Talking Politics

GOP Women Update -- & 1st Gay Dad In Congress?

David S. Bernstein — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:35:00 GMT

In the week or so since I posted at length about the meager outlook for women Republicans in elected office, I have some updates that seem to show the problem only worsening.

First of all, as you probably know, DeDe Scozzafava was chased out of the race and, one assumes, out of the party altogether. Meanwhile, the GOP added two male governors, meaning that they now have 3 women out of 24 governors, dropping the percentage to 12.5%.

Today, we learn that, as suspected, Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell will not run for re-election. Oh, and Heather Wilson has opted not to run for governor in New Mexico.

On the Senate side, the best shot for a new female GOP Senator -- Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- is in increasing danger of falling victim from the right herself. Club for Growth is reportedly planning to side with Ovide Lamontagne (who just officially announced) in that primary. And if that doesn't provide enough ammunition against her, wealthy businessman Bill Binnie has jumped into the Republican primary too, planning to spend "an undetermined amount of his own money." Oh, and of course this comes just as the NRSC, running scared of the tea party crowd, just pulled primary funding for its favored candidates like... Kelly Ayotte.

Movement conservatives are also going after newly-officially-announced Senate candidate Carly Fiorina in California. Senator Jim DeMint has now endorsed her conservative opponent, Chuck Devore, who is quickly becoming a national cause for the far right. And, in Colorado, NRSC favorite Jane Norton is also increasingly likely to be the target of Club for Growth attack, in preference for a male candidate to be the GOP's challenger to Michael Bennet.

I had mentioned that of the 17 women Republicans in the US House of Representatives, one -- Mary Fallon -- is leaving to run for governor, and at least two others were vulnerable: Bachmann of Minnesota, and Schmidt of Ohio.

As you may have heard, Bachmann was out leading a wingnutty anti-health-care-reform rally on Capitol Hill today -- which Fallon spoke at.

While Bachmann and Fallon work to make themselves too wacky for the general election, at least one relative moderate seeking re-election is under increased challenge in her primary. Down in Florida, Ginny Brown-Waite has a (male) primary challenger from the right -- who, according to Swing State Project, is attacking Brown-Waite for endorsing and campaigning for, you guessed it, Scozzafava.

And finally, there's a congressional race out in California that some of you might want to take a look at. It's the 45th District, where Mary Bono-Mack has long held the seat that she took over when her famous husband died. Steve Pougnet, the Democratic Mayor of Palm Springs (Sonny's launching pad to the congressional seat) is running against her.

Although it's often considered part of the ultra-conservative California interior, the district has become increasingly Democratic. The district went for Obama, and Pougnet's campaign manager tells me that Republicans' registration edge is very slim now. He also tells me that they've already raised $400,000 for the campaign, a year out; the DCCC is high on this race.

And yes, here's the twist: if elected, Pougnet is a gay man, and he and his partner have two young children. He would be the first (openly) gay dad in Congress.

So, if that interests you, go check him out.

New In The Phoenix -- Deval Out Of The Spotlight

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:00 GMT

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I take a look at Governor Deval Patrick, who has found himself, for once, left out of the spotlight and off the front pages. In theory, the distraction of the local elections and US Senate race is providing a perfect respite for Patrick and his team to regroup, re-staff,strategize, prepare, and be ready to emerge with some political victories heading into his re-election year.

His defenders say that's exactly what's happening; his detractors say they see no signs at all. Instead, they see a stream of top talent toward the exits, and legislation stalled on Beacon Hill.

The article is here: The Quiet Storm: In this desperate downtime, is Deval Patrick regrouping, or cluelessly steering a sinking ship?

You may also want to check out this week's editorial on the election results.

Election Analysis -- The National Picture

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:30:00 GMT

No question, the two GOP gubernatorial victories matter to the 16 million people who will now give a try at living under a Republican. But beyond that, can we say that yesterday's elections mean something?

I don't believe that they are predictive of what the 2010 election cycle will look like. But it could end up affecting behavior -- ending up making it predictive.

