A Standout Tuesday

Despite my disappointment and frustration at the results of Tuesday’s election, I otherwise had a very good day. For the first time, I spent much of the day out at the polls holding signs and greeting voters on behalf of my candidate, and even though she lost, the experience was well worth it.

There is an old adage that lawn signs don’t vote. I believe that. I also believe that standing out at the polls doesn’t actually win any votes. I imagine everyone who came out to vote Tuesday already had an idea who they were voting for.

But I think visibility at the polls saves votes. There were most likely some voters who came out whose support for Martha Coakley was tepid, at best. Had they arrived at the polling place and seen enthusiasm for Scott Brown and no support for Coakley, I can see some of them saying “Well, if she doesn’t care enough to get people out and campaign, why should I care enough to give her my vote?”

But more importantly than that, I learned that the visibility boosts the morale of those who do come out to vote and that—more than anything—made the day worth it.

Sterling is a Republican town. Those who vote Democratic know that, and it’s clear that they are much more apt to go about their business quietly. So it was nice to see so many smiles and clandestine thumbs-up as we greeted voters. A number of voters thanked me and the other Democrats who stood out to support Coakley. Some went as far as to say that they didn’t expect to see any support out there and they were happy to see that they weren’t alone.

By 7:30 pm, I was about done. There were hardly any more voters left to cast ballots, and many of those who did come out were able to park right in front of the entrance to the school, so our signs weren’t visible to them anyway. Every once in a while, someone would park in the main parking lot and walk by our location, but by that time of night, it was very rare.

I had been debating whether or not I really wanted to stand out in the snow for another 30 minutes (I’d been there for seven hours already; I figured I’d done what I could) and was just about to pack up my signs when a young woman heading back to her car stopped to thank me for being out there. She told me that she was so thankful that I had taken the time to stand out there in the weather and that she was happy that there were others who shared her support. I figured that I couldn’t leave after that, so I stuck it out the rest of the night.

The point I took from that was that even if she and others were disappointed about their candidate or the result, because she knew that she wasn’t alone she might be apt to keep voting or volunteering or doing whatever it is that she does when election time comes around. My being there didn’t influence her vote Tuesday, but it might have some effect in the next election.

Another thing that heartened me was that my fellow Sterlingites are, if nothing else, very polite. Knowing that most of the folks who came out to vote were going to be opposing my candidate filled me with a little trepidation, but me and my follow Democrats holding signs were generally treated well.

I tried to greet everyone who came by and for the most part I got a hello in reply. Those neighbors who just couldn’t bear the thought of acknowledging a Democrat walked by with their heads down. There were a couple of scowls here and there, but with a few exceptions, nothing untoward.

One guy came by wearing a yellow windbreaker. He muttered “Communists!” when he walked in to vote and followed by rolling his window down and yelling “Communists!” out the window of his SUV as he left the parking lot. (‘Communists’ is so 60’s. ‘European-style Socialists’ is much more in vogue, all though that is probably too many words for that guy to string together.) Otherwise, the only time I got yelled at was by two Coakley voters who wanted to let me know that they were voting for Coakley because they supported her issues, but that they were disgusted by the tone of her campaign. Fair enough.

I also took some good-natured ribbing from members of the Town Republican Committee who were out to hold signs for Scott Brown. I was wearing my Red Sox jacket and hat and they wanted to know if Martha Coakley thought I was a Yankees’ fan. I actually got that from a few people, now that I think of it, but each time we were able to share a laugh about it.

I had some good discussions with them about the campaign, how good or bad the schools in town were, what our kids like about Davis Farmland...you know, neighborly stuff. With all of the fire and anger that comes through in TV commercials and the internet, it was very nice to know that as neighbors, the difference in our politics wasn’t any different or more contentious than the difference in the brand of car we drive or TV shows we watch.

Even though we lost, the whole experience was worth it. I definitely plan to be out there again in the fall. Hopefully it will be a bit warmer and a bit less snowy...and that we win a few more votes.

Lessons from Last Night

We Democrats have to learn a few things from last night's result. Martha Coakley lost the election for more reasons than I can get into here--and that's not really the point of this post anyway--but some of those reasons will come back to haunt us again in November if we don't do something about it now.

We have to assume that all contests will be hotly contested, high-turnout affairs and campaign as though we are behind, no matter what. Senator-elect Brown's victory has Republicans feeling like anything is possible. At every level, in every district, we need to assume that without using every tool we have we are going to lose. We cannot afford to say "Well, if we get enough votes here then we can afford to lose there..." We have to contest every vote.

We have to simplify the message. For instance, the discussion in this campaign should not have been about "Obama's health care plan." It should have been about prohibiting insurers from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions. It should have been about guaranteeing that if you get sick, your insurer can't drop your coverage. It should have been about expanding drug coverage for Seniors. It should have been about allowing 55-64 year olds the chance to buy into Medicare. There are dozens of good, popular things in that bill, but Coakley never spoke about them in simple, specific terms. We need to break our issues down to simple, easy to understand points and hammer away on those points.

We have to define our opponents and fight the campaign on our terms. Martha Coakley should have been out the day after the primary with a commercial similar to my video endorsement. She should have looked straight into the camera and told the people of Massachusetts what she stood for, and how that was different from Brown's position. Set a narrative about yourself and your opponent and make the opponent work to change people's minds.

We have to give people an affirmative reason to vote for our candidates; voting against the other guy isn't good enough. Did Coakley ever tell you why she wanted to be our Senator? Did she ever outline a rationale for her campaign? Anyone could have run under the mantle of carrying on Ted Kennedy's legacy and saving the President's agenda. In the end, people needed a reason to vote for Coakley and she never gave it to them. The entire theme of the Coakley campaign the last 10 days was "Don't vote for that scary Republican." That rarely works, and since Brown had already defined himself (see previous point), it was particularly ineffective this time.

We have to ask people for their votes. It seems like that should go unsaid, but did Coakley ever look you straight in the eye (through the magic of TV, or in person) and tell you she needed your vote? We cannot win on principles and issues alone. While those are extremely important, in the end we are electing a person, not an issue. That person needs to ask for our votes.

"Get out the vote" can't mean someone gets out the vote for us, it has to mean our candidates get out the vote themselves. Those of us who work on campaigns can hold signs and phone bank and all of that, but the candidate has to get on the ground in those areas where the base is. By and large, the urban centers had lower turnout than the suburbs and if Coakley was going to win, she needed those areas to turnout in high numbers. The people working the phones worked very hard to get folks out, but how many days did Coakley spend shaking hands in Senior Centers in Worcester, or Community Centers in Springfield, or in Churches in Roxbury? The point is that our candidates cannot take our reliable Democratic votes for granted, for fear that they may not be so reliable after all.

