Early edition of Sunday’s Globe is up tonight and the paper has endorsed Steve Grossman:
Grossman is not my candidate. Indeed, I do not have a candidate in this race, but the Globe nails for me one very serious problem in both the short and long term: even if she is likely to win the primary, frontrunner Martha Coakley is a tepid, cautious, uninspiring candidate whose campaign has been underwhelming to say the least.
This editorial will definitely make me give Grossman a second look.
Please share widely!
That being said, I’m a Grossman fan.
If the editorial didn’t rest on what has been the most persistent criticism of Ms. Coakley–her apparent disinterest in actually doing the work and displaying the passion required to WIN elections. Acting like your above the fray of electoral politics is a sure-fire recipe for losing elections.
Voters want to be wooed and the AG’s wooing is woeful.
Here’s a question about Martha that shows she’s “above the fray”. Why hasn’t she done the ice bucket challenge?
Coakley is running a resume and atmospherics campaign. She’s an accomplished woman who adheres largely to the party line. She’s been the AG. On paper she’s great, at least in a Dem primary. Unfortunately when it comes time for her to close the sale with voters she conveys an alarming lack of vision and substance.
Her proposals are shallow at best and she resists all attempts at diving deeper when it comes to the mechanics of how to achieve important program or policy changes. As you noted, the consistent knock on Coakley is there’s not a lot of there there. I’ve got to believe the Globe editorial board sat down with her and got a steady stream of inch-deep political stances. The Globe cites Grossman’s competence and clarity of thought in its endorsement. I’m going to guess those are qualities Coakley failed to demonstrate during her interview.
As much fun as it is to spin conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation of this endorsement is that the Globe came away with the same take on Martha Coakley as so many others: the more you get to know her, the less impressive she is.
I feel duty-bound to note my own skepticism of Globe endorsements in recent years. I haven’t actually mapped it out, but sometimes it seems like they prefer boosting another candidate to endorsing the frontrunner. That said, this reads pretty sincerely. The endorsement process — grueling interviews with each candidate — made them look more closely at Steve, and they were won over.
This line is brutal:
A mostly meaningless jab, that. I don’t even know what it means, I just know it’s derogatory. And their bailout line, the CEO bit, undersells Steve’s progressive ideals.
But we’ll take it! Thanks Globe. Game on.
As a supporter I don’t see it as derogatory at all.
To them this will read as derogatory and I agree with Jim it was meant to. Also agree that, like most of BMG, they undersell his long history of progressivism.
I’m a Berwick supporter, and since I did not think the Globe would endorse Don I’m glad they didn’t endorse Coakley — anything that slows the coronation and potentially shakes things up is good for the Forces of Truth and Light. 😉
But as a Democrat, I worry that the Globe is looking ahead to the general and considering a Baker endorsement. If the sages of Morrisey Boulevard are headed in that direction, they might prefer not to have endorsed Baker’s likely opponent in her primary. Of course, there is the question of how much newspaper endorsements matter today, but in what could be a very close general, with the Martha Coakley electoral narrative heading toward either tragedy or redemption (same is true of Baker, BTW), it will be important for Dems to remind the Globe of all the reasons he would be a bad choice.
if the Globe goes for Baker in the general.
And why not? The Billionaire Baseball team owner must be wetting his pants when the top top runners are both, like the Republican, supporting casinos and giving lip service to improvements health care.
Round two, the general election, the endorsement goes to the candidate that gives the most support to casinos and actually gives support to fewer improvements in health care. From the Boston Globe : Charlie Baker, “For all the reasons we supported Don Berwick, we realized that Charlie Baker is the stronger candidate” .
John Henry knows what the people want and it ain’t health care and financial security, it’s Bread & Circus or in his case, hot dogs and nine innings of distraction.
“For all the reasons we supported Steve Grossman, we realized that Charlie Baker is the stronger candidate” .
Wish there was a way to edit things after posting!
Endorsing a guy who probably won’t win the primary, and in the process setting out all the reasons why Coakley isn’t a good candidate, sets them up perfectly to endorse Baker in the general. I’d say the odds are better than even that they’ll do just that, if Coakley wins the primary.
I’ve always thought of it as Boston’s liberal paper.
anywhere. Editorial pages are particularly susceptible.
to vote for Charlie?
Steve’s never been close enough to make us bitter about him losing.
