The primary was a week ago, and most all of the comments on V14 felt that Amy’s Sangiolo’s chances of defeating Ruthanne Fuller in November were very slim. I tend to agree with that. Fuller has money, is conducting polling, and has the advantages of incumbency.
Yet my gut tells me it’s not that simple. Fuller won by the narrowest of margins 4 years ago, and she’s lost many key supporters. A few weeks back I attended an Amy introductory session on Zoom for the Mayor’s own Ward 7. It was striking to me how many prominent and very well-informed Newton residents have openly stopped supporting Fuller for any number of reasons.
So, in your view, can Amy overcome the gap, and what suggestions would you have for her? Nobody wants a nasty campaign, but I think that the tone needs to sharpen quickly. As in so many areas the absence of critical (Newspaper) reporting is a huge problem for Newton…without that there’s little accountability. Any candidate’s claims and assertions go mostly unchallenged.
Here are some of my ideas for closing the gap between these 2 candidates:
- Call this Mayor a Democrat in name only (DINO). So many of this Mayor’s choices favor the more affluent and business. I’m thinking of her opposition to ending bus and sports fees to families vs. including these in the school budget (so regressive), or her closeness to Developers. We properly stay away from personal lives, but I think it’s become highly relevant that this Mayor’s personal experiences do not mirror those of so many Newton residents, whether it’s where her or Amy’s children attended school, or other things.
- City Counselor endorsements – while many may be confused about the differences between the 2 candidates, they know their Counselors and have deep relationships with them. What would happen if some of the more prominent Counselors endorsed Amy over Ruthanne? Would the voters follow? I personally care who my Counselors endorse for City offices and it influences me. Why should the Mayor’s race be any different?
- Challenge the Mayor’s assertions! After the final vote count was announced the Mayor issued a victory statement making claims about several areas; our schools, roads, listening to our health experts during the Pandemic. Every single one of these claims has huge flaws that have been discussed extensively on V14. Amy needs to be more challenging. “Madame Mayor, there you go again, that’s just not true (or what happened)!” Or, “Madame Mayor, if I closed my eyes I’d swear that you were Charlie Baker….”
“Fuller has money” – so you think people voted for the mayor because they got her flyers in the mail an not Sangiolo’s? I don’t think so. IMO the effect of money on elections, particularly local elections, is grossly exaggerated.
You are also suggesting people are not informed enough about the mayor’s assertions. Have you been to any of the big Newton Facebook group recently? Village 14? Every word she says is dissected and analyzed ad nauseam. The Newton electorate is a well-informed bunch.
Oh, money matters.
A big war chest buys online ads and sponsored posts on social media platforms. It buys online surveys and the insights of its results. Money buys a political campaign advised and run by seasoned campaign runners, not just a bunch of passionate, rag tag local volunteers.
Newton voters are a well informed bunch, but look no further than David Micley’s run in last Spring’s special election. Good website. Admirable speaker and good debater, but his decision to go donation free hurt him – big time. In many precincts he got single digit votes. Barney the Dinosaur can get single digits as a write in!
Ladies and gentlemen, money matters. Privilege is an advantage. David cannot take down Goliath without (her) slingshot. So let’s give her a good one. Please consider donating to Amy’s campaign.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/sangiolo
PS. Hope to see David Micley run again in the future. He seems a good, smart, likable dude,
Sorry, I disagree. Everyone says money (flyers, ads, advisors) affects other people but not them. “I can see through it, but they can’t”. Sponsored posts in social media? Please. No one gives a darn about them. Showing up on village day? Sure, it matters, but you don’t need money for that.
I don’t know anything about David Micley, but it sounds like you’re cherry-picking your evidence based on one anecdotal race.
Money has a significant impact on being able to get your “message” out. Every time I google anything related to Newton, a link to Fuller’s campaign website comes up, I find this incredibly disappointing but its true.