We have to ignore the "fundamentals." Every statistical model, every historical campaign, every last piece of data pointed to an easy Coakley win. We all believed it. Worse, the campaign believed it. We cannot afford to wake up after primary day this September and think "If all the Dems who came out for the primary vote in November, we can't lose." If it takes us until the end of October to get in gear, it will be too late.

Finally, those of us who are not candidates can't wait for our candidates to do the right thing. Unfortunately, some of our favorite people will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out to shake hands and meet with town and ward committees and work the phones with us and work to get themselves reelected. We have to get organized and motivated and committed NOW. Every town and ward committee has a role to play. Write letters to the editors of your newspapers touting your candidates. Find out what your opponent stands for and gently (but firmly) question him or her about it. Call your neighbors. Hold house parties. Whatever you can do. But do not wait until mid-September to get moving.

Yesterday is over. It is what it is. It's our job to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Martha Coakley for Senate

She just can't stop shooting herself in the foot

You know what's demoralizing? Every time anything good happens to this campaign, Coakley or one of her aides or supporters screws it up by committing some sort of gaffe.

Coakley goes on the offensive against Brown's anti-victim amendment? The ad she runs on the issue spells Massachusetts wrong.

The DSCC runs a good ad attacking Brown's opposition to Wall Street regulation, but all anyone talks about is the image of the WTC.

Bill Clinton comes to town to rally the troops, and I'll bet a dollar to a donut it will be given equal time to Coakley's gaffe tonight calling Curt Schilling a Yankees fan.

There are plenty of other examples.

Is all of that trivial? Yes. But it's not like the news media became interested in trivia just to screw Coakley. The've always focused on the trivial. Our people have to know that they cannot make little mistakes that step on the message. How a campaign allegedly run by our party's best and brightest can be so inept day after day is beyond me.

January 15 Forecast Forecast: Lean Coakley

Looking at the latest numbers, I'd say things are leaning slightly in Martha Coakley's direction. No, I don't mean the poll numbers, I mean temperature numbers.

The Forecast Forecast: 36.0F  More Clouds than Sun
Lean Coakley (Coakley +3.0)
Down 0.1 from Thursday

See Thursday's post for how I arrive at the forecast.

The weather is still pointing to a slight uptick in turnout, however there is one big caveat that wasn't as prominent yesterday. Apparently some models for the weekend storm (Sunday night into Monday) are calling for more snow than earlier forecasts. In fact, Channel 4's weather blog tonight suggests that areas north and west of 495 could get 6-12 inches of snow, with less as you head south and east.

If this is the case, it could depress turnout in critical Coakley areas of Worcester and Springfield (I don't know how Springfield is about clearing their side streets, but Worcester is not very good. One wonders how easy it will be to get around town less than 24 hours after getting a foot of snow).

Anyway, here is the data, as of 10:00pm, January 15:

Channel 4: 34F Mostly Cloudy
Channel 5: 32F Flurries
Channel 7: 35F Partly Cloudy
Channel 25: 35F Mostly Cloudy
NECN: 39F Mostly Cloudy
NWS: 39F Partly Sunny
TWC: 36F Mostly Cloudy
WUND: 38F Mostly Cloudy

(NECN: New England Cable News; NWS: National Weather Service; TWC: The Weather Channel; WUND: Weather Underground)

January 14 Forecast Forecast: Lean Coakley

Looking at the latest numbers, I'd say things are leaning slightly in Martha Coakley's direction. No, I don't mean the poll numbers, I mean temperature numbers.


The Forecast Forecast: 36.1F (Coakley +3.1) More Clouds than Sun -- Lean Coakley

It's a widely held belief that the higher the turnout on Tuesday, the higher the chances that Coakley will win the election. The thought is that Brown's voters are more motivated right now and will come out to vote no matter what, while Coakley's support is a little softer, and rain, sleet, snow or cold might depress her numbers.

So in the fine tradition of pollster.com, fivethirtyeight.com, swing state project, and others who try to predict elections based on poll aggregation, I am introducing the Forecast Forecast, which will predict turnout (and therefore chances of winning) based on an aggregate of forecasts from eight sources.

The median temperature over the last 31 days is 33F, so a prediction above 33F would suggest a higher turnout, and a prediction of under 33 would suggest lower turnout. Precipitation would drive turnout down, where lots of sun would move it up.

So here is the data, as of 10:00pm, January 14:

Channel 4: 34F Mostly Cloudy
Channel 5: 34F Mostly Cloudy
Channel 7: 33F Sunny
Channel 25: 40F Mostly Cloudy, 30% chance of rain/snow late
NECN: 39F Mostly Cloudy
NWS: 37F Partly Sunny
TWC: 36F Mostly Cloudy
WUND: 36F Partly Cloudy

Based on the eight forecasts available Thursday evening, the Forecast Forecast predicts a temperature of 36.1 with more clouds than sun, and a very tiny chance of rain. Which means the forecast for Tuesday is Lean Coakley.

(NECN: New England Cable News; NWS: National Weather Service; TWC: The Weather Channel; WUND: Weather Underground)

Six days to go

Six days and an hour or two from now we'll find out if all of the craziness of the last week of this Senate race has been a bunch of nothing, or if Martha Coakley's campaign is the political version of the 2004 Yankees collapse at the hands of the Red Sox. The final result will be nowhere in between. It will either be an historic win or an epic collapse. From this vantage point, here is where things stand...

Coakley's strategy seems clear. If she gets Democratic and Democratic-leaning women out to the polls, she will win. It's been clear since about the 40 minute mark of Monday's debate that this is her strategy. She set the trap by mentioning Scott Brown's sponsorship of an amendment that would allow hospitals and/or hospital workers to refuse to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim based on religious objections.

She followed up with a pretty tough advertisement linking Scott Brown to "Washington Republicans" and mentioning that Brown voted to deny treatment to rape victims.

Brown took the bait by sending his daughters out to hold a press conference defending their dad's honor, then swallowed it whole by following up today with a radio ad featuring his daughters.

In theory, this works out like so: women who traditionally vote Democratic but have not warmed up to Coakley learn that Brown cares more about protecting the Church than he does about them. They figure that there is no way that they can allow someone with those views to become our next senator, so they make sure they come out to vote.

If that isn't enough, Brown isn't even man enough to defend himself, so he hides behind his college-age daughters. (This opinion doesn't come out of the blue from me. In the debate, he responded to Coakley's charge by referencing his daughters. My wife was watching with me and bringing his family into the debate didn't sit well with her at all).

