IMHO:
Deval Patrick- Yes. May be the only Democrat with statewide organization and money raising potential and narrative to take on the empty barncoat and win a one-on-one contest. But, he would need to be pressured from the WH and DC crowd to do it. He shows little interest in it and appears to be frying other fish.
Kennedy’s- No. Vickie, Joe, and Joe III are smart enough to know that a Kennedy name on the ballot will lead to another Talk-radio barrage of “it’s not the Kennedy seat” nonsense (which helped Scott Brown raise millions from out of state contributors who never heard of him) Who needs it?
Former Kennedy staffer Gerry Kavanaugh- Probably can’t. Smart, connected, personable, looks like he could be a Kennedy cousin, access to heavy political donors, understands the issues, good talker, married to former Speaker McGee’s daughter Colleen, respected resource on development issues…but, would be handicapped with the same “Not a Kennedy seat” mantra and Beltway Boy-lobbyist stigma.
The Beltway Boy Delegation: They can’t. They won’t. Our Congressional delegation is focused on holding onto their own District lines and Congressional seats and not being risk takers will opt to pray for a Kerry departure and another Special Senate race in 2012…no risk contest. Markey has a history of stepping up to the line and running back to safety. And former Congressman Marty Meehan has nixed the idea of spending his war chest on this race and will stay put at UMass Lowell.
Beltway Boy Hamlets:
Rep. Mike Capuano- Probably can’t. Smart. Passionate. Seems angry (even when he’s not). Too hot for TV. Couldn’t win the Special primary even with Diane Patrick’s endorsement. GOP made him the poster boy for Beltway Politics and a Pelosi insider and would again. Independent voters elect US Senators and they will not be electing a Beltway Boy against Brown’s “independent, works with both sides” spiel.
Rep. Steve Lynch- Can’t. Smart. Strong advocate for unions and middle class workers. Won’t be able to rally all of the state party Dems around his candidacy…pro-life position doesn’t cut it in Democratic convention…party regulars will sit on their hands and let Brown win.
Senate Special Also-Ran, Alan Khazei_ Can’t. Co-founder of City year raised and spent $3 million in the Senate Special primary, but failed (even with the Globe endorsement) to catch any fire or traction. May be able to scrape together 15% at convention but that’s where he would peak. A little quirky personality…the fully accessorized pirate costume on Halloween may not have been best choice in a year when barncoats were the costume rage.
Lt. Gov. Also-Ran Bob Massie- Can’t. Like a phoenix, Bob Massie has returned to the Dem. political stage. Ran on the Dems weakest ticket with Roosevelt way back when. Has a long and complicated narrative-Historian parents,hemophilia, HIV, divinity school, marriage, divorce, kidney transplant, non-profit founder…hard to keep it all straight, but he is nice, smart and very liberal/progressive and looking for rebirth. Appeal will be limited to progressive Dems. A great Oprah guest candidate but will not wrench independent voters away from Brown. File: Nice off-beat guys finish last.
The Warrens:
Mayor Setti Warren Probably can’t. Smart, ambitious, African-American, veteran, articulate, aide to Kerry, good narrative…Won very close election for Mayor of Newton little more than a year ago and is now looking for an exit straight to US Senate. Hopes to parlay “Patrick and Kerry are my bff’s” into statewide support. Problem: Deval and Kerry have many bff’s in this scrum. Fellow Mayors statewide and citizens of Newton and Balser supporters are (and have good reason to be) amazed at his hubris…as Dem. and independent voters may well be. He expects to benefit from the Dem. minority vote that sat out the Special Senate race and who will turn out for Obama in 2012…but, Independents decide finals.
Elizabeth Warren- Can’t, won’t, don’t. Dan Payne’s designated “Only heavy hitter” in consideration..if President Obama had the fortitude to name her the post she should be in (permanent head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and fight for it to stick, her name would be mute in this discussion. She belongs right where she is. Efforts to draft the little-known woman from Harvard University to run against Downtown Scotty Brown seems almost demeaning (to her)…Write Obama,urge his action to appoint Warren.
