It's Prediction Time

OK, the preliminary election is tomorrow. Some candidates have been running for a few months (Lisa Wong), some for about a year and a half (Ted DeSalvatore), and some, apparently, for the last 35 years (Tom Donnelly).

Anyway, for one of the above -- and Ron Dionne (sorry, Ron) -- it all ends tomorrow at about 9 p.m. when the votes are tallied.

But why wait until tomorrow when we can begin to guess the outcome now. Here's my prediction, and we welcome yours. Remember, this is merely a prediction, and I wouldn't bet one dime on any of it. I think for two candidates, it's going to be an uneasy night.

I'm guessing turnout is going to be in the 13-14 percent range, or about 3,300 voters. All numbers below subject to change based on how that goes.

Tom Donnelly should win tomorrow. I'm guessing with about 1,350 votes, or roughly 40 percent of the vote. In a preliminary election, the base rules, and he has the best base. Also, let's face it, he is tailoring his campaign message so far to long-time voters. He's hammering away at his "35 years," appealing to elderly voters. It might turn off voters looking for change, but he has enough relationships and time in that he should finish first tomorrow. Despite is off-key work over the last month, he should get 1,000 votes falling out of bed tomorrow. Throw him a few more, and he wins this thing, easy. The question: Is 40 percent the knockout punch he wants to deliver, and make this thing seem like a done deal going into the general? Not sure it does.

I'm slotting Wong in the second spot, with 1,000 votes, or right about 30 percent. Her debate performance last Thursday night might have been the difference. She should do well with younger voters -- and by that I mean parents with young children, in their early- to mid-30s to early-40s. That's not a huge number, however, so she'll need some help from elsewhere. She has some good connections in community which will help, and as voters consider the financial situation, her MBA should come into play.

I think DeSalvatore is going to finish third, with about 800 votes, or roughly 25 percent. You can scan local blogs to gauge the general discomfort and distrust a large segment of the population feels about DeSalvatore. He has a motivated fan base, but an equally inspired opposition base. He will win a nice chunk of votes through his get-tough talk, but for every voter who likes it, at least one has written him off. I wonder if at the last minute, some of his soft support erodes as voters face that final moment of truth. If Wong is charging down the homestretch after last week, DeSalvatore seems to be straining at the finish line.

That leaves about 150 votes for Dionne, who has proven he can play well with others and really cares about the city.

So, there you go. You can ignore the numbers if you want, and stick with my Donnelly-Wong-DeSalvatore finish. Any thoughts?

About Last Night

OK, I've been thinking about it for pretty much 12 hours now. I prattled on endlessly last night at Mrs. Save Fitchburg even though she was wrapped up in "The Young and the Restless" and the fortunes of Jabot (oh yeah, I pay attention). I haven't stopped thinking about it today, and I think it might have even crept into my dreams last night.

Yeah, I've had last night's debate on my mind non-stop, and in all that time, I haven't wavered from my conviction. In fact, it's probably only gotten firmer: Lisa Wong dominated last night.

Gone was the nervous, wonky, hanging-in candidate from a week ago. She was forceful and articulate from the beginning. She had all the answers, and she had the answers to the answers (more on that in a minute).

Whether it was a once-in-a-lifetime fluke or the pieces finally clicking, this was the candidate Wong fans had been hoping for when she announced she was running for mayor. If you're a fan, you have to be on cloud nine today. If you're in one of the other camps, you have to admit, she won last night. It was that clear-cut.

She was in such a groove last night, that even the peripheral stuff worked. She packed the room with supporters, who cheered her ever answer. Not that she needed it, but it helped build her momentum. Where was everyone else's cheering section, by the way? It was noticeable.

She found the right note for everything, best illustrated by her asking a puff-ball question of Dionne: Why do you want to be mayor? At that point, the candidates had asked somewhere between eight and 10 questions of each other, all of them pointing to a weakness or challenging a position of strength. No one had bothered with Dionne, who was comfortable, funny and honest last night, in a performance at least won him some respect, if not votes.

So, Wong makes the effort to ask the guy a question, and then follows it up in her "rebuttal" by saying she hopes to have breakfast with him when this thing is all over. Perfect timing, perfect message, part of a great night.

