LG Ad Spending

As of today, the LG ad campaigns have all begun. We also pretty much know how much each plans to spend on TV ads. Here's the breakdown, in order of magnitude:

1. Deb Goldberg: well, we actually do not know exactly how much she plans to spend on TV advertising, because I believe her campaign has not said so. However, given that at the end of July she had 1.9+ million on hand, we can guess that she will spend approximately $2 million on ads, give or take a couple of hundred thousand.

2. Andrea Silbert: $530,000. According to a press release received today from the Silbert campaign, they

will air two new television ads today. The ads, which are Silbert's first of the campaign and were created by noted media specialist Tad Devine, are entitled "Andrea Silbert: The Jobs Candidate," and "14,000 Jobs." They will air today and take a hiatus for the Labor Day holiday. They will return to the airwaves on Tuesday, September 5^th through the September 19^th primary. The ads are part of an approximately $530,000 media buy designed to ensure that Silbert's message reaches Democratic and unenrolled primary voters.

3. Tim Murray: $400,000

According to an article in today's T&G,

So the mayor’s campaign, which had $391,234 in the bank at the end of the most recent reporting period, Aug. 16, was able to plunk down about $400,000 for “media” for a longer run than the mayor’s advisers had anticipated. Besides the network booking fees, the campaign paid Mr. Patton-Spruill, the director, about $20,000.

After incurring those costs plus other fees for the services of media buyer Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor, the campaign has only about $80,000 left, Mr. Ferson said.

Another interesting piece from the article:

In one of the two versions of the ad, a group of elementary school pupils behind a beaming Mr. Murray chant: “Hurry, hurry, vote for Murray.”

In the other version, the candidate declares: “I’m in a hurry to get Massachusetts working again. I hope you’ll give me the chance.”

Hoss Analysis: remember that with all of these amounts, a portion goes to the consultants, so each of their amounts that is actually spent on tv ads is less than the total amount put out there.

That said, this is overall an impressive bunch of media buys for a downballot race, particularly Silbert's buy and, to a lesser extent, Murray's.

Regarding Silbert, the following are especially impressive:

A) Her ability to spend more money on TV than either 2002 LG candidates Pines or Slattery, even though they were both much more established politicians at the time. She's also buying more time than any of the Treasurer candidates did in 2002. Again, impressive, given that that group had both established politicians (Cahill, Cahill and Murphy) and a guy that was an ultimate insider and kicked in 100K+ of his own dough (Segel).

B) Her ability to have conserved enough resources to be able to spend this much.

Regarding Murray, it's impressive that he's been able to pull together a larger media buy than Pines or Slattery, but it's surprising overall that he didn't raise more given his position as an elected official. I know he's allegedly putting together a field operation, but as I've said constantly, I'll believe it when I see it. I also know that some say "he got into the race late." Baloney. He's known he was running for years, and for him not to have stocked up more funds prior to getting in the race was foolish. Or, if it was not foolish, then his failure to raise more since he did get in isn't impressive - and yes, I know he's "raised more since he got in than anyone else."

Also, it appears that Murray's people have bought into the "remember a rhyme" school of political ads a la Tim Cahill. But "Hurry Hurry Vote for Murray"? Uhhh...

Lastly, I'll say this: usually the candidate that accumulates and spends the most wins. In this race, Deb Goldberg's inherited wealth positions her as the leading candidate to do that now. However, given that she has not gotten a ton of attention, and given that her ads are not particularly memorable, she is less of a favorite than she could have been. Silbert and Murray are still in this thing, and as we all know in politics, anything can happen.

Andrea Silbert: A Voice for the Middle Class

Eileen McNamara has a column in today's Globe that better sums up why Andrea Silbert is the best candidate for Lieutenant Governor than anything I or any other junior varsity blogger could.

Key paragraphs include:

In the last decade, she says, the center's training and fund-raising efforts have helped 10,000 people, most with low incomes and limited education, launch small businesses in more than 200 communities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. What began as a center in Roxbury has expanded to include state-subsidized centers in Worcester and Providence. It is little wonder, then, that economic development is the centerpiece of Silbert's pitch, a mix of results-oriented pragmatism and socially conscious idealism. Expanding commuter rail is not just environmentally responsible, she argues, it is a practical response to housing costs and traffic gridlock. Ending homelessness is not just a moral imperative, it is an economic investment. Preserving open space is not just aesthetically pleasing, it is a key to asset management.

