Hey all! I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of tonight’s gubernatorial debate being hosted at Stonehill College. Unfortunately, this first debate will not be on TV, but will be streamed online here.
In other news, Don Berwick launches his TV ad campaign today! Here is his first TV ad:
[Below the fold because it is too wide for the front page. Please embed smaller frame sizes- Ed]
Please share widely!
Not televised = Pretty pointless.
I thought this was funny from the livestream page:
What a f*cking embarrassment local media is.
Although the name Gatehouse Media may not ring a bell, they own about 300 papers throughout the country including many of the largest regional papers in MA (Cape Cod Times, Patriot Ledger, Metrowest Daily News, and the Wicked Local sites).
Even the Donnelly-Harshbarger-McGovern contest had a debate! Just ridiculous that the media is deciding the race is already over without giving the candidates a chance to be heard. All three campaigns should make a statement demanding a prime time television audience-Coakley benefits from this too since she will need the experience as the likely nominee.
On August 27, I believe another in September, a week before the primary. Pretty lame but not as bad as you’re making it look.
So far just one radio debate.
… And time to think about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Apparently the public would rather watch the Sox lose game number 69! Is this a great country or what?
It’s not exactly Sox v. debate. I wish people would tune it for the debate over a Sox game, but the real problem I have is that the debate isn’t even really provided as a viable viewing option to the public.
The real comparison is what WCVB will air tonight instead of the debate they are sponsoring.
WCVB will be airing Inside Edition followed by Chronicle (which tonight is a repeat from an episode that first aired in February).
That’s followed by two hours of “Extreme Weight Loss.”
‘murica.
Really? I had no idea. So, if you don’t vote, what? A fine?
I don’t think we should have mandatory voting, but it would probably produce some interesting results.
It’s about $15.
But I would support mandatory attendance/sign-in at the polling place. You have to show up. If, once there, you choose to vote, fine. If not, also fine. If, however, you don’t even show… then a fine. In this manner, the refusal to vote can clearly be seen as an abstention.
I would only support a change to mandatory attendance or voting if we made it a holiday. But, there are plenty of people who don’t want to vote and can’t because they are too busy working. Civic participation is incredibly hard for the working poor, even if they wanted to. And it is part of a big reason why the rich are able to dominate our politics as much as they can. If we don’t ID voters, allow a holiday, same day registration, and make registering easy instead of a chore, we will have a better democracy.
Isn’t this the least we can do for living in a free and democratic society?
Yes in more than 20 countries, voting is currently obligatory including Australia, a number of countries in Europe and Latin America. And yes there is a fine that is enforced for not voting in some countries, but not enforced in others. In Australia I believe if the fine is not paid, it is like a parking ticket and can jeopardize your driver’s license. These countries generally do have voting on weekends so folks can participate in this civic duty and there is usually the opportunity to submit a reasonable excuse if one simply cannot vote such as serious illness. The wonderful thing about it is that it makes voting a habit like putting on your seat belt and folks pay attention to races and candidates to a much greater degree than most Americans and this results in a high percentage of turn out such as 92% for Australia!
One additional point. If voting were obligatory it would be much more difficult for our southern states to pass laws that suppress the vote.
…I’ve long thought you should pass a citizenship test to be able to vote. Why should we expect less of people who have been here all their lives than we do of naturalized citizens? I suspect several Tea Partiers would fail, including a few who are themselves elected officials.
n/t
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
The Wikipedia article on compulsory voting suggests that it’s a great way to ensure voting rights. However, it has been abandoned by a lot of countries. Currently, the only major democracies to use it is Brazil, Argentina, and Australia, and it’s not even mildly clear to me that any of them is better governed as a result.
Perhaps North Korea’s experience with it will be better?
Everybody pays a fine! 🙂
I planned it that way.
If our endorsee would like to appear on WCVB, as Treasurer, Steve Grossman could appear himself to read out the daily lottery numbers personally in his suit, especially the four-digit evening draw.
