First of all, hearty congratulations to Katherine Clark, who won a convincing victory today. With 32% of the vote in a 7-way field (5 of whom were contenders), she beat her next closest competitor by 10%. The final results:
Clark: 32%
Koutoujian: 22%
Sciortino: 16%
Brownsberger: 15%
Spilka: 13%
Maisano: 2%
Long: 1%
As promised, I am delighted to endorse Clark for Congress, and I’m excited about sending her to Washington.
Here are some thoughts on how other players in the race fared.
Winner: Carl Sciortino. Of the five candidates in the race who were already elected officials, Sciortino has the smallest geographic base, and therefore had the steepest hill to climb. But, as everybody knows, he came up with by far the best TV ad in the race – and maybe the best ad in Massachusetts in quite a while. As a result, he finished much higher than might have been expected, and he raised his profile. I’ve had conversations with people who don’t follow politics closely and don’t live in the district, but who saw and loved the ad, and came away wanting to know more about this interesting young man. He goes back to the State House a bigger player than when he started this race.
Loser: Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Sorry guys – love ya, but getting involved in this race in the way you did was a bonehead move. It was totally fine to endorse Sciortino, phonebank for him, etc. But the last-minute blitz of attack ads against Katherine Clark (a) obviously didn’t work, and (b) have no doubt pissed off a Member-of-Congress-to-be who should be a natural ally. Clark is not some DINO against whom such a campaign might have been a worthwhile gambit. She’s a solid progressive; she’ll be a terrific ally of Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey; but I’m guessing she won’t be hanging out with PCCC in the near future. That’s PCCC’s loss.
Mixed Verdict: Emerson College Polling Society. This outfit, which appears to be a student-run organization at Emerson College, seems to be the only independent organization to have polled the race (more on that in a sec). I didn’t post on the poll they released last Friday because it’s hard to tell if they’re just a student club having fun, or if they are running real polls. The good news for them is that they nailed the winner: they polled Clark in first at 29% +/- 4.5%, which was a good call. The bad news was that they booted some of the other results. They had Brownsberger in second with 19%, and Koutoujian dead last with 14%, whereas in fact, of course, Koutoujian finished second with 22%, and Brownsberger came in fourth with only 15%. They were correct that Sciortino would place third with 16%, and they were close on Spilka’s final tally, though wrong on her position (they polled her at 15% and 4th place; she finished with 13% in 5th).
So, a decent showing. I still wish I knew more about how they’re set up … like, are any grown-ups involved with them? 🙂
Losers: Boston-area mainstream media outlets. The only reason any attention at all was paid to the Emerson outfit was that nobody else polled this race. Not the Globe or the Herald. Not any of the TV stations. Not Suffolk, not Western New England, nobody. Nor was it possible to find much substantive reporting on the race, or the candidates.
Honestly, people, this is a race for a congressional seat. I know everyone’s all worked up about who the next Mayor of Boston is going to be, but that isn’t going to be decided until November. Would it have killed you to commission a poll or something?
Who else won, or lost, or did something unexpected?
At least, grown up enough to die for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, and to vote in the most recent election.
And it’s hard to see how a pollster can be effective without ready access to booze, AMIRITE?
I have been very outspoken on this blog about my support Of Peter Koutoujian. I not only speak out for candidates, I knock doors make phone calls, organize to get the vote out. Where is the concern with the low voter turnout, the cynicism that allowed a third party group to make an ad, in fact, two of them, that convinced many voters that the ads were an endorsement by Elizabeth Warren. This is not theoretical, this was the feedback of many canvassed voters who had become convinced that Elizabeth Warren had endorse Katherine Clark based upon the mailers they received form Emily’s List. I am disappointed by Katherine Clark for not speaking out about the ads, and very surprised and disappointed by Elizabeth Warren, who I adore and admire, for not doing more to speak out about these ads than some minimal posting on her Facebook Page.
Volunteering on campaigns becomes less fun with each campaign. I am tired by the incredible lack of civility that volunteers are treated to when they knock doors or make calls. I am disheartened by the incredible ignorance people have about politics and the importance that it plays in their everyday lives. The intense disinterest in voting or being informed about the candidates and their positions. We are in desperate need of civics courses.
They picked, and possibly helped create, the winner. In this race there is almost no chance their support will hurt in the general. Bonus – probably safe to assume Elizabeth Warren actually does support Clark as of tonight.
That’s okay with you that they picked and “possibly helped create the winner” The whole thing is kind of making me sick. I don’t want Emily’s list to have that kind of power, and I will do my part by never giving them a penny.
Governor Martha Coakley.
But maybe as our nominee, yes.
I’d prefer someone else as nominee but if she’s nominated I’ll work like hell for her to win. Not interested in more Republican governors.
I’d put money on her being the nominee (with the help of big money and women’s orgs), even though she does not have my support in the slightest.