Or at least that's the way it was supposed to work. But this is the Coakley campaign and true to form, they've been stomping all over their message. That attack ad that they revealed immediately after the debate was a bit too strong. It includes an image of a woman crying in a stair well to represent a rape victim and frankly, I think that might turn off as many voters as it brings in. (It reminded me of the Kerry Healey ad from the 2006 governor's race showing the soon-to-be rape victim being stalked in the parking lot ).

Maybe even worse than that, the disclaimer at the end of the ad spelled Massachusetts incorrectly (Massachusettes). So the Coakley story on the 11 o'clock news that night was the misspelling of the ad, which means she completely wasted one of the last seven days of the campaign, at least from a free media standpoint.

Of course, Coakley wasn't in Massachusetts--however you want to spell it--to push the issue. Instead, she went to Washington, DC to raise money from big donors. Now, raising money is part of the deal. I certainly don't fault her for that. But this has become such a high-profile race that Coakley could have raised a boatload of money in Washington without leaving the campaign trail for a day. To compound things, one of her advisers got into an altercation with a reporter from a right-wing magazine, which fueled more bad press.

For his part, Brown is clearly rattled by the revelation of his anti-rape victim amendment. He denied it completely at the debate on Monday. He overreacted by sending his kids out to defend him (as if they have anything to do with the amendment he proposed. Remarkably, he even said that he couldn't remember even filing the amendment, implying, I guess, that the official Senate journal might be incorrect?

He appears to be vulnerable when directly confronted on his record. At the debate, he denied saying that he was skeptical of global warming, even when read back a direct quote. He denied and then claimed he didn't remember the details of the anti-rape victim amendment.  The question is whether or not he will have to answer for those. (This is a major reason, by the way, that I thought Coakley should have jumped at the chance to debate him one-on-one).

Of course, it should not have even come to this. When the primary was over, Coakley had a 20-point or better lead in the polls. Brown had little statewide name recognition. If Coakley had taken the three weeks after the primary to do what she is scrambling to do now--define Scott Brown as a cookie cutter Republican out of touch with Massachusetts values--the race would have been over long ago. Instead, she let Brown define himself.

Now, Coakley has to try to convince voters that the handsome man who drives a truck is really some sort of monster. Had she done her job in December, Brown would be the one having to convince voters he is not a monster, but a good guy with a truck.

As terrible as her campaign has been, Coakley is still in the driver's seat. In every poll but one--whether up two points or 15 points--she has polled at least 49%. 49% will win. But she needs all of us who are supporting her to get out and vote on Tuesday.

Coakley should agree to one-on-one debates...she'd win them

I just finished watching the replay of tonight's Senate Debate on WGBY-TV in Springfield and I was struck with one overriding thought:

Martha Coakley should agree to debate Scott Brown one-on-one. She won tonight's debate (which no one saw) and she would win again in another debate with the same format.

Frankly, I think WGBY host Jim Madigan should be hired to be the permanent host of these events. He was very good. I've seen him moderate debates in previous elections and I was impressed with him then. I'm still impressed. The format was very freewheeling and allowed the candidates to carry on a conversation. It also allowed the candidates to question one another relatively freely.

Coakley did a very good job asking questions of Brown and trying to pin him down on some issues. He appeared flustered at times--not out of control by any means--but it seemed clear that he was not completely prepared to be challenged directly. Being calm and reasonable is Coakley's strength, and it came through in the handful of confrontations she and Brown had directly.

She needs to do more of it. She ought to call up the Globe or the League of Women Voters, or whoever wants to have one-on-one debates and tell them that as long as it is a free-wheeling round-table (as opposed to a stodgy debate with a panel of questioners), she is on board. She won tonight and would likely win this format again. The best thing she can do to stem whatever momentum Brown has is to get on TV and beat him again.

A couple of specific thoughts on tonight's discussion:

Coakley was successful in attacking Brown on health care. She pointed out that Brown has filed a bill in the Mass. Legislature to cut out the mandates in the Massachusetts health care program. Brown attempted to turn it around as some sort of a gender-based attack, but he seemed to be knocked off his talking points.

(For what it's worth, he also committed a verbal gaffe that is a pet peeve of mine. He suggested that Coakley inferred that he was against women's health issues when the correct charge is that Coakley implied that Brown was against the issues. I realize that it is a peeve of mine and 90% of the viewers wouldn't have noticed, but I'd hate for him to make that mistake in some big policy debate in the Senate chamber).

Brown rolled out a new (or at least new to me) line of attack on the topic of terrorism and the Christmas Day bombing attempt. He repeatedly used some version of this argument against trying terrorists in domestic courts:

"To have us pay for the attorneys for people trying to kill us is wrong."

Well, what does Brown think happens in a military tribunal? The defendant gets a military lawyer. Who pays for military lawyers? Unless we're sending recovery operations out of Guantanamo to dredge pirate booty off the bottom of the sea, we are still paying "for the attorneys for people trying to kill us." It is a ridiculous argument, and Coakley needs to call him out on it directly. She missed her chances to do so.

There must be something about terrorism policy that brings the crazy out in candidates, because Joe Kennedy might have done Brown one better. Kennedy says that because living in a jail is better than living in a cave, affording potential bombers legal rights is an invitation for them to come over here. Seriously. He thinks that al Qaeda will intentionally fail to blow up planes because if they are unsuccessful, they'll get to sleep under a bunk instead of a stalactite?

Finally, Brown badly mischaracterized Obama's tax policy. On at least two occasions he said, "The fact that we have not done an across the board tax cut, and a payroll tax reduction, is wrong." Well, Brown is wrong. Obama did propose--and Congress approved--a payroll tax deduction for the vast majority of Americans as part of the stimulus package. Families like Brown's who likely made over $250,000 per year may not have received it, but 98% of the rest of us did. To suggest that Obama and Democrats did not authorize an across-the-board payroll tax reduction is wrong. Coakley should forcefully defend that as well.

The best way for her to do it is to agree to more debates immediately.

Please, Martha. Do something!

Unfortunately, nothing has happened in the last 48 hours to convince me that Martha Coakley is going to come out of her cocoon and actually run for the Senate seat she allegedly wants to win.

Monday, I wrote that I hoped Coakley was going to use yesterday’s radio debate as a springboard for a two-week blitz on the open Senate seat. My fear was that by staying silent for two weeks, Coakley had allowed Scott Brown to remain competitive in a race that didn’t need to be close.

Well, two days later I think I was wrong about the first point and right about the second.

I only heard part of the debate, but what I heard frustrated me. Most frustrating of all was Brown’s answer to the question of how to deal with the failed bombing of a U.S.-bound airplane on Christmas day. Brown said this:

“It's time we stopped acting like lawyers and start acting like Patriots,” Mr. Brown said.