The fact that she puts the schools on top of her success list makes me angry. The way last year was handled would make a perfect case study on what not to do. The process of making decisions is very flawed. Leaders lead, she did not. There was a consistent passing the buck where it was not clear to those involved where ultimate responsibility for various decision lay (Fleishman, Youngblood) or they found it convenient to pass the buck which makes it clear the proper process is not in place, Poor decision making continues. Yes people are smart in Newton but if you don’t know the detail a lot of things that the Mayor says sounds good Just read her newsletter emails A good percentage of people don’t have time to pay attention to the detail of what is going on and you read her emails and think all is good. It is truly hard to overcome that messaging especially when she also has money to broadcast the same message.
How to approach this…I wouldn’t; say a negative campaign but some of the truth needs to come out,
Money does matter. No question about it. At the same time, excitement and grass roots organizing matters, too. Amy should get more volunteers to knock on doors and talk to voters – or do it herself. She should focus on Ruthanne’s lack of focus on schools – starting from her disastrous negotiations of NTA’s contract a few years ago, and continuing with covid, and other issues NPS is struggling with at the moment. Ultimately, many people are here for the schools, and even if your kids are no longer at NPS or you don’t have kids, NPS strength affects your property prices. Not even mentioning what low-quality NPS does to the children in our community.
I was rushing a bit above but what I mean by the truth is that things are not as rosy as they seem.
To get back to the question, if I were Amy, I would concentrate on young adults. Young adults are less likely to vote, less informed and is an area where Amy can make up ground. She needs to get in front of the PTO’s and explain why she would be best for their children. A lot of young parents are ticked off at the Mayor, rightly or wrongly, for her closing down the schools for such a long time. She has children and can talk about what should have done differently. Also, Amy can make up ground with adults who are ticked off at all the construction. If Amy has no differences in these two areas, then I cant think of any other way.
Good thoughtful post Michael (although may I suggest its either Fuller/Sangiolo or Ruthanne/Amy not Fuller/Amy).
A few thoughts:
Money matters because it can drive turnout and nothing matters more than turnout. Nothing.
To that end, success depends on convincing/holding onto those who regularly vote and/or convincing voters who don’t usually cast ballots to show up. For example, one potential pipeline Sangiolo can tap are Asian Americans, a large and growing demo in our city who don’t traditionally get involved in local contests.
One third rail for Sangiolo, I think, is her endorsement from Right Size. Their base was already going to vote for her. But the last time Newton voters showed up in large numbers for a local election was in overwhelming support (about a 5,000 vote margin) of Northland, which as many of those voters likely recall, Right Size loudly opposed. I have neighbors who were leaning towards Sangiolo but are having second thoughts because of the Right Size endorsement.
OTOH, there are a lot of people who will be swayed toward Sangiolo due to the Right Size endorsement. FWIW, I don’t like Right Size as an organization but am still a Sangiolo supporter because she doesn’t control who endorses her. But I’m also someone who doesn’t prioritize development as #1 in my reasons to vote for someone. My priority is public education.
I see the Right Size endorsement as a feature, not a bug. The race looks as if it’s dividing into two distinct camps of candidates, one camp backed by Right Size, the other not.
What I don’t know is whether this matters to the average voter or if it’s something that matters more to insiders. It’s also where turnout (as mentioned above) will really matter. If there is a slate that includes Amy and others like Brian Bergman or Lisa Gordon, then those other candidates could benefit from a big drive from Amy supporters. Right Size has been effective in driving voters in very specific wards and precincts in ways that have swayed council elections.
As we saw from the March elections and even in the race to replace Rep. Kennedy, going negative in Newton doesn’t work. It seems that it doesn’t resonate with voters here, I know it won’t with me.
My guess is that those that are angry, they are vocal, but at the end of the day, the average Newton resident is happy with their life.
Despite many criticisms, our town is significantly more well run than our neighbors. Our roads have most definitely gotten better in the past four years even with some construction delay during the pandemic, our kids go to some of the best schools in the nation, and our vaccination rate is incredibly high.
All this to say, I personally don’t think Amy can win. Her supporters are more energized and you would think that would show in the preliminary election with less turnout, but she still didn’t break 40%. After all those Newton Centre standouts, I would be extremely disappointed if I was supportive of her candidacy. Her policies do not support Affordable Housing as evidenced by the Right Size endorsement. Regardless of where you stand on development, the group has completely shifted politics in the city for the worse.
