Confusion in Boston Campaign 2013

Come election day, Sept. 24, I may not talk politics from 6 AM until 8 PM. As a warden at a Boston poll, I know the rules, including no political talk in the building from setup time.

Meanwhile though, I am just one of many, many that voters try to squeeze mind-settling sureness from. Last night, for example, as many adults as there are mayoral candidates were at a church dinner. Sure, Syria was a topic, but the mayor's race was always in the air. Because of my political blog and podcast, people asked. As well they should have.

I wish I had an easy, confident answer. Pericles knows, I'm as big a believer in democracy as I am in public education. I have researched the devil out of this, as in reading all the news, attending stump speeches and kickoffs, going to or watching fora, interviewing numerous candidates at Left Ahead, analyzing the candidates' campaign sights, grilling those who show up on the stoop, and reading all the lit in the mail or attached to the banister by rubber band.

I am a high-information voter, for mayoral, at-large Council, and district Council races. I still feel like the old man in Moonstruck — I'm confused.

---

---

12 for Mayor, 19 for At-Large, 8 for D5

We have lived in Boston for 34 years, yet only had three mayors. The last serious election, and the last one with this kind of scrum, was 30 years ago. Larry DiCara, who ran in that race, just talked about it with Left Ahead this week.

The clear consensus of people I have spoken with who do not live in Boston is how wonderful it is to have 1) such a wide choice and 2) so many strong candidates. Also certainly in view of the impotent GOP here in MA, where their real base of fiscally and socially conservative pols are hidden in the Democratic party where they can get elected and reelected, having a choice of people you could live with in this or that office is a little d democratic boon.

Yet again, like many voters, even we high-information ones, I am confused. It reminds me of the elders who sometimes hail me in a Stop & Shop or Roche Bros. store. It's usually in the cereal aisle, 100 or more feet of boxed choices from ankle height to above our heads. Typically, the submissive plaint is, "Can you help me find the Kellogg's Corn Flakes? All I want is corn flakes." Choice can overwhelm.

Hard to Pare

Strangely enough, only three mayoral candidates are easy to dismiss out of hand.

• David Wyatt is a bumbling failed school teacher (unsuccessfully sought reinstatement). He really isn't campaigning, rarely show to events, and when pressed at the only televised forum, was forced to speak only to say he was a Republican and pro-life, and that people like him needed representation.
• "Brother" Charles Clemons is known in the African-American communities for his TOUCH radio. He has been running a vanity campaign, apparently for the publicity and maybe to say later that he tried, he ran. 
• Charles Yancey is by some measures the dean of the City Council, at least he has been there for 30 years as a district Councilor. You'd hardly know he was in the hunt for Mayor, his district seat is secure. He'll be skunked in the prelim for Mayor and sail to reelection in D4 over three relatively unknown and unproven opponents.

That still leaves nine players. In the few polls, no one has a runaway lead and most are within the margin of poll error.

My Groupings

Among the remaining high-competence/strong-résumé candidates, they break into several, sometimes overlapping groupings.

• Existing, respected Councilors — Rob Consalvo, Michael Ross, John Connolly, and Felix Arroyo. None of these is running also for his Council seat reelection. On one hand, that's a shame; they're all very good at the job, and their replacements will take time to get with the program, if they are ever as good. On the other hand, having two new district and two new at-large Councilors out of 13 could be a great infusion of enthusiasm and ideas.
• Really smart visionaries. Ross and Bill Walczak are unquestionably the brightest in the race. Each promises a dramatically different Boston. Ross aims for a much more responsive and open, and technologically based government. Walczak claims to be the magician, a CEO who sees the big problems and fixes them. They have the huge, maybe insurmountable problem of articulating a broad vision instead of staying at plain-folk level.
• Nominal outsiders. Charlotte Golar Richie, Walczak, and John Barros can lay claim to being non-pols. That's misleading though. She has been a long-time mid-level functionary in both Mayor Menino and Gov. Patrick's administrations. Walczak, as head of a huge health center and then a hospital, and Barros, as long-time school-board member, are politicians in reality.
• Focused candidates. Connolly and Dan Conley have specialties. While both have platform planks beyond their big issue, Connolly is identified with education and Conley with public safety. They risk being marginalized as not being generalists as the current beloved Mayor is.
• Minority candidates. There could be many variations on first here. Yancey, Golar Richie, Barros, and Clemons (and Wyatt) could be the first black Mayor. Golar Richie could be the first woman, Arroyo could be the first Latino. You might also consider that Ross could be the first Jewish Mayor here.
• Union guys. Marty Walsh hit several sweet spots. He's strongly identified as a union official, he's Irish-American, and he's a Dotrat (native of the Dorchester neighborhood). Arroyo was a long-time organizer for the service workers, but unions have almost entirely rallied to Walsh (the powerful teachers' union has not endorsed). 

