Predictions, Get Your Off-Base Predictions

Just in time for tomorrow's election, a set of predictions that will be totally meaningless at about 8:01 tomorrow night, if not sooner. Enjoy.

First, a few notes:

I'm not even gonna try to guess the School Committee races (like I should be tackling any of these, but whatever). It's not that I don't know the candidates, but I have no idea who's winning these things. Hard to get a sense of what the public is thinking on those.

Second, these aren't my favorites or even people who I'm voting for in a bunch of cases. They're just my predictions on who's going to win.

Here goes.

Turnout

Number: 6,000

Why: Actually, I think there's a chance it could be even lower.

I hear you saying, "Moron, 5,500 came out for the preliminary. You're an idiot." Yes, I am, but I'm an idiot who thinks the mayoral candidates in the preliminary pretty much maximized turnout. I don't think there too many more voters who are going to come out for down-ballot races, and I don't think the mayor's race is capturing a lot of new attention. So, there you go. I hope I'm surprised. And really, I probably should have learned my turnout lesson from the preliminary, but sometimes I need to be taught things twice.

Mayor

Winner: Lisa Wong

Why: Simply, the math tells us so. After blowing out opponent Tom Donnelly by 2,200 votes, Wong started the general election in the driver's seat, and she's done nothing to let go of the wheel.

Here's Donnelly's perfect storm: Wong voters are complacent after the big win, and don't show up. Homeowners revolt on the tax issue. The weather is absolutely terrible, and only real die-hard voters show up tomorrow (assuming, still, that he still owns the old-school crowd). You'd think Wong would be aware of the first, the tax issue doesn't seem to be polarizing (more on that in a minute), and the first part of the day should be rainy and cold, although getting better after noon, according to weather.com.

Donnelly has tried to bring it on home with the tax issue, but it's tough for him to get clear ground on this issue. Mostly, it's the fact that he voted consistently for the full 2.5 percent increases, and says now 2.5 percent is vital for the city. He's right, but it's tough to be the tax hard-liner when you support the full increase. Also, Wong says she'll make up any losses in rolling increases to 2.25 percent by bringing in new business. She says it so matter-of-factly, you just assume this is going to happen. Bringing in business to cover a $70,000 in property taxes (or $83,000 or $100,000), however, is no small thing. This is a fundamental part of the Wong candidacy: Bringing in new business. She's going to find some early success on that if she's mayor. Everything hinges on that, and it's easier said than done.

Second, I started coming around this morning on Wong's defensive/angry counter last Thursday. And here's why: She's 28 years old. Did any part of that performance come off as young, not ready for the situation, or intimidated? No. Never once in this campaign has Wong acted her age. It's really kind of amazing. And Thursday was part of that. She could have dismissed it or shrunk from the charges, but she responded forcefully. It took me four days to get here, but here I am.

Give Donnelly credit, despite the big task in front of him, he didn't quit, either through effort or dollars (that Weekend Mailer isn't cheap, y'all). He has driven hard to the end, but he came around the last turn with just too much ground to make up. His campaign has been talking up a late charge for the last few weeks now, but it needs the late charge to end all late charges. So, Wong's the prediction.

At-Large Council

Winners (in order, yes, I'm that bold): Dean Tran, Thomas Conry, Stephan Hay, Marcus DiNatale, Jay Cruz.

Why: Well, everyone likes Tran. He might not be everyone's top choice, but he seems like he's on everyone's top two or three or four. That's how you finish first in these things. Conry should be very strong. He might get caught by Hay and finish third to Hay's second, but for now, this seems about right.

I think DiNatale finds a way in. First, his name recognition will help. To say it doesn't is just silly. He's run a pretty good campaign, most notably an impressive performance in last week's debate. He might finish fifth instead of fourth -- maybe even third -- I think he's in the mix somewhere.

Cruz is a bit of a gamble in that fifth spot. He made a lot of waves with the dispatcher-police officer business, and turned off a lot of insiders. It wasn't his best moment. But it was a proactive moment, for better or worse. Also, based on the preliminary results, the electorate is looking for some change, and Cruz offers more change than some others on the ballot.

If Cruz is out, Annie DeMartino takes that spot. It's going to be close for DeMartino either way, like it was in 2005. But at the end of the day, I think voters are itching for change, and DeMartino gets lost in that wash a little bit. It's tough keeping her out of the top five, but there you go (Rachel, you may proceed with your launch sequence).

Rosemary Reynolds is in a similar position as DeMartino, but she's a non-incumbent former councilor looking for a way on. Considering, really, only spots four and five are probably in play, it's a tough nut to crack.

I really like Shaun Cormier a lot. He's a good guy who has worked hard and paid attention and probably deserves a better fate. But it's a tough, deep field, and he's going to probably have to take the loss. Hopefully he returns in two years. He and Patricia Carbone are two newcomers up against seven people who either are in office or have been in the past. Tough, tough nut to crack. If one of them end up top 5, it's the upset of the night.

Ward 1

Winner: Dave Clark

Why: Simply, Clark has put on a clinic in the last two years on how to be a ward councilor. Kevin Maynard wants his seat back, but Clark has given Ward 1 voters little reason -- perhaps no reason -- to vote against him.

