The OCPF website is a wonderful thing. It’s a searchable database, and with a couple of quick entries you can find out who your neighbors love well enough to send money.
So, when I checked Quentin Palfrey’s contributions from Arlington, I was surprised just how much money he raised. Until I noticed many of those contributions had zip codes starting in 222 instead of 024.
Yep. Palfrey raised $4,687 from 20 donors in Arlington, but most of it came from a dozen Virginia donors, and not from Arlington, Massachusetts.
| Campaign Contributions | Jimmy Tingle | Quentin Palfrey |
| Arlington, Massachusetts | $2,200.00 | $1,460.00 |
| Arlington, Virginia | $0.00 | $3,227.00 |
Jimmy Tingle is our secret weapon in our effort to replace Charlie Baker in the corner office. Folks in Massachusetts know and like Jimmy Tingle, who has a track record of speaking about Massachusetts issues with humor and understanding.
It’s Jimmy Tingle’s ability to understand Massachusetts, and connect with folks in Massachusetts, that will be necessary to defeat Charlie Baker. Jimmy Tingle’s ability to describe the failures of Charlie Baker, with stinging doses of humor, that will erode the teflon that surrounds our Republican governor.
We have two very different candidates for Lieutenant Governor. Here’s an excerpt from each candidate’s biography (as posted on their campaign websites):
Jimmy Tingle was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts and has had a career spanning three decades as a comedian, writer, actor, social activist, and entrepreneur. Jimmy grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Cambridge. Jimmy’s father owned and drove taxicabs in Cambridge, ultimately become the owner of Yellow Cab of Newton. That experience coupled with his Catholic background, which focused on the social justice side of the Catholic faith, continues to be a significant influence in Jimmy’s life, politics, and world views.
Jimmy attended Cambridge Latin High School before gaining acceptance to the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and History. Jimmy wanted to continue his education; he completed his Master’s Degree in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
—-
Most recently, Quentin served as Executive Director of J-PAL North America, the poverty lab at MIT that is dedicated to using rigorous research to fight poverty and inequality in North America. At J-PAL North America, Quentin led efforts to improve the efficacy of social programs in the areas of health care, education, housing, criminal justice reform, and economic mobility. Quentin stepped down as Executive Director of J-PAL North America in August 2017 to run for Lieutenant Governor.
Quentin grew up in Southborough and now lives in Weston with his wife Anna and three wonderful children. When he’s not campaigning or working to fight poverty and expand economic opportunity, Quentin spends most of his time playing pick-up soccer, watching the Red Sox and Patriots, and relaxing with his family on Cape Cod.
We can choose someone who speaks of the social justice side of a Catholic church in a working-class Cambridge neighborhood, or someone who wants to improve the efficacy of social programs from his home in Weston. If we want to win in November, the choice is clear. Jimmy Tingle is the Lieutenant Governor candidate who adds value to the ticket in November.
I don’t think it’s necessary to slam a person’s hometown. I’m with Palfrey because I prefer a bit of government experience (and Tingle, frankly, has betrayed a lack of knowledge of basic campaign procedure) over being an entertainer.
I am not attacking his hometown.
I am stating that a candidate, who worked in the Obama administration, and chose to move to the wealthiest town in the Commonwealth upon his return to Massachusetts, is a drag on the ticket.
If we want to win in November, we need to win back Baker voters in places like Medford, Woburn, Lowell, and West Roxbury. Quentin can’t do that. Jimmy can.
Well, I don’t agree with your assertions about electability, but I also choose candidates based on whom I ultimately want in the job rather than an election strategy. This is especially true for LG who may be called upon to be Acting Governor without notice.
In my view, if we don’t have a qualified candidate who can do the job (no matter how “electable”), then we don’t deserve to win the election.
In my view, Donald Trump is exhibit A in the case against running candidates who haven’t got the faintest clue about how to perform the job they seek.
I know Jimmy Tingle, Jimmy Tingle was a neighbor of mine. Jimmy Tingle is no Donald Trump.