Other than many unions backing Walsh, the "natural" constituencies have not done the birds-of-a-feather thing. Black Bostonians have not flocked to a single African-American candidate. While various Councilors have pretty good support on their home turf, other than Consalvo owning Hyde Park, neighborhoods are muddled. Walczak, Barros, Walsh, Golar Richie, Clemons and Yancey, for example are Dorchester residents and each known for active work there. Dot is huge in population and geography. A more pitched and perhaps more decisive split is among Connolly and Conley from West Roxbury. That heavy-voting neighborhood has to choose between two accomplished white, Irish lawyer guys.

For the wild card, Arroyo is a recent Jamaica Plain resident but spent almost all his life in Hyde Park after early years in the South End. He is also remarkable for a few reasons beyond being the Latino in the race. He is very personable and has high favorables. He's good looking, as is his wife; that never hurts. The thousands of blue-collar service workers adore him as well. Yet, he hasn't pulled in the money and endorsements many of us figured would come easily to him.

Criteria

In a campaign as complex as this preliminary, voters don't know where the corn flakes are, that is, how to find the candidate and even what basis to perform triage.

Disclaimers: Consalvo has been my Councilor for nearly five years, has performed constituent services for me, and I know him pretty well. In fact, I know many of the candidates, via this blog, as well as guests on Left Ahead (look down the archives to hear them in their own words). Connolly and I have talked education on and off for years. Ross has likewise discussed various aspects of government, and of our shared interest in cycling. Likewise, Arroyo and I overlap in JP and are very comfortable chatting face to face. Perhaps this choice is so difficult for me because I know, respect and like so many of the candidates.

Many voters have told me they are wondering who has the greatest chance of winning the preliminary and consider that a major criterion. Others go civically abstract, as in imaging each as Mayor; who'd be the best long-term?

At the voting stand, those criteria may be no more solid than picking Ross or Arroyo because they are pretty or any of the existing Councilors because they performed good constituent services or anyone who remembered your name after meeting you once.

Numerous of the candidates have told me directly that shoe leather wins this preliminary. That is, as Tom Menino did 20 years ago, meeting and greeting the most voters, and being on the porch as well as in the moment with each, will make the difference. Both local major dailies have run articles suggesting as much this time. Maybe or that would be media laziness for hedging bets.

If you use the national-election standards, it would be fund raising and the resulting ability to buy staff and pay for ads. Endorsements don't seem to do it at any political level. Nationwide though, money talks, and loudly, in campaigns. Yet, nearly everyone here seems to have enough (again, except for Wyatt who may have under $100 and no drive to get a single vote). I know I have gotten visits and calls from the candidates, as well as mailers and literature left while we're away.

The advertising in this campaign doesn't seem all that pervasive or impressive. I look at and listen to all I can find. Ross' are OK and fun, but only Consalvo has simultaneously sincere and fun ones. Plus, of the 12 only Consalvo has a memorable slogan (All in for Boston); you'd think they would have spent two hours each coming up with a killer catchphrase.