“If there is a time bomb situation and they know of a person who in fact has information, it should be up to the president to determine what tools he wants to use to gather information,” Mr. Brown said, including waterboarding. “I believe it's not torture.”

Coakley’s response?

“I don't agree with John McCain on much, but I respect him. He was a war hero and he was tortured and he says he thinks it is. So this is one area where Scott Brown can pick and choose what he believes, but this is an area that he is really more like Bush-Cheney than he is like John F. Kennedy,” she said.

No, no, no, no, no! The issue is not about waterboading or Bush-Cheney or any of that. Scott Brown just said that there are times when we should set aside the law in the name of patriotism. He implied that there are times when American ideals and the promise of liberty should be set aside in the interest of security.

Scott Brown said our system of government—our way of life—is not strong enough to withstand the threat of a guy with nitro in his underpants and that we should be willing to set aside our ideals to torture...er, interrogate in an enhanced manner...him and you cannot muster up enough life to defend the way we have operated for 230 years?

You are the Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the state. He is basically saying that you, and Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, and people like me who believe that American laws and ideals and liberties are stronger than any terrorist threat are weak. And your response is that he’s more like George Bush than John Kennedy?

Martha, please, for the sake of those of us who are supporting you and want you to win...stand up for us! Do...something!

Admittedly, I didn’t get a chance to hear the whole debate Tuesday. The venue should have been a slam dunk for Coakley. Moderators Jim Braude and Marjorie Egan are both Coakley supporters. Braude is an unabashed liberal and Egan has made no secret of her hope that a woman becomes the next senator.

Yet for the 30 minutes or so I listened, Brown was the aggressor. On taxes, on terrorism, you name it. Whether you liked his answers or not, he at least had some; Coakley was too equivocal. When Bruade, probably the most liberal commentator in the Boston market, is continually pressing Coakley to actually answer a question, then it’s not going well.

Brown reiterated the contention he makes in his TV ad that he is like John F. Kennedy in that both he and Kennedy believed in tax cuts (for what it’s worth, it’s a very good ad, even though it is misleading as hell). Coakley milquetoasted a response about how the top tax bracket at the time was 91% so it’s different, and the president Brown really should be compared to is George W. Bush...zzzzzz.

What she should have said is: “I too agree with JFK that a 91% tax bracket is too high and would have supported that tax cut. I also agree with Presidents Kennedy and Clinton that the top 1% of earners should pay their fair share, which is why I support rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Scott, do you think asking billionaires to pay 39% instead of 35% is too much of a burden on them?”

Maybe I’m just being too much of a worry-wart. Maybe Coakley figures that yesterday’s debate doesn’t mean two cents in the grand scheme since WTKK’s listeners are probably overwhelmingly Scott Brown voters anyway. Maybe she’s waiting for next Monday’s debate (the only one to be broadcast live in Eastern and Central Mass.) to get moving.

But the whole thing just doesn’t feel right.

Martha! Olly olly oxen free!

Hard to believe, but we are going to head to the polls just two weeks from tomorrow to elect our next U.S. Senator. Why is it hard to believe? Because as far as I can tell, there is only one candidate actually running for Senate. Every time I turn on the TV or read the news, I see and hear Scott Brown.

Scott Brown, Scott Brown, everywhere Scott Brown.

I believe--if my memory serves me correctly--that the Democrats nominated a candidate last month. It was Martha-something-or-another. Honestly, it’s hard for me to remember because I haven’t heard from her in weeks.

Too bad, really, because I am going to vote for her. She’s the best candidate in the race. She’s probably going to win. But unless she decides to start campaigning, she’s going to win by a hell of a lot smaller margin than she should. I mean...why should your every day Massachusetts voter brave the cold and the snow to cast a vote for her when she hasn’t found it worth her while to actually ask for a vote?

I’m hoping that this is all a matter of Martha Coakley waiting for the holidays to end, and starting with Tuesday's debate the airwaves and news shows will be wall-to-wall Martha. This has happened to me before--where I’ve wanted my candidate to get off the couch and into the press and it all worked out just fine in the end. Ultimately, I guess it doesn’t matter if she wins by 100 votes or 100,000 as long as she wins.

But allowing Brown to define the race by letting him have unfettered access to voters for the last two weeks seems like a bad idea to me. He has begun to generate some real buzz locally and nationally and that might not have happened if Coakley had tried to squash him immediately. Letting underdogs hang around until the end of the game is never a good strategy.

Scott Brown, Relic

Fresh off his rousing victory in the Republican Senate primary, Scott Brown wasted no time in going after Democratic nominee Martha Coakley, unveiling an innovative, fresh line of attack sure to catch the Democrat off guard:

Brown signed the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise not to raise taxes on the American people, and immediately challenged Coakley to do the same.

“When I first ran for state office, I signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Today, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, I am renewing that pledge. Very simply, I will not raise taxes on the American people,” said Brown.

In his wide-ranging press conference, Brown also went on to wish the Buffalo Bills well in their third try at a Super Bowl win, congratulated Bill Weld and Charlie Baker on their innovative plan to roll the Big Dig debt into the Turnpike Authority, and reiterated his opposition to President-elect Bill Clinton's health care proposal.

Hey Scott! 1992 wants its gimmick back.

Live-blogging the Senate results

I'll be keeping an eye on the returns as they come in, but first, an update from Sterling.

7:50 -- To give you an idea of how slow it was at 6:15 pm when Michelle and I went to vote, we were able to park in one of about 10 spaces in front of the school, instead of the auxiliary parking lot. I've never been able to park there; there are always more than enough voters to fill those spaces. When we entered, there was no line. In fact, I only saw four other voters in the polling place. After casting my vote for Mike Capuano, Jackson read the ballot box and reported that there had been 461 votes cast. That would be just under 16%. I imagine they will not get to 20% turnout.

8:06 -- Watching the WBZ-TV Webcast, following Twitter, and constantly refreshing Boston.com for results. FWIW, Jon Keller is better on TV than he is when he writes on his blog.

8:10 -- Here's the problem with twitter: first "results" from Boston are being retweeted all over the twitterverse: "early Boston returns Caps 33% Coakley 22% Khazei 33% Pagliuca 11%". Which is exactly how percentages would look if there were exactly nine votes cast. Early returns indeed.

8:14: Actually, the Globe site has the same results, but for the town of Gosnold. Which in fact did have only nine votes.

8:33 -- Boston.com is blowing it big time. The graphic and map at the top of the screen shows Capuano with a 23 point lead, while the town-by-town breakdown correctly show the lead is Coakley's.


9:06 -- Well, there wasn't much to that. I change and feed the baby, do a chore or two, and I find out that the race has already been called for Coakley. I'll be interested to see how Sterling and other area towns voted.