She took some punches from Donnelly, and threw it back. Donnelly, again, came across as condecending and seemingly upset that two people who have lived in the city a total of 10 years combined are running for mayor against him. He also continued to rail that the City Council is not responsible for the city's financial woes. Even Ted DeSalvatore has admitted the council should have done better (at least in 2006).

Donnelly's snarky "if you understood the charter" act was demeaning, and didn't put him in the nicest light. However, it might be an effective play. You have to think that the Donnelly camp knows that preliminary voters are likely old-school residents. His "I'm the long-time guy" message is likely playing well with that core crowd. It might piss off two-thirds of the voters, but if one-third jump on it and vote for him, he'll be seeing you on Nov. 6.

Beyond Wong's transformation last night was the relative disappearance of DeSalvatore. He had a solid, if not spectacular performance last Thursday (he might have been the winner by a nose last week). Last night, he kind of disappeared. While the candidates were far less nervous last night, Ted seemed to hang on to some of his nerves, especially when reading his opening and closing statements (while we're here, pet peeve: Ted's insistance on using "and/or" on a regular basis. It's just a speaking tic of his that for some reason jumps out at me. Meaningless, but there you go).

Part of it might have been that he was kind of ignored during the candidate-on-candidate question period. That took a bulk of the debate, and it was where performance fates were made and lost.

In fact, in reviewing the 11 questions (Dionne took a pass on his last shot), five of the questions were directed to Wong. Interesting. Why was she the focus so often? Impressively, she handled that relative onslaught pretty well. Donnelly took three questions, DeSalvatore only two. One was on his work background (which was still rather devoid of absolute specifics), and another on "zero tolerance" crimefighting.

So, maybe it wasn't his fault. He just didn't get a lot of questions. But the end result is that he was kind of on the sidelines last night.

Wong, however, was firing on all cylanders. She took Donnelly's snippy shots, and turned them back around, particularly when calling for accountability, which she said has been missing in the city. After panelist Jeff McMenemy rattled off a list of her proposed programs and asked how she'd pay for them, she delivered this nugget: "From how you stated it, it sounds like I might be the only with a plan." Great, great answer.

So now, the candidates are done with the wholesale public campaigning. They'll spend the last few days at standouts, events and doorsteps, looking for a few last votes. Considering the unsettled nature of this race -- anyone ready yet to pick definitive winners? -- the question now is, was Wong too late? A performance like this could make up a good chunk of minds. We'll find out if it worked Tuesday night.

Apologies, and some semi-InstaAnalysis

OK, I'm no IT guy, and I couldn't get the computer to work on-site. Sorry y'all.

That's too bad, because tonight was super-revealing. And for one candidate, it was a knockout.

Ron Dionne was funny, honest, and still slightly fuzzy on things, but he charmed the crowd throughout. A better night for him.

Ted DeSalvatore seemed to kind of disappear. Part of it was that during the question-each-other period, DeSalvatore didn't get a lot of questions asked of him. But he seemed to kind of be a third whell.

I'm not going to dig up my notes right now, that's for tomorrow, but Tom Donnelly came across as bitter and entitled. He made a number of mentions of his long-term status in the city, and was super-condesending to candidates on some issues. His maintaining of not-my-fault on the city budget still irks.

Finally, Lisa Wong, who turned in a remarkable performance. Simply, she blew the rest of the field away, going away. She was energized, visionary, and didn't say "goal oriented" once. Not once. Amazing turnaround. If you have been a Wong fan from day one, this was the candidate you were hoping and waiting for.

More in the morning. I'm angry, hungry, and haven't seen my wife in what seems like months. My loss, certainly not her's. Sorry, again. More here and at FP.com on the morrow.

Why They'll Win, Why They Won't

As you may have heard, there's an election in six days. A week from right now, we'll be analyzing why two people won and two people lost.

Hell with it. Let's check it out now.

Ted DeSalvatore
Why he'll win: It's an angry time, and he's the angry mayor. Or something like that. Tapping into the unrest in the city, DeSalvatore is able to best articulate the mood of Fitchburg. For law-and-order types, his crime-first mantra is the winner. His 6,215 lawn signs gain him some votes.