Sometimes, when people believe something is predictive, they behave as if it is. In basketball, for example, it's just about universally held that players get "hot" or "cold" shooting hands -- that is, if they have made their last couple of shots, they're likely to keep hitting, and if they've missed, they'll keep missing. From what I understand (and to my own disbelief as a player), it's just not statistically true. But nevertheless, players believe it's true -- so, for example, they might run plays to set up good shots for the "hot" shooter; or the "cold" player might pass up good shot opportunities. Thus the belief in the predictive power of the shooter's touch can actually make the believers create the conditions for the prediction to come true.

Likewise, the victories in Virginia and New Jersey this week are likely to make Republicans believe that their party is going to win big in 2010. That optimism could inspire Republicans to contribute more to the party and individual candidates. It could convince good potential GOP candidates to run in elections, and convince depressed members of the lowly minority delegations to run again rather than retire. All of this would greatly help the party do well in 2010.

That's exactly why national Republican leaders are so eager to talk about how meaningful Tuesday's elections are -- they are trying, quite wisely, to create better conditions for the party in 2010.

There's another thing that this belief can do, and that's alter the behavior of your opponents. If some congressional Democrats believe that yesterday was an omen of bad things for Democrats in this cycle, perhaps they will be less willing to take tough votes on health care, or climate-change, or stimulus spending. That will bear close scrutiny.

Of course, the Democrats actually gained a seat in Congress yesterday, by retaining one in a California special election and being handed one in upstate New York.

That debacle is predictive, because it clearly is part of what I've been writing about incessantly for some time: the GOP has passed a tipping point where the party's behavior is most influenced by people who have little or no interest in actually getting Republicans elected. They are instead trying to bolster and capitalize on the lucrative "movement-conservative marketplace," as I have dubbed it.

The third-party conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, is a joke -- he was never seriously considered by the GOP decision-makers who chose DeDe Scozzafava, not so much because he's too conservative as because he's an unbelievably bad candidate for public office. He doesn't live in the district, doesn't know anything about the issues of the district, didn't even pretend to try to learn the issues of the district even by the end of the campaign, and perhaps most importantly comes across on the stump as one of those Monty Python sketches featuring Michael Palin as a meek, bespectacled accountant with pathetic dreams of a grander life. (I want to be a... a lion tamer! No, I want to be a... a Congressman!)

Hoffman was (at least) the second rejected Republican that the Conservative Party asked to be the fundraising poster child for movement conservatives, and when he accepted those salesmen did what they do best: like infomercial pitch-men, they whipped up the movement-conservative marketplace shoppers into a Scozzafava frenzy that could be sated only with the input of a valid credit card number. Head huckster-at-large Dick Armey took Hoffman under his wing, and the fundraising in his name began -- by, among others, three of Alan Keyes's organizations; Eagle Forum; National Republican Trust PAC; Gun Owners of America; Family Research Council; National Organization for Marriage; Susan B. Anthony List; Campaign for Working Families; and of course the Club for Growth. They raised unknown amounts of money, some unknown percentage of which they turned around and spent on the Hoffman race -- much of it in payments to themselves and related companies.

If you think these groups woke up today regretting that they ultimately handed the NY-23 seat to a Democrat who will oppose everything they stand for, think again -- they're already touting this as a principled stand that they will replicate elsewhere, if you'll only send them a contribution to help them do it.

And as I mentioned before, we have passed a tipping point where those organizations I listed above, and many more like them, and their codependent brethren in the media wing of the movement-conservative marketplace, have much greater credibility and influence among Republican primary voters than do anyone in the party itself. This means that Republicans who do care about getting elected (eg, Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint) have no choice but to jump into this river, even as they see it heading over the cliff -- and even if it means getting onto a raft with an obviously undeserving guy like Hoffman.

None of this means that the Democrats don't have anything to worry about after Tuesday -- just that the Republicans have more to worry about.

Oh, and gay marriage lost in Maine. I don't know how to interpret that, because I am consistently at a loss to understand Maine voter behavior, which is a unique and impenetrable thicket to me. Anyone who doesn't understand Maine voting -- and I don't think there are very many who do -- should avoid drawing any national implications from anything that happens there.

Some Local Election Thoughts

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:21:00 GMT

--I think Michael Flaherty ran a terrific campaign. Not much more that he could have done. It just wasn't in the cards.

--Ditto for Tito Jackson. And Carlos Henriquez. And Alex Selvig.