Although Ruthanne won by a slim margin last time, it was against an arguably more popular candidate. Amy lost to Ruthanne and Scott by a decent size margin. The percentage difference of this year’s run-off shows me a couple of things.
1. A certain number will vote for Amy simply as a vote against Ruthanne. This is not a winning formula by itself.
2. Amy needs to distinguish herself and give voters a reason to vote for her independently of how they feel about Ruthanne. In my opinion, she has not done that yet. Overall, despite griping on blogs and discussion boards, the city is functioning reasonably well for the average voter and there are no hot-button issues such as a tax override or a $200 million high school to debate. Zoning and development is a big issue on V14, but I don’t think it is a major issue for the electorate at large since there isn’t a specific proposal from the Mayor or the CC yet.
3. Amy can distinguish herself by focusing on the schools. I do believe that issue is a vulnerability for Ruthanne, though voters have short memories. Amy needs to visibly state what she will do differently moving forward. Labeling Ruthanne a DINO is not going to work. Ruthanne, the school committee, and the superintendent were pretty much on the same page throughout the school closure the last year and a half. Amy can also identify what she would do with the federal stimulus funds that we will be coming. As a sitting May, Ruthanne has the advantage of using her office to let people know her ideas. Amy needs to find ways to get her message out.
4. Money does matter, but not as much as some might say in this election. Signs and flyers may may be helpful for a candidate with whom people are not familiar. Amy has run before so a certain percentage of the electorate is already familiar with her. Amy needs to work magnitudes harder to make herself more visible, especially with Covid-19 still lurking in the background and in person group gatherings difficult to organize. I’m not sure her campaign is doing an effective job getting to voters who don’t pay great attention to Newton politics.
5. Debates may be helpful, but again I’m not sure how many Newton voters will actually watch them. For Amy to beat an incumbent, she needs a really strong grassroots campaign that will pound the pavement.
Amy wins with more money that will be used for get out the vote efforts and the upcoming mayoral debates are the next big opportunity for the candidates to state their cases.
Battle lines are drawn. Voters for a Vibrant Newton just came out with their CC endorsements, however their record of picking winners is weak. .
@ Don “Her policies do not support Affordable Housing as evidenced by the Right Size endorsement.”
Seriously? One look at Amy’s website on the topic of affordable housing makes that comment laughable. The entire evidence you sight in support is an endorsement? And I believe that it is a total misrepresentation to paint Right Size as anti-affordable housing. While there may be random voters across the city who don’t care about providing affordable housing, I believe that all of the candidates and the organizations that support them care about affordable housing. The disagreement, and it is massive, is the best approach to achieve that. But that is an honest disagreement and any attempt to paint any candidates as against or even indifferent to affordable housing is a distortion.
@MaryLee
Affordable Housing experts lambasted her when she posted her affordable housing policies on social media. They called them stopgap and bandaid solutions. She is generally against more housing supply, so it’s hard for her to actually make an impact on affordable housing with these solutions. She acknowledges our housing stock is unaffordable as it is, but at the same time advocates for preserving it which will just continue to make it more unaffordable. On the other side of the coin, we have a Mayor with a proven track record of getting things done on Affordable Housing. 515 permanently affordable housing units in the past 4 years is outstanding and will only increase with the West Newton Armory project and the expansion of Golda Meir.
I do think this is an issue Amy cares about. I think that’s why she voted for Austin Street. I also think she is misguided and battling against the proponents (RightSize) that support her campaign. Which is partially why I feel she can’t win, she has no room to expand her base with these positions, and has very little room to prove she would be better than Fuller.
Affordable housing “experts” lambasted her? Like who? The development brigade on Facebook and V14? What makes them experts? They do have an awful lot of opinions, but what gives them actual expertise?
Having never heard of it before, I just checked out Voters for a Vibrant Newton. Its candidate endorsements oppose in each instance the slate supported by Right Size Newton. As I wrote a while ago in a blog on Village 14, city political culture, especially on the City Council has clearly divided into two opposing cliques. In my earlier blog, I likened the situation to high school! For the common good, I hope that the two camps learn to get along and legislate collectively.