9:14 -- For what it's worth, boston.com still hasn't fixed it's results, with 53% of the vote in.


9:50 -- Sterling finally reported in the last couple of minutes (or at least, our results were finally posted by the AP. Coakley 52%, Capuano 22%, Khazei 13%, Pagliuca 13%. On the Republican side, Scott Brown defeated Jack E Robinson 89% to 11%. It looks like 1,183 total votes were cast (732 Democratic votes, 451 Republican), for a turnout of around 21%.

Looking just at raw vote totals, Scott Brown received the most votes in Sterling:
Brown...402...34%
Coakley...381...32%
Capuano...162...14%
Khazei...96...8%
Pagliuca...93...8%
Robinson...49...4%

Wednesday's Debate: The Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party

I was going to live blog tonight's debate, but I bagged on it. Just didn't have the fire.I figured that no one was going to win the race based on tonight anyway, but I suppose someone could lose it. I'm not sure either of them happened, but here are my thoughts...

Mike Capuano and Steve Pagliuca appear to have embarked on a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction. Capuano is right on this one: Pags is lying about his record. But the two of them go back and forth at each other like schoolyard rivals, and it ends up sullying both of them. Capuano just keeps sniping at Pagliuca for his wealth and ability to run TV ads. For two straight nights, he's accused Pags of being willing to send women into back-alleys to get abortions (for what it's worth, Martha Coakley lent credence to his charge by not disavowing the point when given the chance).

Pags volleyed back by comparing the abortion charge to the Republicans' nonsense about "death panels." He then called Capuano the "Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party." Which is just ridiculous. Pags is not a fighter. He comes across like the nerd who makes fun of the class bully than tries to find a way to keep his nose from getting broken. His charge fell as flat as you would expect.

Of course, the more those two guys fight, the better off Martha Coakley is. I have to say, she is looking better and better to me with each performance. I'm not sure if it's because she is becoming a better candidate or if it's because she is elevated purely by the Capuano-Pagliuca sideshow, but whatever the reason, I would be much more comfortable voting for her next week than I would have been had the primary been held three weeks ago. I still think she's too cautious and I disagree with her on important issues like the PATRIOT Act, but I haven't ruled her out.

As with last night, I thought the other candidate who did well was Alan Khazei. If I were scoring a winner, I'd give tonight's debate to Coakley and give second place to Khazei, but that isn't to say that Khazei did poorly. On the contrary, I think he again made a very good case for his election. He spends too much time talking about PAC and lobbyist money (I really don't think that wins too many votes--certainly not enough to warrant the attention he gives it), but he also articulates more solutions than any of the other candidates.

I'm still not sure which direction I'm headed, but I guess it's about time to get off the fence.

Tonight's debate: Khazei wins; Pagliuca is "proud of Burger King"

Tonight's senate debate is in the books and my reviews are in: Alan Khazei was fantastic. He was easily the winner. He gave specific proposals on the big issues and has finally found a way to present them without sounding long-winded. Martha Coakley also did very well. If it really is her race to lose, she isn't doing much to lose it. She seems like she's loosening up a little bit and actually showed some warmth and passion when talking about health care. Michael Capuano let his anger show, and it hurt him quite a bit. He was alternately passive agressive and whiny when dealing with Coakley, and downright nasty to Pagliuca. It's almost as if he knows he's not going to win and is getting pissed about it. Steve Pagliuca? You know you're having a bad night when you're relegated to saying "I'm proud of Burger King." Pags, you had a bad night.

Live blog starts...now!

---

You are looking live at a nondescript studio in Needham where...my God! Ed Harding is going to moderate this debate? Ed Harding? Was Butch Stearns not available? Congratulations to all of the candidates. It doesn't matter how bad you flub an answer or how stupid you sound, you're going to be light years ahead of the moderator on the seriousness scale.

Anyway, on with the show...

• The infinite black background makes each of these four look like zombies. Pagliuca looks particularly ghoulish. If the kids were still up, they'd run away screaming.
  
  
• The first question is on Afghanistan, and I have to admit, that I am resigned to the fact that we're putting more troops in, and none of these guys are going to stop it. In the end, they are going to vote for authorizing funds because this or that will be tacked on to get their votes. Not to mention that it's going to be tough to "vote against funding the troops" when a Democratic president is asking for it.
  
  
• On the PATRIOT Act, Coakley says we need to "build in the kind of civil liberties that we need." No, we already have civil liberties. We don't start with a law and then find a way to fit in our civil liberties. We start with our civil liberties and find a way to build laws around them. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with the Attorney General (and generally with other candidates that come from a law enforcement background). She is conditioned to fight crime first and worry about liberties second. I guess that's OK if your job is to put bad guys in jail, but that is not the job of a Senator.
  
  
• And instead of calling Coakley out on it directly, Capuano pulls some passive aggressive nonsense about "I heard three nos and one non answer" and has to be asked three times by Harding who he's talking about. This isn't high school, Mike. If you have a problem with the AG, you need to call her out. Hinting and rolling your eyes and generally being a pissy bitch isn't going to get you one vote. Your point (which essentially was my point above) is completely lost in your childish peevishness. Grow up!
  
  
• While they go around on this, why isn't anyone directly challenging Coakley on her defense of the PATRIOT Act as AG?
  
  
• Oh, now we're getting twitter comments scrolling across the bottom of the screen. Hey Channel 5, I have an idea, how about completely distracting from the debate itself by filling the screen with stuff that a bunch of people who aren't running for senate have to say.
  
  
• While I've been distracted, Janet Wu has been berating Coakley about her personal finances and the other guy with the beard has been trying to get Khazei to admit that he thinks people who buy scratch ticket are immoral and that he wants to restrict civil liberties by opposing casinos. See, this is what I hate. Small-time reporters trying to impress themselves by being tough. You don't appear tough, you appear petty. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Ed Harding has been a bright light so far.
  
  
• Pags is uncomfortable talking about his political background. He shouldn't be. He's got this question before. In fact, the four questions from Wu and Grizzly Adams were all rehashes from the first debate. A waste of time.
  
  
• Khazei has been impressive. He has specific plans and is able to articulate them. His answers on Afghanistan and job creation have been better and more specific than Capuano's, and the congressman should be the best candidate on specifics.
  
  
• Arrgh! They are missing the point on the footbridge at Gillette Stadium, a park and ride lot, and the Nantucket Bike Path (and for what it's worth, a bike path and a park and ride lot help the entire community, so they shouldn't be lumped in with the footbridge). It's not about who gets the end result, it's how many jobs are added to build these projects.
  
  
• Khazei mixes up TARP and the Stimulus. Capuano and Pags let him know.
  