--And yes, I was wr.. wr... wr.... I was wr... wr... Damn! I was wrong about Boy Wonder Felix Arroyo.

--Biggest surprise, to people I spoke with last night (and to me): Steve Murphy's outstanding showing, nearly topping the at-large field.

--Nevertheless, John Connolly did top the ticket (as I long ago predicted!) in impressive fashion. Everything he does now will be viewed through the "potential mayoral candidate" prism; which also means that a target is fixed permanently to his back. (One has to wonder, did Menino boost Murph to try to deny Connolly the top spot?)

--Speaking of potential future mayors of Boston... anyone notice that there are at least four black women who legitimately belong on that list? Charlotte Golar-Richie, Linda Dorcina Forry, Andrea Cabral, and Ayanna Pressley. I think I would put Marie St. Fleur on that list as well.

--About that Setti Warren win in Newton: is campaign manager Deb Shah the hottest property going or what?

--Anyone realize that come January John Tobin will be 6th in seniority on the Boston City Council?

--Tobin and Rob Consalvo, who both turned 40 this year, will also be the elder statesmen among the youthful half of the council. There will be six councilors between the age of 30 and 40, and seven age 50 and up.

Update: I would be remiss if I did not bow in respect to Jay's superior prognosticatory prowess.

Menino, For The Bad Times

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:25:00 GMT

Tom Menino's victory speech in the packed Fairmont Copley ballroom was as much cautionary as celebratory. The papers may write about a historic fifth term, he said; but "when we've put our residents in jobs, shops in vacant spaces, students through college, and this city past a fiscal downturn, then let's talk about history."

In very tough economic times, voters often vote for change in leadership -- and they did elsewhere on Tuesday. They ousted several incumbent mayors here in Massachusetts, and in several open elections, they picked the newest, freshest option: a black man in Newton, a Hispanic in Lawrence, a 29-year-old in Fall River.

But in Boston, they chose instead to stick with the steady hand; the known entity; the status quo, if you will. That's a testament to Menino. One thing you can say about him is that he has kept the ship afloat, avoiding calamity and chaos. People are comforted at the thought of him at the wheel as we pass through rocky shoals.

Of course that not the only, or even the primary reason Menino won by a large margin. He is, first and foremost, one of the greatest politicians of our time. He is a master at arranging the chess pieces to ensure himself electoral victory, and he disproved resoundingly the suggestion that those skills had lagged or grown outdated in the 16 years since they were last put to the test.

Menino has now been given a mandate; the voters have called out to him, "Menino, take the wheel." The powerful pols, business owners, and community leaders came to the Fairmont to pay homage to him and his absolute, unquestioned control of his city.

The task for him now -- and I think he knows this -- is to convert all of that into support, or at least acceptance, of some very difficult things that need doing. "We are going to need all our strength -- all 600,000 of us, whatever our votes -- pulling together," he said Tuesday night. That may be tougher than getting 57 percent of the vote.

Turnout So Far

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:14:00 GMT

As of 3:00 this afternoon, just under 60,000 ballots had been cast in Boston -- a 16.7% turnout so far, with five hours left, including the after-work rush. Based on the trends in the preliminary -- which had a relatively high late vote -- we can expect roughly 115,000 votes.

One thing I'm looking for is where voting is up (or not) relative to the September preliminary -- and were those Menino strongholds or anti-Menino neighborhoods in the preliminary?

To make a long story short, I plugged the 3:00 numbers into a secret, proprietary, Bernstein-patented conversion machine... and the results indicated that so far it's been a wash -- no clear advantage to either candidate.

I should warn you that this conversion mechanism is largely untested and highly experimental, so I wouldn't put too much stock in its results.

Anyway, what you might take away from this half-assed analysis is that IF Flaherty captured the vast bulk of Yoon and McCrea voters, then it could be fairly close. If those votes split for Flaherty 80/20, then all else being equal Menino wins roughly 55/45, by my estimate. And if you assume -- as the Flaherty folks certainly believe, but the recent Globe poll rejects -- that there's been a discernable recent shift from Menino toward Flaherty since September, then you get down into single-digits, and perhaps very close indeed.