THE OTHER UNDECIDEDS
The other Mayor:
Mayor Kim Driscoll Probably can’t. Superstar in Essex County, rising star in Dem. party statewide…successful 4 term mayor. intelligent, quick wit, politically astute, innovative, popular with and respected among Mayors and local electeds, VP Mass. Mayors Assn….champion of municipal issues, more personable than Coakley and a relentless campaigner…strong Patrick/Murray supporter…Salem/Essex County is a small base…Fundraising on larger scale needed will be huge challenge…(Coakley raised $5 million for Primary by being the “almost certain winner”, Dems this year will be the “long shots” and money will be tougher to get, especially for newcomers to statewide races)…Key MA female donors (HRC/MC contributors) may sit out primary waiting for better odds (which is why it takes so long for women to climb the ladder.)
Robert Pozen Can’t Successful businessman reported to be considering a run for US Senate. Just as another ego to spare, money to burn, businessman failed to take flight in spite of spending $8.5 million ($7.5 was his own money), Robert will hit a similar reality. Bob should take a long hard look into the eyes of whatever political consultant is convincing him that this is a winnable adventure (and worth every penny taken from his deeper than deep pockets to have an ego boost for a short period of time) and say, “Do you have me confused with Steve Paglialucca?!”
P.S.
OTHER ALREADY DECLARED CANDIDATE:
Marrissa DeFranco, Definitely Can’t– Middleton Dem. Town Committee member, immigration lawyer, Alternate Delegate to Dem. Convention…Middleton’s answer to Grace Ross, self-appointed savior for the Democratic Party…has filed paperwork with federal campaign finance, husband as treasurer. Unlikely to get 10,000 signatures or 15% at convention but will demand to be heard at every Dem. event between now and then.
Sad but true, the only way to change those “can’t win” designations into “can win” is to take away the greatest stumbling block and Brown’s greatest asset in this race. Take away the need for the Democratic candidate to battle through an expensive and divisive convention and primary contest. Get behind one candidate with the best shot of bringing a fresh, compelling, energetic and determined message to recapture Democratic and Independent middle class voters who are far more concerned about Main Street than K Street who were lost to the artful dodger in the Special Senate race.
Senator Scott Brown will win unless and until the Democratic Party (that failed to truly rally behind Coakley after the primary) decides to get serious about doing what is necessary to take the people’s seat back by supporting one candidate who will actually represent the people when elected (no costume needed).
PS on Brown’s DSCC poll numbers: they look as high as Martha Coakley’s numbers were at this time 2 years ago…the rest is history.
Sorry, but I disagree with the whole let’s skip a primary because it’s too messy mentality. People have a right to run and the rest of us have a right to influence the outcome.
And people who might be considering a suicide run have a right to think twice about it and step back and give support to someone else who has a better chance of final victory if the field is cleared.
<
p>People enter races for many reasons…some to increase their name recognition, some for something to satisfy their ego, some to get away from a current job, some just want the attention and notoriety no matter how short-lived, some for a delusional belief that they can actually win a race they are not qualified or equipped to win by any stretch of reality.
<
p>All I am saying is to win this Senate seat back will be a one-on-one race…or will be a lost race.
AFTER the primary. The candidates should commit up front to working tirelessly for the eventual nominee. The 2007 CD5 special was a model of civility among 5 candidates and the special primary that John Olver won in the early 1990s included then-DSC Chair Steve Grossman basically making all primary candidates promise they would support the nominee.
The LONG Primary season…eats up Democratic candidate funds and leaves the ultimate winner broke, battered and vulnerable. The losers and their supporters WILL come to the Unity breakfast, smile for the camera and do very LITTLE after to support the winner.