Regardless, I'll endorse Monday or Tuesday for the preliminary. I totally understand why a third of the voters polled say they can't make up their minds.

Mayor Planks to Stand On

Yesterday, I put out a mega-table comparing websites of the 12 candidates for Boston Mayor. It probably comprises too many data points and subjective assessments. I went wild as well as there being a full dozen.

Today, I get down to a subset with expanded commentary of what many of us wonks consider the real stuff — platform and planks. If you go to a candidate's site, do you get a real sense of that person as mayor would try to accomplish?

If you looked at the table here or on BlueMassGroup, you already know that only two of the candidates in my assessment really put out a platform. One of those has a web design that stymies finding the good stuff.

Here again are the candidates, but with platform info and my opinion only. Click on a candidate's last name to check the site yourself.

• Felix Arroyo — Fairly easy to find under the VISION OF BOSTON tab. Then choose 1 of 15 categories. Each has detailed list of goals, but no specifics on achieving them. 
• John Barros — Easy to find under John's Policy Vision. Then click 1 of 5 categories. These are broad and vague, as in "Providing the resources that Boston schools need according to their students' the level of need."
• Charles Clemons — Easy to find under the Issues tab. A plus includes several concrete proposals to help the elderly poor. All else is very vague, as in "School committee reform" and "Firm believer in community policing — the public and police working together."
• Dan Conley — Easy to find under Issues tab. Then choose 1 of 7 categories. His are by are the most complete, detailed, specific, well-thought-through proposals, goals and methods.
• John Connolly — Easy to find under IDEAS. They go far beyond the stereotype of him as an education-only candidate. All 12 categories are on one page. They are mixed, some overly general "recruiting anchor companies across all industries," but others more specific, "Extending learning time at every school to provide a full academic program that includes science, social studies, physical education, music, and art;"
• Rob Consalvo — Oddly hidden platform. Under the About tab, which has no indication that is more than meet-the-candidate, you just might page down past two big pix and several paragraphs to find two lists, One is of major accomplishments as Councilor and the second has 7 planks or proposals. Most are general, as in providing first responders with sufficient resources, but others are more specific, such as "Create a cabinet level Office of Innovation, Ideas, and Technology to tap into the next wave of ideas from Bostonians and seek out and implement the best practices from all over the country, even all over the world." 
• Charlotte Golar Richie — Her Vision For Boston tab is what passes, weakly, for a platform. For someone who boasts of city, state and federal experience, she seems unready for this race. Her vision is all fluff. There are a few touchstones from her résumé but little else. The gist is in the last paragraph, including "I know what it will take to run this city. But more than this, I know what it will take to unite the city." In other words, "Trust me." Uh huh.
• Michael Ross — His is the most maddening platform and site. He is likely the brainiest person in the race. At first and second look, you wouldn't know that or even if he had a platform. His site makes the number one mistake found in software manuals and help systems, requiring the user to know the exact term the developers use to locate something. Hidden under a big splash screen top, page down and find two buttons. If you can figure out what Boston Smarter is and feel inclined to click it, bang!, a pretty impressive platform pops us. (Actually, you can pull it up in an easy-to-read form from its hidden URL.) The content is detailed, specific and singularly technology-driven, a vision for major changes in how Boston government would work. Who knew?
• Bill Walczak — No platform-specific area for him. He may be the thinking-person's candidate, always a dangerous category to choose. However, if you click the Media and Blog tab, the two choices (In the News and Bill's Blog) are full of positions. 
• Marty Walsh — Nothing to add from yesterday's table. The About Marty area has bio with implied general goals. Press/Latest News lets motivated voter tunnel down to statements.
• David James Wyatt — He can't really be running. His one pager has no tabs or platform. The closest he makes to promise is, "He marched with Chuck Turner and expects to march in Boston for more job opportunity; better schools; safer streets, and an end to the machine politics of politically connected families."
• Charles Yancey — This befuddled double campaign (Mayor and Councilor) has no platform. The only three tabs are Home, Meet Charles and Get Involved. The bio under the middle one has a hard-to read block of text with his personal, Council and education résumé, but no promises, no planks, no platform and no stump speech. 