``We can't leave politics to the rich and to professional politicians," Silbert says of Goldberg, heir to the Stop & Shop fortune, and Murray, the 37-year-old three-term mayor in Worcester. ``I have the political skills to identify a problem and to raise money from the public and private sectors to fix it. We have had to overcome more than one veto in the last few years at the center, but we have done it. I want to take what we have learned and apply it statewide."

It is her biography, as much as her resume, that Silbert hopes will connect with ordinary voters. She lives on Cape Cod not just because it is beautiful but also because she and her husband, a self-employed graphic designer and artist, could not afford housing prices closer to Boston. They buy their own health insurance, a solution that costs too much and provides too little coverage. Their children will go to public schools. ``We are living the life of so many middle-class families in Massachusetts," she says. ``We ought to have a voice at the State House."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thoughts on WBUR LG Story

So I finally was able to listen to the WBUR story on the LG race and it was pretty good.

Two things struck me: first, calling Tim the "frontrunner" was an inaccuracy, but an understandable perception from the reporter.

Second, I'd like to put this out there: Andrea Silbert has more endorsements than any other candidate: the 10,000 people she and her team helped while she was at the Center for Women and Enterprise.

I know that sounds like a stretch, but when, as Prof. Berry said in the BUR story, you're talking about "name recognition", I contend that come primary day, those 10,000 people are going to play an important role in a Silbert victory because when they begin to focus on the race in the closing days, they'll be part of the viral marketing/buzz building that helps the Silibert campaign get over the hump.

LG Poll Analysis

Couple quick thoughts on the Suffolk poll showing Murray with 11%, Goldberg with 6% and Silbert with 5%.

First, this poll means nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero. We would know just as much about the state of the race today as we did before the poll came out.

Second, let's look at history: where was the LG race and Treasurer's race in 2002?

On August 29th, a Suffolk poll comes out with the following numbers:

LG:

Gabrieli - 30%
Slattery - 23%
Pines - 16%

That's sort of relevant, but the Treasurer's numbers are more relevant because none of them had advertised at the time of the poll:

Steve Murphy - 17%
Mike Cahill - 14%
Jim Segel - 12%
Tim Cahill - 11%

Who won? Tim Cahill. Murphy? Came in 3rd.

So to those Murray folks getting their hopes up, go for it, your hopes are as likely to come to true as not.

LG July Money

Well, it was an interesting month on the LG money front.

Tim Murray's people fudged his June numbers;
Deb Goldberg fudged her fundraising numbers;
Deb Goldberg threw in another million for the heckuvit; and
Andrea Silbert continued to lead the non-self-funding money race.

As anyone who has been around this state knows, it takes a significant ad presence on the airwaves to win a downballot primary. Deb Goldberg has positioned herself well to take that victory home with her to Brookline. It's not guaranteed, but any objective observer would have to say that at this point, her largesse gives her the upper hand as we head into "ad" season.

That said, unlike in 2002 when Chris Gabrieli spent nearly $2 million on ads and faced an ad campaign of $270K from Lois Pines and $165K from John Slattery, the ad presence of the well-heeled candidate's opponents will be significantly greater than that year where the order of finish was:

Gabrieli- 306,043 (46%)
Pines- 205,208 (31%)
Slattery- 150,313 (25%)

What do people think the results will look like this year when Goldberg spends $2 (or 3 or 4) million on TV, Silbert spends $600K and Murray spends $400K? With $1 million in non-Goldberg ads and 2, 3 or 4 million in Goldberg ads, it would seem there is a better chance for an "upset" this year than in previous years. Plus, with turnout supposedly down this year (continuing the trend in primaries), who does that help? Murray with his field operation? Silbert with the clearest message? Deb with most money?