Jimmy Tingle completed an MPA at the Kennedy School, demonstrating policy knowledge several orders of magnitude beyond our current presidential incumbent. He has been hosting intelligent debates with candidates for decades, and hosted a very memorable gubernatorial forum I attended where I met Deval Patrick. He asked him tough and informed questions. He was a former national political commentator on CBS, and frankly was only fired from that post because he opposed the Iraq War. I would put him in the same vein as Jim Braude.
Had to uprate for the riff on Bentsen’s rejoinder to Quayle!:)
Badly nested comment
So long as our state laws allows out-of-state campaign contributions (and I don’t see that changing any time soon), I don’t object to any Democratic candidate raising money from wherever he or she is able.
Charlie Baker is certainly not turning aside out-of-state contributions. Neither did Scott Brown nor will whomever the GOP runs against Elizabeth Warren.
I want Massachusetts to be a national leader. I like it that our public officials are so often visible at the national level. A consequence of that is that our public officials are also frequently targeted at the national level, and that means that their opponents are often flush with out-of-state campaign contributions.
I don’t know anything about Jimmy Tingle. I don’t watch television, and his status as an entertainer and celebrity is completely lost on me. I join Christopher in being much more concerned about whether a given candidate is able to do the job he or she is running to attain.
My take is that the track record of entertainers turned politicians is pretty dismal. Even of that lackluster list, the ones that did best are people who brought some political experience to their campaign. Ronald Reagan, for example, had been president of the Screen Actors Guild before he ran for governor.
If Jimmy Tingle wants to be Lieutenant Governor, let him pay his dues just like every other effective official.
Jimmy Tingle is not on TV much (he’s way more often found doing politically-relevant stand-up at the Davis Square theater). He volunteers his time and talent to headline lots and lots of rallies and fund-raisers for progressive causes. He’s intelligent, as ascerbic as circumstances warrant, and funny,
Nothing against Quentin Palfrey but Jimmy Tingle is not an entertainer like Ronald Reagan. He’s an entertainer like Al Franken — and that’s also how he’s paid his dues.
The candidates I vote for for state and federal office need to have some public-service credentials. Tingle has those in spades.
I feel that Tom above either has a much more restrictive definition of public service than I do, or else is not familiar with this man’s work and career.
I really don’t know Mr. Tingle at all. I’m not saying I don’t like him — I really just don’t know him.
What I mean by “public service” (and by “paying dues”) is serving as:
– an elected town meeting member
– a state representative or senator
– a selectperson, mayor, town manager, etc
– a school or finance committee member
Entertaining gatherings is great, I’m just saying that making sausage is different from entertaining.
To entertain topically, you need to know the content. Jimmy does. I generally agree with SomervilleTom in that I do want that kind of public service record, especially for Lieutenant Governor. While Jimmy was never elected to public office in Cambridge, he has been civically active and aware, and I am absolutely confident he can effectively carry a local government message to Beacon Hill.
There are a great many comedians who entertain topically, and very few who move on to hold public office. The election of Al Franken was newsworthy because it was unusual. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that the same state (MN) also elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura as governor.
I think it’s not totally out of line to speculate that had Mr. Franken spent more of his life in public service, rather than professional comedy, he might have been more circumspect in his treatment of women around him. The world of SNL is more tolerant of such “jokes” than the political world, even before the #metoo movement.
I’m not asserting that Jimmy Tingle is like Al Franken or Jesse Ventura. I am instead challenging the premise that entertainment — even topical entertainment — is a profession that prepares somebody for public office.
By your own definition, Quentin Palfrey also has no business running for Lt. Gov. Neither did John Kerry in 1982.
I wasn’t trying to be exhaustive in my list.
John Kerry lost his first two congressional campaigns (he ran for Congress in 1970 and 1972). Mr. Kerry served as assistant district attorney for MIddlesex County from 1976-1979. That counts.