Ward 4

Winner: Kevin Starr

Why: Starr and Steve Seney are locked in a pretty good battle in Ward 4 to take over for Ted DeSalvatore. This is a pretty tight race, but Starr gets the nod, if only because of the late news of Seney's business dealings and court dates, which have probably given voters pause right at the end.

Ward 5

Winner: Heads (or, Peter Allaire)

Why: Another tough one to figure, but I'm going with Allaire, and it might as well have been a coin toss. Honestly, no rhyme or reason for that one.

School Committee

Aw, hell with it. Here's two uninformed guesses. Why not at this point? Glenn Capone, Sally Cragin and John Chittick for the four-year seats. Although Bruce Marien might finish in front of Chittick. Why? Capone is a solid incumbent, Cragin is closely tied to Wong and her tidal wave, and Chittick has been running hard. I'll say James Reynolds for the two-year seat, but if you said Peter Stephens, I wouldn't argue.

There you go. Let's see how bad these are come tomorrow night. I'm guessing pretty bad.

Some Late-Game Pressure

The Donnelly campaign sent out a press release late this afternoon, once again talking taxes and Lisa Wong. You can check out a story at the Fitchburg Pride website.

Seeing how you mentioned the Pride, this is a good time for a little promo of this week's paper.

There's a "20 questions" feature highlighting both candidates, and it's pretty interesting. One favors Charles Barkley, the other Pearl S. Buck. Both are fans of FOX television series. One likes steaks on the grill, the other salmon. Check it out.

While you're there, both Donnelly and Wong give thoughts through op-ed pieces. There's a story on the first petitions at-large councilors would file if they win this fall. And a harbinger of the election results might be found at the Crocker School.

Finally, there's a sparkling "Hidden Gems" special section in the paper. It's time to leave self-promotion behind and move to self-congratualtions. The gems section is pretty stinking solid. Pick it up when you get a chance.

About Last Night

Let's get right down to it: Last night's mayoral debate was the chippiest of the bunch, as Lisa Wong spent much of the night either angrily claiming Tom Donnelly didn't have his fact straight, or defending her positions.

The story of last night was Wong's aggressive defense/angry response to Donnelly -- particularly on taxes and her work at the Fitchburg Redevelopment Authority. Until last night, Wong seemed to float above the fray and the occassional jab thrown her way. She never, for example, go too fired up in the past when Donnelly all but scoffed at her and Ted DeSalvatore as being unworthy to run for mayor.

But last night, Wong fired back, and she did it with fire and anger. She said he was flat wrong on most points regarding the FRA and her tax stance. Oddly, somehow, Donnelly managed to stay out of the muck last night. Sure, the Weekend Mailer (now officially capitalized in all references) and his tax charges started all this, but last night he wasn't the aggressor, really. Which was kind of odd.

An interesting moment last night came when Wong asked Donnelly if the tax issue -- and the Weekend Mailer -- were his ideas or his campaigns (although she called them something not-so-nice that had "hired" in it). Donnelly candidly admitted that his campaign advisors pushed him to open up on the tax issue.

(A brief break to note: Donnelly has been very honest -- even perhaps to his detriment -- during this campaign. It wasn't the best answer in his interest to say his advisors pushed him on taxes. He said last week, and again last night, that Wong did a very good giving info to the council when she was at the FRA. Give the guy credit for doing the right thing.)

Wong noted last night that a slip of the tax levy to a 2.25 increase and a change in the tax shift would have saved homeowners money (remember, Donnelly advocates no change in the shift and the full 2.5 percent increase to keep money coming in). After the debate, one of Donnelly's paid staffers cruised over to note Wong had never proposed such a thing before and said she was backpedalling.

Maybe. Consider this from Thursday's Sentinel. "Wong said she believes more discussion is needed on changing the shift from 137 percent to 136 percent and lowering the yearly 2.5 percent increase." Maybe that was the first time she threw it out there, but she did kind of, sort of, mention it before Thursday's debate.

Outside of Wong's demeanor last night (and I'm not sure it hurt her. It was just very noticeable), the other big thing last night was the clear differences between these two. The taxes are one. Wong's desire for fast-track permitting and Donnelly's anti stance are stark. Donnelly's assurance that job cuts or union renegotiations must ASAP, and Wong's long-term financial view are very different. And then their fundamental campaign message.

Think back to the summer, when the campaigning was easy and people weren't paying much attention. Donnelly talked about his knowledge of city government and the city in general. Now, he's the guardian at the fiscal gate, the one person who can truly do what it's going to take to get the city back on the fiscal rails.

More striking is Wong. Back in the summer, she was about as wonky as you could get. In an interview with the Pride before the preliminary, she was discussing her desire to figure out how much it costs to fill a pothole and then create a system that maximizes efficiencies to fill potholes, instead of using the current less organized system. Makes sense, no doubt, but you didn't hear any of that last night.

Assuming a Wong victory, this race was locked down for her somewhere between Sept. 13 and Sept. 20.

At the Sept. 13 debate, Wong was in her full "goals-oriented" glory. She muddled through that debate -- as did the other three candidates. A week later, at the Sept. 20 debate, she had shifted into the vision and hope candidate, and blew the doors off the joint. That shift didn't earn her the blowout preliminary win by itself, but it went a long way toward cementing the deal for her -- particularly with the core activists and observers who attended and watched carefully.