Finally, last month I wondered why Murray fudged his June tally and whether he was holding checks. This month's performance shows that he was not. This month's spending also shows that the Murray campaign is not stockpiling money like it should be. A very rought look at the 2006 numbers indicate that Murray has raised 500K his year, spent 320K, and is up 170K from his Feb. 1 number. Silbert has raised 440K, spent 215K and is up 155K from her Feb. 1 number. Murray has spent more than 60% of what he's taken in this year, whereas Silbert has spent just under half. Granted, some of that may be going into a field operation, but will that pay off? Perhaps, but Silbert's and Goldberg's field effort will not be significantly less than Murray's given the vacuum created by the governor's race. Maybe I'll be proven wrong this time around, both on the impact of a ground game and the importance of winning the ad war.

As you stew over all that, here are the numbers.

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,057,124.84
Receipts: $1,023,417.34
Expenditures: $98,199.63
Ending Balance: $1,982,342.55

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $475.517.32
Receipts: $68,851.00
Expenditures: $19,040.25
Ending Balance: $525,328.07

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $386,166.26
Receipts: $61,743.95
Expenditures: $52,013.16
Ending Balance: $395,897.04

Netroots Rise Up: Donate to Silbert & Counter Deb's Millions

Well, it appears that Deb Goldberg has given herself another million dollars

If you are a fan of Andrea Silbert's (as I know many of you are) and you haven't donated to her campaign yet, NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. Please donate here.

Andrea is a fabulous candidate and, absent Deb's millions, would be in a great position to win as she'd be able to spend more on TV than any downballot candidate since 1998, except for Gabrieli. More than Cahill or Segel in 02, more than Pines or Slattery in 02. Make no mistake: Andrea has done something that no candidate has ever done before in a downballot campaign. BUT SHE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT NOW MORE THAN EVER TO PUT HER OVER THE TOP.

If each of us donates something, it will make a difference. I'm starting with $100, and if each of us do that, it will make a huge difference. If each of us gave $200, I can't even tell you how much of an impact it would have.

You know, there's really no "netroots" candidate out there other than Deval. But there can be, and now is the time.

Please join me and donate to Andrea's campaign here.

Why Liberal Biz Dems Will Make MA Better

Looking up at the statement that lies beneath my blog's name, I thought I'd discuss a bit why I think Democrats in the Governor and Lieutenant Governor's offices will make this state better - if we have the right Democrats there.

In today's Globe, Scot Lehigh asks why, in this state full of the best universities, research facilities and companies, don't we have the best and most capable leaders?

My answer? Because we have a general presumption that holding elected office equals competence. But it does not, and Scot's piece clearly points that out.

Another piece in today's Globe also stands out to me: in this article, Romney gets generally high marks for his handling of the Big Dig crisis, just as he did for handling the 2002 Olympics. While I disagree with most, if not all of his policies, Romney's performance over the past two weeks has convinced me of this: we need to elect Democrats who have the private sector experience like Romney, but we should also make sure they have a conscience and, ideally, have operated in sectors outside of the private/business world.

Some good examples? Mark Warner, John Edwards, Maria Cantwell. They were all private sector actors who also believe, for the most part, what many of us Democrats believe. If we get more of these kinds of people into our ranks, and get less of the career-politician-types, we can rule for decades and fundamentally change this country, just as the Republicans have done over the past 30 years by making "government" a dirty word.

So, how do we start here in Massachusetts? It's very easy: elect either Chris Gabrieli or Deval Patrick, and make sure Andrea Silbert is their running mate.

Let's speak truth here: most of us spend our daily lives working in the private sector, receiving direct or indirect benefit from both the social service/non-profit sector, and relying on the public/government sector. These three candidates have thrived in that sector, and they are the ones we ought to be putting out there to the voters.

Succeeding in getting elected does not make you an expert in making people's lives better, and it ought not to be a ticket to higher office. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, that's not the case. We are so enamored with elected officials (or we used to be, and that impression has been perpetuated by the media) that we automatically assume that they are the "best" candidates for the job. Granted, being elected does prove something more than your campaigning skills, and getting re-elected does not happen, for the most part, unless you've delivered something for your constituents, either tangibly or by standing for something 50.1% of them believe in. The most recent evidence of this presumption occurred in 2004 when the only prominent names listed as possible successors to Sen. Kerry were Bay State congressmen.

