Last night was the second to last debate among the three Democratic candidates for governor. As someone who still hasn’t completely decided among them (though I’m leaning toward Berwick), here are a few takeaway impressions:
1. Martha Coakley sounded like the front-runner, and the other two treated her as such, correctly attacking her for not being bold or offering anything new to the voters. Coakley deftly parried the attacks. Why should she be bold or offer anything new? She’s probably going to win.
2. Coakley offered boiler-plate-like sound bites about having a plan of some sort to invest in something that will create jobs. But then again, why be more specific if you’re going to win?
3. Berwick has two issues that set him apart — he’s for a single-payer health care system, and he’s anti-casino. These are enough to make me inclined to vote for him, but are they enough for the voters in the primary? Doesn’t seem to be enough at this point.
4. Grossman is well-spoken and upbeat, but, while he criticized Coakley for not being bold or offering anything new to the voters, I didn’t see him as offering anything new either. He criticized Coakley for not being able to name any specific project in her proposed capital spending plan that is not already in the state’s capital plan, but so what? She’s not proposing an expensive enough capital project for the state? That was his point?
5. Both Berwick and Grossman tried to attack Coakley on the Franciscan Hospital lobbying deal, but Coakley parried that as well with a ‘we did the best we could’ response. No one could refute her statement that the law only provides for a $5,000 recovery to the state.
6. None of the candidates had much to say in response to the question how they would do things differently than Governor Patrick, although, to be fair, I didn’t hear Berwick’s response because I had to get out of the car at that point. When I got back in the car, Grossman was discussing the lack of progress on legalizing medical marijuana and Coakley then said something about creating some kind of division in the Department of Children and Family Services that would somehow protect children in some way from abuse and neglect. But again, why should she do or say anything bolder than that?
7. None of the candidates discussed or proposed anything that those who are feeling increasingly desperate about their economic and financial futures could really grasp onto.
I’m a Grossman supporter, but heard specific proposals from all three. However, I have done research on all three, and Steve Grossman has the actual track record of “cleaning house”, innovation, and working well with partners in business and government. He was voted #47 of top 100 Chief Investment Officers for turning state of MA $49 billion pension fund investments out of the red to making 10% returns. Berwick is touted as “the bold progressive”, but Grossman has been implementing diverse hiring & promotion, paid sick leave for all workers, equal pay for women for decades, financial literacy for all, so has the experience how to expand these in the state. Best outcome: Grossman as Governor “The business community has a shared responsibility with the political community to create a nurturing environment for long-term employment stability in Massachusetts.” As he said in the debate, this includes inviting Dr. Berwick to lead the overhaul of MA health care system.
Last Debate is TONIGHT, Thurs w Jim Braude NECN 6pm
I think I agree with most of the points here.
Regarding #7, I think that is in part the fault of the questions. The moderators did a very poor job with that. The questions about text messages and the Patriots were simply an embarrassment to the journalist profession and a lost opportunity for substantive discussion. The debate took a while to get to policy matters in the first place as well.
Regarding #6, I believe the candidates were all asked for two things. I know Berwick’s first was casinos, but I missed the second one (only caught the very tail end of it).
Honestly. This stuff is maddening.
Both Wu and Hiller are worthless.
Hiller trying to chase down the candidates on that federal v. state funding for immigrant children was such a waste.
is all over this election. Scott Brown demonstrated that Massachusetts will elect someone who is bold, trusted, and easy to understand. As I have said over and over at gatherings with fellow Democrats and at house parties for all the candidates prior to the convention: “Don’t over think the typical voter. This state can be won with little more than a pickup truck and an empty barn jacket” (imagery used by Brown to show “trust”) Of course, once elected, you need more than image and that’s where Brown had to make his exit.
In a general election, people vote for people they trust. Don Berwick, there are no props needed. He’s the pediatrician with a clear message. He speaks his mind and he is very different from the rest. And yes, I am a Don Berwick supporter because of this.
If I am Smiling Charlie Baker, the health care businessman with the American flag pin on my lapel, the last guy I want to run against is Don Berwick.
Coakley simply has no vision for the office or the Commonwealth. It’s so depressing.
I especially loved when she tried to pin Grossman down on the “how are you going to pay for it?” question re: detox beds.
I hope she has good answers for those types of questions coming from Baker. So far I haven’t seen any.
How about if the moderator names a topic, so the economy or dealing with drugs and gives the candidate 15 minutes to go at that topic, refereeing if needed. That would be a debate.
We need to cover things like whether the candidates for governor of Massachusetts believe we are in a war with ISIS.
In a few of the debates, the best stuff has been when the candidates engage each other. But then the moderator steps in to “move on” or “change topics,” which is really the worst thing they could do in that moment.
Whenever I hear or read those words I think of the episode of The West Wing in which Santos and Vinick agreed to tell the moderator (ABC’s Forrest Sawyer as himself) what he could do with the rules. It was special for having been performed twice live for so everyone could see it in real time. Of course, before there was the real debate The West Wing also gave us a political junky’s ultimate fantasy – a real convention!
Everyone loves the Sorkin seasons, for good reason, but I always thought that race was a great way to end the series. I am only disappointed that Arnold Vinick had to lose since the actor playing John Spencer (aka Leo) died. I had missed the debate episodes when they first aired, but re-watched them recently on Netflix. Fantastic stuff. Not sure who I would’ve voted for to be honest, probably Vinick.
The GOP would never have nominated a candidate with his positions for President in our lifetimes thus far.
though, all semantics aside, I like those much better.
I’m including Hiller and Wu.
At least Wu is a real newsperson who’s been on the beat and understands the real issues. HIller bloviates like the O’Reilly factor, just for only 5 minutes a week to a dramatically smaller audience.
What exactly he brings to the table elludes me.
And he was terrible — terrible — at the debate.
…seem to think their role is to be professional cynics when it comes to politics.
managed to get an interesting discussion going on casinos. He exercised extremely tight control, cutting people off after very short answers, but it seemed to keep the discussion on point to some extent. The format helped Berwick, I think, particularly on the casino question. Coakley and Grossman, to a lesser extent, were forced to disavow a lot of their enthusiasm for casinos while still trying to justify their opposition to repeal of the law.
What I didn’t like about Braude is that he came at the charter school question from a totally pro-charter school perspective, i.e., why isn’t each candidate for lifting the cap completely? As if anything short of full support for unlimited charter schools was somehow the wrong answer. He also did this on the Probation Dept. issue.
He’s a much better moderator than what we’ve seen thus far. He isn’t scared to hold the candidates to account. More importantly, he doesn’t waste 20% of the time with completely worthless questions.
I also agree re: charter schools. He cast the question in life or death terms, which just isn’t true (or helpful) for the charter school issue.
I think it would have to be either the perennial “what is your greatest weakness?” or, (I swear either Wu or Hiller asked this), “what was your most embarrassing text message?”
Text message.
It could be the absolutely worst, most inane question I’ve ever seen or heard asked at a debate. Ever.