<
p>The final election period is SHORT. Not enough time to start from scratch raising a new war chest or to get primary winner’s expanded field in line. Money has been squandered on primary and needless convention. Emily’s list is great but has many strings attached. Other DC Dem. gurus don’t show up with $$ until it’s too late and they want to say how it will be spent. DC PACs contribute independent expenditures through their own negative ads (you know the kind I mean: like the ones produced and placed by the DC geniuses that tried to muddy up Brown but ended up splattering the blame/mud onto Coakley and creating sympathy for Brown and driving her negatives up)
<
p>
Welcome to the world of the Republican Party in Massachusetts. If you want to shorten the primary season and expand the general election time-frame, I’m all for it. I think on Beacon Hill you won’t find much support for it from the incumbents.
Even Scott Brown had to survive an old-fashioned smoke-filled meeting with Andrew Card to decide who was going to be the anointed establishment candidate.
Primaries in:
<
p>The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Congressional districts last year.
<
p>As well as numerous state legislative primaries.
…though obviously not always insurmountable.
…I see it as emphatically the state party’s job to drive up Brown’s negatives before there is an endorsed or nominated candidate. For every bad vote Brown makes the party should cut a TV ad criticizing him for it.
The reason we have such a short list is precisely this. The Democratic Party in Mass. has not figured out how to drive up Brown’s negatives.
<
p>Waiting until he has a primary opponent is so late it’s stupid.
They seem to be sitting down and ignoring. At their own peril. At this point any warm Democrat that isn’t Brown is better, and the only way to build that warm Dems positives up is to ramp Browns negatives WAY UP. Lets do it now.
HL — NO ONE who is capable of clearing a field has declared, and until they do, your point is entirely moot. You can’t simultaneously make the point that the field should be cleared when there isn’t someone capable of clearing the field to begin with. Furthermore, be aware that some of the people who would be capable of clearing a field to at least some degree (Vicki, Elizabeth Warren, one of the congresscritters, etc.) are the very same people who you may not think would have a good chance of beating Brown. Lastly, on this point, be aware of the fact that there are others who would disagree with you that Patrick is likely to beat Brown if he were to run, even if they’d probably agree he could “clear the field,” and if recent history is to be a guide, a sitting governor doesn’t always fare so well against a sitting senator when the two match up.
<
p>–
<
p>
<
p>Two things on the above point you made.
<
p>1. That’s incredibly cynical, to the extent that I actually view it as obnoxious and/or completely ignorant. I’ve been deeply involved in many political races and have gotten to know at least a few people running as candidates very well by this point. Not a single one of them ran to increase name recognition or merely to “satisfy their ego.” They run because they think they can do the best job.
<
p>2. There’s only one declared candidate in this race, thus far. Bob Massie. Do you actually think he’s in this because of ego, or to increase his name recognition? Or for “attention and notoriety?” Or because he’s “delusional?”
<
p>
<
p>And how well did that work out for us in the Special Election, when Martha Coakley won the primary with around 60-70% of the vote and then lost handily to Brown? While there was a primary in that race, it wasn’t much of one and didn’t leave her scarred and bruised going into the general. In fact, what you’ve asked for — that the stage be cleared for a one-on-one general — essentially happened, because that’s certainly what the vote looked like in the end (in which she received more votes than all the other candidates combined).
<
p>She didn’t lose that race because she had a primary, she lost that race because she was a bad candidate in that election. Do you think it at all possible that the actual person who wins the primary is going to be more important in terms of their chance to win that race than the # of opponents she or he had in the primary?
<
p>—
<
p>One final point: Have you ever considered the fact that Deval Patrick just isn’t that interested? He’s already been through two general elections at this point, being battered and bruised in both, at least in the press, if not at the polls, and by the time this election comes around, he would have been in office for six grueling years in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
<
p>He’d have to break a few promises to actually run — betraying the voter’s trust after having 16 years of Governors of this state essentially abandoning post (a point I’m sure he’s been sensitive towards) — and let’s not forget that our Governor is a family guy. He invested huge chunks of his change into a beautiful house out in the Berkshires for his family and may just like to spend some time with them there. Maybe he wants to enjoy it?
<
p>We need to be aware that we were incredibly lucky to have a guy like the Governor run in ’06, and our state has certainly been better off with him in the Corner Office than without him. But we have to respect the fact that he’s a human being and has to make the choice of how best to live his own life, after giving so much of himself to this state for what will eventually be eight years. I certainly hope he doesn’t permanently retire from politics, but I’m not going to begrudge the man a break if he needs and/or wants it.
