We all look forward to a substantive debate tonight between Democratic candidate Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker. In that spirit I asked some of the smartest people I know – my colleagues at MassPoliticsProfs and at UMass Boston – for some debate questions. You’re welcome, Jim and Margery.
This past spring, I put together a hierarchy of Massachusetts political endorsements. As we approach election day, I am republishing with some updates. One big caveat; No one endorsement is a game changer. Elizabeth Warren couldn’t save John Tierney, Michael Dukakis couldn’t boost Mike Lake, and Mitt Romney couldn’t bring more Republicans into the Legislature in 2004. Candidates and conditions (statewide and national) matter.
Akilah Johnson’s piece in today’s Boston Globe nicely describes the political debate over Charlie Baker’s reintroduction of the welfare reform “issue” into the race for the corner office. Democrats argue that it’s a classic dog whistle intended to rally the base in the home stretch of the race, while Republicans argue that welfare reform has been and is an important issue of great concern to their constituents. Who’s right? Both sides are right.
Several commentators have speculated that the good economic news of late is too late to save the Democrats from defeat in the midterm elections next month. While this may be the case in US House and Senate races, it may not be true of two very competitive New England Governor's races. Connecticut governor Dan Malloy and Massachusetts' Democratic gubernatorial nominee Martha Coakley are nursing very small leads in the latest polls and are ramping up their "get out the base" operations for the final stretch.