If she is the nominee and loses to Charlie Baker, she really needs to retire.
meant to not comment at all.
In my book Emily’s List is as far from “vindicated” as it’s possible to get. I won’t have anything to do with them ever again.
EMILY’s list hurt themselves enormously in MA in this race, which is one of their bedrock support states. There were founded as an idealistic principled group. They have become a special interest corporation with the morality of Fox News and the charm of Michele Bachmann.
Kind of the reverse of Sciortino. Started with the biggest geographical base, raised the most money, hired (supposedly) the best consultant, and still came in a very distant second because he ran a boring campaign and came across as the most politician-y. Which matches reality, I suppose.
Sorry but your comments have little to no meaning. “Boring Campaign” compared to whose campaign? What does it mean to be politician-y? Then somehow a word that has no meaning is the reality.
No motivating issue or philosophy. Just some dude who wanted a promotion but couldn’t offer a reason for it. Light on any policy specifics beyond progressive platitudes that everyone agreed on.
If you really think he was such a great candidate, I don’t know why you’re attacking me. Blaming it on the campaign and not some intrinsic worthlessness is his out if he wants to move up in the future. If it wasn’t a poorly run campaign, he must just be a crappy candidate.
I think I will wait to comment until or unless someone else says something that actually shows some thought and not just spewing hatefulness.
I like Koutoujian, and I like Doug Rubin (his consultant). But, despite Koutoujian’s having raised a ton more money than anyone else, his campaign never caught fire, in large part I think because people just weren’t sure why he was there. Like it or not, Clark made a clear decision to stake her campaign on a particular set of issues; she played that card well; and it worked.
David…perhaps helping Peter develop and articulate a clear message about why he was running and what he would do better than his opponents if elected are things his consult was paid to do. I agree with you that it never happened. Just raising the most money is meaningless if it goes to consultants and media without a compelling message. His consultant has to share the loss.
nt
… that a candidate needs to separate them from a pack. He is not a bad candidate nor a bad campaign just the wrong race at the wrong time. The Candidate must project himself through the voters eyes as a congressman failing that it is difficult to overcome that ability through a campaign that mirrors the candidates persona. Not to mention look how hard it has been for a Sheriff to move up over history. The likely route has been a DA or AG which also seems to end their. Comment on the AG running for governor later. I think Peter would have been a good Congressman and representing the district views , no question about it. The issue is was he a strong enough candidate to win and hold the office lacking that persona. Look closely at the candidates that have been elected and those that ran. Gomez has a greater stage presence now then Peter. Head to head that may have been a very interesting outcome. One of the reasons why running the race as Katherine Clark did with and all in mentality may have been a gamble on how serious the self inflicted wounds are and will be. No peter is a good candidate with a big heart just lacks the stage presence you need to project yourself into a national role. Time may change that.
I liked the story where he (dressed in tails and top hat no less!) helped arrest an assailant outside the Harvard graduation. I also think he has done great social work (apt socialworker supports him!) in the Sheriffs office and really raised the profile and the social justice issues it handles to reduce recidivism and crime. He couldn’t get one ad together bringing some parole officers, ex-offenders, and social workers together in a testimony to how much he helped them and turned their lives around? I was viewing him as a potential frontrunner and he just never caught fire. There is an open AG race though and I’d be happy to support him there…
In my experience, Peter Koutoujian is very charismatic in person. Some politicians have a natural ease with people and some have to work at it (or never do). The sheriff is certainly the former.
I’ve only met him once, but he made an effort to introduce himself to all of us who were delegates from Malden at the Lowell convention, and he was very friendly and relaxed about the fact that many/most of us were clearly supporting Katherine. He was the only other CD5 candidate to my knowledge who greeted folks from Malden at the convention. So I certainly give him points for being a classy guy.
Honestly, I don’t think Warren needed to endorse anyone to have an effect. For the average “non-political junkie” woman voter, I think it was as simple as a brief look at all the candidates’ positions (=50 shades of liberal), a second look at the lack of balance in our congressional delegation, and a third look at our fabulous senior senator and the great work she’s doing in DC. Both Clark and Spilka had strong records on women’s issues and Clark got out front earlier.
At least that was my feeling from the folks I canvassed–I wish we had some exit polls on the gender breakdown. That being said, we also had 3 outstanding male candidates. Despite the drubbing he took here at BMG, I came away with an enormous amount of respect for my candidate Will Brownsberger, and in other circumstances both Koutoujian or Sciortino might also have prevailed.
Brownsberger actually had a fairly solid showing, which shows, as I said, most voters weren’t paying attention on BMG but were paying attention to the candidates, the televised debates, and who knocked on their door. I think, particularly after this campaign, Sciortino is the odds on favorite to replace Jehlen in the State Senate though I wouldn’t be surprised if he aimed higher.