But let's look again at Scot's column: he notes, correctly I think, that someone like Matt Amorello had no business being appointed to the Turnpike chairman's position, save for his being a failed congressional candidate and former Republican state senator who needed a job. Same goes for the Blutes and Buckinghams of the world, as Scot points out. Scot further notes that in the Dukakis administration, expertise usually trumped politics. (Note: is Scot right? I was in elementary school then, and wasn't even living in this state...)

Now, some may say that my comments here are a slight on Tom Reilly's and Tim Murray's qualifications for the offices they're running for. You're right. I have no doubt they are accomplished, effective politicians, and they are both clearly smart because they are admitted to the bar (despite the bad lawyer jokes, you do have to be more than a good test-taker to become a lawyer). Tom Reilly, in fact, is an excellent prosecutor. But does he have the ability to understand what a food pantry in Greenfield is going through when its federal grant dries up or its source of donations shrinks as fewer people choose to live there and instead migrate to the cities? And when I say "understand", I mean does he really KNOW, as opposed to have compassion for the situation. Maybe, but it may in large part be due to the fact that he has the ability to pull together people who can advise him on such a situation; he has no direct experience in meeting a bottom line, save for working within a budget prescribed to him by the Legislature - a concept that is approached differently than when a small bodega owner needs to figure out how to buy supplies and price the goods.

My concerns here also relate to the promises politicians make, and how they are able to keep them. While the candidates for Governor are necessarily talking about a whole host of issues, the candidates for Lt. Gov. are speaking to a much narrower scope of issues. Let's look at each:

1. Tim Murray: wants to be an advocate at the state level for cities and towns, wants to expand commuter rail. He has released plans on both.

2. Andrea Silbert: wants to lead the state's economic development efforts so that we create jobs, and has released an action plan thereon; wants to bring more federal dollars back to Mass. and use it to expand regional rail; and wants to be the advocate for those without a voice, especially homeless families, and she wants to end family homelessness (note: ending homelessness through innovative strategies is a hot issue these days, and NPR is doing a series on it. Mike Bloomberg in New York is launching an effort to end homelessness, but appears to want to do it in a more compassionate way than the Guiliani efforts were.)

3. Deb Goldberg: wants to use her family's experience starting and running Stop and Shop, as well as her experience as a Brookline Selectman and in life in general, to help get Massachusetts moving again.

Of these three, Andrea Silbert is the one who fits best into the mold I have deemed the most helpful for our state. She's run a successful business that had a direct impact on thousands of lives, and she has worked in and with the private and public sectors. It's just my opinion, but I want someone like her and like Deval or Chris.

Admittedly, there are drawbacks to having a non-governmental Governor. They can get frustrated with the bureaucracy, or have unreasonable illusions about how things work and how much harder it is to get things done. This could be particularly true this year if Deval or Chris wins, because they will be coming in with such high expectations of cleaning house that they will invariably not be able to live up to them and there will undoubtedly be stories at the 100 day mark of just how many things have NOT been accomplished. But that's not enough of an argument to have a career politician in there, not at this point in our history. Massachusetts needs people who will attract the best and brightest into government again. That means someone who will be able to get lawyers to leave cushy law firm jobs, executives to leave their posts, young college and master's degree grads to go into government before going to work on Wall Street. Do you really think that Tom Reilly is going to be able to do that and attract that kind of new talent? Please. There are career hacks salivating all over the place because they've been waiting for 16 years for a Democrat to get into office so they could reach their jackpot position. Tom Reilly is not going to shake the trees of Boston's best institutions to attract new people. It's going to be more of the same. Contrast that with what a Deval governorship will do: bring in new, fresh faces from all over the region, perhaps the country. (Incidentally, I think if he wins, he's immediately in the mix for 2008 discussion as a Presidential candidate. Patrick/Obama 08, baby!) Gabrieli might do so as well, but he isn't the inspirational guy that will draw in young, smart, excited people like Deval will.

