John Connolly and Marty Walsh spoke faster last night.

Perhaps it was an urgency to appeal to undecided voters on the last big stage before the November 5 elections. Whatever the reason, the pace of the candidates responses was the perfect juxtaposition to moderator R.D. Sahl’s baritone, calculated style.

But Sahl didn’t pose the question that sparked an eye-brow raising, what-does-that-mean-exactly, reaction…

… Walsh did.

“Will you commit to me tonight to not run negative campaigning?” asked Walsh with his first of two questions each of the candidates were allowed to ask each other near the end of the debate.

Connolly addressed Walsh directly, turning towards the state Representative: “There was no negative push poll against you.”

Connolly suggested at the beginning of the debate that Walsh “opened the door” for negative campaigning by refusing to deny contributions from outside donors.

“The violation here was by your outside group.” he added.

“That didn’t answer my question,” Walsh said, cutting through Connolly’s response.

When Connolly did answer the question, perhaps a shorter response would have been better. After conceding that his campaign would not go negative, Connolly inadvertently may have painted himself as the corporate lawyer-type the fliers distributed by a pro-Walsh group portrayed him as.

“Everything we say (from now until Nov. 5) will be based on exact things I’ve said to you in these debates,” Connolly said, making the already subjective term, “negative,” even more about semantics.

Did Connolly dodge Walsh’s question? No, not necessarily. Instead, rather ironically, his response left the door open for the possibility of future pro-Connolly campaigning to have a touch of anti-Walsh sentiment.

It’s this type of political savvy that suggests Connolly is the candidate more fit to be mayor. Then again, there’s a certain level of no-nonsense attitude engrained in many Bostonians.

Since Connolly and Walsh emerged as the final two candidates September 24, there has been a general white-collar-versus-blue-collar aspect to the mayoral race — like many political races.

Typically, one candidate emerges as the more relatable than his or her counterpart. Walsh appears to be that candidate entering the homestretch.

It’s cliche to remind readers that politics is part appearance, part actual policy. The voters decide, ultimately, what matters more. With Connolly and Walsh being very similar in terms of policy, becoming the candidate voters would choose to watch a Sox game with, for example, becomes amplified.

But this race isn’t about making friends. And Connolly, to his credit, appears to have embraced this philosophy.

With the issue of arbitration and an $80 million pay-raise for police officers on the debate table, Connolly voiced concern over a Walsh’s “lack of independence” and took to task legislation filed by the former labor leader.

“You are filing bills that would damage the fiscal health of this city,” Connolly said, underscoring his belief that Walsh would not be able to stand up to unions, and act in their best interest, not Boston’s.

Connolly has labeled himself the “Education candidate” but he was unable to distinguish himself from his counterpart last night on this issue, at least last night. While he said the BPS system needs to do a better job understanding where students come from, Walsh also acknowledge BPS teachers need to reflect the large minority student body.

Connolly reminded potential voters that he’s been a leader on education, and thanks to his work, students are now eating healthier. The former teacher stressed that the next superintendent shouldn’t come from the “farm system” and the bureaucracy needs to be thinned.

Both candidates agreed that all — not just ESL students — should be bi- or multi-lingual. And both feel charter schools and public schools should collaborate. Regarding assessment testing, Connolly said “sometimes (schools) are too test-happy, while Walsh said “(testing) shouldn’t be the only benchmark.”

When it came to jobs, both candidates focused on the importance of bringing jobs to Boston’s neighborhoods. Connolly stressed his Roxbury entrepreneur center plan while Walsh put the focus on retaining expanding business in the City.

Connolly and Walsh agreed that the Boston Police Department needs to become more diverse, both saying that a minority candidate for commissioner is a top priority.  However, both danced around a question regarding whether or not racial preference has been a factor in BPD promotions.

On police practices, the nod went to Connolly who was able to layout four specific pieces of his plan, including community policing, a willingness to take on the department’s culture, implementing the use of technology, and adopting a broad public health agenda.

Connolly was pushed by Sahl on the East Boston casino question, after asking each candidate whether or not they would want a casino in their neighborhood. Both agreed that East Boston voters will have the final say, but Walsh said he would not want a casino in his neighborhood. Connolly, however, when pressed, would not answer directly, saying he would not like a casino right next to his house, but would welcome one if that was the neighborhood’s decision.

At the close of the debate, Connolly said he would like to be judged 100 days into office based on his ability to conduct a citywide BPS audit and his cabinet’s ability to create master public transportation and education plans, among others.

Connolly’s final address to the viewers focused on his passion and vision for education and  his commitment to taking on tough issues.

Overall, Connolly was the more assertive, more polished, candidate. He showcased confidence, but too often seemed to distance himself from the average Bostonian. His refusal to definitively say his campaign will not go negative in the final week, and his East Boston casino answer may have gained Walsh some favorability points.

After three debates, Connolly appears to be the better politician. Voters, however, might want something else.

Image from WBUR