A quick perusal of wikipedia reveals (emphasis mine):
Mr. Tingle may well make a fine Lieutenant Governor. His background in public service is not comparable to John Kerry when Mr. Kerry was elected to that office, nor to Quentin Palfrey.
In our rush to field top-notch candidates, I hope we can do at least a little bit of homework when responding to those who don’t immediately agree with us. I get that some do not value prior experience as much as me. That’s fine with me, but let’s please not polarize the conversion more than necessary by understating the qualifications of any candidate.
Mr. Palfrey is the more experienced candidate, whether or not that matters.
You are shifting your goalposts. Your initial list was limited to elected offices and did not include non-elected public service like being an ADA or running for prior office unsuccessfully. Using your initial list,
Jill Stein is more qualified than either LG candidate since she is a former town meeting member. Using your new list, Tingle is still qualified since he has been an Executive Director of a community non-profit and the owner of multiple community oriented businesses.
Tim Murphy was a largely symbolic Mayor in a City Manager government, but he still managed to do a lot of good both balancing the ticket and acting as an indispensable liaison to local governments. I think Tingle will bring that to the ticket. Along with desperately needed media attention, independent voter eyeballs, and political communication skills. Palfrey is sharp and I liked his answers here. I also think we already have two wonks running at the top of the ticket and could use a wit to balance them out.
My original list included town manager and member of the finance committee. Neither is elected.
I’m attempting to share my thinking — I’m not drafting a legal document.
I view running a “a community non-profit” and being a business owner (even if “community oriented”) as qualitatively different from participating in the day-to-day nitty-gritty of governance.
I don’t quarrel with anybody who prefers Mr. Tingle for this office. I instead assert that Mr. Palfrey is the more experienced candidate.
I doth think we are picking our nits far too much. I will be happy to support either LG nominee in November.
This narrow definition of public service strikes me as about 50 years out of date.
Activists should count to, and Tingle is an activist.
While I would never want to codify it, I think there is something to be said for a bit of cursus honorum, as a way to gain experience.
I completely agree, Christopher! A Jimmy Tingle who had gone on to be a progressive mayor (like Bernie Saunders did) would have much stronger credentials than a Tingle who did not.
I am not disparaging the cursus, just suggesting that in this day and age there are other ways to qualify, honorably and legitimately, to run for “higher” office.
Palfry’s credentials strike me as also qualifying, if thin–like Deval Patrick’s when he ran for his first term. (I was a delegate pledged to him.)
On the other hand the qualification of simply being wealthy does not by itself pass my test, even if a share of that wealth is put to good purposes. So unlike many here, I never saw Chris Gabrielli (for instance) as qualified to win my party’s nomination for statewide office.
Are you arguing that Deval Patrick was an activist?
I preferred Mr. Patrick to Thomas Reilly primarily because of the latter’s abject refusal to take any effective steps against Bernard Law and the Catholic church.
I’ve never regretted my vote for Deval Patrick. At the same time, it seemed clear enough to me that his inexperience in public service cost him a great deal as governor.
Or perhaps “activist” isn’t really your point. It appears that perhaps you may be making the “fresh face” argument — that an unknown candidate with no prior experience in government is better than a known evil.
If that’s your argument, then I think the Deval Patrick campaign supports it, and I agree. I think Deval Patrick was a much better governor than Tom Reilly or Chris Gabrielli would have been.
No, Tom, I specifically compared Patrick’s qualifications with with Palfrey’s saying that both were thin, though qualifying.
Patrick’s a little stronger, if anything.
@ Trickle up:
Mr. Palfrey isn’t running against Mr. Patrick. Mr. Tingle is the newcomer, and I’m not sure how Mr. Tingle’s qualifications compare to Mr. Patrick.
I agree with you about Mr. Gabrielli. I also agree with you that Deval Patrick was the strongest of the three candidates who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2006.
We’re talking about the 2018 nomination for Lt. Gov., and comparing Jimmy Tingle with Quentin Palfrey. I’m just trying to follow your arguments in favor of Jimmy Tingle.