Career politicians are needed in some sectors, particularly the legislative leadership area. I am a big opponent of term limits and believe strongly that old oaks weather the storms. Legislatures are bizarre places (I've worked in one, I know), and it takes a while to get ones bearings. So term-limiting isn't the solution. (Although I also favor Parties term-limiting chairmanships in Congress, as that lets good people serve.)

So, enough rambling.

You want real innovation and leadership? Andrea Silbert, Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli should be top on your radar screen.

Think It's Hot Here?

At least our ROADS AREN'T MELTING!

From the BBC:

Roads have been melting in parts of England as the heatwave across most of the country continues.

Gritting lorries have been sent out to spread crushed rock dust on melting tar to create non-stick road surfaces.

Monday was the year's hottest day so far with a reading of 32.7C (90.9F) at Heathrow. Forecasters say temperatures could be 37C (99F) later in the week.

The average maximum temperature in England for this week in July is only 21-23C (70-73F).

Romney Seeking to Take Control of Investigation

I actually posted this over at BMG first, but wanted you loyal readers of this site to be able to see it as well (ha ha). According to this article from Boston.com, Romney plan to file emergency legislation wresting control of the BigDig investigation from the Turnpike Authority and placing it under the auspices of the Executive Office of Transportation.

Interesting political move here, because it has the potential to have the following impacts (among others I'm sure): 1. Allows Romney to weaken the Pike, which he has wanted to do for a long time. 2. Puts the "buck" more squarely in the Executive Branch. This could cut both ways. On the one hand, if things aren't fixed soon, we all know where to point blame. If things go well, Romney can claim to be the savior. Or if things continue to be as muddled (blame-wise), it won't make a lick of difference in the public will still be mad as hell at everybody. But on the other hand, if Dems win in November, this baby is in their lap, and they can be held accountable. But if Romney gets this bill through, the blame for a slow fix will surely be focused on Healey by her opponent(s) this fall. 3. If the Legislature doesn't pass it, allows Romney and Healey to blame them and lump them in w/ the Pike in terms of being who we should blame for the problem. This would jibe well with Healey's political strategy. I think if this bill gets introduced, it passes. This could, and probably should, be the beginning of the end for the separate Turnpike Authority. That being said, I must say that in terms of road quality, the Pike is simply one of the best roads to drive on in the Northeast. It's always well paved with what appears to be better pavement than other roads. I actually love driving out west on the Pike - it's scenic and fast. Yes, the Pike "extension" from Weston to Boston has its periodic challenges, and the traffic is bad. But compared to, say, Route 1 Southbound coming into the Tobin bridge, it's a great ride. (I think that curvy stretch coming into Chelsea has been improved recently, though, right? But isn't the Bridge still a bumpy nightmare?) I remember as a kid driving back to southern NE from skiing in Vermont with my parents and when we'd cross into Mass. from VT, the roads (usually I-91) would always get drastically better. My parents would always say "Yup, you can thank Tip O'Neill for these roads! Too bad Tip's legacy is going through rough times now - after all, he's the one who got the Feds committed to the point of no return on the Big Dig.

Polls Coming Fast and Furious

Another day, another poll in the Governor's race.

And again, Patrick is ahead, getting 37% to Gabrieli's 27% and Reilly's 26%.

This could begin to be a battle for 2nd place, although if I'm Gabrieli, I'm focusing on bringing Reilly down for the next month, then take aim at Deval for the stretch run.

Patrick Has Huge Lead

OK, so the latest Statehouse News poll is out and it has Deval Patrick with a big lead.

Now, I know it's early, and I know we can't rely fully on polls yet. However, I think this lead is similar to building up a lot of speed going downhill so that you can safely make it uphill. It's also like stockpiling a large campaign warchest so that you can a) fend of potential challengers and b) have enough to spend at the end. (Wait, that didn't work for Reilly, so scratch that analogy...)

But I think this lead is going to hold. Here's why:

In a couple of weeks, the TV ads are going to start flying. We've already seen the effect a large TV ad buy can have on a race. (Don't believe me? In addition to Chris's ads this year, check out this chart showing the impact Gabrieli's big ad buy in 2002 had.)