Why he won't: That unshakable feeling that he's a little wild -- to the point where he closed his debate performance last week with a promise to behave -- turns folks off. While he can attract a fervent following, it's not a very broad following. Notable: He received donations of $200 or more from just 13 people. Thirteen. The question of breadth vs. depth hasn't been answered yet, but that should set off some alarms.

Tom Donnelly
Why he'll win: The best long-term organization in the race comes through. Whether it has been as a councilor for the last eight years or as a community activist for the last 35, Donnelly has more personal relationships in the city than the rest of the ballot combined. In a local race like this, that's all that matters.

Why he won't: In a city thirsting for change, Donnelly is the establishment candidate in the race. Even though he's been a city councilor for eight years, he refuses to take any responsibility for the city's financial situation, which is disturbing. In a wide range of platforms (on my doorstep, in a newspaper interview, and at last Thursday's forum) he has been extremely underwhelming, and that's being charitable.

Lisa Wong
Why she'll win: Voters decide they want the brainiac. For folks who put the city's financial situation at the top of their list, she wins their vote for her business-school approach. She also has created a nice knack of matching fiscal problems to home-front issues, whether it's schools or the dog catcher, making her academic approach somewhat relatable.

Why she won't: People are tired of hearing "goals-oriented," and aren't really sure what that means. Her relative lack of experience and youthfulness raise concerns. Her crown achievements, Putnam Place and Riverfront Park, don't turn voters on, who have heard as often as not that those aren't boffo successes.

Ronald Dionne
Why he'll win: Extreme ballot box malfunction.

Why he won't: He's done minimal campaigning, zero research, and is foggy on most issues. Breaking triple-figures is a victory.

Donnelly Loan Propels Him to Top

Head over to the Fitchburg Pride website and catch a rundown of the campaign finance reports for the mayoral candidates, which were due today in the City Clerk's office. As of this writing, the Pride is the only place that has it. Considering how things went down at City Hall this afternoon, chances are it won't be anywhere else tomorrow. We're guessing.

A couple of things, which you can read now or when you're done with the Pride story. Whatever works for you.

-- Tom Donnelly is at the top with almost $18,000 raised, but it took a $5,000 self-loan to get there. Interestingly, he had loaned his campaigns about $15,000 in previous races, and had never paid himself back. Huh. He has compiled the longest list of bold-facers in his donations list. a partial rundown is in the story.

-- Lisa Wong has raised over $14,000, almost half of it from out of town. Interesting, but that's about it for things worth noting.

-- Ted DeSalvatore has raised just short of $11,000, and has spent every penny. He's also carrying $6,600 in "liabilities," or, you know, unpaid bills. Things of interest? There's no listing of spending on campaign signs or printing. Chances are that's part of the $5,100 owed CAP Services under liabilities for "Marketing program -- Balance of Phase 1 and decorations," whatever that means. But I really wanted to know what he spent on all those signs. Also, there are only 13 individual donors listed. You can read more on that at the Pride.

Decency dictates we mention Ron Dionne raised no money, spent no money, but took about $120 in in-kind contributions in the form of printer ink cartridges. The steamroller rolls on, right there.

A few more nuggets in the Pride story. Let 'er fly here.

About Last Night

Warning, golf analogy ahead. And extremely long post.

You're playing a short par-5, and you've crushed a drive 285. You're about 200 yards away, and thinking maybe eagle. But there are woods on the right, and you push that three-wood right alot. So you have a choice: Sting a solid three-wood and start thinking red numbers, or hit nine-iron and wedge, and take your par.

Last night, the candidates for mayor kept the three-wood in the bag, and all laid up. Well, maybe not Ron Dionne, but more on that later. The three "major" candidates all took the safe route last night. Not one really showing a deep and fervent need or burning desire to be mayor. There was no grand talk about the future of the city. Hey, I would have taken "city on a hill" last night, and got none of it.