Outside of a high turnout in Belmont, Sen. Brownsberger kind of underperformed, particularly in Cambridge where he represented parts of as a state rep and won handily in his special election to the State Senate. He’s also represented parts of Arlington, which he lost by 8 points and currently represents Watertown, which he also lost by 8 points.
I think Brownsberger did not perform too well. He represents 10% of the district and only got to 15%.
Sciortino has 3% of district and got 16%.
Clark has 16% and got 32%.
Spilka, sadly, also underperformed, only getting 13% but representing 11% of the district and getting the vast bulk of union endorsements.
And I have to say – Maisano overperformed with 2%. Who is that guy?
Spilka cleaned up in her home base of Ashland (85%), Holliston (76%), Framingham (66%), Natick (56%) but didn’t get much of anything elsewhere.
Brownsberger did well in Belmont, but really not as well as he needed in Arlington or Watertown. Way, way behind everywhere else. Scortino really hurt Brownsberger, with 19% in Arlington and 28% in Cambridge.
Koutoujian held his Waltham base, came in first in Watertown, and won decisively in Revere and Winthrop (the DiLeo effect?). He also did OK in Woburn but otherwise didn’t do all that well, especially considering he’s the sheriff for almost all of these towns.
Sciortino did very well in his home base of Medford, but had some strength beyond that base, running second in Cambridge and neck-and-neck with Clark in Sudbury. Given the base he started with, you’d say he overperformed and won a lot of votes with the ad, but also by establishing himself as the most progressive in a progressive field.
Clark really did do the best job of expanding her support across the district. She held her base, cleaned up in Cambridge, and did very well in Arlington, Lexington, Weston, Wayland, Sudbury, even Revere and Woburn. Got enough votes everywhere else to get it done. Good campaign.
You think so? I don’t. He came in fourth. He won Belmont, but Clark beat him handily in Arlington and Lexington, and slaughtered him in Cambridge, and Koutoujian beat him in Watertown, which is part of his current Senate district.
Agree on Sciortino when Jehlen retires, though AFAIK that isn’t in the immediate offing.
But I looked up the numbers out of curiosity, so I might as well share them. In 2011, in his election to the state senate, Will Brownsberger won Cambridge with 1,070 votes across 7 precincts. Yesterday he only managed 788 votes across 16 precincts.
Now, the comparison is pretty unfair, because it turns out that Brownsberger’s base from his State Rep days in Cambridge (Ward 11) is actually in Capuano’s district.
I think most people here expected him to be dead last ad the fact that he beat Spilka impressed me. But I’ll walk that back a little particularly about Cambridge and Arlington. I suspect it was due to door knocks from Sciortino’s folks and a lot of local officials getting sown up by Clark early. I am truly
impressed by her and Carl’s campaign. I’d agree about Jehlen not retiring soon but all he needs to do is wait, or otherwise aim for leadership on the House or a statewide in 18′. But he was definitely the other star of the night and I look forward to campaigning for him in the future.
Clark started the nurturing in Cambridge so early, which ultimately wasn’t deciding, but certainly important – and it will help put the race out of reach for Addivinola. It was very smart.
I canvassed a bunch in Cambridge for Carl and saw absolutely zero evidence of Brownsberger doing anything. It was all Carl and Clark, and then some Koutoujian literature around over the final weekend.
I’d love to see Carl organize some progressive support and push for a leadership position in the house – that could be a game-changer. If the timing was different, a Lt. Gov. run could be doable, but that also seems like a dead-end place over the last few admins. And Mike Lake has been hitting that hard. Related: does anyone have the good scoop on Lake? His campaign seems like a careerist move with the easiest path to power, but maybe that’s just me being cynical.
I’m also impressed with her Cambridge effort-she knew who the right people were to get in her corner and she it them. Brownsberger was a very visible
presence in North and West Cambridge and I’m surprised he did so poorly there-but if he violated Tips rule (people like to be asked) then he only has himself to blame.
I will be having an LG post soon and will outline why I’m backing Mike Lake so stay tuned!
The main idea of substance he’s been pushing is LG as a sort of roving ambassador to attract new industry to Massachusetts. Not clear what sort of enticements would be OK or not in his book. That and top-notch education would boost our economy. I’d like to hear some more substance on policy issues.
But he has been getting after it. I’ve seen him all over the place. He’s personable if a little nerdy, but pretty vague on policy.
The Clark campaign did everything “right” to win a campaign. She went in early and strategized as well as delivered on a strong cross district campaign. Even in the safe towns for other candidates, she generally did well picking up a few votes. She’s a risk taker and a lot more shrewd that many may have guessed. She cornered the women’s vote before Karen Spilka even entered the race. I disagree with the tactics employed on her behalf by EMILY’s List and her decision to remain mute – along with her supporters who all gave tacit approval by their silence of the photo-shopped images.
