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%

I'm voting for Michael Capuano tomorrow

I'm not going to go on and on about why, I just think he's the best of three decent candidates. He has shown both a commitment to progressive values and positions and the ability to get things done for Massachusetts.

Both Martha Coakley and Alan Khazei would also make good senators and the Democratic Party and the people of Massachusetts will be well served if either of them win. But we will be better served if Congressman Capuano is elected, and I will do my part tomorrow by marking my ballot for him.

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...

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.