Instead, the candidates stuck to their basic messages -- none more so than Lisa Wong -- and gave relatively bland performances. I was in the room during the debate itself and thought it was OK. I watched about a half-hour on TV last night as Mrs. Save Fitchburg was catching up on TiVo, and thought the preformances were flatter on TV than in person. Certain no missteps -- which is obviously good -- but where was the person who made it perfectly clear that they wanted this job more than anything else in life right now? Was it nerves? Was it an overwhelming desire to not screw up? A little passion would have been nice last night.

Surprisingly, there was little passion from Ted DeSalvatore. He's spent the last 18 months firing up his troops with his unique blend of energy and rather plain speaking. He was muted and controlled last night. Some of that fire leaked out a few times, but not enough. He wasn't the "real" DeSalvatore. I got more energy out of him in the parking lot in 15 minutes afterward than he gave off in the 90-minute debate.

If this was your first exposure to DeSalvatore, you're thinking, "Hey, everyone said he's nuts. He's not nuts tonight." And, obviously, that's good for DeSalvatore. But it's not him. Certainly, every candidate is coached and planned before a debate, but it really showed last night with DeSalvatore. Where was the Ted who almost always at some point in a phone interview says something like, "I know I shouldn't say this, but..." Non-existent. In the long run, of course, this is good for DeSalvatore. A lot of people aren't sure if they can trust him to run the city. Every performance like this chips away at those concerns.

In some ways, this preliminary might come down to how primary voters view DeSalvatore. In theory, preliminary voters aren't casual voters. The 15-20 percent who are going to show up on Sept. 25 are pretty committed to voting. In theory, they have been following the race and candidates for some time. You can pick a handful of other blogs -- and look around here -- for the Ted of the last 18 months. It's a different -- for better or worse -- than the guy on stage last night. Which Ted is the real Ted? Which one do voters want?

Finally, on this issue at least, he probably shouldn't have ended with the "I promise I'll behave" line. It's just a reminder to people that there are some concerns about trusting him in office. Not a good way to leave things. Yup, supposed to be funny, and it was, but it just reinforces that doubt is out there.

The most heat during the debate was between Thomas Donnelly and Lisa Wong. Donnelly knocked Wong's acheivements at every turn. She scored nice points with the "plans are plans, but it takes action" line (not a direct quote, by the way) on Riverfront Park. Wong defended herself well, but no doubt Donnelly was driving that aggression train.

Why? Here's my theory, and it's theory: Donnelly would rather face DeSalvatore in the general than Wong. Team Donnelly has to feel like it's finishing the Top Two on Sept. 25. They probably feel like their finishing first, but does anyone really think that organization won't at least place? Seems highly unlikely. So, considering future matchups, Team Donnelly would prefer DeSalvatore in the general.

Donnelly didn't waste too many opportunities to go after Wong -- there weren't a ton, but he didn't miss the ones that were there -- but said nary a discouraging word toward DeSalvatore. You'd have to think if he were worried about the preliminary, he'd be an equal-opportunity aggressor. But he wasn't. So, I'm thinking he doesn't want to tangle with Wong in the general.

Otherwise, Donnelly's performance was probably the flattest of the three. DeSalvatore leaked some fire here and there, and Wong was the well-spoken voice of business management. Donnelly never really got fully comfortable, it seemed. More importantly, I can't get over his refusal to take some responsibility for the city's financial situation.

He attached to moderator Ralph Romano's contention that rejecting the budget would lead to chaos, and massive layoffs. I need an explanation on that one. Why would things grind to a halt under a 1/12th budget? The state used to it all the time. If you're spending and bringing money in at the same levels as the year before, what, exactly, is the problem that leads to massive chaos? Are there annual payments due July 1 or something? Donnelly didn't bring this up earlier, only after Romano did, so I feel he was using it as a lifeline. It went unchallenged by Wong and the others, but now I want to know. What would happen, and why? If someone can answer (Romano, this means you), share with the class.

Regardless, Donnelly's walking away from the financial problems as something the council could have helped. So what the hell has he and the other 10 people been doing the last eight years. He wants it both ways. He wants to point to his experience on the City Council, but wants to throw the council's biggest responsibility to the curb. He said at one point he has more "new plans" than the rest of the candidates. Outside of his financial team plan -- which is nice but not revolutionary -- what are those plans? Didn't really hear them last night, I'd say.