I don’t know how to compare Deval Patrick to either Mr. Tingle or Mr. Palfrey. I’m not sure what we’d learn from the comparison even if it were possible.
Activists do count, and always have.
If Mr. Tingle wins, we’ll all have a chance to learn whether this “narrow” definition of public service helps or hurts.
I’d say government was a good deal more effective in 1968 than it is today. Frank Sargent held this office then. Would you say that Ms. Polito is bettor or worse than Mr. Sargent?
The fact that some aspects of politics are different today does not mean that they are better.
I do not follow this comment about Frank Sargent etc.. And I doubt that there will be any meaningful lessons from the performance of the ticket, or the downballot races, vis a vis Tingle, should he win the nomination.
If Tom is suggesting that the GOP’s shift from the party of Sargent to the party of Trump means that Tingle is not qualified because Good Old Days, I disagree.
It is a good thing that activists can run for office and challenge the status quo, and we should be open to that and, when appropriate, supportive.
I responded to a comment with two parts. The last part reads:
“Activists should count to, and Tingle is an activist.”
I responded that activists have always counted. That’s not what any of my comments here have been about. John Kerry was cited elsewhere. He came to public view as an activist, an outspoken protester against the Vietnam war. By the time he won election for public office, he had spent years doing the kind of public service I ask for in a candidate.
The first part of your comment was:
“This narrow definition of public service strikes me as about 50 years out of date.”
This is not about “good old days”. You are making repeating the canard that if it’s new, it’s better. I agree with you that our political scene today is radically different than it was 50 years ago. In my view, it is far worse today.
In order to illustrate my point, I subtracted 50 years from today and examined who was Lieutenant Governor in 1968 — Frank Sargent. Apparently you feel that any attempt to actually examine the lessons of history is an appeal to the “good old days”.
Perhaps you are of the opinion that our government today is better than it was in 1968. I beg to differ with you. I invite you to offer a benchmark of how we might measure performance, and then apply that benchmark to both Mr. Sargent and then to Ms. Polito (the current holder of the office).
If Mr. Tingle is elected, we will have a chance — after a few years — to apply the same benchmark to him. That is what I referred to when I wrote that “we’ll all have a chance to learn whether this “narrow” definition of public service helps or hurts.”
Your comment sounds as if you are very sure that today is better and that we have nothing to learn from our experience (I remind you again that the claim about “50 years” is yours).
I think we have a LOT to learn.
I have been involved in Massachusetts local government as an elected Town Meeting Member, School Committee Member, and a member of the Local Government Advisory Commission (LGAC). The Lieutenant Governor chairs the LGAC. The Lieutenant Governor has few constitutional responsibilities, but the job has evolved to being a liaison to local governments.
I have met Jimmy Tingle at several meetings of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. In part, he entertained us with topical humor, and he also discussed issues facing a collection of local elected officials. There is no doubt in my mind that Jimmy Tingle understands local government, the pressures local officials are under, and the problems placed upon us by state actions and inactions.
Jimmy Tingle has an academic background that supports his candidacy, a Masters of Public Administration from Harvard’s Kennedy School. He’s a Massachusetts guy, knows his way around our communities, and understands the nuts and bolts of local government.
Jimmy Tingle may be an entertainer, but he is the most qualified to do the job of Lieutenant Governor. He is also the most electable candidate. He can go out and be a persuasive advocate for core progressive values.
Never met Quentin until six months ago. Said he wanted to fight against Trump. Don’t we all. I got the impression he didn’t know very much,or care very much, about local government.
I like Jimmy Tingle a lot. He’s done a lot of pro bono fundraisers for local causes in Cambridge. He headlined my 8th grade field trip fundraiser at the former Longfellow school, my friends confirmation class retreat fundraiser at St Paul’s, and little league and Cub Scout fundraisers throughout my youth. He is a big supporter of the recovery community and will bring a recovering addicts perspective to the opioid crisis, unlike the war on drugs mentality of the Baker administration.