On the other hand, be aware that in the preliminary the Menino vote-pulling machine went into overdrive after work, and completely changed the turnout game board. That could, in particular, mean a greater increase in turnout among Boston's black residents than the Bernstein conversion machine is seeing as of 3:00.

Which brings us back to what I've been saying for a while now: to make it a real ballgame, I believe Flaherty needs to really cut into Menino's percentages in the black communities. He can't be losing Ward 8 and Ward 14 by 70-30 margins. I'm skeptical that he can narrow that gap enough. We'll see.

BTW, I've been on record for a while predicting Menino 54%-46%.

Voice On Your Telephone

David S. Bernstein — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:26:00 GMT

Ayanna Pressley's campaign passes along their list of pols who have recorded robo-calls for her:

US Senator John Kerry; Sheriff Andrea Cabral; city councilors Mike Ross and John Tobin; state senators Sonia Chang-Diaz and Steve Tolman; and state reps Willie Mae Allen, Gloria Fox, Byron Rushing and Marty Walz.

BMG Poll, & Other Notes

David S. Bernstein — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:36:00 GMT

--The progressive Blue Mass Group blog/community, which opened a state PAC recently, commissioned a poll of the US Senate race. Taken Wednesday and Thursday, just after the first televised debate, the poll finds the race looks much like the Western Mass. poll showed before the debate: Coakley way ahead (but with soft support); Capuano and Pagliuca even; Khazei still on the starting blocks. Side note to BMG guys: if you want attention for a poll, 4:00 Friday afternoon is not the time to release the results!

--It's celebrity robocall weekend! Be sure and let me know whose voice you hear from, on behalf of which candidate.

--(Sigh) How many times must we go through this.... OK, pay close attention: Petrolati, DeLeo, etc. wanted to lift the price cap on ticket reselling (no, no, only for ticket brokers, not for regular people like you, duh!) because it was good legislation to benefit the people of the Commonwealth, not because DiMasi and his pals were pressuring them to do it on behalf of ACE Ticket. What's that you ask? How is it good legislation to benefit the people of the Commonwealth? That's very technical, you really wouldn't understand. What's that you say? You want to see the documentation that shows the decision-making process? Sorry, don't you remember -- geez, DiMasi explained this like a year ago, are you slow or something? -- if that decision-making process was shown to anyone (including other state legislators), it would impede the sacred decision-making process by which legislative leaders decide to pass such courageous, Commonwealth-benefitting laws like the one allowing ACE Ticket to make a gazillion-dollar profit. Nothing to see here! Move along! (Hey, could someone call over to Menino's MIS guy and ask him how that double-deleting, hard-drive-swapping stuff works?)

--Boston Globe endorses Tom Menino.

Patrick Wields The Axe

David S. Bernstein — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:21:00 GMT

Gov. Patrick just announced his proposals for budget cuts in light of the $600m shortfall:

--No cuts to Ch. 70A (schools), higher ed, or local aid;

--Cutting $350m+ from executive branch agencies (specifics to come) -- which will affect services, he says;

--9 more unpaid furlough days for all non-union employees;

--~2000 layoffs, for $35m (b/c unions won't revise contracts, he says);

--asking for ~5% cuts in courts and other non-exec offices;

--begin phase-out of Quinn Bill;

--submitting bill to eliminate "Suffolk holidays" (Bunker Hill/Evacuation);

--also pushing for quick passage Muni Partnership Act II, for local-options taxes.

New In The Phoenix -- Taking Sides For Senate

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:12:00 GMT

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I have an "items" column, with three items about the Massachusetts US Senate race.

First, I look at the endorsements being made by local and state political officeholders -- really, a divide between Martha Coakley and Michael Capuano. In the article, I note that Congresswoman Niki Tsongas had not yet endorsed; after we went to press, Tsongas announced her endorsement of Coakley.

Item #2 looks at how the Steve Pagliuca campaign thinks he can win, even though all the local punditry thinks he has no chance.

Item #3 considers the seeming effectiveness of the state GOP, and its candidate Scott Brown, in helping drive the media and public discussion (mostly by attacking Coakley). Is the Mass. GOP getting its act together?

Here's the article: Taking Sides

Also in the issue, the Phoenix endorses Michael Flaherty for Mayor, along with its district council endorsements.