Ryan, please reread, in your haste to comment I believe you missed the paragraph where I clearly stated that I think Deval is the ONLY ONE DEMOCRAT who can clear the field JUST BY putting his name in the race AND that he has NO interest in doing that… I didn’t say he should run (nor do I even care if he does), I was just stating the fact of this particular matter.
<
p>Just because you don’t agree with someone does not make their argument “ridiculous.” Other than Deval, no potential candidate can clear the field just by entering the race…To come to one candidate will require actions by the party and its leaders to coax, influence and whittle the field down to one viable candidate (there are many ways to get would-be candidates to reconsider entering a race for the sake of the party or their own self-interest…)…because at this point there is no one candidate who can carry the day without getting a 100% effort, resources and backing from the party. That’s just the way it is.
<
p>As for your two numbered points:
<
p>1. Oh, to be young! Although you consider me “cynical”, “obnoxious” and “ignorant” (you could write for SNL news), I will stand by my statement. At your age, I, too, had been “deeply involved” in a similar handful of campaigns and met many candidates…but, I am not your age anymore, I am my age and have racked up far too many candidates and campaigns to count on my fingers and toes…I have met and worked to elect some great people along the way, but I have also met more than a few who were less so. They all have their reasons for getting in the race…and rest assured, they are not all the same nor are they all altruistic. I will leave it to time to provide that lesson to you because experience is the best teacher.
<
p>2. I made it clear what I thought about Bob Massie (whom I know and supported years ago)…he is seeking a rebirth in politics…he is smart and nice and thoughtful and caring…but he will not beat Brown…Brown is not a politician, he is a celebrity and in this society celebrity trumps divinity school…Brown was looking for a stage, Massie is looking for a pulpit…won’t happen….
but just because someone disagrees with you and happens to be younger than you are, it does not make them too young to know any better. I know it probably wasn’t your intention to be patronizing, but that was the effect.
<
p>Besides, I’m not a particularly idealistic person; I just happen to think most of our political problems are caused by our political process, as well as a cultural resistance to change.
<
p>—
<
p>
<
p>Given your section on Deval, and all the flaws you wrote about everyone else in the race, thinking of running or being actively recruited, I don’t think I was taking a huge leap in thinking the implication of your piece was that we needed Deval Patrick in the race, even if we had to drag him kicking and screaming.
<
p>So, if you recognize the futility in that endeavor, and still insist on having no real primary, if not the Governor, then who? This is that whole trying-to-stop-the-water-with-your-hands thing. It’s nice to say we can’t have a primary, but if there’s no one who’s thinking of running who can legitimately clear the field, you’re either asking for the impossible or the kind of corrupt behind-the-scenes shenanigans which would de-legitimize the process.
<
p>
<
p>Another word for ridiculous is preposterous, which means, “completely contrary to nature, reason or common sense.” If there is no candidate capable of “clearing the field” in the race or even thinking of entering the race, and yet you think it should be cleared, you’re asking people to go against their nature as both human beings and voters, who often like to look at an assortment of candidates. By asking the public to vote for a candidate who never went through a legitimate primary process, you’re asking them to go against their better reason. By asking them to support a candidate they may not like when there are other possible choices they may like better, you’re asking them to go against their common sense. I don’t use the word ridiculous because I’m trying to be mean, I use it because it’s the one that applies.
but, respect your right to have an opinion different than mine.
To be on a big stage you need the big ego. You have to. To think you are right all the time. To think that you can get away with just about anything and people will look the other way? Thats huge ego, beyond rationality really. You hear all the time about womanizing, philandering, inexcusable abuses of power and money, and these guys (and some gals) REALLY believe what they are doing is ok. I know elected officials that have done things that are inexcusable and they should not be in office, and they still are!! And dont care!! EGO. They love seeing there name. And with social media…woah boy. The ones who twitter and facebook all the time about all they are doing…they are the biggest egomaniacs of all..I wouldn’t trust any of them. And they will run because they care more about themselves then the issues because you can fight for your issues behind the scenes a lot more than on the stage.