Last night, when she wasn't fending off questions about her work and her plans, she stuck to the vision and hope message. While Team Donnelly continues to murmur about a late charge, the sheer size of the deficit makes it a tough road back. Lisa Wong is likely four days away from being mayor-elect, and that vision and hope will have start becoming plans and changes to move the city forward.

Once More, with Feeling

Lisa Wong and Thomas Donnelly will meet in their fifth formal debate tonight -- on top of a handful of neighborhood forums, a number of speaking of engagement, and thousands of home visits -- in their last head-to-head showdown before Tuesday's election.

Say what you want about about the candidates, but there's no doubt these two have been very well vetted over the last six months. The issues have been poked and picked over endlessly, and the messages and bullet points of Donnelly and Wong are just about memorized.

That's a good thing. Make no doubt, the next mayor is going to have not only tough decisions to make, but tough decisions that are going to extremely important to the future of the city. Neither candidate will be able to say they eased into office.

So tonight it will be the last roundup. Wong fans will want her to look in control, confident, and visionary. Donnelly fans will want him to look experienced, prepared, and ready to get to work. Wong critics will want to pick at her inexperience and the general feeling that her talk doesn't match her intentions. Donnelly critics will want to define him as part of the problem and over his head. Really, at this point, doesn't that about cover it?

The debate kicks off at 6:30 at Fitchburg State College, and will be live on FATV. We're going to try to cover it live at the Fitchburg Pride website. We had problems at FSC last time, but have been told we should be clear for takeoff tonight. We'll update here when we're up and ready this evening.

So, join us, won't you, for the last big stage for the candidates before this thing goes to the voters. You've come this far, why stop now?

Why So Quiet?

There's an election in six days, and the buzz on all things political is way, way down. Why?

Here's some reasons:

The Red Sox won the World Series. The last two weeks of baseball have most certainly taken away attention from just about everything else. Not only is it the only thing everyone is talking about, but after a bunch of late, late nights, people aren't really ambitious with other things right now. That is over, obviously, but don't underestimate the distraction the Sox caused.

The mayor's race is over. While that might not necessarily be the case, most people think that way. And considering how much has been said about both candidates up to this point, people might be moving on, on this one. Here's a question: Will the preliminary turnout be higher than the general election? Probably not, but consider: There are probably some fringish Wong and Donnelly voters who won't show, because of the general feeling the race is over. How many DeSalvatore voters are inspired enough to vote for somebody else? Similarly, could this be closer than people expect (the general concensus is Wong in the mid- to high-60s)? Let's say the Wong voters get a little lazy -- not a ridiculous idea considering the preliminary blowout. Let's say Donnelly's team generates some more votes. Will be it be close? I don't know, but the point is Wong needs to keep her base motivated over the last six days and not let the big numbers slow things down.

There' s zero excitement in the City Council races. The ward races are interesting: Allaire and Solomito are two solid options in Ward 5. Kevin Starr and Steve Seney are evenly-matched in Ward 4. Dave Clark is fending off the former Ward 1 councilor Kevin Maynard. The at-large race offers a deep field with four incumbents, a ward councilor looking to make the leap to at-large, a former city councilor looking to return, and a School Committee member on the ballot.

Why does no one care?

For starters, few of the candidates have generated much emotion or excitement. I think most people like Dean Tran very much, and I think he cruises into the top two or so next week. But beyond Tran, there are few councilors that most people naturally gravitate toward. I think, from what I hear, that Conry and Hay are in. A lot of folks are still livid at Jay Cruz, mostly on the dispatcher issue, and wonder if he has the goods. Annie DeMartino is considered -- as seemingly always -- on the bubble.

The field is deep, but lacks energy and drama. Getting a handle on nine candidates is a bit difficult, leading to more voter disinterest -- sometimes the big chores get neglected. This is an important race, and one that will go as far in shaping the future the city as the mayor's race, but it has created zero interest.

So, if you're up for it, discuss here. Why is interest so thin? Hell, who's going to win? I'm guessing it's going to be fairly quiet. It's going to be a weird year where the preliminary is the star and the general election plays backup. Just weird.

Campaign Finance Reports in

The candidates for local office filed their campaign finance report today, eight days before the general election.

Tom Donnelly spent nearly $20,000 since mid-September, much of it on printing and advertising. Lisa Wong spent about $7,000, and has a whopping $12,000 on hand if she needs it down the homestretch (by contrast, Donnelly has about $1,800).

City council candidates also filed reports today. To read up on it all, check out the Fitchburg Pride website. Notably, even though he was supposed to, Ted DeSalvatore did not file a report.

In the Mail

Sadly, I didn't get the mail others did today, but to get caught up on the most recent Tom Donnelly mailer, check out the latter-day Lincoln at Hello Fitchburg.

The mailer focuses on property taxes, once again tying foreclosures to high property taxes. This mailer, of course, comes two days after Donnelly said he hadn't heard of a foreclosure due to not paying taxes. Also, check out this little nugget:

"In fact, (Donnelly) voted against raising your taxes at the October 9th City Council Meeting."

That, of course, is true. What also is true: Donnelly has said the city must increase the property tax levy the full 2.5 percent. What also is true: Donnelly has voted for the full 2.5 increase every year as a city councilor.

