The first and final questions of last night’s first Boston mayoral debate between John Connolly and Marty Walsh have been on the mind’s of Bostonians since the preliminary election saw both candidates emerge from the fray: How are you two different?
There were a handful of moments, fleeting glimpses, really, where one was able to momentarily separate himself from his counterpart but, as expected, last night’s bout was rather light and fluffy with both hopefuls refraining from making an aggressive strikes towards the opposing campaign but not always.
So How Did Marty Walsh Do?
It’s difficult to say that he took home a ‘W’ last night but I couldn’t chalk one up in the loss column either; he played it down the middle, sticking to his talking points, not taking the offensive but not laying down. Overall, he played to his strengths and talked-up his legislative prowess, perchance a shortcoming for Connolly.
It was only the first of four debates, after all, so there’s plenty of time to call out any faults from the Connolly campaign. You may recall the three presidential debates between the incumbent President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney when the president appeared aloof in the first but then came out throwing haymakers in the subsequent two. Perhaps Walsh is simply employing a similar strategy.
Walsh was able to play up the character persona he’s adopted throughout the race; a man-of-the-people type who understands the plight of the common man and has overcome tremendous adversity to have arrived on Beacon Hill. He mentioned his erstwhile days battling alcoholism and cancer, his work to bring burgeoning life science and biotech industries to The Hub, his ability to negotiate with collaborative organizations, and his willingness to boldly wield the bully pulpit of the mayor’s office in order to foster prosperous relationships between mortgage lenders and borrowers.
Quite often he agreed with his doppelgänger, concurring on the need for comprehensive planning to make the MBTA at least tolerable, similarly refusing to be locked in to a “no new tax” pledge; he mentioned his reluctance to put property taxes to land seniors on the street; and he consented to enact an education overhaul to bring social and emotional support to all public schools.
If there was a slight against Walsh — a momentary advantage to the Connolly camp — it was when the City Councilor expressed his concern with the former union official’s acceptance of $1 million in outside campaign funds from his union constituents, suggesting that Walsh may be easily swayed by the almighty dollar.
“No comment,” he stated bluntly.
The deafening silence afterwards, which lasted only seconds, felt like hours as those tuning in were sure to question their loyalty and wonder if maybe Connolly had a more-than-valid point.
But Connolly didn’t harp on it and the debate continued onward.
The most advantageous element of the debate for Walsh was not that he won or lost, but rather that he reaffirmed his street-smart sentiments, his no-nonsense attitude, and his desire to keep Boston looking forward.
Looking forward, Walsh may turn more hostile. As Joshua Dyck, Co-Director of UMass Lowel’s Center for Public Opinion, told BostInno heading into the tęte-ŕ-tęte, “The most effective strategy for Walsh at this point is to go negative on Connolly. It is, to be sure, one of the ugliest parts of politics, but people do it because it works. He needs to take a more aggressive stance and try to highlight major differences that separate he and Connolly.”
The next debate will be Tuesday, October 22 and hosted by WGBH.