Donnelly said last night it's hard for all 11 councilors to get in line and battle on the budget. He's right. Although you really only need six to stick together and make things happen. That said, the council has squandered opportunity after opportunity to be financial sticklers, and that is his responsibility. I can't get over this issue with Donnelly -- and other councilors. It' s been bugging me for a week.

Between the toned-down DeSalvatore (whose eyes didn't stop moving back and forth when he talked) and the uncomfortable Donnelly, Wong did pretty well. She seemed the most well-spoken and on-the-issues. She lit on some specifics -- like the building of this year's school budget -- that probably only she knew. That said, she was dangerously close to being a one-line candidate last night. Anyone want to hear "goals oriented" one more time? It's her philosophy, and it goes to a lot of things -- her background, education, overall plans for the city -- but she seemed to message-programmed.

She stood her ground with Donnelly, which was good. She seems focused on finances, which obviously is key. But the question about her campaign from the beginning was whether she'd be overly wonkish and academic. She stayed away from the overly academic and detail-laden answers she can sometimes give when she has unlimited time to talk, but her overall plan seems like a applying a business-school model on a city. That's great, but some of that neighborhood talk that you got from Donnelly would have helped.

From talking to people over the last few months, it's pretty clear that the city's budget situation is their number one priority. If that's true, then it was a good night for Wong. Donnelly brushed off his responsibility for it, DeSalvatore doesn't think it's the city's biggest problem, and she presented herself -- if nothing else -- as a smart, educated business person with a plan. Does it excite? No. And that might be a problem later.

As for Dionne, he's a nice guy, but he was out of his depth last night. Without looking at my prodigious Fitchburg Pride rambling, he outright said he didn't know details on the city's budget, the charter, and what teachers are dealing with. He showed a lack of understanding on the police chief contract. He was woefully underprepared. Some of these same things are bound to come up next Thursday when the four meet again. Maybe he'll be better up to speed then. Somehow, I have my doubts.

It will be interesting what adjustments all three top candidates make next Thursday at Fitchburg State. Hopefully, next week, someone decides it's time to take a stand and pull out their three-wood.

What to Watch for

As you may have heard, the four candidates for mayor hit the stage, the TV lights and the radio airwaves this Thursday night for a mayoral forum. You can watch on FATV, listen on AM 1280 "The Blend," and get as-it-happens analysis on fitchburgpride.com.

Now, what's going to happen Thursday night? Can someone get an upper hand 12 days from the preliminary election? Who knows, but here's what should happen. The following is based on what I've seen and heard both from the voters and from the candidates in recent weeks.

For Ted DeSalvatore, he needs to prove to be a steady hand at the wheel. He'll bring the passion and the fire to Thursday night. He might put on the best performance of the night, if he's firing on all cylanders. He's just well-managed enough to have decent answers on some things, but maintaining his trademark energy. He also needs to make sure what he's saying is verifiable. In a meeting last week, he said Unitil is lobbying state officials. State records show no signs of Unitil having a lobbyist or making campaign contributions in the last few years. He needs to show he has a good sense of the city's finances, and how to improve them. He'll win the crowd with his talk of sweeping out problems, but he needs to keep them in the long term by showing some savvy and knowledge.

For Tom Donnelly, it's time to show a little thought and vision for the city's future. He threw a clunker at Mrs. Save Fitchburg a few weeks ago regarding schools (see past post), and didn't smoothly handle a few questions with Pride editors and reporters last week. He's relying on, well, being the guy who's been here longest. He needs to be able to talk about the future, though. He has a great organization and name recognition that might make this debate merely a walk-through, but he needs to get a little forward-looking and bit more specific based on what's been heard so far.

For Ron Dionne, he needs to prove he can hang with the big boys. Remember Grace Ross? Everyone thought she was a loon last year, but she proved to be probably as top of the issues -- and maybe more right -- than the rest of the gubernatorial candidates. Can Dionne do the same? He has an uphill challenge here, considering three months ago he admitted he hadn't read the city budget. But maybe he's done his homework.