Overall, this is a lackluster set of websites, particularly from the content view. Conley stands high and Ross will impress those who get through the hazing of the site design. The others lean toward generalities and seem afraid of putting out positions for others to snipe at in public events.

A few like Wyatt are amateurish, because the candidate is an amateur. Others such as Golar Richie and Yancey should have a lot more content, exhibit a lot greater thought, and give the voter something to appreciate. They've been around so long and involved in so much, they need to show they learned something.

Just maybe the candidates will take an evening or two to look at the competition online. It's not too late to update sites.

For the preliminary, it's unlikely that even a brilliant website will win it for the two. With a dozen, it's unlikely that many voters will be as politically needy as I, and go clicking around a dozen sites. Yet, in the weeks remaining, having yet another reason for undecideds to smear your oval can't hurt.

Would-Be Mayor Sites Scorecard

However much the current dozen candidates for Boston Mayor paid for their website designs, they spent too much. 

Was it only 7 and 5 years ago that Deval Patrick and Barack Obama (buddies and soul mates on many levels) leveraged the net and social media to win their governorship and presidency? Reviewing the dozing dozen's sites, I have to assume:

1. Candidates don't put too much importance on web campaigning
2. Campaigns are unsophisticated about content and visual elements

I went to the 12 to see who did what well and poorly. My first conclusion is that poorly is the operative word. My second is that the typical voter will be disappointed trying to get a fix on any of the dozen by the websites. My third is that the 12 better hope they are right that it will primarily shoe leather and GOTV with a bit of advertising that win the preliminary and then final elections this time. These net sites won't.

Disclaimer and background: I'm a long-term HTML guy. I've worked on personal and corporate websites. I've been a technical communicator for decades, including usability testing for sites and documents. I also host Left Ahead and have interviewed and know many of these candidates. They've had plenty of time to publish platforms, polish slogans, and decide what might sway voters.

I offer a Geek Score per candidate. That's my subjective overview of the use of technology and presentation. There's also a Wonk Score. That's the political POW factor from the site. There there is a grade and comment on the visual aspects, on the effectiveness of tabs, on the power of the candidate's platform, the slogan, the media available, how events appear, and then how usable the site is to a voter.

Campaign slogans are iffy; come candidates seem to have none and others several. This is one thing they should put some effort into and make sure at least the yard signs are memorable and meaningful.

I went a bit crazy in number of columns. I apologize if you have to scroll.

In the table below, lick on a candidate's last name to visit the site and judge for yourself. 

