winning in Virginia. If he had been blown out, as most polls predicted, it would have been easy for the moderate GOPers to point to Virginia and say, “see, that ideology got clobbered even in Virginia, so we need a new way forward.” Cuccinelli’s close call seems likely to toss additional fuel on the Republican civil war, rather than extinguish it.
Winners: The Dropkick Murphys. They were all over the baseball playoffs, and now I can’t get “Mahty Walsh for Boston! Oh-oh-oh!” out of my head.
Winner: Red Sox Nation. The Red Sox are World Series champions; the Yankees didn’t make the playoffs; and the Mayor-elect of New York City is a Red Sox fan. (It’s worth noting that De Blasio is the second-in-a-row Boston-bred NYC mayor, since he was raised in Cambridge and Michael Bloomberg is from Medford – in contrast, the likelihood of a New Yorker becoming mayor here seems … remote.) A total and glorious victory. 🙂
What’s on your list of lessons from last night?
judy-meredith says
For his informed savvy evel headed analysis in plain English.
David says
Thanks Judy. 🙂
judy-meredith says
meant level headed.
tudor586 says
were pretty big losers.
jconway says
Are being a sore loser
tudor586 says
but when you look at the numbers neighborhood-by-neighborhood the observation suggests itself. Suzanne Lee’s loss to Bill Linehan, who marches in the discriminatory South Boston parade, is perhaps most disappointing.
fenway49 says
In that race and the mayoral race, it’s true the candidate preferred by more downtown voters didn’t win, but I don’t think that alone makes the downtown neighborhoods “losers” last night.
tudor586 says
going forward. And I believe that what Walsh’s win is all about.
jconway says
And i look forward to the two of us being on the same side again. Have a lot of respect for you, HRsKevin, and dasox and while we got heated I hope I kept it civil and logical and avoided the personal. If I didn’t I apologize and I know we will be on the front lines in future fights.
tudor586 says
as transient disagreements among Democrats have a way of sorting themselves out. Basically the Republicans do it for us.
striker57 says
Winners: the Labor Movement in Greater Boston. Yes David said this but I would have put it at the top of the list. While true that Unions aren’t the only reason Marty Walsh won last night it is equally true that Walsh isn’t in the final election without the grassroots work done by union volunteers in the preliminary. You can’t win the World Series without winning the regular season.
It was 25 years ago this Election that Labor joined together to defeat Question #2 (the attempted repeal of the state’ prevailing wage law). That was a watershed win in 1988 as Labor won 350 of the state’ 351 cities and towns in a massive grassroots campaign. Last night, 25 years later, Union members made a political statement again.
Losers: The Republicans who backed Connolly including the Boston GOP with its last minute endorsement. Some of us are old enough to remember when Republican House members broke tradition and voted for Tom Finneran for Speaker to stop the more progressive Richard Voke from winning the Speakership with Democratic votes. Apparently that game hasn’t changed but the outcome was different this time.
Losers: The Boston Globe and Herald Editors and columnists like Shirley Leung and Joe Battenfeld who did everything they could in print to portray Marty as a one dimensional union guy.
Rookie of the Year: Michelle Wu. What more is there to say!
Comeback Player of the Year: A tie between Mike Flaherty and Bill Linehan. Flaherty for a strong showing in the preliminary and final after two straight citywide losses. Linehan for a second straight winning election that he wasn’t supposed to win.
Gold Glove: to Marty Walsh for an error free final election.
stomv says
The other polls got both the Lt Gov and AG elections right, but missed on Gov. Maybe the problem isn’t that the other pollsters were wrong and Emerson was right. Maybe the problem is that T-Mac failed to close well (an error) and Emerson incorrectly called the race too close (an error) and that both of these errors were in the same direction, making it look like Emerson had mad skillz.
That is to say, I think it’s more likely that Emerson’s models weren’t as good, but they got lucky and hit the target.
jconway says
For all the talk about money winning elections it was door knockers in neighborhoods that won it for Marty, that elected an inward of four fresh faces to the Cambridge city council, and that propelled de Blasio to victory. Even T-Mac had an army of volunteers canvassing neighborhoods in the DC suburbs.
Christie is the exception to this rule, clobbering his opponent with a 5-1 ratio of ads and a 12-1 spending advantage. The DNC gave a paltry 50k to Buono, who held her own in her debate and could’ve had a much better showing if the Democrats bothered to campaign or her. Had the Democratic wing been in charge we could’ve held him to single digits. Now he is the most viable and likable nominee they’ve had in years. Hoping the far right kneecaps him wot be enough and we need to get the ground running now behind a solid progressive with the charisma and integrity to go toe to toe. And I’m thinking a certain someone besides Hillary might be the best woman for the job….
stomv says
T-Mac outspent his opponent (including outside groups). It appears that the same is true for Walsh.