I sense, however, that though Amy has the solid support of one of the camps, Ruthanne’s support in the other camp is less solid if still present. At times it is tough to be an incumbent, with all the interests and “Friends” groups expecting the mayor to deliver on their dreams. As others on this blog have noted, some media activists have lots to say about the supposed shortcomings of the mayor while others have criticisms for the challenger.
Most residents, I am certain, are not engaged in the race or up-to-speed on the supposed distinctions between the candidates. With all that is going on in the world and in people’s lives, the mayoralty campaign is far from center stage.
The Vibrant Newton endorsements are meaningless in my opinion. Right Size Newton, love them or hate them, has had a strong, proactive ground game and messaging campaign. Their name helps go along with their mission. People have heard of them.
Vibrant Newton has a vague name and when I first saw their ads on FB a while back, I couldn’t even understand their mission. Maybe they prefer it that way. Based off the name, I initially thought maybe it was about arts and culture and bringing that sort of vibrancy to our villages. Increasing racial diversity could have been part of their mission. Their marketing is lackluster. I’ve seldom seen such a low energy “movement” pop up. Yawn.
Instead I find out that their only mission is development and it’s run by mostly white people. Most of the people who know or care are the ones who already agree with them.
VVN won all but one contest it endorsed two years ago (Malakie was the only exception and she was already very well established from prior elections) but lost on the two special election contests this winter. Not sure how that translates into proving they’re “meaningless.”
Unlike Right Size, VVN did not endorse (or at least not yet) for mayor.
Also Don S, this winter’s special council election suggests that going negative in Newton does work. Some folks who remember the Lennon/Fuller matter related to working women might make that same argument.
I’m holding by breath to find out whom VVN endorses for mayor (not). Based on OCPF reports, members of VVN’s Board have personally funneled thousands of dollars to Ruthanne Fuller’s campaign. These are the same individuals who make the decision of whom VVN will endorse. So, what do you think the odds are that they would even consider endorsing someone other than the current mayor?
‘Not sure how that translates into proving they’re “meaningless.”’
There’s no metric for you to prove that VVN helped or hurt candidates. But my personal observation is that the only people who know who they are is their existing base.
Can someone explain how the campaign financing works? VVN is a PAC, no? So to follow the money, how does VVN’s money show up, for example, in Kessler’s or Noel’s or Bowman’s coffers? Is it outside of the OCPF reports?
I’m assuming RAF doesn’t need VVN’s endorsement or any additional funds that go along with it since she already has large donations from developers and other folks outside of Newton. .
I agree with many of the above. Focus on the schools. The MCAS data from last year was released. When you compare 2019 results vs. 2021 results (no test in 2020), the results are bleak. Big drops in the number of NPS students Exceeding or Meeting Expectations. Also, big disparities between schools in Newton – some declined a lot, some not as much (or even increased in a few cases).
Raw data here if you want to take a look:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/21/metro/2021-mcas-scores-schools-across-state/
It’s a tough task to beat an incumbent mayor in Newton. It’s only happened once that I can remember, and that was a bit of an anomaly in the wake of Ted Mann’s passing.
For Sangiolo to win, she can’t rely on the small pool of undecideds. She has to actually take votes away from Fuller. It’s impossible to do that without pointing out the Mayor’s deficiencies by “going negative.”
Fuller’s chief vulnerability is her handling of Newton’s schools during the pandemic. While I think the Mayor made the right call by closing schools when she did, she seems to have dropped the ball on the follow through. I think a lot of parents are still feeling that pain, and Sangiolo could take away votes from Fuller on the schools/pandemic issue.
The Sangiolo challenge is finding a delivery method to distinguish her vision for the schools from Fuller’s handling of schools. The Sangiolo Campaign may not have enough funds to accomplish this through paid advertising. I’d suggest that Sangiolo challenge Fuller to a real debate, where distinctions become more apparent. Not the typical Kumbaya affair thrown by the League of Women Voters. An actual debate where the two candidates are able to speak directly with each other.
If one checks OCPF today more specifically than just for the totals of contributions ($766,880.40 for RAF and $87,279.00 for AS). but instead checks the number of NEWTON contributors (and therefore, potential voters) for each…well, RAF has already 1454 Newton donors and AS has only422. Not very encouraging for AS.