  
• How can these guys whiff on the question of what they've done in their own home to save money during the recession. Capuano: light bulbs. What about them? Did you switch to energy saving models, just buy new ones? Pags: We've redoubled our energy efforts and given more money to charity. What? Coakley: We cook a lot more. Grocery shop, eat in, and don't go out as much as we used to. And she has a little smug smile because she knows she got the answer right and the other two muffed it.
  
  
• And then she comes out with one of the most absurd things I've heard in a long, long time. She claims that one of the reasons she opposed the decriminalization of marijuana was that it would lead to more public transportation workers driving trains and buses under the influence of pot. Where the hell did that come from?
  
  
• Janet Wu wants to know why Khazei thinks he will be more successful than Deval Patrick has been. Huh? These are the people who bring you the news every day. Scary, isn't it?
  
  
• More Pags, this time on health care: "There are 45,000 people dying. I talk to them every day." "I see dead people!
  
  
• Capuano has really developed a dislike for Pagliuca. He's really going after him hard on Pags' charges that Capuano would not vote for health care reform. Really nasty.
  
  
• I know I'm hammering on Pagliuca--probably too much--but here is a great example of how he just doesn't get it. Coakley gave a really good, personal, heartfelt answer about end-of-life issues. She talked about her experience with her mother, and how they dealt with her mother's terminal leukemia diagnosis. No one was going to give a better answer. Yet Pagliuca jumps in before Harding can ask the next question and spews a series of statistics. He has no sense of when to talk and when to shut up.

The candidates are on to their closing statements, so I'll give you mine: Khazei was fantastic. He was easily the winner. He gave specific proposals on the big issues and has finally found a way to present them without sounding long-winded. Coakley also did very well. If it really is her race to lose, she isn't doing much to lose it. She seems like she's loosening up a little bit and actually showed some warmth and passion when talking about health care. Capuano let his anger show, and it hurt him quite a bit. He was alternately passive aggressive and whiny when dealing with Coakley, and downright nasty to Pagliuca. It's almost as if he knows he's not going to win and is getting pissed about it. Pagliuca? You know you're having a bad night when you're relegated to saying "I'm proud of Burger King." Steve Pagliuca, you had a bad night.

Steve Pagliuca: "I don't know if I have to vote on that or not."

You are looking live at the studios of WGBH-TV in Boston as the four candidates for US Senate are getting ready to face off for...

OK, who am I kidding. I have a 3-year-old and a 9-month-old. There is no way in the world I was able to watch a 7:00 pm debate live. I'd have loved to, but unless they're going to debate after 9:00, I'm just not going to be able to do it. So I recorded it and am now checking in a couple of days later. That's just the way it's going to be.

Anyhow, Emily Rooney is in her chair and we are ready to go...

• Martha Coakley, are you stiff? No, and let me cooly and calculatedly and unemotionally tell you why.
  
  
• Good, Rooney asks about the Father Goeghan case right away. I hope they get into that a little more, I think that is one area that deserves to be fleshed out. For her part, Coakley briefly explained that she did the right thing, and was not intimidated by the church.
  
  
• Alan Khazei just can't stop talking. Coakley and Michael Capuano gave succinct answers and Khazei gave his stumps speech, which wasn't really related to the question about whether or not he's going to raise hell in the Senate.
  
  
• Steve Pagliuca can't answer whether or not he'd had to sacrifice because of the recession. Because the answer is no.
  
  
• Capuano charges his kids rent, and says he couldn't afford to let them stay with him for free? Really?
  
  
• Rooney asks Khazei why he's in last place. She's asked more good questions in five minutes than Peter Meade did in an hour in the first debate. For what it's worth, Khazei is explaining why he's NOT in last place.
  
  
• Pagliuca is really uncomfortable talking about his personal financial situation. He can't say what he would do with the Celtics if he wins.
  
  
• Here is one of the differences between living inside 128 and living out here. Coakley says she doesn't make a big salary and hasn't. I'm pretty sure (I'll need to check later) that as Attorney General and before that District Attorney she makes quite a bit more money than we do. I certainly don't begrudge how much money she does or doesn't have, but the idea that she (and Capuano earlier) live paycheck to paycheck is hard to believe.
  
  (Update: According to the Boston Herald database of state workers' salaries, the Attorney General makes $133,644 and the Middlesex County District Attorney brings in $148,843. She makes a lot more money than she thinks she does.)
  
  
• They have moved on to the question of what the candidates would do if their bishop told them that they could no longer take communion, using the Patrick Kennedy situation as an example. Interesting to hear the way the candidates describe their own religious situation. Khazei says he is a Catholic. Capuano says he considers himself a Catholic. Coakley says she grew up Catholic. Interesting that only one of them was comfortable describing himself as a Catholic without qualification (Pagliuca said he was raised an Episcopalian).
  
  
• Coakley hits this one out of the park. I'm going to find the actual quote, but she essentially said she can't accept a church that protects pedophile priests telling people what they have to do to be a good Catholic.
  
  (Update: Here is the exact quote, courtesy of the Globe: “It seems to me a little bit ironic that a church that was willing to overlook the victimization of many, many children over several years is
  now turning around and saying to people who are good Christians, good Catholics, that, ‘You can’t join this.’")
  
  
• Pags trying to answer a question about tort reform. He really doesn't have any more than a superficial grasp of any issue.
  
  
• Khazei going on and on and on. I think he'd probably be a good senator. He seems wonky enough. Talking with him over lunch would probably be fascinating. But this is a debate, not lunch, and he needs to find a way to be more succinct.
  
  
• Having said that, I'm not really interested in tort reform, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to catch up while these guys talk about it. They are actually getting into it here, though, for the first time. Khazei is for it (and Pags is tagging along), Coakley and Capuano are not.
  
  
• Coakley would let the Bush tax cuts expire. Capuano agrees. Pags and Khazei too. I'll go on record right now as saying that each one of them will vote to extend at least the portion of the tax cuts that helped out the middle- or lower-class if they get the chance.
  
  
• Funding health care--Khazei would tax the "gold-plated" health care plans. It's a bad idea. There are a number of people in employer-based plans who have what might be considered a "gold-plated" plan.
  Capuano wants a tax on individuals making over $500,000 (families over $1 million). Capuano is absolutely right on this one. Coakley punts, saying "we'll find some way to pay for it." That is not a plan.
  
  
• Capuano is all fired up at Pagliuca. Pags has said--twice--that Capuano would not vote for the house bill. Cap has had enough. He's bringing the heat about the details of the bill itself, and sarcastically attacking Pags for "repeating sound bites" and asking him "Why don't you take out another ad?" Pags responds with what actually does sound like the same old sound bites (60th vote on health care, 400,000 dying, etc. etc.). Coakley hops in and explains her position and suggests to Pagliuca that women's rights don't have to compromised to get a bill. Pags responds that he is pro-choice which gets an "Apparently not!" from Coakley. Great exchange.
  