For Lisa Wong, she has to prove that she can offer more than classroom application of business theories. She needs to prove she can lead, and she needs to prove she can get people in City Hall to buy into what she's selling. She has the best pure business background, and some wins downtown to hang her hat on, but she can't be the professor lecturing Thursday night.

So, there you go. A little insight into Thursday's fun and games. Don't forget, first pitch at 7 p.m.

The Problem with Fitchburg Schools

So, a mayoral candidate climbed up onto the stoop of the Save Fitchburg Mansion and knocked on the door last night. I let Mrs. Save Fitchburg take the lead, because I'm going to hear plenty from everyone in the next 26 days.

First, a little background on Mrs. Save Fitchburg: She's been covering local and state government as a reporter since the early 1990s. She knows how things work and what is and isn't a good answer. I know this is shocking to every try to understand, but she's even better than I am.

So, Mrs. Save Fitchburg threw out a rather vague question of "what are going to do for the School Department?" Considering the SF Spawn were desperately trying to get their grubby hands on some campaign handouts, it was obvious this is an important issue at SF Mansion.

Let's just say the answer ... Well, forget pleasantries. The answer stunk. I didn't say anything, but knew the rambling, off-balance, grasping-at-straws answer immediately wasn't resonating with Mrs. Save Fitchburg. The candidate took a big step back in Mrs. SF's eyes, and rightfully so. Not only did his answer leave a lot to be desired, but the campaign aide slowly creeping the truck forward as a way to move the candidate along was noticed and also not appreciated by Mrs. SF (I noticed, too, by the way. Not too slick, right there).

Anyway, all this got me to thinking: Why isn't the school system in play this election?

I think part of it is that most voters are concentrated on the financial situation. Fair enough. But I can't believe the only two-kid family in the city lives at SF Mansion. There's one across the SF street, in fact, but their kids to private school. I don't know their motivation, but that might be a damning indictment on the city's schools.

Add to the importance young families put on education the $44 million price tag that the School Department wears. If you're so worried about finances, shouldn't there be some acknowledgement of the department that makes up half the city budget?

In his Pride oped last week, Ted DeSalvatore didn't mention the city schools (outside of cleaning up behind B.F. Brown). In his Pride oped this week (sneak peek everyone!) Tom Donnelly doesn't mention the city's schools. On her website, under the issues front page, there is no mention of schools by Lisa Wong. In short, the candidates are giving the issue the cold shoulder, and no one is taking any leadership on the issue.

Part of it is that it's not on most voters' radar screen, but the candidate who knocked on the door last night should have had a better answer prepared. Isn't there a "what questions might we get asked and what should the answer be" session or two involved in a campaign? And to not even mention the school system in 800-word opeds and issue web pages is just neglectful.

Honestly, I'm not sure the candidates know much at all about the city schools. Based on a quote from DeSalvatore earlier this year, he admitted as much. Based on last night's conversation, I think one more candidate fits that category. Considering the money involved and the importance of schools in the city, it's just sad the lack of knowledge about the school system.

If a candidate or a campaign is reading this, here's a helpful hint: This issue will come up next Friday. It will also be a question or two in some form during at least one of the debates. If you come knocking on the door at SF Mansion, it will likely come up there, too. You've been notified. Please have a good answer. Despite what you might think, the schools are important and in play this fall.

Another Temperature Check

We did this a few weeks ago, but figured with Labor Day loooming, and the election just 29 days away, it was time for another look at where everyone stands in the mayoral contest.

First, a few thoughts based on recent, uh, comments:

Signs don't vote, so don't hand someone the election because he or she has the most signs on the street. Signs can measure depth in that only those really committed to a candidate will let their lawn hold a sign for weeks on end, but are not a great measure of bredth (unless those signs are absolutely everywhere). Let's stop gauging strength by signs, it's a silly process.