Maria, I checked ir as well and Ruthanne has quite a few donors who don’t live in Newton.
Also I don’t know where you are getting those numbers because when I click in “Receipts “in August, Ruthannne has 109 donors listed and Amy has 110.
Also that $766,880 figure includes donations back to 2015
Maria, I checked it as well and Ruthanne has quite a few donors who don’t live in Newton.
Also I don’t know where you are getting those numbers because when I click in “Receipts “in August, Ruthannne has 109 donors listed and Amy has 110.
Also that $766,880 figure includes donations back to 2015
I find it off-putting that so many of Fuller’s donors come from outside Newton. Some I understand, like the ones that are clearly relatives. But there are so many from outside Newton.
Dear MaryLee, By searching OCPF’s “Contributions and Expenditures” for each of the candidates also fill in “Newton” under “Choose a MA city or town” to obtain my results. And yes, Mary Mary Quite Contrary, the Mayor has over a quarter of million dollars in contributions from non-Newton sources. Both her and her husband’s families are quite well-off.
@MMQC, @MaryLee & @Maria: I just looked at OCPF and for 2021 rough numbers are that Amy has 254 donations from Newton and Ruthanne has 279 from Newton which is about 47% for Amy. In total, 13% of Amy’s donations are from outside of Newton and 23% of Ruthanne’s are from outside of Newton.
@Lauren Berman, I would also like to analyze the number of unique contributors and how many have maxed out at the $1000 limit
Like many other aldermen/city councilors, Sangiolo and Fuller (is that OK, Greg?) have both made many friends as well as enemies. I like them both personally. But Mayor Fuller has made many more friends in the right places, from my POV. And it is also true that money changes everything.
Sangiolo only ever supports affordable housing when it suits her purposes, but she has never expressly supported Fair Housing. The Fuller administration’s collaboration with the Fair Housing Committee and community fair housing activists has been a breath of fresh air that was markedly lacking in the previous administration. Not since Mayor Cohen created the Fair Housing Committee has there been city government so committed to equal housing opportunity for all.
Like many other fair housing and affordable housing advocates in Newton, I will be voting for Mayor Fuller on election day. IMHO, Sangiolo can only win if the temperature in Hell drops below freezing.
I would like to point out that the Mayor has been endorsed by EMILY’s List, which is known for having an energized donor base that supports candidates all over the country.
Regardless, it’s clear both candidates have their support in the city. We saw it in the preliminary election. Democracy is best served focusing on the issues rather than the intricacies of an OCPF filing.
Yeah. She applied for the Emily’s List endorsement to get her name out nationally because she has her eyes on an even a higher office. No one needs that much money to run for the Newton mayor position.
Lisa, I’ve never heard anyone say that before about Mayor Fuller. Which higher office? I think you are wrong about this. As I’ve heard no chatter or discussion ever about her future political ambitions besides being mayor (and no future position is an easy fit) I’m guessing you are just making things up. Emily’s List makes endorsements in local races and I’d think a well run campaign would look for all sources of legitimate endorsement it could get. That’s doesn’t reflect future ambition. If you have facts to back up your statement please share.
I agree that it’s unlikely Mayor Fuller has aspirations beyond Newton Mayor. But honestly, even if it represents 5 years of gifts, why would ANY local Newton politician need to raise at this level ($750,000)? Especially this Mayor who has plenty of resources of her own! It seems elitist and pretty over the top. Yes, money matters, but this kind of unnecessary excess is a big negative to my way of thinking.
And that gets to the core. We have 2 fine candidates. But one is tied to elites and out of state money, and views the world through this lens. The other, Amy, is more like the rest of us and sees things this way. The problem is, she needs to do a better job at organizing and delivering this consistent message.
Year to date….
Mayor Fuller has spent over $112k
https://www.ocpf.us/ReportData/GetPdfOutput?pageSize=50¤tIndex=1&sortField=&sortDirection=DESC&filerCpfId=16009&searchTypeCategory=B&startDate=1/1/2021&endDate=9/24/2021
Amy Sangiolo…less than $7k
https://www.ocpf.us/ReportData/GetPdfOutput?pageSize=50¤tIndex=1&sortField=&sortDirection=DESC&filerCpfId=16022&searchTypeCategory=B&startDate=1/1/2021&endDate=9/24/2021
Draw your own conclusions.