It seems that with geographic reach and lucrative fundraising that it was Peter Koutoujian’s to lose.
My candidate was not able to surmount her late entry, “wild, wild west” geographical and lower socio-economic base. Union support seemed tepid at best with GOTV and that hurt.
I hope that respect and understanding of the body of work and talent shown by the five contenders is widely appreciated.
Best wishes Congresswoman Clark.
It is an insult to Elizabeth Warren to have used her in this way, especially against another woman candidate who broke her back for EW in the Senate election. Katherine Clark was the most lackluster in the debate, but no one saw it. Yes, she’s a woman, but she has a lot to prove to true progressives. Peter should pick himself up and run of AG, Brownsberger should work for a think tank, and Spilka should hold her head high and run for Lt. Governor, or AG. It was such a waste of talent that they all ran against each other. But then again, they all are now stronger as candidates. Carl should reign in his allies, since they did him more harm than Emily’s list did Katherine…then enjoy being married for a bit and then run again.
She jumped on board at the last minute, once it was clear that Clark was the front runner, and will no doubt claim credit for the win.
It’s the rest of us who lost out from this.
EM was buttoned-up with Clark early in the Spring due to the strong mega-donor influences discussed at length here.
They moved Clark from “On the List” to “endorsed” when Carl’s ad went viral and Karen Spilka did not show enough fund raising to make it close.
The last minute Warren-drop was hardly jumping on board at the last minute. It was surgically precise and I am sorry to say, worked if one sees the win rather than the process as being the whole game.
Emily Aside, Clark waged a good, strong campaign and was apparently in the lead before the Emily mailers.
The Globe breaking for her the way it did probably helped her woo independents.
Just to be clear, I am all in for Clark, just not crushing on Emily’s List.
In fact, I concur if I am understanding your point is that the EMILY’s List misleading lit piece was not the decisive factor in Clark’s win. She waged a very, very good campaign.
It is highly likely that MA is only seeing the beginning of her steps to higher office. She’s smart, talented, savvy and in the MA money and influence belt for political positioning. How many terms will Markey serve….it seems like a question that she and her handlers may have already considered given her 5 year sprint into a Congressional seat. She’s a gal that’s looking ahead.
Time will tell if that’s a good thing. My hope is she will regain the people’s trust who were turned off by her flip on the casino vote, her ambiguous if not conflicting positions on surveillance and her not distancing herself from EMILY’s List tactics.
And let’s not forget the $250,000 of her own money. Where did that come from? Her work as a lawyer? Wish I could float that kind of loan to run for office.
Bernstein also points out “Conveniently, we learned just today, via the SuperPAC’s monthly campaign-finance report, where some of the money for those mailings came from. Turns out Cambridge philanthropist/promoter-of-women-pols Barbara Lee contributed $50,000 at the end of September; other local-area women, Shanti Fry, Georgia Murray, Elizabeth Pettullo, and Francene Rodgers, combined for another $30,000 last month. Contributions made in October won’t be known for a while yet.”
I am Facebook friends with three of the candidates and was glad to see they and their supporters complimenting one another. It was hard fought but Clark won and all four candidates will be able to move on to bigger and brighter things, particularly Sciortino and to a lesser extent Koutijan. I think Brownsberger has some fences to mend with the grassroots and Spilka should keep pushing more legislation and get her name out. But it was well run and almost entirely civil (until the last two weeks).
that I’ve seen anyone wish for more polls. Why? What would more polls added to this race?
I think that a reputable poll late in this type of race can have an effect. By “this type of race” I mean one with 4+ candidates in which a significant number of voters have more than one candidate that they’d consider acceptable. I heard “I wish there was a poll” from many people I talked to in the last week.
Consider if one of the firms David listed had a poll last week showing something close to what actually panned out yesterday. There may have been Brownsberger, Sciortino, and Spilka voters whose second choice was Koutoujian, and if they really didn’t want Clark to win (for whatever reason), they might have voted for Peter instead. In this particular election, I don’t think it would have made a difference in the final result – the numbers weren’t there. But in a closer race, it might.
In the absence of IRV or any other way to indicate an order of preference other than your #1 choice, a poll could be helpful.
Mine lost.
I am genuinely surprised at the decisiveness of the victory. I think it’s because I didn’t hear a single person talking about supporting her, other than Bob and a few other people on here.
Of course, I don’t get out much.
In the PCCC/People’s Pledge threads, BMG commenters have certainly created an articulate debate, but insofar as it’s even an issue, IMO it’s an arcane matter that only a small # of people at very high-info sites like BMG are concerned about.