Ted supporters are putting waaaaaaaaay too much importance into the musings of some online folks like Rachel, the unicow and the saynotodesalvo guy. The claims that their relently anti-Ted bent is hurting other candidates is just ridiculous. If there was a super-strong media outlet in the city that was read by everybody -- like 25,000 people -- that was whacking away at a candidate or overly supporting one, that would be on thing. But arguably, that media outlet doesn't exist (the Sentinel moves less than 4,000 copies a day. The Pride moves about 8,000 a week. Hey, we're a must-read, but I know our situation), and even if it did, while some bias is possible in some corners, it hasn't been ridiculous or overbearing. So, if you really think Unicow is going to shape this election, you're really reaching (no offense, 'cow).

Hopefully that clarifies my stance on annoying and borderline dumb comments. On with the show:

For starters, no one knows how this is all going to end up, and that includes folks who have run for office many times in Fitchburg. To say you do at this point is kind of silly. To wit: Donnelly v. Wong, or Donnelly v. DeSalvatore in the general. Two very different general elections. Forget Wong v. DeSalvatore, which is a whole other kind of election. You can guess, you can hope, but final matchups are going to mean a lot to how candidates run and how solid their chances are.

That said, Donnelly remains in good shape to make it to the finals. His campaign has been ramping up in recent weeks, with standouts and the rest. He's spent 10 years building a base and an organization, and now is the time to rely on it. He needs to get over the "slumlord" claims (true or not, at least one candidate mentions "slumlords" often), he needs to try to win over a few folks who consider him part of the old-boy network, and he needs to figure out a way to say he's not part of the city's financial problems, even after being on the council for eight years. But if he keeps moving in the same direction, he'll be tough to beat Sept. 25.

It might not be ridiculous to think Wong and DeSalvatore are fighting for the other spot. DeSalvatore had a rough late-July/early-August. Not a bad time to have a rough stretch. While there's a lot of Internet heat, the heat hasn't been seen by most folks. His one big example of being "decisive" in the Pride op-ed last week -- cleaning up B.F. Brown -- is nice, but not exactly the legislative victory you'd expect, even from a one-term candidate (by contrast, look at Dean Tran's proactive first term on the council). DeSalvatore's fate might be the biggest question of the preliminary election. He has a great core, but no one knows how far his voting base fans out. Will 800-1,000 people vote for him on election day? Honestly, no one knows. He is so polarizing it's tough to figure out. At this point, I'd believe both sides.

That leaves Wong, who, quite honestly, has been a little quiet lately. It may be by design, but on Sept. 4 she needs to kick it up a notch or two. There's also the lingering questions about Putnam Place and her gig at FRA. They linger because people wonder, but there doesn't appear to be much there... yet. Maybe a campaign tries to drop a September surprise, but it just seems to be mostly a non-starter, unless there's something we don't know about. Her buzz is down right now, but they may be saving their powder for September, which might not be a totally ridiculous idea. DeSalvatore by his very nature will maintain attention, and Donnelly's recent spurt of activity has been noticeable, but Wong needs to work a little more to get some momentum going. Not really a problem right now, but if you're wondering where she is come Sept. 10 or so, then all bets are off.

Ron Dionne says he's been knocking on doors and has gotten good feedback -- he's even thrown out the "I'm going to shock the city" line here and there. He's spending no dollars and is hoping his door-knocking gets him through. We'll see what happens there, I guess.

Where are we at?

Perhaps it's time to take a minute to assess where the mayoral candidates stand. A lot can change in the next six weeks, but today, the day nomination papers are due, is a good time to think about where everyone is and what they need to do to win.

Warning: Analysis and predictions ahead. Some people aren't going to like what they see and hear. The following is my own analysis based on what I see, hear and what my gut tells me. It might not be right, but it's not crazy or slanted to favor anyone. I'm not shilling for one candidate or knocking another. Don't like it? Fine, but respond with smart analysis, not the tripe that has been passing for comments here lately. And for the love of God, be honest with yourself and the situation. This message brought to you by an administrator partly bored and partly ashamed by the endless stream of garbage comments. End of warning, on with the show.

