Hey, there! Log in / Register
Election roundup: Debate tonight
By adamg on Mon, 10/27/2014 - 8:18am
The two main candidates for governor debate tonight, starting at 8 on NECN. Evan Falchuk, meanwhile, still hopes to crash the party through a court order - his hearing is today.
Coakley and Baker compared on health care. Baker and Coakley compared on Ebola.
The Globe endorsed Baker.
Secretary of State Galvin, two opponents to debate today at time and place set to ensure as few people as possible see them.
Reasons to vote to expand the bottle bill. Reasons to vote to ban casinos.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Good Luck To Falchuk On The Hearing
This is a fight I was often witness to during my time in leadership positions within the Libertarian Party. Not once did I see the excluded candidate given a ruling in his or her favor, either locally or on a national level.
However, what with the Globe endorsing Baker, this race is over. Maybe we'll see a similar miracle in this decision.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Ask Mayor John Connolly what
Ask Mayor John Connolly what he thinks about the value of a Globe endorsement...
Apples & Oranges
An endorsement that doesn't go against the usual political slant of a newspaper means little. Connolly was/is a Democrat.
On the other hand, an endorsement that shocks can mean quite a bit. I worked on Carla Howell's campaign for Auditor many years back and I can tell you, with certainty, that The Herald endorsing her meant at least a good two points at the polls.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Globe endorses Baker?
Wait, isn't he white, male, and heterosexual? Any one of those characteristics is an automatic no-fly around Morrissey Blvd.
Are we sure that this isn't some kind of prank, like when the Turner convinced the local newspaper of record that American soldiers were raping Iraqui women, and punk'd them into running graphic photos of same on the front page? Except, the photos were actually from a porno web site.
Coakley probably tried to
Coakley probably tried to muscle John Henry and this was his middle finger to her.
Globe endorsement
I was only moderately surprised.
The cynical view is that the Globe knows on which side its bread is buttered, and it is not the side on which Boston/Cambridge/Brookline/Somerville sits.
I think that the more realistic view is that a lot of people (and, presumably, many Globe readers) subscribe to the notion that the state government is a sprawling $30 billion/yr enterprise with more than 30K employees and that the governor's primary job is to manage that enterprise effectively. Apparently an increasing number of people think that Charlie Baker will be better at doing that than Martha Coakley.
We shall see.
On a side note, I think that this is one of the primary reasons that Deval Patrick was initially elected governor. His undeniable rhetorical prowess (grand policy considerations) was buttressed by some "corporate" experience (managerial considerations), which allowed him to appeal to a broader base of people. Neither Baker nor Coakley have the rhetorical gift, and as between the two, it appears that Baker is viewed as having much more skill and/or experience in the management category. I really think that this is what is driving the move in recent polls.
I also think this might be another example of Massachusetts not being as liberal as everyone seems to think that it is. I think it is very difficult for people who do not travel around the state regularly to see that. There is still a very large Bill Weld Republican streak (non-eloquently stated as "I don't care who you marry, whether you have an abortion or not, but I do care if you waste my money"). I usually term it "social libertarian and fiscally careful".
I really hope that Baker
I really hope that Baker voters decide this thing is over now. A week is an eternity in politics. This race is still close and will come down to turnout. By all means, let Baker voters decide to skip the election to do a myriad of other things because he has it in the bag,
Meanwhile the NY Times/CBS just posted their field poll from last week. Coakley 45%, Baker 41% (including leaners).
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/07/battleground-tracker-2014-massa...
You hit it, Rob.
I think you highlighted the thing that is scaring the devil out of the Coakley people.
You spoke of "Baker voters" but then talked of a poll showing Coakley ahead when counting "leaners".
Voters vote. Leaners - well, they vote in smaller numbers.
Anecdotally (and I suppose there are media reports that suggest the same), it seems to me that there is a considerable enthusiasm gap (enthusiasm being a principal driver of turnout) and that the Attorney General is on the wrong side of it. [N.B., I live in Brookline, and the usual visual barrage of lawn signs for the Democratic candidate, along with neighborhood chatter in favor thereof, is notably absent this year].
As I said above, we shall see.
And according to Kevin Cullen...
The situation is similar in Dorchester (not many Coakley signs in a very democratic neighborhood).
By the way, best line in Cullen's column today:
Faker Cullen
knows Dorchester as well as he knows Kansas.
Maybe he's a faker...
(I have no idea whether he's a faker or not), but you have to admit that even if it's not true anymore, the line is a good one.
On the flip side, there is
On the flip side, there is isn't a single Baker sign in my neighborhood which is overwhemingly Democratic. I love reading Kevin Cullen, but this is a very arbitrary measurement of candidate support regardless of who the candidate may be.
Signs as signs
Maybe so, but I can say without reservation that there are many fewer signs for the Democratic nominee in my neighborhood than I have seen in any previous gubernatorial campaign. I cannot bring myself to believe this is merely a coincidence and not evidence (perhaps not dispositive evidence, but evidence nonetheless) of diminished enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate.
Also, the talk about "getting out the vote" among the base cuts both ways - yes the Democrats have a well-honed ground game in MA, however, many people inclined to vote for the Republican, who have often stayed home because "there is no chance" might actually go vote if this is going to be as close as it appears it might be.
I've actually seen more signs
I've actually seen more signs for Yes on Question 2 than either candidate, yet polling shows that is likely to be soundly rejected by voters. That gets to an unknown to me: what effect, if any, turnout to vote a specific way on one or more Questions will have on the gubernatorial vote. For example, there has been a relentless push on Question 4 targeting sympathetic voters and/or workers who stand to benefit from its passage kind of behind the scenes in terms of canvasses and door knocking - will that indirectly benefit Coakley and maybe isn't registering in polling necessarily? I don't know, just curious.
Perhaps the rulings against
the excluded candidates have to do with the fact that debates are normally sponsored by private entities (in this case NECN), who IIRC are not obligated to include people they choose not to invite to participate in the debate.
Can I sue..
because I don't get NECN and I want to watch the debate!
That Mystery Time and Place
For the Secretary of State Debate will be....
Malden High, 12:45-1:45!
I'm surprised Galvin didn't hold it in the Western MA town of Ware just to further confuse people.
The Globe missed an
opportunity to get on board with the biggest political upset of modern times. Scot Lively will win going away. He will get both the left and right nut and have the election neatly wrapped in a sack.