But more to the point, good Grossman Democrats are Democrats.
to whomever these Grossman supporters The Globe is polling:
Also the percentage has ticked up from 44% to 48% now.
I suspect that there is a difference between the Democratic activists who’ve known Grossman for a while and value all he’s done for the Democratic party and non-activist primary voters who may be attracted to Grossman’s running as a good guy businessman. Charlie Baker is also running as a good guy businessman, so there may be a shared appeal.
Further, there have been a few recent mismanagement problems with state government (compounding pharmacies, DCF, and the Connector roll out). Someone concerned about that and wanting a competent manager might well find Baker to be a more substitute for Grossman than Coakley whose management skills are not so easily demonstrated.
Anyway with Baker having again pulled a statistically insignificant smidgeon ahead of Coakley in the polls, I find this all rather alarming.
Overlooked something obvious: Grossman and Grossman-supporting PACs are more obviously running against Coakley. Thus Grossman voters are being fed reasons to dislike her. Possibly too this is having an effect.
That’s what a lot of Hillary people were saying at one point. Feelings soothe over easily.
Grossman has a lot of the establishment. I can’t imagine thousands of people who’ve built the Democratic Party voting Republican. Though someone dearly backing another candidate might tell themselves that.
Coakley is no Silber, whatever else.
The Globe, given the criteria they state for determining which candidate is most fit to serve in the job, has made the right two party choices. These may fly in the face of what passes for political campaign coverage in the news columns: which candidate is ahead in the polls, who can raise most money or who is best looking. Finally, a week out of the Primary, someone decides that it would be a good idea to mention SKILLS needed for the particular office sought. That’s what we finally got in today’s Globe Editorial. And that’s why they endorsed Grossman over Coakley and Berwick. That’s why they endorsed Baker last week, same criteria.
When the Globe (or Herald, or other statewide dailies) endorse the candidate we support, we cheer (they must be correct if they agree with me!) and we boohoohoo and disparage if they go with the other guy/gal. Even so, the Globe made some good points in its endorsement, food for thought. if Dems reject that opinion and go with “the frontrunner” they should not be surprised at all if Charlie Baker becomes the next Governor. But, that’s our choice.
I generally don’t put much stock in Globe editorials, perhaps particularly endorsement editorials. This one I almost could have written myself. Particularly happy to see the reference to Steve’s stellar record as Treasurer. To read BMG you’d think he’d done nothing but promote a few scratch-off games. Another reason I’m pissed at how many people have decided to make this election All About Casinos.
I hope it helps but I think we’ve seen newspaper endorsements don’t move the needle much these days.
The Globe endorsed Khazei in the 2009 US Senate primary.
Seriously, folks? The old “CEO is our savior, anyone else who has accomplished things in government is old hat” trope? If BMG followers really believe this they should have voted for Kerry in 20006 Charlie in 2010 — Deval had never been a CEO in the private sector, and Charlie was one and will be again in 2014. To try to push this as a distinction that will make Steve a more compelling candidate for the fall over Charlie is odd, and wishful. By contrast, Martha is the one candidate who completely stands apart from Charlie and who will offer the really stark choice: Are you for equal marriage, choice, access to contraceptive rights, strong oversight over health care, environment, labor issues, etc., or are you on the other side?
claims to believe that. So I think that’s a straw man. I’m not the only one with comments about how private sector job creation is not transferable to government. Saying I don’t believe it is different from noting that lots of voters do and that’s a factor in elections.
Grossman appears to have managed the Treasury well, too, though. That is relevant. Berwick, too, has managed large public agencies. There is such a thing as management experience. There is such a thing as skill at management. Not everyone has it. There’s some evidence that Patrick’s management skills fall a bit short of ideal, too.
On which of the issues you listed (equal marriage, choice, access to contraceptive rights, strong oversight over health care, environment, labor issues, etc.) is Martha more progressive than Grossman or Berwick? None, I say.
In the business world, Grossman has displayed admirable ethics. With the entire Market Basket fiasco fresh in everyone’s mind, Grossman has a history of being a worker-friendly employer. That he’s good at running things is gravy on top of it.
The Globe focuses on the CEO part of getting things done, which does matter, but the better case for Grossman is he has a history of getting the right thing done. When it comes time to deliver, Grossman keeps the ethics front and center. Coakley has a more spotted record, notably when it comes to individual civil liberties.
The Globe’s hoping for a Baker v Grossman contest,