However, ad buys have less of an impact when they are countered with other ad buys. This year, Gabrieli's going to have a ton of ads (probably $5-6 million worth, I'd guess). Reilly's going to have $3-4 million worth of them. Patrick's going to have $2-3 million too (I predict he raises a ton in July-Sept. - like $2 million or so - plus chips in perhaps a million of his own).

With all those ads flying, it will be impossible for any of them to so solidly stamp out the others' messages that the status quo will hold. Sure, the race will tighten, but in a contested media battle, no one can make up more than 10 points. In my book, Patrick should keep doing what he's doing, and perhaps even spend a little now to get 5 or so more points ahead. Then, he'll have a cushion for the inevitable tightening of the race.

LG June Money

Interesting note from this month: in a June 27th article in the T&G, the Murray camp announced it had "raised about $100,000" in June. Unless they are holding checks until next month (which would be stupid), the numbers below show that the campaign was making promises its fundraising team couldn't keep. They were spinning the press a tale they couldn't live up to. Good for them for getting that story in the paper, (it's what campaigns are supposed to do, after all), but that won't breed a lot of trust amongst the media as we head into endorsement and coverage season.

That all being said, it is still quite surprising that even with all his endorsements and political support, Murray still hasn't been able to catch up to Silbert in the one race that really matters: money. (I'm leaving Goldberg out of this analysis for obvious reasons.) Silbert looks to have spent some real dough, for the first time really, on her convention effort - and she still didn't spend that much last month. Also, she must have been focused in May on ensuring she got on the ballot since, as we all know, raising money takes advance work, and by working delegates to get her surprising 2nd place finish at the Convention, she appears to have sacrificed a bit of cash in June. That strategy paid off with the convention results. Also, Silbert's early chase of the money looks like an even smarter move now: she is the story of the Convention in the LG's race (unless Goldberg's embarassing performance in the story), and still maintains a healthy fundraising advantage over her main opponent.

Finally, it's really too bad that Goldberg's millions are all she's bringing to the table here. This race would be so much more interesting if it were between Tim and Andrea....

With that, let's check the numbers. As always, listed in order of cash on hand.

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,087,491.74
Receipts: $17,763.75
Expenditures: $48,130.65
Ending Balance: $1,057,124.84

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $476,548.08
Receipts: $52,991.00
Expenditures: $54,021.76
Ending Balance: $475.517.32

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $353,917.53
Receipts: $80,936.89
Expenditures: $48,688.16
Ending Balance: $386,166.26

Silbert Trailblazes

OK, so just when I thought things were quiet, someone wakes me up.

What piqued my interest? It was the announcement from Andrea Silbert's campaign that her convention video will be available for viewing on Comcast's On Demand service.

What a great idea this is! Her video was generally regarded as the best of the LG's videos (really, her competition was only with Tim), so it'll be good for her to have others view it too.

I'm sure other candidates will fall in behind Silbert's lead here - I can't imagine why they wouldn't, as it's probably not too costly.

The other news today is Tim Murray's June fundraising - clipping along at a solid pace post convention. I've said it before, and will continue to: Tim Murray is the favorite in this race and ought to be miles ahead in cash on hand. His up and down fundraising strategy has not helped him and if he ends up spending the same on media as Silbert, he loses. While they both may lose to Goldberg due to her largesse (although she may be hurt by lack of a clear message), Murray risks a dead last finish if he doesn't significantly outspend Silbert. Plus, comments about his "grass roots organizing" are such baloney I can't even believe they're spouting them.

Back to sleep - or work - or whatever...

All Quiet...

Yes, I'm still here. Reality has set in and shown me that actually working for the clients I'm serving is pretty darn important.

But I've also been quiet cuz, well, things are pretty quiet on the ol' political front. It's all below the radar screen these days - building the field, building the warchest, whatever it is that's going to have to happen to make any of our esteemed statewide candidates viable.

So, in honor of their head-down dogged-ness, I too will put my head down and work my tail off for a while before posting again.

Unless a "July 4th Surprise" happens...