<
p>I was asked to run for State Rep but I said no. I can do more where I am and my ego doesn’t need to be fed like that.
<
p>Brown has a HUGE ego…I think that is his achilles heel…how does a guy who has bone nothing as a politician run for one of the biggest offices, then writes a ME book (look at me here, look at me there, look at me with him and her…blah blah…but don’t look at me record, cause I dont have one)
<
p>But then the Dems do something stupid like ask for his medical records and offer an even worse retort. We have a PR problem at the Senatorial Committee. That ridiculous flyer they put out about Brown during the Coakley campaign about the rape issue was nonsense and gave him ammo. They are causing more problems…they have lost touch.
<
p>What we need is an honest, down to earth pragmatic candidate. Who does not get caught up in the hyperbole and wont use the BS tactics and let the Repubs hang themselves as they always offer the opportunity to do.
Most politicians have plenty of ego, but that doesn’t make them “driven” by it. It’s just their source of confidence to run in the first place.
<
p>The people who are driven by their egos in politics are usually pretty easy to spot — Donald Trump being the best recent example. Some of these self-absorbed candidates may be able to pull a fast one on the general public for a while, but they’ll eventually be found out — Sarah Palin fitting the bill in that department.
<
p>An ego is not a bad thing so long as it doesn’t trespass into the realms of the selfish and self-absorbed. It’s something we should encourage people to have in moderation.
And that manifest itself as being thin skinned to any criticism, I remember a day or two after winning, he called into Eagan and Braude, who supported Coakley but gave Brown more air time (because Brown always called in) and he laid into them for all the “unfair” things they said about him. I was thinking, “This guy just won a huge victory and he still wants to get back at people who he thinks did him wrong:.
<
p>Given that, Brown is capable of melting down, people just need to figure out how to goat him…because he will take the bait.
So his supporters need to stop claiming that. Marisa DeFranco is also a declared candidate.
Please allow me to weigh in on the question of EGO. For Senator Brown, ego is the manifestation of the armor and personas he has developed to shield the scared, insecure little boy who was hurt, abandoned, betrayed and somehow figured out that he had to be an uber-male to defend himself and be in control. The choices he has made from adolescence onward tell the real story….and I haven’t read the book.
<
p>It is rather simple and not a surprise people.
<
p>He told the national media about being sexually assaulted and abused as a child before telling his wife and grown daughters. That seems to reveal a problem with intimacy and rational boundaries. There is a sad lonely boy in the suit of a US Senator….but surely he is not alone.
<
p>When politics are viewed from a feminist lens and we see how the Republican (conservative – aka cleaving to the past) paternalistic policies differ fundamentally from egalitarian and progressive (at least philosophically) Democrat policies, it explains a lot about candidates and their world view.
<
p>Bottom line, Brown is a survivor and a fighter. He is able to morph into the role that fits, as he like Ronald Reagan, is a character actor. Have compassion but beware that he is resourceful and has yet to hit his stride. It will take a survivor who is a harder worker with a huge and coordinated team to take the seat back on 2012. In the meantime, measure the resources and understand that the White House is the big enchilada.
as an anti war candidate to run against Democratic Congressman Phil Philben in the primary.
<
p>Different situation I know, but we worked together to remove a powerful Congressman who served on the armed services committee. Potential candidates vowed to pull out and endorse the winner. Lots of disciplined anti war activists in the Democratic Party made it all happen. Of course Philben was NOT a charismatic celebrity, to say the least.
<
p>Obviously the Democratic Party could not do this kind of thing, but is there a state wide organization of political activists with the credibility to pull off this kind of effort?
I forgot about that happening. But, it is an excellent example of how a concerted effort and discipline can have positive results against even a powerful incumbent.
<
p>Today it would be harder I think to get individual candidates or wannabe candidates to sacrifice their own agendas for the common good because organizations and war chests build up around specific candidates rather than party affiliation.