He’s got a great wit about him and street cred with the unenrolled hard hats that deserted the ticket for Brown in 2010 and Baker in 2014. He’s was a very visible and very early Liz Warren supporter and did a lot of behind the scenes work introducing her to the labor community.
He’s a proud blue collar progressive, a rarity in these parts and our native Cambridge. He had my vote as soon as he entered the race. Frankly, our ticket could use the visibility he will bring. IMO, he made a mistake not running for the top spot in a wide open year.
After reading this thread, I’m in with Jimmy. Thanks to all for the information. Hope to see many of you at the convention.
What is so special about Arlington MA? Why not the Longmeadow test? (In the last year, Palfrey $100, Tingle $100, Polito $11,000. If you are after the blue-collar vote, remember there is another candidate involved with pretty good connections in the building trades . . . )
Gotta say I am very impressed with Palfrey’s fundraising chops, as well as his resume.
Arlington is beyond special, but I pulled Arlington just because I live there and I was curious who my neighbors were supporting financially.
I dispute your premise. I’ve heard Tingle. He’s not funny. You can imagine him to be funny if you happen to agree with his views. But it’s like a lot of political art: it’s only “good” in the sense that it expresses an opinion you agree with. It holds no interest for wider audiences.
Tingle isn’t going to help the ticket. We should nominate someone who is actually qualified for the office.
P.S. it’s disturbing that you’re so dismissive about Palfrey’s work to help people in poverty while you play up the fact that Tingle said a few nice words on the issue.
I am not sure what Palfrey has exactly done to help people in poverty. I know he was an executive director, and he said he led efforts to improve the efficacy of social programs in the areas of health care, education, housing, criminal justice reform,
And here’s my big problem. Here’s a guy that, prior to November, I never met him and didn’t even know who he was. He’s pulling down big numbers in out-of-state donations, from folks I don’t recognize. The last time I saw this happen, the charter school folks were trying to buy a seat on the Malden School Committee.
At the very least, unlike a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor four years ago, there’s no indication that Mr. Palfrey ran for the Virginia House of Delegates as a Republican.
When Palfrey came through Arlington, he was all about standing up to Trump. Which is just fine, except what I really want is someone who will get down in the weeds with the Chapter 70 funding formula, and will work to fix state funding of public schools.
All this chatter about a position that Chairs monthly Governor Council meetings that vote on judgeships. Why aren’t we talking about what the job entails rather than what you think the job entails.
All the more reason to vote for Tingle to use the office as a bully pulpit for working people and cities. The comparisons to Trump are unfounded, especially because this is not a life or death job for one, and Tingle is more qualified to be in government than the President to begin with.
Each candidate has completed the Progressive Massachusetts “Endorsement Questionnaire”.
BMG seems to be using a spam filter that blocks my ability to directly post the links. Perhaps the editors can reconstruct them from the following:
<a href=”
– <a href=”https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/progressivemass/pages/5071/attachments/original/1517528041/2018_Lt_Governor_of_Massachusetts__Quentin_Palfrey__Questionnaire.pdf?1517528041″>Quentin Palfrey questionnaire</a>
– <a href=””https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/progressivemass/pages/5071/attachments/original/1517529354/2018_Lt_Governor_of_Massachusetts__Jimmy_Tingle__Questionnaire.pdf?1517529354″>Jimmy Tingle questionnaire</a>
I’ve read each, and encourage this community to do the same.
Pablo writes “what I really want is someone who will get down in the weeds with the Chapter 70 funding formula, and will work to fix state funding of public schools.”
Here is a relevant question from the above questionnaire:
Jimmy Tingle:
Quentin Palfrey:
My read of each questionnaire is that Mr. Palfrey is just as capable of getting down in the weeds as Mr. Tingle, if not more so.
Hmm. Looks like we’ve lost the ability to edit comments, along with the rating.
You must watch Jimmy Tingle’s speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huh8SUxGST8
He brings value to the ticket. I’m voting for him.