  
• And Capuano zings Pags: "You would have voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, because they have good titles." Kapow!
  
  
• Emily Rooney with the eye roll! Fantastic!
  
  
• Pagliuca is talking about all of the jobs that Bain has created. I guess he's got to defend his business, but it is risky ground. There are plenty of examples of companies that haven't done so well after being taken over by venture capital and private equity firms.
  
  
• Talking about the footbridge at Gillette Stadium. Capuano with a good answer (although it might not be popular): I don't care as much about who gets the bridge as I do about how many people are employed to build it.
  
  
• When the debate turned to foreign affairs, all of the life went out of the room. Pags and Khazei want nothing to do with this. Nothing at all. Capuano and Coakley are having a good discussion on the issues, but it's pretty clear that this isn't the priority for these four.
  
  
• For instance, Rooney just asked Pagliuca if he would vote to defund the troops. Pags answer: "I don't know if I have to vote on that or not." Where have you been the last eight years, Steve Pagliuca? The entire 2004 election ended up being about John Kerry's vote on funding the troops--you know, "I voted for it before I voted against it." And you don't know if you have to vote on funding for the troops?

That's it. That was a hell of a lot better debate than the last one. Capuano and Coakley were clearly winners. If you want your candidate a little bit fiery and willing to mix it up, Capuano would be you winner. If you were looking for someone who came across a little more reflective, Coakley was your winner. Khazei was OK. Pagliuca was in trouble every time he was forced to deviate from his script. He is clearly not ready for this.

And I am clearly ready for bed...

Women for Coakley say woman for Coakley is not for Coakley because she's a woman

The irony meter started ringing early this morning. Kennedyseat.com linked to a charge from the organization Women for Coakley that a NECN report was sexist for implying that Congresswoman Niki Tsongas might have endorsed Martha Coakley for Senate because she is a woman.

From Women for Coakley:

Reporters assume that if one man is endorsing another man it’s because that man is competent. To then turn around and ask women such a question is insulting and biased because the question’s very existence carries the presumption that the candidate’s qualifications weren’t enough to merit the endorsement.

I have no doubt that Tsongas’s endorsement is based on merit and not gender. But it’s awfully rich for “a small team of women seeking big gains for women in politics,” which is hoping to unleash “the full potential of ‘the other half’ of the population’s unique perspective, talents and leadership” to criticize someone else for asking if gender is part of the decision-making process.

Senate Debate Wrap-up: The (Thurs)day after

I’ve had a chance to mull over the senate debate and I’ve come to the same conclusion I had when I watched it: it was awful. Bad moderator, bad format, bad questions, bad video quality, you name it.

But there was an important “good” that came out of it, and that was the opportunity to see these candidates live. Sure, they’ve each done a handful of appearances and forums, but this was the first opportunity for many people to see the candidates outside of their commercials. Here are my thoughts on the candidates’ performances, in alphabetical order:

Mike Capuano was the most passionate, energetic (caffeinated?) of the four candidates. He also seemed to be the least scripted, speaking easily about the issues. While I’m sure he had prepared for the debate, he appeared to be winging it, and doing so successfully. He appeared to genuinely care about the issues.

It was nice too see the passion from him, considering that he appears nearly morose in his campaign commercials. Perhaps he is this energetic all of the time. If so, his commercials are doing him a real disservice. I came away with a much higher opinion of him than I had when the debate started.

Not that Capuano was perfect. He spent way too much time (that is, more than zero) talking about what a good “horse-trader” he is, and how his status as the only insider makes him much better equipped to deal with the workings of the Senate. Is that a plus? Yes. Does anyone want to elect a “horse-trader” to the Senate, or the State House, or selectman, or dog catcher? No. I’d suggest the word negotiator the next time this comes up.

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, was much more reserved and even. Whether that is her natural persona or whether she has trained herself to stay even-keeled, it served her well. (Unfortunately, there is still a bias out there against more animated female politicians. If she had exhibited the same “passion” as Capuano did, she’d have been characterized as shrill or scattered, not “passionate.”)

Come to think of it, I can’t think of one thing that she said that made me say “Wow, I like that Martha Coakley.” But I can’t think of anything that turned me off to her either. She was just solid. And considering that the debate itself was nearly a waste of an hour, solid was probably a very good result.

The only thing that stuck out to me as a negative was Coakley’s quip that maybe we should go and rob banks to help pay for...I don’t remember what. The Attorney General probably shouldn’t be advocating for the commission of a felony, even if it is in jest.

I really, really wanted to like Alan Khazei. This was the first chance I’ve had to see him and from what I’ve heard, he is the truest progressive in the race. I like the idea that he is not an “insider,” but has worked a number of issues on Capitol Hill. But I could not get into him at all. I appreciate that he has a great story to tell, but his father being a doctor from Iran is not relevant to every issue. I know that this is Ted Kennedy’s seat, but tying himself to one Kennedy or another in response to nearly every question (I was half-expecting references to the Rose Kennedy Greenway, Joe-4-Oil, and the Kennedy Space Center in his closing statement) made him come across as a panderer.

He seemed stiff to me, like he was trying too hard to remember his points instead of being able to discuss them easily. And I positively rolled my eyes when he ended his closing statement by challenging the other candidates to weekly televised debates. That’s straight out of Campaign Tactics for Dummies and never, ever works.

It’s too bad that Khazei filled his allotted time with anecdotes about his father and the Kennedys, because once he got going, he seemed to have a pretty good command of the topics. But moderator Peter Meade kept cutting him off, becoming more and more petulant with Khazei as the night went on (which I thought made Khazei a bit of a sympathetic figure).

Steve Pagliuca suffered from a mix of poor preparation and bad luck. He really seems out of his element speaking from behind a podium. He looks like he should be leading some sort of business seminar, walking the stage with a clip-on mike and a power point presentation on the big screen behind him. His command of the issues appears to be pretty shallow; he’s OK when he can give the stock progressive stance on this or that, but is very shaky when it comes down to the details.

Had he been in a different place on the stage he might have been able to get by with that, but he was positioned after Capuano, so in three out of every four questions he spoke after the energetic wonk. Pags spent much of the night starting his responses with “I agree with Michael,” which essentially invalidated anything else he had to add. If he had a better command of the little things, he might have been able to respond effectively.

I’m not going to get into all of the ways that the debate itself was terrible. I agree with Emily Rooney, who killed the organizers in a blog post yesterday:

The format was lame, the questions were lame, the production was lame and the result was tedious...