Moreover, it’s not PCCC’s job to butter up Democratic pols. They exist to organize grassroots lobbying and to help liberals like Elizabeth Warren (for whom they raised more than $1,000,000) and Annie Kuster win primaries and general elections. I highly doubt Katherine Clark is going to spurn their causes out of spite for PCCC–and besides, the policies PCCC supports are probably ones that the majority of Clark’s future constituents support anyway. Why would she jeopardize herself?
And I as a frequent small-dollar donor and grassroots volunteer was extremely disappointed and saddened with their behavior in this round.
Up until 2 weeks ago, I had nothing but respect for PCCC based on what they did for Warren and Markey especially. But breaking the People’s Pledge was seriously uncool.
They had every right and obligation to advocate on behalf of their endorsed candidate, but they chose to do it in a really disappointing way.
And I agree with David — people like me who pay attention aren’t necessarily going to forget this. They’ve got some fence mending to do, I’m guessing with Clark as David suggests, but also with folks like me who they’ve disappointed.
Before I give them $ again, I’d like to have some reassurance that they’re not going to give a middle finger to the Pledge in future.
I’m not a voter in the district but I maxed out on Carl because I really respect his proven abilities to move forward a progressive agenda in a middle of the road Legislative body without being a pompous self righteous jerk. He has never insulted or offended a colleague or special interest with whom he disagreed.
The PCCC assault broke the People’s Pledge and was inaccurate to boot. Bad play.
The Globe had more important things to inform its readers about.
Like their on-going, never-ending, and never pausing sequence of human interest stories about the marathon bombing. Like their bizarre distortions in the coverage of the Washington hostage situation.
Surely you don’t expect a major urban daily to divert public attention from these vital concerns in order to inform the public about yet another election (with a “boring” campaign to boot), or the on-going attempts to gut the clean air act, or the …
Priorities are priorities.
The Boston Globe, is true to its name. The front page was a picture of Walsh and Connolly at their debate last night. CD5 coverage was on B1. The lack of interest shown by the media and by the voters is disturbing. We have 9 congressional seats. I think the race deserved far more attention than it got. A debate on WCVB or WBZ would have been appreciated, not that Jim Braude didn’t do a great job at NECN.
People are rude, disinterested, easily led like sheep, and proudly ignorant. Next time I work on a campaign, I am going to suggest that the candidate send out a mailer surrounded by Mother Theresa and Ghandi.
Nothing hateful about that. Hateful is when you say entirely negative and hurtful things about people and events of which you have no knowledge. What you learn from experience is not hateful. It is what it is. I am cynical, but by no measn hateful.
Yes, you are saying entirely negative and hurtful things about people and events of which you have no knowledge.
…not that I think it could happen but hey after all the Final is in December. We have all anointed Congressman Katherine Clark but, is this premature. Look at the level of voter apathy in the low voter turn out. The Globe may have been justified with ignoring the race for fear of putting more people to sleep reading their front page. We all assume that this is a slam dunk in December but, what if the weather turns bad and no one comes out to vote. Or worse yet some gaff by Katherine opens the door to a sub 10% turnout and a motivated push back coming out of this victory. I think the risks were high running the kind of campaign she ran since it has not always been the route to victory in this district. With no real villain in this primary to push a hard test on any of the candidates it more closely resembled a 5 way love fest do we really know how tough any of them really are or the nominee really is? Do we really know enough to say we will not see a Brown repeat because we have anointed the Dem. The risk is huge a Globe back page surprise if we do not stay focused. December will be a real challenge and this victory may not be the launch pad many believe it is especially with the voter apathy. Many Cities in the district vote in November by December when the snow birds are leaving can Katherine and Emily’s list deliver again? I don’t think we know and there lies the danger. Winning the primary that leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths may have won today but can the candidate pivot and move on to a general or? Stranger things have happened.
And I don’t want to be a stick in the mud, Katherine is on her way to being our next senator, I see the trajectory.
We had 2 candidates, Carl and Karen state they would support a bill that would ban fracking, which is driving the cost of natural gas down. Since many use natural gas for heat and our region relies on gas for electricity, how does Karen feel about fracking?
… about fracking? I think your stick is well placed but Senator the ego is their but she is one no Ed Markey and two another special election win would be a real surprise now that people have a gauge on her. Not having a state wide base makes a run for Senate tougher then it looks depending on who would come out.
Perhaps her toughest opponent would be Kennedy. But her victory was impressive.
The Republican candidates who actually live in the 5th district. Why aren’t more people talking about the fact that Frank Addinivola was running for Boston City Council in last month’s preliminary and that he doesn’t live in the district?
Scott Brown. He doesn’t have juice in Republican primaries.
He doesn’t live in the Council district, or he doesn’t live in the Fifth?
Not in the Fifth.
But there is no requirement to live in the district, apparently. One just has to live in Massachusetts. I’m still not sure what Bill Galvin does all day.
