The curse of being the front-runner by commanding margins for so long is that your victory is an anticlimax. And so it was Tuesday night for Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, who comfortably won reelection to a second four-year term.

  1. Only in Boston is the size of a loss big news. City Councilor Tito Jackson of Roxbury lost his race with 33.97 percent of the vote. To the uninitiated, that may not sound like much. But political junkies know that this is only an eyelash less than the legendary Mel King received when he ran unsuccessfully against Ray Flynn.
  2. That was 34 years ago, and it was an historic election because it marked the first time that an African-American candidate made it to Boston’s final election. It may be a vague municipal embarrassment that it’s taken so long for a candidate of color to again make that mark, but Jackson at least didn’t compromise history.
  3. More significant than Jackson’s face-saving loss, was the election of six women of color to the 13-member city council. Kim Janey’s win in the district Jackson surrendered to run for mayor was expected. But Lydia Edwards' victory in District 1 (East Boston, Charlestown, and the North End) while not a surprise was, nevertheless, an embarrassment for a triumphant Walsh. Edward’s opponent, Stephen Passacantilli, had the mayor’s backing. But a last minute robocall from the mayor on behalf of Passacantilli failed to work it’s magic.
  4. It is a perversity of Boston politics that Walsh could win such an overwhelming victory (65.38 percent) and fail to get a surrogate candidate onto the council.
    Michelle Wu topped the ticket for the four at-large councilors, who all won re-election. Wu received 64,978 votes citywide. That’s more than Jackson’s 36,433, but less than Walsh’s 70,125.
  5. A couple of weeks ago, at a $125 per person fundraiser for Walsh in West Roxbury, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley introduced Walsh as “Boston’s next Mayor for life.” (You may remember that four years ago Conley was one of the herd of candidates seeking to fill the void left by the late Tom Menino’s decision not to seek re-election.) It was as telling a phrase in retrospect as it was at that moment. It was a clear reference to the fact that since 1949 no sitting Boston mayor who has sought re-election has failed to win it. It was an equally clear reference to Menino’s unprecedented five-terms of service as mayor. What isn’t clear is this: Is this what Walsh wants? And will history cooperate?