Candidate	Geek Score	Wonk Score	Visual	Tabs	Platform	Slogan	Media	Events	Usability
Felix Arroyo	A — Clean layout with easy-to-find content	B — Videos are solid but planks are vague	B+ —Attractive and graphics do not get in the way	A — Up top and very clear	B —Easy to find, but crowded with 15 topics	Building a Better Boston and Forward With Felix	A — Video-centric with solid interviews	B+ — Tab opens clickable calendar	A — Fonts a little small but tabs are plain and easy to use
John Barros	B+ — Tight and clean design, pulldowns off top buttons work well	C — Spongy, non-specific planks	A — Open and well designed	A — Buttons on top work as tabs with pulldowns. Highlight then a single click.	C — Appears to cover everything but planks are vague and use pol-speak	Stand Up Now	B- — Almost entirely print media links. Takes motivated voter to read	A — state of the art calendar	A — Features work well and navigation is clear
Charles Clemons	C — Well designed minimalist site	C- — Not much content but what's there is clear	B — Attractive and clean	C+ — Clear and function well	C- — Sparse but fairly deailed for what appears	Unity Builds Strong and First Name on the Ballot	D — Next to nothing, no meaningful pix or news	C- — easy to access but not interactive	B — Everything obvious and works quickly
Dan Conley	C+ — Site well planned, executed. Events fail and vids are boring	A — The A+ platform earns political content high mark	B+ — Nice use of pix, giving a very personal, personable view	B — Easy to use. The empty Events is awful	A+ — Best in the race, with clear goals and methods	Boston's Best Days Are Ahead of Us	D — Largely his big talking head with ho-hum messages	D — No events listed. Tab should go until they beef it up.	A — Crisp, fast site
John Connolly	B- — What's there is solid, but where's the vid and intereaction?	A — He is plain on what he's done, wants to do and how	B- — Clean site, everything is obvious	B — Minimalist but clear and work well	A — Ideas are very clear and specific, covers all big areas	Our Future Starts With Our Schools and Good Schools=Good Neighbors	D — Old school print and pix. Needs video	C- — Scrolling, takes multiple clicks to access, no interaction	C — What's there is easy to access. Needs more content.
Rob Consalvo	C — Well functioning	C- — Content hidden and vague	B+ — Good looking site, with use of pix to make it about him	C- — Voters don't know what's hidden behind tabs.	C- — Hidden at bottom of About tab, and non-specific	Making Boston Better	C- — Little and in Blog. He should have tons of video and print.	D — Gimmicky map instead of calendar. Canvass events OK if you know to go to Volunteer	C — Donating or volunteering OK. He should not make you search for h is platform or events.
Charlotte Golar Richie	C- — Site works but the lack of content detracts	D — Her vision tab is grey and mush mouthed	D — General goals do not inspire at all	C — Mouseover and pulldown tabs are clear and work well, but need larger type	D — There is little here and what appears is vague	Charlotte for Mayor	B- — Some good news clips, but nothing of her own and some clips don't work	C- — Old-style scrolling, not interactive, hidden under News tab.	B — Fast and functional site. Only events are so-so.
Michael Ross	C- — He is net savvy but form trumps function here	C- — great, but hidden political content	B —Clean and attractive, but you need to scroll for anything	None, Does not apply.	C- —Very detailed, but buried behnid Boston Smarter button	Boston Smarter	B — good linked videos	D — Need to visit his FB page for current activities	D — no tabs, buried content, voter must guess what's behind smallish buttons
Bill Walczak	B+ — Well designed and fast site. Everything works well.	B- — Content is there and better than most candidates but you have to figure out to go to news and blog.	B — Very personable, particularly for an activist. Contend and personal touches	B —Tabs are clear and well functioning. Someone put some real thought into these.	B- — Platform hidden in news and blog choices. Much there though.	Maybe Bill Walczak for Mayor of Boston	C — News is print only but it's good, useful stuff. Vids are at the bottom of the front page, kind of hidden.	D — Events do not seem to appear on site.	B- — Major functions are obvious and work well. A few are obscure, like having to figure to go to news and blog for talking points.
Marty Walsh	C — Some pages load slowly but overall, the design and functions work well.	C- — The About Marty area has bio with implied general goals. Press/Latest News lets motivated voter tunnel down to statements.	B — Intense red and blue on white space. Crisp.	C-- — Few choices and no platform per se.	C- —Minimal, no planks	Maybe Marty for Mayor	B — Lots of press and a little video. With time and interest, voters could find out a lot about his positions.	C- — Obscure in right column of each page under many buttons. Click for minimal details	B — What's there works well and except for the obscure events is easy to find.
David James Wyatt	D- — Virtually empty with only donation working	D- — No real content	D- — One page with almost no content	None, Does not apply.	D- — Vague goals on single page	Maybe Candidate for Mayor of Boston	F. None. Does not apply.	F. None. Does not apply.	F. No functions ad even Donate does not work.
Charles Yancey	C- — What's there functions but there's little	D- — He runs for both Mayor and Councillor. Mayor site has only bio.	D — Facebook images and content with bio, volunteer and donate buttons	C- — Bio, volunteer and donate buttons	D- — Only bio has info, with no planks or promises	Maybe Charles Yancey for Mayor	F. None. Does not apply.	D- — Just a little in FB feed.	D- — Easy to confuse this with Councillor site. Very little functionality.