Article 1 § 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires only that a House member or candidate be a citizen of the US for 7 years, be 25 or older, and an inhabitant of the state in which they are running. So while states have broad powers to regulate their own elections under the 10th Amendment, federal office requirements rest with the US Constitution.
As Clippership points out, the US Constitution decides who is eligible. Not Bill Galvin. Not the legislature. But hey, it wouldn’t be BMG if someone wasn’t taking gratuitous shots at Galvin.
I stand corrected. It’s an outdated federal rule. I really wish I could vote out of district sometimes, but I could get prosecuted.
It was wrong to call out Bill Galvin on that. But the question remains – what does he do all day?
… not sure the downrating is justified. Billy can take it.
…yeah I did not mean to downrate it my mistake!
… they don’t think anyone is watching or cares enough to invest in the print. There lies the Danger in a December election. “What if you held an election and no one came”?
for a major metropolitan daily purporting to be the “paper of record” for the region. It’s a seat in the U.S. Congress, for chrissakes. This week of all weeks should show that what they do in Congress, though crazy, is really, really important. Will the Globe decline to cover the gubernatiorial and senate races next year if the candidates are not “interesting” enough for them?
In my view, Emily’s List is a loser. I didn’t like their deceptive ads. And, I don’t like their power to pick my congresswoman.
Katherine Clark is the other loser. Her election will, forever, be tainted by Emily’s Lists actions and her acquiescence. I regret that she is my congresswoman. I will never contribute to her. I hope that she gets a primary opponent.
… gambling on emily’s list and a possible backlash to win yesterday maybe the first nail in a coffin. Ad to that fact the amount of money she poured int the campaign and will have to keep spending to win in December. Then have to run in the regular election next November. A primary or a real Republican Challenge may be a reality. Testing her pocket book and the depth she has turned off the activists and you set the table for a vicious contest. The Republicans are in trouble trying to hold onto their House Majority and appear to be slipping in districts in the polls they may eye this as a better gamble to pick up a seat when no one is watching. Right now Katherine Clark maybe more damaged then first appears. Is their blood in the water?
Of course, Clark should not take a vacation between now and December 10. But the 5th District is a far cry from Massachusetts as a whole, which is what Martha Coakley faced in 2010. She is going to beat
Boston City Council Candidate5th district GOP nominee Frank Addivinola by at least 20 points, and I’d be surprised if she faces a serious Republican challenge in November of 2014 – of all the districts in the country to which the GOP could look to preserve their majority by picking off an incumbent Democrat, this one would be pretty far down the list. (Look for more heavy spending to try to unseat John Tierney though.) I’d also be surprised to see a serious primary challenge to Clark on the Democratic side, though I suppose if she takes some positions that enrage the base, that could change. I think that’s unlikely.Forever tainted? You make it sound like she ran Willie Horton ads.
Katherine Clark and Emily’s list left some with a sour taste the fear should be will that turn off the activist and will that result in even a lower turn out? it is a risk and to ignore it is tempting the fates. I would point out that Martha Coakley had a +30 coming out of the primary and was all but anointed to be the next Senator. The trip and pictures on the beach in December was a catalyst to voters taking a second look and others to take a seat on the sidelines. The polls post the pictures began to fall and the week of the pictures she fell to -3 and never could get back the momentum. This certainly is Monday morning analysis but the facts when you lay out the time line fall very closely into line. All I suggest is that any wound especially self inflicted runs the risk of turning voters off and projecting the image of being in the seat before your voted on. Couple that with a December election that could see less then a 10% voter turn out and anything can happen. One should be mindful of that and deal with it early and then run run run. Many here have vented today which is healthy so long as they get over it and move on.
is no Scott Brown. Even Scott Brown was a flash in the pan, the Sam Horn of Massachusetts politics.
I think you and bluewatch are vastly overstating the power of Emily’s List and the wealthy Cambridge donors line. Honestly, at the end of the day she ran a great grassroots campaign holding house parties and getting the right kind of local activists in the room to spread the word to their friends. She got a lot of middle aged and older women activists to back her which was incredibly smart. At the end of the day Sciortino had the young Obama volunteers and LGBTQ activists, but they weren’t pulling beyond his urban base as much as he thought they would. Peter K had a much better turnout than people here thought due to union support and a more shoe leather campaign, but he also had Spilka and Brownsberger eating into his bases. The prior incumbent, Ed Markey, had a solid base in the center of the district and Clark’s was only one town away from that. She probably had the territory to the north and west of her pretty well covered.
I agree that Emily’s List should not endorse in primaries where all the candidates are progressives, nor should they stop to those tactics, but the same could be said of PCCC.