Quick Thoughts on LG Debate

Gotta run to father's day dinner, but I just caught the LG debate on Channel 5 after the World Cup fiasco (2 red cards? are you effing kidding me?)

Anyway, this debate can be summed up thusly: Andrea Silbert and Tim Murray: substance and on message. Deb Goldberg: wandering, elitist and possibly harmful to our party in November.

Why? I'll speak to Goldberg because of my tight time.

Coming out of her horrendous convention, she needed to recover here. She didn't. instead she showed herself to be elitist and out of touch.

First, she thinks we might want to have another referendum on the tax rollback. I can't count how many ways that's effed up.

Second, her answers to the "get to know you "questions were comical at best and deal-breaking at worst.

Her kids go to private school (she lives in Brookline - doesn't get better public than that).

She drives a Lexus, her husband an Audi ($$$$$$$$$).

Her fav. leisure activities? Skiing ($$) and tennis (muffy, bring me another iced tea).

Does she own an iPod? No, but her kids HAVE EACH HAD THREE DIFFERENT MODELS!?!?!

I know she's smart, got a bunch of degrees, but could she be more out of touch with the voters we need to attract?

It's time for someone (Phil Johnston, are you available?) to whisper in her ear that it ain't happening. Let us have a great race between 2 great candidates and get out now before you embarass yourself and your family.

Off to dinner...

LG May Money

Per Cash on Hand:

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,144,765.83
Receipts: $36,208.25
Expenditures: $93,482.34
Ending Balance: $1,087,491.74

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $451,691.13
Receipts: $64,890
Expenditures: $40,033.05
Ending Balance: $476,548.08

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $330,017.99
Receipts: $87,239.14
Expenditures: $63,500.60
Ending Balance: $353,917.53

Interesting. We'll see who, if anyone, gets a convention fundraising "bump."

Silbert Steals the Show

As the reports begin to dribble in, these early hours indicate this: Andrea Silbert stole the show yesterday in Worcester, and looked classy doing so as well.

Not only do I agree with my own assessment, but pmegan and cephme do too. Mark Snyder thinks that Andrea was impressive. NECN thinks Silbert's upset over Goldberg was a surprise. Lynne thought Silbert's speech was the most well-organized in terms of laying out a clear plan of what she wants to do. Today's Globe notes that Silbert outpolled the better-known and better-financed Goldberg. Ditto for the T&G. The Cape Cod Times compared Silbert's grassroots appeal to that of Deval's. Cos thinks Silbert's second place finish couldn't have been predicted.

But not all think she was good, Charley over at BMG being the leader of that charge. Andy didn't think she was so hot and thinks Murray is Silbert in a more electable package. To these and others who may have thought Andrea's speech came off poorly I ask that you think some more about what you're saying: you are feeding into, as Slushpuppy wrote, that classic double standard that female candidates face: if they're intense, they're angry. If men are intense, they're inspirational. It's time to start changing that, and we have to do it. We have some serious issues facing our state, and we've had a string of dilletantes and under-achievers in office these last 16 years. I'm ready for someone who actually wants to do something for us as opposed to using us for ulterior political purposes.

The other theme emerging is that Silbert looked classy in ceding the convention's nomination to Murray. Scott in Belmont noted how the deal went down. Sabutai agreed and wants to buy Silbert a beer. Good move by the Silbert folks: keep Murray from getting the big win, look like good sports and fill the Comback Kid role. Well played.

Kelley Out

BlueMassGroup has the scoop here, courtesy of Political Intelligence.

Not sure how this changes things, but it's interesting nonetheless.

LG Mid-May Money

A commenter on this site noted that the mid-May OCPF filings have been made. While these reports are not always reliable in terms of showing where things stand, I thought that given the upcoming Convention, and given that many undecideds might be looking for ways to distinguish these four candidates, posting these mid-month numbers would be relevant in this month more so than probably any other month.

One huge caveat: Deb Goldberg does not file mid-month reports; rather, she files a single report at the end of each month. However, given the influx of cash she gave herself last month, I think it doesn't really matter.

The larger question is: who will have the funds to compete with her.

So, here are the mid-May numbers, based on Cash on Hand. Commentary follows.