Women And The GOP -- Part III, Congress

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:59:00 GMT

After looking at the chances for Republicans to add elected women governors and Senators in the 2010 election cycle, let's turn to the US House of Representatives.

There are now just 17 Republican women in the House, out of 177 -- down from 25 three years ago.

One of those 17 is not running for re-election: Mary Fallin, who is running for Governor of Oklahoma. At least two others are considered vulnerable: Schmidt of Ohio, and Bachmann of Minnesota.

Republicans are likely to add at least 20 new members in 2010, from beating vulnerable Democrats and replacing Republicans who are leaving.

But here the dearth of viable female candidates is especially notable. Consider: the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has thus far placed 45 candidates on its "Young Guns" list, making them potentially eligible for help from the party -- and just four of those 45 are women. And in three of those four cases, the RCCC has also placed a man on the Young Guns list in the same district, so it's not as though the path is being cleared.

Right now, probably the best chance of a woman Republican getting elected -- just to bring the total back to 17 -- is Martha Roby of Alabama, who is vying to face incumbent Democrat Bobby Bright.

Jennifer Horn has a shot in New Hampshire, for Paul Hodes's seat -- but it appears that former Congressman Charlie Bass is looking to jump in and probably deny her the nomination; she would be an underdog to win the general anyway, although it's possible if this is a good Republican cycle.

There are only about a half-dozen other races in the country where a woman is running as a serious candidate, in a district where the Republican has a realistic chance of winning: two Kansas seats and one in Tennessee being vacated by Republicans running for higher office; and three races in Florida, Illinois, and New York with vulnerable Democratic incumbents. In all of these races, the women have serious male competitors in the GOP primary.

There's still time for more women challengers to appear, but it seems to me that the Republicans will be lucky to come out of this cycle with the same number of women in the House they come in with -- 17 -- and have very little chance to surpass 20, even if this turns out to be a good GOP cycle.

So, let's sum up all three of these posts:

Women currently make up 14% of GOP governors (3 of 22). The party is likely to increase its total share of governors, but probably the same number of women.

Women currently make up 10% of GOP Senators (4 of 40). The party is likely to end this cycle with as many, or perhaps more Senators, but probably the same number of women.

Women currently make up just under 10% of GOP US Representatives (17 of 177). The party is likely to end this cycle with quite a few more members of Congress, but probably the same number of women, or perhaps one or two more.

As I said to start, I'm not getting into the causes here. I'm just looking at the results. But if it's struggling to have women make up a mere 10 percent of its elected officeholders, I think that's a big, big problem for the party -- and one that shows no signs of improving, even in what should be a great opportunity to at least begin to remedy the situation.

Women And The GOP -- Part II, US Senate

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:28:00 GMT

Continuing from my last post, where I looked at the GOP's chances of adding women Governors in the 2010 election cycle. Now, let's turn our attention to the US Senate.

This has been a particular embarrassment for the party, as they currently have just four women among their 40 Senators, down from five a couple of years ago -- and soon to be three, when Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns, as expected, to focus on her gubernatorial campaign. (Democrats have 13 of 60; Martha Coakley could make it 14.)

Snowe and Collins of Maine are not up for re-election in 2010; Murkowski of Alaska is, but should easily retain her seat.

There are likely to be at least a half-dozen new Republican Senators elected next year: there are six seats where Republicans are retiring for starters, plus two open seats where Democrats are leaving (Delaware and Illinois), and several other vulnerable Dems.

But there are very few serious female Republican candidates in those races. Probably the best shot is Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, although her odds are maybe 50-50 at best.

The Republican nominees in the other five GOP-held open seats (FL, KS, KY, MO, NM) will all be men. The only women even running in those states are a couple of long-shot women in Florida who are also-rans to the Crist-Rubio battle.

Women are running in the GOP primaries in the two Dem-held open seats, but have no chance against Mike Castle in Delaware and Mark Kirk in Illinois.

In the challenges to potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents, there are a couple of possibilities, but not great ones. In Nevada, three women are running for the GOP nomination against Harry Reid, including Sue Lowden who is arguably the frontrunner. Jane Norton has a shot in a crowded primary field in Colorado, to take on appointed freshman Michael Bennet. World Wrestling Entertainment exec Linda McMahon is an underdog to Rob Simmons in the Connecticut primary, to challenge Chris Dodd.