Fair enough for Donnelly to raise this as an issue, and in fact, he's right: Lisa Wong's desire to shift the property tax balance would increase residential property taxes. And, Donnelly has been pretty strident about not wanting an override. And he's right again, the city needs to keep up the 2.5 percent increases as a matter of fiscal policy.

That said, Donnelly's stance as the "anti-tax" candidate would go down a lot easier if he had, say Dean Tran's experience of proposing an increase of less than 2.5 percent -- or if he had voted for Tran's measure. For another take on this one, check out the Unicow.

About Last Night

Last night's mayoral debate was a fairly even performance between the two candidates. It wasn't Lisa Wong's best performance, but it was Tom Donnelly's.

Donnelly needed an absolute victory, and he didn't get it. His supporters seem energized and optimistic, though, feeling like there's some momentum building in the homestretch. That might be some campaign spin, but it was spin that wasn't being spun a few weeks ago. But a nice victory would have helped that feeling of momentum.

On the issues, there was little new ground tread, but there were a few interesting tidbits. Wong's desire to improve school safety immediately was somewhat eye-opening. Considering the beating they've taken lately, both candidates defended enterprise funds as viable options. Both were a little confused as to whether a repeal of tax protection for Verizon would mean increased tax levy for the city, or only a reshuffling.

Also interesting: Donnelly saying property taxes have nothing to do with foreclosures. As consistent readers know, Donnelly held a property-tax event outside a house being auctioned off. Kind of strange. He said, however, that holding the line on property taxes was the point, and illustrates the priority of the city to do that.

Throughout the campaign, Donnelly has shown a certain detachment toward the schools. That came through again when a school question about a specific early priority (Wong answered school safety) sent Donnelly scurrying into his prepared statements on schools. As he read through it, he stumbled on technology as an area for early intervention, but it reinforced the feeling that he doesn't a firm grasp on the school system, and relies on that standby answer (which we've pretty much heard before). Considering it's about half the city's budget, it's a weak spot that hasn't strengthened much in recent months.

Also, interesting Donnelly was trumpeting Destare last night (and, according to The Unicow, hanging out there last night). He's welcomed Destare to the city, but has also dismissed it as a "wine bar."

You have to wonder how the fiscal conservatives feel about Wong's stronger affinity for a meal's tax. Donnelly didn't outright reject it, but came pretty close. Wong said she wants to study it, but the feeling I got was she thinks it might be a good idea. Chances are current restaurant owners aren't going to love that one.

Donnelly had two choices last night: Give a spirited, honest effort, go absolutely bombastically negative. He stayed true to himself and gave a spirited, honest effort. And it was a good one. He needed a win last night, but didn't get it. But he didn't lose, either. For him, it was a good, strong night. He gets one more chance next Thursday. To have a chance of winning, he needs to do even better then, but he's been getting better as the debates have gone on. If he is building momentum as his campaign claims, last night was a good one for Donnelly.

No More Turns

The horserace that is this election cycle has left the final turn and is in the homestretch. The final kick starts tonight, when the mayoral candidates meet for a little hot debate action.

The debate is sponsored by the Fitchburg Pride, FATV, and AM 1280 "The Blend." The Pride will have live coverage on its website, barring any kind of technical difficulties. The debate will be aired live on FATV and on "The Blend."

And don't worry, the 7 p.m. start time and 60-minute timeframe means there is plenty of time to watch, and then get your Sox on (more on that in a minute, I think).

But, what to expect tonight? The last time Lisa Wong and Tom Donnelly met, it was Oct. 1. Wong was flush with a big victory, and Donnelly was trying to refind his footing after the surprising preliminary election results.

Almost four weeks later, now what? The big buzz has kind of been taken out of this race. While the candidates are still grinding away with door-knocking, standouts and appearances, much of the big publicity -- and water-cooler talk -- has shriveled up. A big lead can do that. Throw in an pretty interesting at-large council race, and attention has started to divide up and down the ballot.

But, tonight, the spotlight gets turned back on the top-of-the-ballot race. So, who does what tonight (warning, golf analogies ahead)?

For Wong, another confident, fairly strong performance is the obvious answer. A month, we were begging a candidate to step up in the last debate before the preliminary and go for the green. Tonight, Wong probably only needs to keep it in the fairway and get on the green in regulation. If she makes a birdie or two, all the better for her. She needs to avoid bogies.

For Donnelly, he needs to shoot for the pin. He can't layup on the par-5s. He needs to put the pressure on early and keep the pressure on. He needs to try to fluster Wong, move the debate to his ground, and keep hammering. He can't sit back. He can't. He'll need to question everything she says, and offer a smart alternative. Of the three debate performances I've seen, he hasn't been particularly outstanding in any of them. He's even said in debates he's not the best debater or speaker. Tonight, he's going to have to be.

It's not a make-or-break night for Donnelly, but it's a night where he can try to gain some momentum, and get people thinking he's still in this race. The simple math from the preliminary election means he's running from behind, and he won't have many opportunities to gain ground in a hurry. Tonight, though, can be one of those nights when he can, if he makes it happen. That will be the question of the night.

------

Actually, the question of the night might be, can Curt Schilling be any good tonight? The Sox obviously got off to a good start last night, but going to Colorado 2-0 would be huge. For the last four days, the Rockies have heard they don't have a chance in this series. Last night went a long way to making that talk seem like reality. Another win tonight would make for a looooong plane ride back to Denver after tonight's game.