To answer David’s initial question, another loser I would add is the Peoples Pledge. I think Brownsberger put his campaign in a self imposed straightjacket with his own spending requirements, a la Tolman in 2002, and it utterly failed to stop outside groups from running misleading ads to influence the race. That is the real shame, but I don’t see Clark having a tough time in the general or being anything short of a solid progressive vote in the House. She wasn’t my first choice in the primary but she is my first choice now.
This is especially on point, in my opinion:
We like to think that all the “flashy” stuff (ads, flyers, endorsements from newspapers and politicians) has huge influence.
But the “low-tech” one foot in front of the other strategies of intimate kitchen table conversations, dear friend cards, and connecting early and often with local grassroots activists who will knock on doors and make phone calls and recruit their friends — that is how a competitive race is won.
This is how Katherine did so well outside her home turf, as well as in her home base — I can attest to this personally. And she not only did all of the above, and worked her behind off, but she went out of her way to personally contact and thank volunteers who helped her, including me and many others, repeatedly. That kind of attention to how one treats and appreciates the grassroots folks who are the heart of a campaign is a factor that I think often gets overlooked. And I think it bodes very well for December 10 and beyond.
candidates with the large war chest and wealthy friends are always in favor of outside money that would even up the race. PAC money and independent expenditures have a tremendous impact with seriously positive and negative effects.
Environmental, social justice, labor and other progressive PAC’s help bring attention to progressive values and elect progressive candidates.
Without their influence, the Democratic nominee may have been Will Brownsberger.
The clear solution is public financing of elections.
time to “get over it and move on.”
That’s what Em’s List assumed would happen. They assumed that they could do whatever they want, and everybody would forget about it and “move on”.
Like the vast majority of the voters in MA05, I did not vote for Clark.
I will not forget Emily’s List’s deception. I will not forget Clark’s acquiescence. I am not “moving on”.
who keeps castigating Martha for going to the beach at every opportunity.
I thought Emily’s list ads were a disgrace, but I don’t support gender politics anyway.
this election year has tested the metal of many voters. Certainly you have to admit voter fatigue is growing we certainly are seeing it in my city and the others I have looked at in the area. Suggesting that something that may seem at the time as unimportant can turn public opinion quickly. My point is that Katherine Clark needs to keep her foot on the gas and not stop what she is doing until after Dec. This is also true of the activists supporting for her campaign. Many many many of us looked at Matha Coakley’s win over the field in November as the end of the fight. Let’s not do that again. I am certain Katherine is not taking the coming election lightly that is not in her nature. Using a lose as a good example to others that the job is not over until it is over is wise in light of that lose.
You know … I feel like there’s a right way and a wrong way to do that. Paycheck fairness is a perfectly good issue — particularly if you’ve got proximate legislation like Lily Ledbetter to focus on. Choice is a good issue. Universal pre-school, I think, is a freaking *great* issue. Family leave is a great issue. There are tons of “mommy” issues [big scare quotes — they affect men too] that are just good issues — things that are really affecting people *every day*, that shape lives and demand examination in the political sphere. Our economic and political system is still not reconciled to the fact that women work.
What I really don’t like – perhaps for obvious reasons – is the sister-thing approach: Vote for me because I’m a woman! I feel you because I’m a woman. I’m breaking the glass ceiling! I get it, but after a point it sounds like old-timey identity politics — focused on the candidate rather than on the constituents. Clark did indeed lean on that pretty heavily, like Coakley before her, and like Hillary is doing now. Again, it’s not always wrong, but it can sound kind of fake and tinny if you don’t do it right. Pretty sure Emily’s List crossed that line.
I’ve tried to articulate this before but you put it together rather nicely. And I think te a fair critique of Clark and Emily’s List as well. I don’t think it will pigeonhole Clark as much as it did Hillary or Coakley. That said, it seems that Coakley has not learned her lesson.
As you know, I have my differences with Martha Coakley. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the Red Sox or any beach. I agree with you that continued harping on that isn’t helpful.
I share your feelings about the ads and about gender politics.
It sounds like we’re going to send another strong progressive Democrat to Congress. Yesterday’s election was good for the nation, good for Massachusetts, and good for progressives.
That’s enough for me.
I endorse her candidacy wholehearted…and daaayum but the PUMA faction of 2008 sure has some for real reach!
Elias N
As in, disgruntled Clintonites? Please clarify.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=puma
David, I disagree with your comments about PCCC. It is not fair to say that they “went negative” on Clark. They simply pointed to important issues where Clark voted (or introduced bills) in a way that is inconsistent with progressive principles. When you talk about issues, you are not “going negative”. In my view, you are only going negative when you attack somebody’s character or heritage.
Also, if Clark is, as you say, “pissed off”, because PCCC criticized her views, then Clark is unfit to be a Congresswoman. Do you think that Clark should be similarly “pissed off” that the ACLU also criticized her views on wiretapping?