The one other possibility is Carly Fiorina, who is expected to soon announce her campaign against Barbara Boxer in California. Fiorina already has a conservative challenger in the primary, and Boxer looks pretty safe at the moment anyway, although that could change.

And that's about it. Peg Lukik is running in Pennsylvania, but is a longshot against Pat Toomey. There's a woman running in Utah against incumbent Republican Bob Bennett, but she's not even the top challenger to Bennett in that primary. And or course there's former adult actress Stormy Daniels's entertaining campaign against sinful GOP incumbent David Vitter in Louisiana.

Bottom line, the GOP will be lucky to add one woman to get back to four, with an outside chance of getting all the way back to five, where they were in 2006. (And that's assuming Snowe and Collins don't defect!)

Women And The GOP -- Part I, Governors

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:27:00 GMT

Two problems for the national GOP that I've been writing about for several years are in evidence in a special election going on in upstate New York, for an open Congressional seat long held by a moderate Republican. The state GOP powers there maneuvered to nominate Dierdre "Dede" Scozzafava -- or, as Michelle Malkin calls her, "radical leftist Dede Scozzafava." The Conservative Party, which most often puts the GOP nominee on its own line on New York ballots, rejected Scozzafava and chose the rejected conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. Hoffman, a CPA, is essentially a nobody Tea Party guy, but has become a national cause celebre for conservatives -- which has effectively killed Scozzafava's chances, and will probably hand the seat to the Democrat.

The obvious issue has gotten a lot of attention: that the Republican voting base is now dominated by stalwart movement conservatives who are shunning electable candidates in favor of unelectable ideological purists.

So I'll concentrate on the other issue: the continuing extinction of the species known as the elected Republican woman.

This New York race was a great chance to add one, and now that chance is gone.

As I've been writing for at least three years, the GOP is experiencing a remarkable decline in female officeholders. I won't get into my theories about the causes here. But, I'm very interested to see what happens in the 2010 election cycle -- which, unlike '06 and '08, should provide considerable opportunities for new Republican candidates. That should mean gains in women for the party, if it's still possible for that to happen.

A year away, the signs are not good.

Let's start with governors -- a huge opportunity, with dozens of elections, the majority of which are for open seats.

Currently, there are only three women Republican governors -- all of which might be gone after the 2010 elections. Lingle of Hawaii is term-limited out; Brewer in Arizona (a fluky inheritor of the seat) is wildly unpopular; and Rell of Connecticut is rumored to be retiring.

(There are also only three women Democratic governors; there were five before the Obama administration grabbed a couple.)

So far, I know of Republican women running or considered likely to run in only nine states. The most likely to win is Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, although that's no sure thing. Kay Bailey Hutchison is taking on Republican incumbent Rick Perry in a Texas intraparty clash of titans, with the outcome iffy. Meg Whitman is the frontrunner for the nomination in California, but it's already tough sledding for her, and her odds of winning the general seem slim. Kay Ivey has a legitimate shot in Alabama against a half-dozen other Republicans. Two women are running in New Mexico, but are not favored. In South Carolina, Nikki Haley is a longshot favorite of the conservative/libertarian blogosphere. Karen Handel is a similar story in Georgia. Pat Anderson, a Ron Paul type, is a longshot for the Minnesota nomination. Sharon Ullman, a sometime Democrat, was unlikely to get the GOP bid in Idaho even if incumbent Butch Otter didn't run again, which he is.

Of course, there's still time for others to jump in. For instance, former congresswoman Heather Wilson is reportedly considering it in New Mexico. She'll be considered a frontrunner, but then again she was considered a frontrunner in the 2008 Senate race, and GOP primary voters picked ultraconservative Steve Pearce instead.

It seems to me that, as things stand, the GOP has a good shot at ending this cycle with the same number of women governors as they have now -- three -- and could possibly have more, or less.

Cyber-Slacking Amateurs!

