Capuano is out

So that’s that ….via Twitter:

@MikeCapuano: Thank you for all your good wishes. Though I won’t enter the US Sen. race, I look forward to continuing to fight for the Citizens of the MA

Not too surprising. The only sitting Congressman left potentially facing Markey is Steve Lynch. The Herald got a little scooplet with the head of IBEW Local 103 Mike Monahan calling Markey a “weak candidate”, which sounds like he wants Lynch. Funny, Monahan says he’ll join up with Markey if Tom Menino really really wants him to, which sounds like an invitation to Mr. do exactly that.

Lynch would not defeat Markey. It’s a progressive-leaning primary; Lynch is anti-abortion. and did such a Clown-shoe Hamlet act over health care that he pretty much gave up any goodwill most Dem primary voters would have for him.

Anyone else? Rabbi Pesner?

Recommended by stomv.


12 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Probably for the best.

    We really need him in the House anyway. Can’t blame him for not wanting to deal with a Massachusetts Senate election. Terribly ugly experiences they have become.

  2. If nothing else...

    Markey vs. Lynch is a much easier decision than Markey vs. Capuano. Lynch can’t win a state wide Democratic primary.

  3. Primary, shmiary

    OK folks, let”s forget about a marvelous, cleansing, vote-building primary. No time. Doesn’t work. This needs to be another classic ground game GOTV effort. I did polling in the good years (no cell phones) and the key question most always was, “He (she) cares about people like me.” That’s what Markey needs to nail down whether his opponent is Scott Brown or anyone else.

    • Never understood the 'candidates need a primary' argument

      It’s one thing for people to want a primary so they have a choice. Personally I’d rather win the general election and keep the seat from going Republican, but I can understand the desire. But people made the argument about Elizabeth Warren that it was important for her to go through a primary and get tested and toughened up before the general election. Don’t agree with that.

      Just because Obama won after the primary battle with Hillary doesn’t mean that it’s a great thing for every candidate to be attacked from within their own party, handing some great sound bites to your general election opponent. Warren managed to win her election just fine without a Democratic primary. And I sure don’t think the Republican primary process helped Romney.

      • They don't need one

        But at the same time, they aren’t as deadly as one might think. Sometimes, they can stumble out of them damaged, but others times they come out the better for it. Would Kerry have won in 2004 without a strong primary? I say no, he was always going to prevaricate and wobble primary or no. Would Obama have won if he’d coasted? Probably…as would have Hillary or Richardson.

        As long as I get somewhat of a choice (gave up on real choices a while ago thanks to the American electoral system) in the primary, I’m content. With Markey v. Lynch — depending on what they say about education — I’m content.

        sabutai   @   Tue 15 Jan 8:15 PM
        • Fair enough that primaries don't always damage

          I have to agree that primaries aren’t always damaging. I suppose they would be most damaging when the candidate’s party primary electorate differs largely from the general-election electorate (current problem for any Republican presidential candidate), when they take up resources a candidate needs for the general election, when a losing primary candidate’s attacks are particularly effective, or when one side has a tough primary and the other side doesn’t have one at all.

          I do think it could be more of a problem in a special election cycle, though, where one side would have close to half a year to campaign to all the voters while the other side would have to spend a good chunk of that time on a primary campaign.

      • "I sure don’t think the Republican primary process helped Romney."

        It didn’t help him, but it helped the country: it revealed who Romney actually is, somewhat in terms of issues but more in terms of the extent to which he was willing to lie about everything under the sun, including his own past, in order to win votes. It’s a big part of why he lost.

        • Good point about Romney

          Although his case is a rather extreme one, both in terms of saying different things to different audiences (he certainly took that to new heights) and the Republican primary voters’ place on the political spectrum vs. the overall national electorate.

          And while I agree with your point that the presidential primary process can help the country learn about a candidate, I’m still not a big fan of the two-year presidential election campaign.

        • I think it helped Romney too

          it moved the Overton window on the national GOP party from conservative to ka-ka-ka-crazy, making Romney seem like a downright moderate, middle of the road guy.

          I mean, just recall who was in the GOP primary… Herman Cain. Bachmann. Ricks Perry and Santorum. Ron Paul. All kinds of crazy in that list.

          • Could care less

            Lynch is a cancer on our delegation-if he runs against Markey that’s great dress rehearsal and maybe his district would finally learn how awful his voting record is, and maybe after he loses he’ll have lost cash and goodwill
            in his district and a decent challenger can emerge to beat him. It’s more about abortion, I can tolerate a pro-life Democrat but the vote against health care reform was a vote against this party and its platform
            for over 60 years that healthcare is a right and not a privilege.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 29 Mar 6:45 PM