Simply, the National League is a lot worse than the American League. Also, Colorado got here by beating a lucky-as-hell Phillies team that wasn't very good, and an Arizona team that was only marginally better. Who would you rather take, Cleveland or Arizona? Thought so.

That said, let's not start making parade plans just yet. Remember 1985? In the Memorial Day Massacre, the Celtics killed the Lakers, absolutely killed them, by 30 in Game One (Scott Wedman went 11-for-11 that game, I believe), and then lost the series, 4-2.

Good start, but let's see what happens tonight.

Donnelly Hammers away on Tax Rate

Tom Donnelly argued again today that the city should maintain its split tax rate in order to protect homeowners. However, Donnelly also said the city should continue to raise the tax levy the full 2.5 percent each year. Donnelly held a press conference outside a home that had been foreclosed and is being auctioned off today to hammer home his message. To read more about all of it, check out the Fitchburg Pride website.

What Donnelly's Doing Right

(First, I knew I had forgotten something in yesterday's wrapup post: The Globe's story on Jane Swift on Sunday. Why do we care? A lot of people think Swift will run for Congress when John Olver finally hangs 'em up. Swift has been notoriously media-shy since she left office in 2003, and now she agrees to a front-pager in El Globo? You have to wonder what her motivation is, and what's up with Olver. He's on the Appropriations Committee, so you'd think he'd want to stay. But the "Why now?" question on this story shouldn't be forgotten.)

A few caveats, which will likely take away from the rest of this post:

The Globe story yesterday on the mayor's race (well, Lisa Wong), is getting excellent traction for Wong. Boston Magazine's Boston Daily Blog checks in on the race through El Globo, and focuses on wine bars for some reason. Huh. Also, and perhaps more amazingly, the Wong story is run in the International Herald Tribune (it's a reprint of the Globe article, but if you need to see it, it's here). Um, the International Herald Tribune? Holy cow. I wish Donnelly had been a little more positive about the city for a world-wide audience. But who knew?

In short, Wong's candidacy has broadened the city's scope. Suddenly, the Boston Globe cares -- at least a little bit. The story is interesting enough to grab those self-proclaimed smarties at Boston Maggie, and the IHT picks up the story. Can she do the same as mayor if elected?

OK, on with the show:

I'm not sure Tom Donnelly's moves over the last week will gain him a ton of votes, and they certainly aren't overwhelmingly damning evidence that Lisa Wong is in over her head if elected, but maybe it was the right thing to do -- particularly in the long term.

Consider:

• Donnelly has owned the tenor and message of the campaign over the last week. He has gotten two hits out of the dailies and reframed the campaign into a debate about experience. Is it a winning play? I don't know, but you'd have to think this is the ground where the Donnelly campaign -- for better or worse -- thinks it has an advantage.
• They threw at least a small curveball into the otherwise batting-practice fastball that was the Globe story. While Camp Wong should be head-over-heels with that one, if Donnelly had taken a higher or less-combative road, it would have been even more glowing of Wong.
• Wong's distracted. At least when she's dealing with the media, Wong isn't talking vision, the future and better days ahead. She's explaining her work and defending her past. She says she's happy to do it because she's proud of her record, but she's off message. Remember, the Telegram story came out last Friday, so Wong was interviewed no later than Thursday. It's been almost a week. She's done a good job talking about this, but it's a distraction.

None of the last week will win Donnelly the election. Let's say, generously, this whole thing gains Donnelly 200 votes. Hell, let's be very generous and give him 500 votes -- and that's a Christmas and birthday present combined. That means he still needs to find 1,700 votes. It's still an uphill effort for him.

So, short-term, the benefits might be marginal. But perhaps this has created opportunity for Donnelly. Considering Wong's relatively short work history and zero political history, there isn't fertile ground for digging more dirt like this. So it's Donnelly to step into the sliver of daylight he's created and find a way to build on this. A very tall task.

Donnelly has moved the campaign to his preferred area, he has Wong distracted and maybe a bit off-balance. But he needs to build off this, and do it soon. He needs to come up with Act II right now, in order to take advantage of whatever opportunity this has created.

This issue is a lot more jab than knockout punch, but it has been a decent jab. Now, Donnelly needs to find a combination that works to get Wong on the ropes. Can he do it is the question, and it's the question of now, not next week. He can't let whatever momentum he's generated peter out.

What's next? Who knows. He needs to find another good media hit. His Sentinel feature on Sunday kind of got lost in the noise. The "majority of councilors support Donnelly" on Monday doesn't exactly bolster his image as a change candidate, considering the councilors supporting him. Can he go more negative? It hasn't worked too well for him so far, partly because he usually comes off as condescending and arrogant when he does, and partly because voters don't appear to want to hear it.

Donnelly has spent the two weeks since the preliminary painting a picture of the city on the verge of final financial doom and positioning himself as the person to handle the daunting problems. Maybe he's thinking Wong's support isn't very strong, and voters will have second thoughts between now and Nov. 6. If so, he's at least given them something to think about in the next four weeks, but it wasn't a silver bullet, and if he's going to turn those second thoughts his way, he'll need to come back with something to advance whatever ground he's gained in the last week.