I don’t think that progressive organizations, like the ACLU and the PCCC should worry about whether a congresswoman will be “pissed off” if they disagree on certain issues.
should try to have good relationships with Members of Congress with whom they are likely to agree a lot of the time. Clark obviously meets that description, yet PCCC did as much as they could to hurt Clark (but for the People’s Pledge, one assumes they’d have done more). Having done that, PCCC is obviously in no position to expect her to put their phone calls very high on the “must return” list.
Also, “unfit to be a Congresswoman”? I’d say that’s a tad overstated.
I expect a member of Congress to have thick skin. He/she should know that organizations like ACLU, PCCC, Planned Parenthood will not always agree with her votes. And, those organizations make known their views. S/he should also know that some organizations make endorsements, and s/he might not get endorsed.
If Katherine Clark doesn’t want to return calls from PCCC or from ACLU, or from anybody else who disagrees with her on an issue, then she is, indeed, unfit to be a democratic congresswoman.
I would say it this way: organizations like ACLU, PCCC, etc. should know that any given Member of Congress will not always agree with their preferred positions. They should be much more worried about building relationships and allies with those who are generally sympathetic to their goals, and much less about purity.
Relatedly, I am far, far less concerned about whether Clark (or any other elected official) will be returning phone calls from a special-interest group than I am about whether she’ll be returning phone calls from her constituents. That, of course, remains to be seen.
You seem to think that organizations like PCCC, and PP need to worry about their relationships with members of congress, and, as a result, avoid actions that might irritate them. Well, those organizations still have the right to enter the political process, make endorsements, and do issue-oriented ads. They can’t be worried that, if they support the wrong candidate, their influence might be diminished. They need to be true to their beliefs.
Even though PCCC endorsed her opponent, Clark makes a huge mistake if she is petty and refuses to return their phone calls.
And, what about the labor unions that endorsed her opponents? Do you think that those unions are losers because Clark won’t return their calls either?
We’ll agree to disagree on this. I will simply say that if these groups don’t have any functioning relationships with Members of Congress, then I’m not sure exactly how they plan to achieve their goals.
If she doesn’t return their calls in the future, that says more about her than about them. Pointing out votes that go against an organization’s principles is not only justified, I’d be disappointed in a group that didn’t do it.
PCCC’s goal is to elect serious progressives to Congress. If Clark is elected, as I expect she will be, and the seat’s safe, having little to do with her frees them up to focus on other races. I’d guess they only got involved heavily here in the first place because it’s a special with nothing else going on.
And if she finds herself in electoral trouble one of these years, she’ll take their calls.
Five good candidates is a lot these days.
Incidentally, the field was actually seven. Why did we hear so little about the other two?
They didn’t have money or name recognition, and they had not previously held office. All the others were incumbents of some sort. Personally I think that anyone who got on the ballot should have participated in the debates.
so sorry if i repeat others’ remarks. Huge night for Clark. She was a strong candidate, and I’m truly happy for her. I agree that PK didn’t manage to catch on, which is too bad because he really would have been a great Congressman.
Sciortino and his allies were the big losers in my view. He failed to gain any traction outside of his House district despite a huge amount of free advertising generated by his commercial. I can’t believe he didn’t do better in the Cambridge area either. He also made a ton of enemies with his campaign making Clark and Brownsberger out to be border line tea partiers. The takeaway from Spilka’s performance has to be that the Framingham belt of the district lacks the electoral clout to really deliver, as she did well, percentage wise, at home, but still got crushed. But to me, the big takeaway was that this campaign was a real bright spot for progressives. We had our choice of several proud progressive candidates with different priorities, demographic characteristics, and backgrounds. Great experience organizing as well, with 5 mediocre to strong campaigns. Contrast that with even the Kennedy and Warren victories, where the favored candidates immediately were able to push the others out.
Please follow me on twitter @kitty_oneil
“Border line tea partiers,” LOL. I liked Sciortino though–he has a great future ahead of him (as long as he doesn’t venture anywhere west of 495!)
“He failed to gain any traction outside of his House district despite a huge amount of free advertising generated by his commercial.”
That is simply not true. He ended with 16% of the vote while only representing 3% of the Congressional district. He had very good results in Cambridge (an area that Clark has been targeting from day 1), and other towns such as Lexington, Arlington, and Sudbury. Looking at the results objectively, he is the only other candidate besides Clark who performed well outside of district, although she obviously performed much better.
You may be right about him having gained enemies. I disagree and think that he substantially raised his local and national profile favorably during this race, but on the underperforming claim, that is not reflected in the evidence at all.
I created a table that shows the community, the turnout for the CD5 primary and the turnout for the 2013 Senate primary. The percentage is the CD5 vote as it relates to the senate vote. I can’t assess whether a high percentage shows a strong effort in CD5 or a lower percentage shows a strong effort in the senate primary. I made it a separate post, but I thought that it might interest folks here.