Didn’t that strategy cost Tim Cahill lots of money in legal fees?
Is the low enthusiasm a result of the poor media coverage or is the poor media coverage a result of low enthusiasm? Shouldn’t the media feel obligated to provide coverage even in the event of low enthusiasm?
It’s the public’s airwaves they get to operate a commercial enterprise on, and frankly, they should be required to show conventions and debates, in national, as well as local elections.
The Boston Globe, instead, runs embarrassing pieces like the August 14 piece by Jim O’Sullivan — For Democrats, a lack of sizzle this summer. This in the “Capital” section, captioned “Political Intelligence” (sic)!
I don’t need to show a quote, the headline sums up the piece.
For the Globe, it’s a self-serving and self-fulfilling prophesy. Continued voter disinterest is good news for the two candidates the Globe would most like to see victorious — Martha Coakley and Maura Healy.
Ms. Coakley, in particular, holds a commanding lead heading into the primary. The Coakley campaign benefits from the absence of any discussion of real issues like wealth and income concentration, the deplorable condition of the MBTA, and the threats presented by the ever-increasing militarization of our law-enforcement agencies.
The big-money donors who control the most powerful forces in the Massachusetts Democratic Party machine want Martha Coakley to be the Democratic nominee. Those same donors and forces have close ties to local mainstream media and more than enough influence (both directly and through advertisers) to give substance to their desires.
This is what makes Ms. Coakley’s claim to be fighting “the political insiders, the big money SuperPACS, and the ‘Old Boys Club’ ” so deceitful.
This is not tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory territory, it is instead the plain truth about the current state of our political system and mainstream media here in Massachusetts.
And then tell us more about:
“The big-money donors who control the most powerful forces in the Massachusetts Democratic Party machine want Martha Coakley to be the Democratic nominee.”
And name names, please.
The fact that Mr. Grossman is similarly entangled doesn’t alter the truth of my comment.
It was Ms. Coakley who made the deceitful claim, not me.
Not that it should matter, but the Berwick campaign raised more than Coakley or Grossman in the first two weeks of August and it was clear that the candidate with the largest number of supporters at the debate was Don Berwick.
On NPR this morning, the news reported that there was a debate last night where “Grossman and Coakley had a heated exchange”.
…at this link:
http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/events
There’s also plenty of other Berwick events on that page – GOTV!
Questions about Rick Perry?
What a waste of time.
Dumb question.
A good answer takes too much knowledge of Texas law and much more about the specific facts than is worthwhile for a candidate to learn about.
I feel like it’s sort of a gotcha question, too, because siding with that idiot Perry may be an appropriate answer.
It’s pretty good as an intro to the candidate.
Needs follow up, though, to flesh him out.
Sigh. A few news reports referred to Grossman’s criticism of Coakley’s lobbyist settlement as fireworks. Harr.
The show I saw and heard was neither exciting nor insightful. I’ve never thought much of Wu’s reportage, but she was not alone in providing tepid questions. Moreover moderator Kornacki seemed like he was doing a high-school program, all smirks and giggles.
Overall though, I fretted throughout that none of the three candidates seemed ready to take on the slick and bombastic Baker for the final. Strictly personally, I found Coakley to be evasive and a bit smarmy, and Grossman was whinier than I’ve ever heard him. That may be understandable if he is frustrated by his lack of poll movement. Berwick was by far the most coherent and convincing. However, I still wondered whether his style would stand up to Baker’s partial truths and swagger.
The event was not soothing to someone who wants the Dem to win in November.
A guy like Don Berwick can easily deal Baker’s partial truths and swagger. Charlie Baker is skilled at dealing with “politics as usual”. Given someone like Berwick and he’s going to be at a huge loss. The two are polar opposites and I doubt that Baker could last a few minutes in a debate before he and his supporters would be huddled in a corner screaming “Benghazi! Benghazi!”