Virtually every rule of "don't" was broken. Don't ask everyone the same question, don't ask yes/no questions, don't ask hypotheticals, and don't use a format that doesn't allow for interaction among the candidates.

That about sums it up.

"I agree with Michael..." and other thoughts from Monday's Senate debate

You're looking live at the JFK Library in South Boston where the four Democratic candidates for US Senate try to be even half the politician that Ted Kennedy was...will any of them measure up? Or will the least small of them win? And away we go...

(OK, it's not live. I watched it on tape delay because the kids had their Halloween parade and then I had to head back to the office. Deal with it).

Auuugh, my eyes! Instead of running this thing in HD, it's in widescreen standard definition, which means it looks like it's being broadcast from the bottom of the ocean. Guess I won't need my glasses...

The first question goes to "Martha." I wonder if they agreed to call each other by their first names. It seems too informal, especially when a sitting Attorney General and Congressman are involved.

First question is "What was the moment you thought you should be the next senator?" That's really a question without a good answer. I'd rather hear them answer the question "why do you want to be Senator?"

Wow, Michael Capuano talks way too fast.

There is an interesting dynamic going on with the way the candidates deal with the TV cameras. Martha Coakley and Alan Khazei are looking at what they think are the hot cameras or an advisor, or something, and it looks like they're staring off into space. Capuano looks straight at the moderator, Steve Pagliuca looks at the crowd.

"Senator Kennedy would have wanted me to do this." Wow Pags, just a little presumptuous, no?

Peter Meade, no one wanted to give you a moment, because no one had an aha moment or had a rock hit them in the head.

Capuano whacks Khazei for his not answering the hypothetical question about Hanscom Air Force Base, and then doesn't really have an answer. He then goes after Khazei a little more: "If you want to go down and change Washington, Good Luck." Risky business. It doesn't seem like the insider's track is usually a winning strategy.

And Pagliuca calls him on it. He sounds naive, though. "I'll tell the other senators that we can't afford to close it." That and three bucks will get you a cappuccino, Steve.

Martha has found the camera. She is preaching the importance of staff.

Oh, God. Pagliuca thinks that we won't have any bad deals because we have John Kerry.

Coakley: "They're both in Middlesex County, so I can't give either of them up." So, would one of them be more apt to be dropped if it were in Worcester County?

Khazei name-dropping Carl Levin and John McCain. Apparently he thinks the one who can name the most senators in an hour wins.

What an absolute farce. I'm 18 minutes into this and this is becoming a Republican's wet dream. Having a wonky insider like Peter Meade run this debate is the worst thing that could have happened because he's talking like the insider that he is and the entire first quarter of the debate has been about process, and "horse-trading." There are real issues to be discussed, yet the whole thing is about process. NO ONE CARES HOW LEGISLATION IS MADE! We want to know what these candidates stand for.

Peter Meade needs to stop answering his own questions.

Do we need another stimulus? Steve Pagliuca: "We might." Way to take a stand, Steve. And then he likens raising taxes on the rich to robbing banks. I don't think he has the first idea what he's talking about.

And Coakley jokes that we really should start robbing banks. There is a Republican campaign ad right there. She also won't commit to an updated stimulus.

Alan Khazei's father is a doctor....and Khazei is in favor of another stimulus. Not sure what one has to do with the other, but at least he took a stand.

Khazei is wrong that the problem of the stimulus was "8,000 earmarks." The problem of the stimulus is that the "centrists" stripped out things like money to build schools (as though actually building things is not stimulating).

Hey, Capuano agrees with me about the stimulus. But he's losing votes every time he talks about "horse-trading." He has to stop talking about that like it's a good thing. Being able to negotiate is a good thing, but the term "horse-trading" has a negative connotation. If I were a Republican operative, I'd run a 30-second ad consisting solely of a montage of Mike Capuano saying "horse-trading". End it with a tag line of "Can you trust a horse-trader to represent you in the Senate?" or something like that.

Health Care...Public option? With or without an opt-out provision? Capuano is for a robust public option. May not support Senator Harry Reid's opt-out. Pagliuca will only vote for a "robust" public option with no mention of the opt-out. Coakley will support a public option with or without an opt-out. Khazei is all about the public option as well, hates the medical insurance lobby, and would vote for the opt-out. His father is a doctor and his mother is a nurse. Coming up next, the work status of his siblings.

Meade is asking whether or not they need to have a Republican vote to justify the plan. Another wasted question. Of course they don't.

Hey, Khazei's father is a doctor...but he also is in favor of strong Malpractice reform, which sets him apart from the others.

Steve Pagliuca has actually read about the difference between a majority and a cloture-vote. Good for him. Earlier tonight, I read "Green Eggs and Ham." Vote for me.

Khazei is against a troop increase in Afghanistan...Capuano will also not vote for more troops. OK, he says we should get out of Afghanistan because we're done rooting out Al Qaeda, and they are now in Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, etc. and we should chase them down. I assume he doesn't mean that we should invade all of those countries.

Pags, you agree with Capuano on just about every question. Why don't you just vote for him?

Coakley knows that one of the troops killed in Afghanistan was from Massachusetts. Point Martha. She would also not vote for the troops.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time finding a difference between these guys.

Khazei in a nut shell: Kennedy, doctor, doctor, Kennedy, doctor, nurse, Kennedy, doctor, doctor, Kennedy.

General McChrystal isn't wrong. He's supposed to give his opinion. It's a data point that the president needs to take into consideration. One of many. I'm not sure saying that a general in the field is "wrong" about what he needs is a big vote-getter.

Immigration? Good question. Maybe the first one of the night. Coakley says no drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, punts on healthcare. Khazei says no to both. Capuano refuses to answer. For what it's worth, his overall question was the best one, but he refused to say what he would do on the specific issues Meade mentioned.

Capuano is wrong, by the way, that the issue will never come up or be voted on. The public option proposed in the house would exclude illegal immigrants from the possibility of receiving subsidized care. Not only will the issue come up, but it is currently before Congress. While I liked his answer about immigration in the whole, this dodge was weak.

The only issue that would preclude Khazei from voting for an Obama Supreme Court nominee is Roe v. Wade? Oh, come on. Pagliuca had no idea what the question was about. None.

It's interesting to hear Coakley talk about what she would look for in a Supreme Court justice, considering her widely panned appearance before the court.

Peter Meade needs to stop badgering Khazei. He lectures him like he's a schoolchild on the length of his answers. At least twice Meade has started to cut off Capuano and then clammed up to let Capuano extend an answer. If he's going to condescend to one candidate he needs to do so to all of them. It seems like "Mike" is his favorite.

And that's it. I can't say I was wowed, but I need to think about it a bit.