A Few Things

Busy as hell, but I thinks worth pointing out:

If you're a Wong fan, you can't help but love the cover of today's Globe. Donnelly gets a chance to quickly run through his criticisms and throw out the surgeon analogy again, but this is a pretty pro-Wong story. Her campaign should be pleased with that one.

On the other hand, Donnelly's City Council support gets an airing in the Sentinel today. It's a source of strength for him, but doesn't help portray him as a change candidate, particularly when you look at the list of old-school councilors supporting him. However, if those organizations get behind Donnelly hard, it can help make up some of the ground he needs to cover. But the results of the preliminary make you wonder if a lineup of councilors will woo newer voters.

Also, the Sentinel came in with its story on the FRA/Women's Institute stuff on Sunday, if you missed it. It's pretty similar to the Telegram story from Friday (linked in Friday's post). It' s not a momentum-turner, in my view. Donnelly isn't suggesting misuse, abuse, or illegal activity, just questioning some of her decisions and how she promotes her work. He's getting some good ink out of it, though. Maybe if he wears away at it over the next four weeks, he can turn some these vague perceptions into a sudden reality. Or maybe not. But he's got to throw deep, so why not?

The News of the Day

If you haven't seen it yet, you'll probably want to read this (link fixed). It certainly creates a new dynamic in the campaign.

This story is being shopped around, and it creates a tougher tone to this campaign. Donnelly's quotes are certainly pointed. Will it work?

The question is, is this damning evidence of abuse or poor management by Wong? Based on early comments here, reaction is along party (or candidate) lines. Wong supporters think it's another example of Donnelly being an old-school bully. Donnelly supporters think it's about time Wong got hers for not exactly being honest about her work experience.

Another question: Is this is a one-time hit from Donnelly, or does it become part of his campaign. Will he be hammering her on this for the next four-plus weeks? If so, it could get ugly the rest of the way.

Read the story, and figure out how you feel about it. I think this one leaves space to see how you feel about it. Try not to be super-partisan.

About Last Night

First things first: I wasn't particularly enthralled with last night's debate performances. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that this was the third meeting of these two in less than three weeks. Throw in other interviews and meetings with these guys, and I felt like I heard it almost all before. Probably because I had.

That said, there were some interesting parts, particularly the maneuvering by Tom Donnelly.

I thought Donnelly gave his best performance of the three debates. I'm not sure he fought to a draw last night, but he narrowed the huge gap between him and Lisa Wong in the Sept. 20 debate, at least a little bit.

His opening statement was pretty interesting. The quadruple bypass analogy, while a bit strained and perhaps too long, certainly made his point. It's a move from 45-35-25-1 to experience, a point he probably should have been making a few months ago. His biggest problem with the experience card is that he is arguing on one hand he has the experience and finances are the city's biggest problem, but on the other hand says the council doesn't have real financial input. If he can finesse that, he can stick with this message the rest of the way.

Perhaps the most interesting part of last night was Donnelly's gloomier outlook of the city. He started the night by saying the city was on the path to receivership. Maybe right, maybe not, but not something he was saying regularly before. He also put every city employee on notice last night, saying layoffs were a given in January. Again, he might be right. But he's clearly trying to cast the situation as poor, and in need of an experience hand -- which he just so happens to provide.

Wong continued with her looking forward plans for the city, and rolled out "goals" and "goal oriented" last night, which was fun. It's a quite a contrast between her "better days are ahead" stand and Donnelly's "we're in big trouble right now" general message. Voters can't say they don't have a choice.

A couple of questions last night, in particular, stand out. On fast-track permitting, both threw up some caution signs, but both talked about fast-track permitting in general. They didn't talk specifics of Mylott's expected plan, which should be given to the council later this fall. It's a fringe issue, but they both seemed to be lacking on the details. Donnelly, in particular, when he said Devens "probably has" a fast-track process (it's what that area's redevelopment is based on), threw up some question marks.

The other one was on Unitil. Donnelly gave a fantastically honest answer when he said there's not much the mayor, state representative or state senator can really do with Unitil. He's right. But Wong's answer about finding new energy sources and weaning the city off Unitil was the better answer. It was forward-looking and least offered an option or two. It might not have been as realistic than Donnelly's, though.

Finally, the best answer of the night might have been Donnelly's, comparing Fitchburg to Leominster. He noted that while Leominster has $5 million in free cash, it was lacking some things Fitchburg has, like a new high school and fire station, a police station that isn't falling apart, the college, a civic center, and a few other things. He sort of lost a little steam when he said, "$5 million isn't all it's cracked up to be," but it was nice to hear the chronic complaining about Leominster turned on its ear.

So, no real fireworks last night, but a couple of interesting moments. Five weeks from today, it's all over.

On Tonight

Zip on over to the Fitchburg Pride website to see a story on tonight's fun and games.

Quickie analysis: A lot of old ground was rewalked tonight. Maybe I've heard this too many times now, but it seemed kind of stale at times.

There were some highlights -- and lowlights -- but that's for tomorrow. For now, read the Pride web story, get a good night's sleep and have a hearty breakfast in the morning. We'll chat then.

Back in the Saddle Again

It's been only six days since the preliminary election, but the two remaining mayoral candidates face off again tonight.