1. Deb Goldberg ** THIS IS THE MAY 1ST NUMBER

$1,144,765.83

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $451,691.13
Receipts: $33,070.00
Expenditures: $24,051.37
Ending Balance: $460,709.76

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $330,017.99
Receipts: $17,275.00
Expenditures: $35,775.73
Ending Balance: $311,678.26

4. Sam Kelley:

Starting Balance: $13, 617.94
Receipts: $1,725.00
Expenditures: $3,381.42
Ending Balance: $11,961.52


My thoughts: Murray dumped a bunch of costs into this month, as did Silbert. I'm surprised Murray didn't have a better opening, but again, he may be holding checks, he may have a ton of stuff going on this week, who knows. But I think the more likely scenario is that his people are so busy with delegate-related stuff that fundraising is taking a back seat. Not a bad strategy if he can pull off a first-ballot win as is possible. If he doesn't though, then it may not have been worth it. I'm sure his people have plans for a big June. Time's getting short and Silbert's $150K gap ain't getting any narrower. She's continuing to move along at a solid clip.

Interesting.

More Thoughts on Silbert

I posted more thoughts on why I chose Silbert over at BMG.

Here's the text of that entry:

As many of you know, I have been a frequent commenter on this blog about this wonderful LG field. And as many of you also know, I had not decided who to vote for, but it was down to Murray and Silbert.

Today, that all changed. Andrea Silbert won me over today and I am proud to say that I will be supporting her at the Convention, on this blog, and over at my blog, MassChange, where I live-blogged the debate (forgive typos, etc...) and where I posted some additional thoughts on today's forum.

With a clear message, relevant experience and the ability to get her message out through paid media, I believe Andrea will be our best hope for going up against Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman and the best complement to any of the three gubernatorial candidates.

She's not perfect, and none of the candidates are, but she is the one talking about the issues in a way that is different and more innovative than any of the the other three candidates. Her argument that we need to grow the pie, as opposed to re-dividing it, appeals to me. (Yes, I did post that yesterday here.) And I think it will appeal to voters who want a sense of hope and entrepreurial thinking from their elected leaders. After all, for those people in this state that are hurting, just getting by, living paycheck to paycheck: they're the real innovators in this state because they have to think of new and creative ways to keep their families fed, their children clothed, and their lives secure. They are the real Massachusetts entrepreneurs, and they deserve to have someone in the Corner Office who not only thinks like them, but actually lives like them - middle class, public schools, expensive health care, and on and on. Andrea Silbert is the only one in this field who can truly claim to be their champion because she is one of them.

Also, no one else in this race can provide the same blend of skills, experience and a plan. Andrea's is a simple, yet powerful message, and as we all know, in a crowded field and in a downballot race, there is no wiggle room within which one can educate voters on multiple fronts. The Gubernatorial candidates can and will be doing that, but the LG candidates need to "pop" and stand out. One, maybe two things about them will be remembered by voters, and her message of "jobs jobs jobs" trumps "cites and towns" and "health care" not only in its simplicity, but in its breadth. So much of what we as Democrats want to do can be started if we had more consistent revenues to utilize. Jobs get us there.

I wholeheartedly encourage my undecided BMG friends to support Andrea Silbert.

As I said, Andrea Silbert is not the perfect candidate. She is not an elected official, she has no natural constituency, she is not independently wealthy, she is not a lawyer, doctor or merchant chief, and she is not an expert in all things that state government does.

But she is an innovator and am entrepreneur, a product of the extraordinary non-profit sector that exists as a sort of "shadow government" in our state, filling in so many of the holes our government should, but cannot fill because 16 years of Republican rule and neglect.

Just imagine. Massachusetts is home to some of the most innovative ideas in the world. Don't we want someone in the Corner Office who understands these people, and wants to bring the positive forces of government to serve and promote these ideas, as well as advocate for the core ideas that make our state so proudly Democratic? With all due respect to the other candidates experience and passion for Democratic ideals, I think it's time for a 21st Century Democratic leader who brings the best of all that Massachusetts has to offer to the table. For my money (well, at least my delegate vote), Andrea Silbert should be our choice.

Thanks.