The short of it is that no one is brilliant here. As much as we'd expect web technologies and design to continually advance, forget that. These folk either don't care or don't know their stuff.

It may very well be that those puerile forum thingummies rule in the preliminary. Every candidate gets two minutes to brag and then a minute or less to reduce complex topics to a bowl of grits. I disdain these and there's hardly more than one or two memorable quotes from an evening.

We'll see how savvy it is for the dozen to have half-baked campaign sites. Conventional and media wisdom is that you have to have a website, but that it makes little difference. Most voters don't visit.

In this once-a-generation election, no candidate is outstanding. That is odd for a few. First, Mike Ross is a long-time internet geek. He should have the best site but doesn't. He and Bill Walczak have the big, wide, deep visions for a new Boston; you'd expect great web tech to highlight that. Nah.

A few are predictably dull and even ho hum. Pirate radio king Charles Clemons, teacher David Wyatt and to a slightly lesser extent long-term City Councilor Charles Yancey are running vanity campaigns. None has much money nor has roused much interest. Yancey even is simultaneously re-running for Council. Their sites are bare, sparse and frankly ineffectual — no platform, no reason to vote for them, in Yancey's case little evidence he wants the mayoralty, and for all, not even a real campaign slogan.

There'll be more before the preliminary. I have calls out to other candidates. Meanwhile, I've done four interviews at Left Ahead. to hear their half-hour shows, click the candidates below:

• Michael Ross
• Rob Consalvo
• Bill Walczak
• Marty Walsh
• John Connolly

Big Boston What-Ifs on Mayor

As hard as it is for us locals to believe, Boston Mayor Tom Menino, the colossus of Hyde Park, showed real savvy in saying 20-plus years would be enough. Now we'll buzz like a hornets' nest about his successor.

The most frequent speculation is surely from David (not Berenstain Bears) Bernstein's blog. He took the Talking Politics name with him from the Phoenix. His stuff is a motley blend of well-researched, experiential, and just uncontrolled typing.

Rules can sometimes be inflexible, as in Boston Councilors running for mayor. They have to step down from City Council.

That has some hole-in-the-body-politic effects. I doubt many missed Maura Hennigan. On the other hand, Mike Flaherty had quite a following. Moreover, San Yoon was surely the brightest person in City Hall; he just lacked political instincts and savvy to go with the brain power. The city could have benefited mightily from many more years of his service on Council.

Just recently, with three previously announced candidates after the mayoralty, the how-many-Councilors will make the jump fascinates. At-large Councilor John Connolly is in the race and won't run for reelection as a result. The other two, marketing consultant Will Dorcena, and co-founder of TOUCH pirate radio, Charles Clemons, at least can go about their business while running. Just entering is Suffolk County DA Dan Conley, with over a half million dollars on hand. He's a former four-term (eight years) Councilor.

So, back to speculation about the larger class of potential competitors — Councilors. What if...