<
p>But, using the influence, power and pressure of peripheral organizations is something to think about…
A group of like minded experienced respected individual members of the the Blue Mass Group community could volunteer to organize such an effort — using the famous BMG PAC as a fund raising and endorsement mechanism.
Who is going to decide? Coakley was the anointed candidate last time, and her having to compete in the primary had nothing whatsoever to do with her losing the general. She did that on her own with a consistent lack of effort, punctuated by a couple of enormous blunders.
<
p>I would be seriously annoyed if I didn’t even get to vote for my preference because the Party decided for me who’s allowed to be a candidate. Just like I’m always annoyed when the Presidential candidate I like gets forced out by votes in Iowa and New Hampshire before I even get to vote. Eliminating candidates before the people get to have a voice is undemocratic.
except for all the others.
<
p>And that certainly includes those two failed kingmakers, Conventional Wisdom and Emily’s List, who last year put their heads together and elected Scott Brown.
<
p>With that caveat: This is a thought experiment. What if we selected our nominee in a smoke-filled back room? What if we were the Wise Old Men and Women tasked with picking the standard-bearer to face Brown?
<
p>HLPerry’s pick has one obvious defect: Patrick does not want the job.
<
p>I do not for a moment long for the smokey back room, but it makes for an interesting discussion.
HLPeary stated 2 facts about Deval: 1. He could clear the field and has potential to defeat Brown, and 2) he is not interested in running. I did not PICK Deval for anything. That said, if I were doing the picking from our long shot group, I would look for someone whom Brown would have the hardest time broad brushing with his simplistic cliches… a fresh face, non-Beltway, accomplished, sharp witted with sense of humor, smart, scandal free/drama free, with growth potential on a sharp curve, willing to campaign 24/7…hey, a uniter not a divider!…someone the union members not just their “leaders” could rally for…someone who understands the frustrations Massachusetts middle class families are going through as they struggle to hang onto a rung of the American Dream ladder…someone who could make it unquestionably clear which candidate truly cared about Seniors and Social Security, Veterans and veterans services, supporting people who do the jobs over the Wall Street greedmeisters…we need a candidate who can make the case in a lear and compelling way…to the point campaigning…
<
p>Name recognition can be bought with money, enough money and enough time (and that’s why one candidate is the best option)
Ha! “lear” and compelling way…must have been Freudian slip…sorry : )
Pozen is a Democrat? Didn’t he work for Romney?
I don’t recall Obama being weakened by a primary, or Deval for that matter. Fact is, I don’t know any meta-analysis that attempts to measure the impact of a divisive primary, but examples are too thick on the ground of counterexamples.
<
p>I can’t help noticing that your post is that we should unite behind someone who can beat Brown, and that the only person who can beat Brown is Deval who almost definitely will not run. So we unite behind nobody…?
The point I was trying to make was that of all Democrats today, Deval is the only one who could give Brown a strong challenge and ultimately win the race. Problem: he’s not inclined to run! So where does that leave us? With lesser known candidates each of whom possesses positives and negatives that will make defeating Brown harder for them IF they have to run and pay for a bruising Primary before taking on Brown. I am arguing to have the party leaders take a hard look at the bevy of wannabe candidates (and for the candidates to take a hard look at themselves) and determine who among them has the least number of negatives to contend with and who comes closest to the paradigm for the type of candidate required to offset Brown’s schtick. I know this sounds undemocratic, but it is a strategic attempt to give the Democratic nominee a fighting chance.
<
p>I believe Brown, the artful dodger, is beatable…but, not if Democrats beat themselves first.
After seeing Brown, who was a largely an unknown to the voters prior to the Senate race, beat Coakley, I am unwilling to assume that only some big name politician is capable of beating someone like Brown.
<
p>And frankly, the “party leaders” have done an abysmal job of picking candidates in the past. I have no reason to believe that pattern is going to change this time around.