People, money matters. You cant crtiticize someone for being good at raising money for themselves…anyone here try it??? It sux. I ran my raises as the fiscally responsible candidate When someone unfairly said something about me, I didnt have the money to offset the comment with fliers and postcards or ads in the Tab. It stinks while your hometown paper says you didnt answer a question about your job you clearly did answer. Raising money is a necessity and being good at it isnt a crime.
Tips for amy,
Is the mayor getting outsized donations from developers? Is she selling out Newton in order fund her post-Newton ambitions?
Newton highschool was once best in the country. We’re sadly far far off that list. Is Newton schools heading in wrong direction?
Looming pension liabilities- what realistically has been done about this?
Bugek – Amy is aware of the issues in NPS both from her experience and from talking to many, many parents since declaring for mayor. So far most of her statements about NPS have been backward-looking about how last year could’ve gone better. That’s certainly a fair topic, but it is in the past. Thousands of parents are waiting to hear whether or not she has a go-forward education strategy that differs from status quo. Her team knows this. We’ll see what happens.
One of the big issues is my mind for the schools post Covid is how to close the “learning gap” from the past year and a half. This is larger than Newton, but Newton could lead. Fuller and Fleishman offer nothing but the same. Just status quo. Amy could promise to find a new and visionary superintendent. It could help set her apart.
If we are looking into Fuller’s OCPF, I don’t see any contributions from developers that draw my eye?
And @Matt Lai
Thank you for pointing out those expenditures, it’s quite clear Amy is not paying her staff properly. Very concerning.
So, Don, should only wealthy people get to run for local office because they can better pay campaign staff?
@Don S – Local elections are (and should be) largely volunteer run operations. It’s not at all concerning to me if a candidate has no paid staff … or is able to pay staff.
Even in campaigns that do have paid staff the overwhelming number of people working on the campaigns are volunteers … and that is indeed the way it should be.
Maybe Mayor Fuller would like to use some of that money to refund that $ 500000 that was wasted on the no bid contract with the principal ( principle?) group for the Washington Street Vision charade. Biggest waste of taxpayer money I’ve seen.
Total Election Turnout
2009:
Sept: 15,866
Nov: 22,515
2013:
Sept: 6,154
Nov: 13,366
2017:
Sept: 14,294
Nov: 24,910
2021:
Sept: 10,853
Nov: ~20,000 est
I’d say it’s a safe bet that November will yield another 10,000+ voters from the prelim numbers. Preliminaries almost always yield a higher % volume turnout for the challenger, especially when there’s a small field. Most folks who either support an incumbent, support the status quo, or don’t really care or follow local elections, don’t vote in the prelim. This means that it’s not hard to imagine that a majority of voters who didn’t vote in the prelim, but will vote come November, will cast their vote for Fuller. That’s not to say that there aren’t Sangiolo supporters who didn’t vote in the prelim, but will do so in Nov. (A few will likely make that claim in response to this post.) Challengers tend to perform best in the prelim, and if they do well enough, they can ride that high, bolster donations, and make a good run. Fuller won 7 of 8 precincts. Sangiolo won her old precinct. Having 4 of 10 voters vote for Sangiolo is painting the picture in the best possible light, which is what her camp should do. The reality is that even if the 4 of 10 ratio is representative of all of the voters who will come out in November, Amy will need to swing more than 2,000 people who right now would vote for Fuller. If that weren’t hard enough, she needs to do it in 38 days. I suspect that Fuller takes about 62-65% of the voters who didn’t vote in the prelim. Even if Amy takes all of Al’s votes, she’s still chasing roughly 3,400 votes. I predict 8,500 for AS, and 11,500 for RF come November. This isn’t based on the issues, but rather history and campaign math/trends.
With same Councilors that are stumping for RAF now are the same stumped for Bryan and Maddie last March. And back then, they were expected to be win as well. But voters came out and voted for Tarik Lucas and John Oliver…convincingly.
As they say in sports, “that’s why we play it the game”. Anyone remember the 2001 Pats over the “greatest show on turf”?