• Ayanna Pressley. She'd be a strong candidate for any office, think lieutenant governor or MA senate as well as Boston mayor. She's smart, accomplished, resilient, even good looking, and driven by volunteerism and social action. She has particularly strong followings in her Dorchester, among women, with African Americans, and fairly well represented citywide. She was a huge vote getter in the at-large contest.
• Steve Murphy. Council President yet again, he does a really good job getting the knuckleheads to knuckle down and focus. He's also the acknowledged financial whiz on Council. In his 50s, he knows this might be his only shot. He has a lot to give up if he goes after it though. He is also a perennial at-large vote harvester.
• Felix Arroyo. The other popular at-large Councilor, he has long ago surpassed his father getting votes and passing the law-like proposals and regulations they do down there. He's bright, pretty, witty and a very nice guy, favored far beyond his Latino affiliated constituents. He's ambitious.
• Tito Jackson. The biggest personality on Council, he is vibrant and enthusiastic. His District 7 folk have no doubt he's all for them first and the city right behind. He jumps into crime, clean streets and other quality-of-live issues. He's fun to be around and is likely looking for the right next level up.
• Mike Ross. He's the downtown Councilor in ever sense of the term. A seven termer, he's been president of the body. (I also like that he's a regular cyclist.) I peg him as the brightest on Council. He brings big ideas, his own and those from Cambridge, other cities and the commonwealth. He'd be the visionary, which might be a tough sell but one that could click if many voters favor big changes.
• Rob Consalvo. His my district Councilor. He's a super-nice guy and one of the most active in proposing Council actions. He's still in the Young Turk/young lion class. The Mayor came from Hyde Park, which Consalvo represents. Word from many fronts is that he sees himself as the natural heir to his good friend Menino.
• Charles Yancey. The longest-serving (15 terms) Councilor and a former body president, he has the title dean of City Council. Virtually all the Councilors have large egos. Hearing him speak at meetings and hearings, I suspect his is the biggest of all. He is a district Councilor and likely doesn't have the personal power, the raw personality to sway the city.

If all of them were in with Connolly, that would be a majority of Council up for grabs. We'd see the usual suspects and bozos running...and losing badly. We'd see numerous activists having real shots at both at-large and district seats. The makeup and direction of the body would change dramatically.

The open mayoralty after 20 years is too, too much for too many. It might be another 12 or so years before there's another good chance. The young lions would be much more like toothless, clawless oldsters.

If every one is in, Boston would be in for a huge shakeup far beyond a new mayor. It might be a net good. However, the district Councilors in particular have gotten their constituent services down pat and their replacements would not master that learning curve quickly, and may not even been good at it or have the right staffers readily available.

So I can join those at the local papers and blogs in surmising. We should know soon, as they can file nomination papers with Elections as early as April 17 and must by May 15 for the preliminary. They have to get and file 3,000 valid voter signatures by the end of May 21. That of course does not begin to account for all the money raising, visibility, online/marketing/speechifying/volunteer recruiting and such. The Mayor has made it plain he's not handing off his political machine to any candidate.

So of the Councilor possibles, what do you think?

• Ayanna Pressley. Here's betting she's biding her time and picking the right combination of office, issues, and timing. I bet she sits tight.
• Steve Murphy. The Herald did an insightful interview with him on how hard this decision will be. He's in a solid, deeply respected position on Council, but in his 50s, this could be his one chance for the other side of the fifth floor. He's lost several runs for statewide office (for which he did not have to quit Council), that's gotta make him ballot shy. I don't know how he's going to go. (By the bye, he's a neighbor but not a close friend.)
• Felix Arroyo. He put out the call for campaign donations. It seems if it comes in fast enough, he'll run. He shouldn't have any problem getting volunteers and the signatures. He'll go. 
• Tito Jackson. He loves his constituents and neighborhood as much as he loves himself and as much as he loves performing. He'd have to get a citywide following to make his candidacy viable. He's likely to look to a State House seat or maybe even lieutenant governor. He sits this out.
• Mike Ross. I suspect he'll go in. He'll need all of his smarts and to amp up his laid-back personality to come off at the guy with a vision for a better Boston. It's possible. Then again, he has to count on the timing. Voters know they'll get change. He has to make them believe he serves up the best flavor.
• Rob Consalvo. He won't be able to stand it. Like most Councilors he shaves the Mayor's face in the morning in his mirror. 
• Charles Yancey. I predict he'll waffle and in the end not go. He's make a career out of district Councilor. He's powerful and respects...in his niche. He's really not a citywide player.

Beyond Councilors, other candidates will get in. State Rep, Marty Walsh is one. I don't see him or Conley even making the final after the preliminary.

I'm figuring Arroyo, Consalvo, Ross and maybe Murphy. It would be an exciting (for us) and exhausting (for them) contest...a true battle of yard signs, innuendo and slurs, and non-stop voter contact.