Suddenly, Tom Donnelly's looking pretty good in the primary. In fact, if that election were held today, he'd have one of the top two slots sewn up. Dan Mylott's decision to exit the race is of big help to Donnelly. All of the sudden, Donnelly has a 10-year-old citywide organization going up against candidates who have never run citywide before. For folks who like a little experience, he laps the field many times over. After wondering since April where his campaign has been, it's starting to wake up a little bit. In fact, Save Fitchburg Mansion was hit with a postcard a few weeks saying he'd stop for a visit soon. Haven't seen him, but we're expecting him soon. Mylott's departure doesn't necessarily mean Mylott voters are streaming to Donnelly, but for undecideds (and I think those are many) and others, Donnelly's strengths are suddenly unique to the field. Let's go back to the numbers: Expect 3,000, maybe 3,500 people to vote in the preliminary. Getting out your vote will be extremely important. No one will do that better than Donnelly. He works hard the next six weeks, doesn't make any big mistakes, and he's in good shape come Sept. 25.

If Mylott's decision helped Donnelly, it probably doesn't do much for Lisa Wong one way or the other. She wasn't running against Mylott too much like other candidates (hang on, we'll get there), but I wouldn't expect a flood of former Mylott support going her way. Call it a wash. Wong has been running a campaign by the numbers so far. She's knocking on doors, laying the groundwork, and boning up on her policy. Her's will be a policy-driven campaign, no doubt. The establishment has been impressed so far, and she has some friends and allies amongst some elected officials. She'll have to turn up the heat a little bit after Labor Day, but her steady work so far puts her in good shape for Sept. 25.

Part of Wong's current situation is based on the shaky last few weeks for Ted DeSalvatore. By any measure, he has been struggling the last few weeks. The electronic folks are pounding away at him, his stance on the homeless downtown is matter-of-fact to the point of being possibly unfeeling, he's been portrayed as heartless to a man begging on his knees in the Telegram, and the "focus on what's bad" line didn't help much either. Throw in the LTE this week on his campaign manager harassing a senior at the July 4 parade, and yikes, tough times. For folks who didn't have an opinion of the guy -- and are paying attention to this stuff -- it hasn't been a good month or so. That's gotta turn around if he's going to stick. He needs to generate some good press. Find a friendly reporter to talk some big ideas and the future of the city. Here's what it boils down to: He has an energized and enthusiastic base -- perhaps the most loyal and rabid core in the race. The question is, does his breadth match his depth? Beyond that base, will he lure the voters needed to win this thing? No one knows for sure, but for folks who were thinking "I might vote for Ted, but..." the buts have been raining down lately. If nothing else, he could use some good karma right now. If the election were held today, the last month wouldn't do him any favors -- and quite possibly keep him out of the money. He's got six weeks to turn that around. Can he do it? Absolutely. Memories are short and it is the middle of the summer, when attention spans are minimal. But he's now in recovery mode.

Finally, there's Ronald Dionne. Doesn't see the need for a computer, says there's overspending in government but hasn't read this year's budget, and isn't raising money for his campaign. Instead of gauging his chances of winning, it might be best to set an over/under on his votes. He was just under 300, I believe, in his write-in campaign in 2005. Let's go with 199. Place your bets.

The Curious Case of Ron Dionne

Had a sit-down yesterday with mayoral candidate Ronald Dionne. You can read more about him in this Friday's Fitchburg Pride, but a few thoughts:

Interestingly, Dionne said the city's financial problems aren't in revenues, it's in overspending. Rupert K. is nodding right now. Dionne says one area for savings is holding off on union raises for a few years. A lot of people are nodding right now. Where else to find savings? Well, Dionne's not sure. He claims he doesn't have the information. He also admits to not having looked at the new city budget. He doesn't have a computer, and hasn't gone to the clerk to buy a copy. Kind of takes the starch of the "overspending" argument when you haven't looked at the budget, no?

You can read more about what Dionne thinks -- including an interesting theory on downtown traffic -- in Friday's paper, but the above little tale should say a lot. Dionne said he watches all the government meetings on TV, which is great, but if you're going to claim the city is overspending, you should have an idea of where the money is currently being spent.

Most people don't Dionne much of a shot of gathering more than a few hundred votes (and that might be generous). He said the first he'd do as mayor would be to review spending department-by-department, going back years. That sounds great, but consider: In theory he's just barely three months away from being elected mayor, and he hasn't looked at the current city budget. Huh.