The debate is sponsored by the Fitchburg Exchange Club, and is at Fitchburg High School. Game time is 7 p.m., and it's live on FATV. Panelists include Chuck Morse from AM 1280 "The Blend," Bill Gates from FATV, and your's truly from the Fitchburg Pride.

While there's only five weeks left before the election, it's still kind of a long time for tonight to have any real impact in the long term. However, it will likely set the tone for the rest of the way, so let's try to figure this out.

Does Wong try to keep the pressure on and put in a performance like a few weeks ago, or does she play it a bit more conservative and try to maintain her status? She set a high bar in the debate a few weeks ago, so anything short of that will be a letdown in some ways. But she doesn't need that kind of performance again.

She has the advantage in votes and the advantage in past debate performances. She can sort of dictate her style and goals and not really worry, unless she throws in a clunker. But you have to think that won't happen.

For Donnelly, the stakes are much higher. He needs to prove tonight that he's still viable. He needs to move off the 45-35-25-1 message. He said last Tuesday night he knows the city wants change, and that he wants change. Tonight, he needs to start doing that. He won't be able to make all of that change ground up tonight, but he needs to start now if he has any chance of getting the job done by Nov. 6.

The question is, how does he do it? He's been fairly even-keeled (to put it somewhat generously) in previous debates. He needs to show some fire tonight. He's been pretty critical of Wong in past debates, but it's been wrapped in a pretty condescending, how-dare-you veneer so far. He needs to be on her case, but not in the dismissive way he has been. He needs to come up with some specifics on how he wants to do things, and for the love of God, he needs to make it seem like he's done something, anything, as a council that's fostered change.

It's certainly not the high stakes of the last two debates, but it's the first time these two get the stage for themselves. I'd expect Wong to keep on as she has been in recent weeks. The biggest thing will be seeing how Donnelly comes out and begins his resurrection effort.

About Last Night

A few more thoughts on yesterday:

I'm pretty sure no one saw this coming. Anyone out there honestly believe Lisa Wong was going to roll up 3,000 votes? Hell, most people thought that would be the total turnout. I'll admit my prediction (see Monday's post) was total garbage. In my weak defense, I didn't talk to one person who said, "Hey, Wong is going to kill these guys." Some folks thought she might have been first, and probably just as many thought she'd be third. No one saw this coming.

If I'm an at-large councilor, I'm a little more nervous this morning. Traditionally, when the electorate chooses to make a big change in one office (like, oh, the Mayor's Office), it tends to leave the rest alone. But considering the giant mandate for change tomorrow, at-large councilors might want to be looking over their shoulders a little bit.

And if I'm an at-large councilor, I'm trying to figure out how to answer questions about the city's finances. Tom Donnelly's "It's not our fault" answer isn't flying.

Give Wong all the credit in the world, she has run a smart and effective campaign. She has the makings of a very good mayor. But she's not a great candidate. She's not an electric speaker, she can get caught up in the minutae of an issue, and she isn't overly engaging. She's not Deval Patrick, who used his sheer force of charisma to get into the Governor's Office. My point? She didn't win all those votes last night because people are in starry-eyed wonder. She won all those votes because the electorate is fed up with the city's financial situation. They were looking for someone they think can bring not just change, but effective change. She gave the best answer to the biggest question in the campaign.

And that was one of Ted DeSalvatore's biggest campaign problems. He was stumping on the wrong issue. Crime is one of the city's top issues, no question. But it's not Number One. Not this year. In some neighborhoods, in some corners, it is. But universally, finances are the key this year. Throw in some questions about his background and previous statements, and his turned out to be an uphill climb. He turned into cannon fodder for the city's bloggers (you know what I mean), that hammered away at his weak spots and dug up information that when read was very damaging. For some reason, Ted and the campaign didn't fight the bloggers' charges. Maybe they were true. Maybe they didn't want to bring additional attention and perhaps some credibility to blogs that are read by dozens, maybe just a few hundred, people. But that stuff sat out there, unchallenged. In the closing days of the campaign, a mass e-mail made the rounds (including to a large number of teachers) that detailed all of that stuff. The attacks were there, but how many votes did that change? 500? That's how many more he needed. What he needed even more was a better focus on finances.

Now Donnelly stands alone against Wong. I figured that sentence would be the other way around before yesterday. He said last night he really is for change, big change. It sounded very close to the Italian Stallion's speech at the end of "Rocky IV." It's going to be a tall, tall order for Donnelly to make himself the change candidate. He spent the last month hammering away at his long-time creditials in the city. At times he came across as borderline insulted that DeSalvatore and Wong -- two people who didn't live in the city less than a decade ago -- had the sheer gall to run against him. He hasn't sounded like a change candidate.

More importantly in yesterday's aftermath, he didn't answer the financial question very well. He's not alone. Other councilors bristle when they hear they hold responsibility for the city's financial situation. But they do. It is a 50-50 split with the mayor? Probably not. But what is it? 60-40? 66-33? 75-25? I'd say that 2-1 area is about right. But Donnelly wanted none of it. In fact, he said outright he accepts none of it. Other councilors feel the same way, and if you watch their comments at meetings, they are pushing as much as possible on the mayor. But voters don't want to hear that. Dan Mylott might not be forthcoming with timely information, but voters don't want to hear that. They want to hear from Donnelly why, after eight years on the council, he hasn't done more. It didn't help when he would take no blame, and then DeSalvatore would follow right behind at debates and acknowledge that more should have been done. The financial issue is fully Wong's property right now. How Donnelly gets some of that real estate back might be an unanswerable question.