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:10:00 GMT

As it happens, I am Facebook friends with, and a Twitter follower of, Michael Ross staffer Amy Derjue, dubbed today by the Boston Herald as the "poster girl for the on-the-clock cyber-slacking" that apparently infests our local governmental hackorama.

Derjue, as I have told her before, doesn't do enough posting during the day; if she's the worst offender, government employees are a lot more self-disciplined than I thought. (Me, I'm on FB and Twitter all the freakin' time. Friend me and follow me!!! Especially if you're a Boston government worker who likes to cyber-slack!) Or, perhaps the others are cyber-slacking on porn sites like normal American workers.

I also think Heslam and Wedge may be overestimating the time it takes to type 140 characters; they say Derjue recently "spent the morning complaining about her chilly City Hall cubicle on Twitter" -- I just checked, and Derjue posted exactly one Twitter update that entire workday.

Anyway, I see that Fox25 is all gaga about Derjue and her fellow amateur, two-bit cyber-slackers -- I can't imagine the hoopla if they ever checked out some REAL cyber-slackers.... like journalists!

Senate Debate, First Impressions

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:23:00 GMT

First off, and most importantly, I give best tie to Capuano. (Unfair to Coakley? Perhaps. She can participate; if she chooses a blouse and pearl necklace that's her decision.) Other thoughts:

--Clear winner in the debate: Scott Brown. The four Dems are tripping over each other to get as far left as possible, giving the presumptive Republican nominee (sorry, Jack E.) plenty of fodder. If I'm not mistaken, all four said they would favor raising taxes in some fashion if another stimulus package is needed. None made even the vaguest suggestion about reducing the deficit by curtailing spending. All signed on to some version of "pathway to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants. All oppose additional troops for Afghanistan, if not supporting leaving altogether. None want to talk hawkishly about Iran. All want the most robustly liberal healthcare reform possible. All would vote against a Supreme Court nominee who isn't firmly for upholding Roe v Wade. And so on... Hey, if you're a likely Democratic primary voter, this is music to your ears, but if you're a conservative it's likely to make you contribute to Brown, and if you're in the middle it's likely that at least one or two of the above opinions turn you off.

--I thought Martha Coakley did quite well. She came across well-versed on the issues for the most part, and avoided giving the other candidates anything meaty to pounce on. That said, I don't know that she closed the sale for those folks who came in leaning toward her, which in my opinion was her big goal. She relies heavily on referencing her work as AG/DA as evidence that she's got experience on issues, but I don't think that does anything for her. Instead, I think she should have tried more to fill out her personal values and motivations -- all that corny crap about what your parents did for a living and what kind of job you did to work your way through school and so on really are important in making people comfortable about pulling the lever for you.

--Personally, I like Capuano's aggressive persona; I suspect it turns some people off, but he is what he is. I think Capuano was very good, but nevertheless comes out with even more of a problem than he had going in. I don't think he's any closer to making this a two-person race, which he desperately needs it to be. And he's really boxed in, I believe. His two main differentiators are supposed to be that he's the true liberal, and that he has the right experience. On the first point, he hasn't found a sliver to put between him and the others -- so he's heavily reliant on the experience argument. Unfortunately for him, I suspect that there are only so many people -- even in a Dem special-elex primary -- who first and foremost want a classic Washington insider.

--Khazei was OK, and probably won himself a whole bunch of what we call "goo-goo" (good government) progressives, who want someone to kill all the lobbyists and ban all earmarks. There's a market for that in a Dem primary, although I don't know how big of one.

--Pagliuca accomplished some important things in terms of personal introduction to the voters (he's liberal on all the key issues; he wasn't born with a silver spoon... in short, he's not Mitt Romney), but was surprisingly weak at times, and missed big opportunities to score on his pet issues. Personally, I think Pags should forget about being likable, and should talk in indecipherably complex terms about the issues, particularly the economy, financial regulation, debt, and health care. Let us know that you actually understand these issues as deeply as I suspect you do -- and that the other candidates are ignoramuses giving pat political pablum. Just my suggestion.

--I thought Peter Meade did a damn good job for the most part, and gave us a solid, substantive discussion. Plus, that beard is making him look really distinguished these days.

--My favorite part was at the beginning when Meade kept trying to get them to admit that they were planning their campaigns before Kennedy was dead.