As for Christie, Buono had no chance at that win. Spending the resources on that — well, maybe to hold on to state lege seats (and win the minimum wage amendment), but don’t kid yourself about Christie. He didn’t win because of the spending — he had the money to spend because he was going to win.
I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t value in knocking on doors — there is. But there is also value in spending money on media and other traditional buys. Want to win one election? Spend money. Want to win a generation of elections? Go knock on doors. Lots of ’em. Over and over again, every single election. Train your people to become regular voters.
jconway says
Outside money helped T-Mac and Walsh, but I think the door knocking brought them over the finish line in both instances. The ads got their names out to new voters and made the contrasts with their opponents, but it’s the door knockers who sealed the deal and made the sale. The Globe and Times haven’t covered that as much for the VA race, but friends in DC who door knocked for T-Mac and the Richmond Times and WaPo made it clear. He may have been lackluster, but opposing bigotry against women and gays won him a lot of millenial support. We won’t sit down when we can fight, and the media is finally getting that,
dasox1 says
I’ve been an outspoken critic on Rep. Walsh on this site and a defender and supporter of John Connolly. At this time, I want to offer my congratulations to Rep. Walsh on his campaign and election. Also, my congratulations to Rep. Walsh’s dogged defenders on this site, and his supporters. You won! Good job. I enjoyed the back-and-forth with Walsh’s supporters on BMG, and appreciate the forum provided here by BMG.
jconway says
That was meant to be a solid uprating sir. Note to Tudor that is how it’s done. As David mentioned I am sure we haven’t heard the last of Connolly.
tudor586 says
on a different thread: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2013/11/election-day-open-thread-3/ I too congratulate the Mayor-Elect and support him as he brings the city together under progressive and inclusive leadership. Marty Walsh’s personal qualities were his winning advantage.
dca-bos says
Even though everyone hates me in the other thread, I really do congratulate the Mayor-elect. I think we were extremely lucky to have a choice between two excellent candidates — mine didn’t win, but I like and respect Rep. Walsh and I think he’ll be a fine mayor.
lynne says
that Lowell elections oscillate. To quote myself:
Not that this has any meaning to anyone outside of Lowell, but I actually think it’s an interesting point…
jconway says
Lowell is one if those storied parts of this state I know little about. Seems like its always on the cusp of turning around and perhaps the back and forth leadership switches is contributing to the delay in its comeback. Keep fighting the good fight Lynne!
lynne says
the back and forth between one faction (we term them the GOBs, or Good Ol’ Boys) and the other faction, if you can call it that, of people who want professional and efficient government without the hackery, seems to be contained – we’ve had the same city manager since 2006, a professional who does his job well. He’s just had to put up with a lot of stupid…if it were me sitting in the CM’s chair, seriously, I’d get up out of my chair every council meeting and smack Councilor Elliot like the petulant whiny tantrum child he is…which is why I am a blogger, and I watch the meetings from the comfort on my couch on local cable access. ^_^
marcus-graly says
Their endorsed Aldermanic candidate won in 3 of 4 contested wards. Sean Fitzgerald did fail to win an at-large seat though. But overall the results bring them up to 5 out 11 seats on the Board of Alderman, making them a much bigger player in the city than at any previous point.
(Of course their endorsees are not of uniform political views, but overall the new board is more tilted in the progressive direction.)
johnk says
Herald learned from the Senate election …
They used UMass Lowell which had some issues with poll results, they switched to Suffolk and did very well for themselves. So nice job by the Herald, it brings credibility. Pssst. Globe. Throw some feelers in Emerson’s direction. Hopefully UMass continues it’s efforts.
Agreed that Connolly seems like a stand up guy…
While the endorsements did start the tailspin in his campaign. I also thought that there should have been a balance between his point in managing a city and working with labor. At the end of the campaign, it felt more like anti-labor rather than balancing the city’s needs with those who work in the city. Then all the Republicans started jumping on board with this anti-union vibe. That hurt him as well and I don’t think it’s who he is, but it’s something he will need to address going forward.