So, what next? Honestly, who knows. Conventional wisdom says Wong has a huge advantage. Or more accurately, Donnelly is at a huge disadvantage. He was 2,200 votes back last night. Where does he pick those up? Turnout was way high yesterday at about 25 percent. That would be good for a November municipal election. So, will turnout be higher in November, or did everyone who's coming out come out yesterday? If there's more, how many? Certainly, Wong's performance yesterday only won her more votes. People love a winner, and she's a clear winner. Even if she doesn't pick up one more vote, Donnelly needs to find 2,200 more people to vote for him. Yikes. Wong will get a second inspection now, Donnelly needs to put the heat on early and often, and try to raise questions. And then hope for a mini-miracle.

But the thing is, after yesterday, it might be time to rip up the traditional assumptions. A neophyte not only won, but she destroyed a guy who has run five citywide elections in the last 10 years. In the type of election where long-time base and organization is usually the path to victory, a newcomer managed to pull together a campaign in five months and obliterate the competition. One thing is for sure: The next 41 days won't be a cakewalk for Wong. She'll be under the campaign microscope, and she'll be getting it from all sides -- including, likely, DeSalvatore backers, who are convinced Wong was targeting their guy throughout. She certainly has a big advantage going into Nov. 6, but as the voters showed yesterday, nothing should be taken for granted now.

About Tonight

The drumbeat started when snow was still on the ground. Throughout the city, you heard it over and over again.

"It's time for change."

Sometimes it was coming from then-fledgling candidate Ted DeSalvatore, sometimes it was coming from a frustrated resident, sometimes it was coming from city councilors, frustrated with incumbent Mayor Dan Mylott.

Today, it came from the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for changed when they gave Lisa Wong over 60 percent of the vote in the preliminary election.

The result -- and the turnout -- are nothing short of a surprise. A political neophyte, Wong was putting her name on the ballot for the first time. She was going up against an old-school, long-time resident and insider in Councilor Thomas Donnelly, and an energetic, oxygen-sucking force of nature in DeSalvatore, who always managed to stay in the spotlight.

But for many voters, worn out by the constant financial problems and hoping for a glimmer of change, went with the 27-year-old self-described economist. She struggled to find a mix of wonkish capability and enthusiastic visionary, but found the perfect combination last Thursday. Her debate performance was energizing and embracing, but it also gave a glimpse into Wong and her campaign.

She was the only candidate to pack the room, a sign of organization and understanding how having a crowd cheering you on can help momentum. She asked Donnelly a question that she so knew the answer, she read a prepared rebuttal -- pitch-perfect because Donnelly had given the answer she knew was coming. It showed preparation and smarts. When asked about job loss detailed in a Mass Inc. report, she not only said she's work to bring jobs back, but quoted numbers out of the report. Any other candidates able to do that?

In the glow of victory, Wong is now a great candidate. After that debate performance she was a good one. Before that she was an OK one.

Now, the surprise of the primary must show she can run from the lead. She was able to sneak up on people, who assumed the Donnelly machine and his base would get him pretty far. It got him to the general election, but he has a large challenge ahead.

Now, it will be time for the thorough inspection of Wong. Donnelly, already hard-charging against her, will likely increase the noise. Let's compare her to Matt Leinart: A stud college football player who drops in the draft after the little potential issues get nit-picked at. She will be nit-picked considerably over the next 42 days.

But today wasn't so much about Wong as it was the voters. As the spring went on and summer dragged on, the financial problems mounted. Throughout, the buzz for change turned into a shout, finally heard today. Wong ran a good campaign, but this was a result fueled by a desire for a new face in City Hall.

For DeSalvatore, today was the end to a run that was one of the more dramatic you're going to see. His heated rhetoric grabbed a solid base, but he also turned off a number of voters. He may have tried to be an everyman candidate, but his aggressive stand wasn't for every voter. He brought passion to the campaign, but his focus on crime wasn't an issue for many voters, who were focused on finances. If he ran that campaign in Ward 4, he wins going away. Citywide, however, voters needed something different. DeSalvatore experienced a number of beautiful ups, but was vexed by his self-made downs. In the last few months, he was an electronic media punching bag, as blogs popped up around the city working against him. In the end, he offered change, but not the right kind of change.

So, can Donnelly make up the gap in the next six months? He needs to pick up over 2,000 votes -- certainly the largest political challenge he has ever faced. While he advocated change tonight, he ran his preliminary campaign as the steady old guard. It will be difficult for him to change course now. After months of neglecting responsibility for the city's financial issues, he must find a way to embrace some of it while trying to offer changes for the future.

Wong must now maintain the discussion she started with voters this summer. They most certainly are listening. She'll have to adjust to a hotter spotlight, and find a way to stay a step ahead of the sligns and arrows coming her way.

She has the ultimate advantage. The drumbeat of change claimed Mylott over the summer, when he bowed out of the election. The orchestra of change today seriously wounded Donnelly. Lisa Wong holds that orchestra's baton, and her challenge now is to keep the music playing until Nov. 6.

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.