Losers:
Those who are against the Citizens United decision, MA started the momentum with candidates leading the way. I’m proud to live here, push for healthcare, marriage equity, etc. I had hoped that we would play a similar role in election financing. After this election, and I don’t blame a single candidate as both took part (and I did post that BTW), I think it’s dead. I don’t see the “pledge” gaining any traction in elections going forward. It’s done.
dasox1 says
…is right on. I’ve congratulated Mayor-Elect Walsh and his supporters on here already and this isn’t all about labor. In fact, it’s as much an issue for the outside education money spent on Connolly’s behalf as it is for labor. But, we as progressives can’t have it both ways. We cannot say unregulated, outside money is okay if it comes from the “good” guys but not the “bad” guys (Kochs, etc). Unregulated outside money is destroying democracy; Citizens United endangers voting equality by placing money ahead of one-person-one-vote. It’s a difficult issue because no one wants to unilaterally disarm in any particular election. But, it’s intellectually dishonest to say it’s okay if the money comes from outside groups who side with us. We all know that intellectual dishonesty is the province of the right wing.
geoffm33 says
in the other thread. I took it as being critical of Walsh’s outside money and not of Connolly as well. So, sorry if I misunderstood!
geoffm33 says
It was dca-bos that i was conversing with in the other thread. Carry on 🙂
dca-bos says
in full agreement with dasox1 here. My biggest concern is the outside money and the lack of any meaningful disclosure until long after the election. As I said above, I think Rep. Walsh will make a fine mayor. I just wish that his allies had done things differently. I say the same thing about the third parties supporting Connolly, though I still think that their motives are a bit more transparent than a pop-up group like OneBoston.
geoffm33 says
…I apologize for the mischaracterization. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
fenway49 says
that’s the system we have for the moment. I appreciate that johnk’s concern on this subject is real and very much valid, as is yours. I’d like to get rid of Citizens United, but I’m not going to pick a candidate I think is worse on substance just because that candidate’s getting more outside money. I don’t think that makes me pro-Citizens United or intellectually dishonest; I just value other policy outcomes over campaign finance concerns. If Marty Walsh ran the same campaign, with the same outside money, but his opponent were from the Tea Party or even a Scott Brown type, wouldn’t you too?
I do think where the money’s coming from matters. Labor and the Kochs are not the same, and the unions are just playing the game John Roberts dealt them. As you say, in the current climate “no one wants to unilaterally disarm.”
I think the People’s Pledge was in trouble the minute Scott Brown lost. Gomez declined to participate earlier this year. Anyway, democracy was threatened by big money before Citizens United. Direct contributions raised predominantly from wealthy donors skew democracy just as much, with Bush’s bundlers raising the federal max from every supporter, and their spouses, and their kids. Tony Coehlo put the Dems on the track to big business fundraising over 25 years ago.
dasox1 says
Labor Unions have giving limits and their members provide the funds, so we know where the money comes from and it’s regulated because it’s limited to something like $15,000 per candidate annually (don’t quote me on the numbers). Isn’t that more similar to PACs, which are regulated (to a degree)? The unregulated, outside groups are the biggest issue–we don’t know where the money comes from at all or until it’s too late, it’s unregulated, and it’s spent directly for the benefit of particular candidates. Don’t get me wrong–the Koch’s suck, progressives are great. The issue for me is what any unregulated, outside money does to democracy. It drowns out the voice of individual voters. And, it’s on this issue that I think that progressives have to be intellectually honest.
fenway49 says
I agree with you 100% about the issue. I’d like to work to change it. But does that mean I have to oppose any candidate who’s taking the outside money Citizens United unleashed (or taking more of it than the opponent)?
All I’m saying is that can’t be the only litmus test when selecting a candidate.
ykozlov says
You are right, you can’t expect a candidate to unilaterally disarm. If the opponent won’t agree to the People’s Pledge, a candidate may take money in the present election because they have no choice, but we must demand that they commit to changing the system for the future. We can demand that they support amendments to overturn Citizens United and legislation like the American Anti-Corruption Act that works within the current framework to fix lawmakers’ dependence on Big Money. If a politician won’t support any of these measures, that’s a litmus test to vote them out.
I realize this may not apply much to a mayoral election.
The People’s Pledge makes all candidates who participate look better, but it is a band-aid at best.
judy-meredith says
I didn’t notice this earlier today and johnk just reminded me that David Paleologos at Suffolk performed very well. I hope that their partnership with the forces of darkness and evil did not eliminate them from consideration. I even forced myself to listen to Herald radio to hear his analysis that even this near literate poll reader could understand.
David says
Despite his hugely embarrassing foray into out-of-state polling in 2012, where he famously declared that it wasn’t even worth polling VA and FL any more because they were so obviously going Romney, he continues to have a very good in-state track record.
afertig says
What about this lesson? Lot of focus on cutting across lines — Old Boston vs. New, white working class vs. communities of color, etc. But we don’t talk much about “insiders” vs. “outsiders” any more which we used to on this blog. But it was striking to me who was on stage / who supported Walsh. I have a lot of friends in the very, very progressive left who were supporting Walsh (what Kos back in the day would call the folks who were crashing the gates) — but right up there was DeLeo and Murray and the big power brokers in the Democratic Party apparatus, too. I’d say one lesson re-learned was that when the establishment figures (DeLeo, Murray, traditional building trade unions / so-called “old boston” / “old guard”) works with the progressive community (Chang-Diaz, Forry, Oiste, JP Progressives, communities of color / “new Boston”) and vice-versa…you win. “The Establishment” folks should keep learning the lesson from Walsh, if they haven’t yet from Warren and Patrick, that when you put forward a candidate that is truly progressive and focused on working families, you win at the ballot box. They should remember that when putting together their welfare reform package. And “Progressives” might well remember that progressive victories often happen when you can build a broad enough coalition – and work with established lines of power, rather than always against it.
howardjp says
Just had the chance to congratulate Marty Walsh and wish him well. Interesting that not only did Connolly win most “progressive” wards (3,4,5,19,21), in winning Charlestown’s Ward 2, he separated it for the first time from the Southie/Dorchester voting pattern. On the flip side, Bill Linehan clearly benefitted from the increased turnout for Walsh, just as 30 years ago, a Southie pull for Ray Flynn pulled in Jim Kelly over the more moderate Mike Taylor, so unintended consequences, all those years apart.
Connolly also performed below “expectations” in some West Rox precincts that are considered more conservative, and probably went with Dan Conley in the first round. Remember too that he is from Rozzie, not W Rox. Lack of a West Rox “surge” was one of several factors in his loss, as well as the presence of a Haitian candidate in district 5, which helped pull in more Walsh votes in ward 18, along with the “Murphy” vote out there.
Onward ..glad to see Michelle Wu and Josh Zakim added to the Council!
stomv says
The 2013 Boston mayor results map seems to suggest a Boston cut clean in half.
geoffm33 says
Not even a paragraph into DBernsteins piece today and I say WTF out loud.
Marty Walsh wants to TEAR DOWN THE CURRENT CITY HALL and rebuild it. Bad analogy David.
tudor586 says
and think it was aimed more at Menino. David Bernstein is an iconoclast. For all the adulation Menino is basking in at the end of his career, it’s been unspoken that he could deal harshly with those who defied him.
I think Marty Walsh’s personality type is very different from Menino’s. I can’t see Marty Walsh as ever being a bully, but I can’t say the same for our deservingly beloved soon-to-be-former Mayor.
Christopher says
…remind me of something I saw recently on the cover of (I think) Boston Magazine. The cover photo was of a slightly-sneering Menino with the caption, “Good bye to the petty, ruthless, thin-skinned SOB – who may well be the best Mayor we’ve ever had.”
tudor586 says
would not be who he is but for all those characteristics mentioned by Boston Magazine and yet we love him. On WGBH this afternoon his style was described as “imperial populism.”
bluewatch says
The Globe is owned by John Henry. And, under his ownership, the Globe was clearly supportive of Connolly. So, if the Globe is a loser, the Red Sox also lose. Going forward, it will be interesting to see what expectations the Red Sox have of the city.
sabutai says
Saddened to see this escape the list. It was the education “reform” crowd, led by “Democrats for Education Reform” and “Stand for Children” that supplied hundreds of man-hours and thousands of dollars in backing Connolly. They worked as hard for Connolly as labor did for Walsh. If labor won big, these folks lost big.
But that’s nothing…these people dropped over $200,000 on a Seattle school board race, targeting incumbent Sue Peters. Despite outspending her campaign 7:1, it looks like they lost.
mannygoldstein says
Great to see the White Hats winning more often these days.
John Tehan says
The results from yesterday was item 1 at our core team meeting tonight – I can’t give away our strategy, but believe me, the casi o defeats will be used to energize our base!
bluewatch says
Deval Patrick, Elizabeth Warren, and Marty Walsh. Impressive record!
tudor586 says
Doug Rubin has a very impressive record of success.
Jasiu says
The Boston accent: Mayah MAH-tee. “John” doesn’t quite work as well. 🙂
geoffm33 says
Considering a run for Marty’s seat. Decision by Turkey Day
http://fb.me/2MaETUsQI