<
p>
Kevin, (with the exception of Special Elections) the “party” already controls who’s name gets on the Democratic primary ballot by invoking to the 15% Rule…therefore, the delegates to the convention are the “pickers and sorters” not the “leaders”…the delegates were elected by the ward and town committees to represent (and pick) for the local Democrats…so if you have been dissatisfied with the Democratic candidates who were allowed onto the Democratic ballot, your gripe is with the convention delegates.
…convention delegates are chosen by local caucuses at which all registered Democrats are eligible to vote. Some communities even do a decent job of having their caucuses attended by more than just committee members.
Sorry to have misunderstood on what distinguished Patrick for you. However, my point that there is no clear evidence that primaries hurt candidates remains.
it looks like finding a candidate presents more difficulties than a primary.
<
p>BTW, Is it even possible to have someone from Western Mass elected to the senate?
Hmm, I’ll need to think about that (Jane Swift as a winning LG candidate doesn’t count…she was picked.)
And Jane Swift’s appointment to LG doesn’t count…neither does acting-Governor when it’s due to the parade of Republican Governors defaulting on the Commonwealth.
Sure if a Deval or 1 from the delegation or a E. Warren runs and no other first tier candidate runs, the field almost clears itself. But if the field is filled with Mayors, former Chief’s of staff, millionaire egos and Massie…who “decides” who is anointed?
<
p>
I agree if Deval got in, it would immediately clear the field. But, not so if a congressman jumped in because no matter how much money they had, congressmen are not really well-known outside their own district (1/11th of state) as Rep. Capuano found out. And Scott Brown would rewind his old tape and run against the Congressional Beltway Boys again (who have about a 24% favorabilty rating right now with the public) E. Warren is not a household word either and has no experience running for anything.
<
p>That said, who decides who the one candidate will be? Good question. I recall when Democratic local caucuses were overrun with people wanting to elect delegates to the Democratic nominating convention…because the convention actually endorsed one candidate and that chosen candidate was given preferential treatment and assistance as the party’s endorsed endorsed. Other candidates who lost the endorsement but got 15% of votes could move onto the primary if they chose to but without the special boost from the party. Candidates had to put real effort into getting local Dems to the caucuses and to contacting convention delegates from each community to win their votes. (No expensive TV and radio ads, just person to person contact, regional candidate forums and positive organization building activity)
<
p>Maybe we should go back to the future and reinstitute the true endorsing convention only conduct both the caucuses and the conventions earlier in the calendar. Once Democrats select their endorsed candidate at the convention, every advantage and resource should be given to that candidate and every encouragement to convention also-rans to step aside and support the endorsed candidate. You can’t stop someone who gets 10,000 signatures and 15% of convention votes from moving on to the primary, but you can make it harder for them to ignore the party’s decision.
Yea, there’s a few people who can “clear the field” almost completely of other candidates. But if even one congressperson throws their name in, that almost by definition “clears the field” of the others… particularly given the fact that we only lost one congressional seat.
<
p>And if that one congressperson runs, it makes it that much less likely that anyone less prominent would jump in. The much-talked-about Mayors of Newton and Salem probably won’t get in unless they’d be the “A” candidates in the race or thought they were going to be; I’d almost stake my life on that. The only way I see them getting in if someone in Congress runs is if that Congressman decided after one of the Mayors jumped in without giving signals that it was a possibility, or if Lynch is the Congressman to run and one of those two Mayors think they can outflank him from the left. That’s really it.
<
p>
<
p>Back to the future? That’s how it exists now. And winning a party’s endorsement at the state convention does not a field clear (nor have candidates ever received “special assistance” if they won the endorsement — you just get the endorsement). Just ask Deval Patrick, who won the party endorsement and still had two legit opponents face off against him in the primary — which no one ever thought would end up as lopsided as it did when all was said and done.
My point was that instead of just giving multiple candidates their 15%, make the convention endorsement actually mean something again! it used to mean the support and resources of the state party because the winner was selected to be truly endorsed by the party. Over time, because we wanted to be inclusive and nice, whether you were endorsed or not meant nothing much…NOW you win nothing except the privilege of wasting a ton of money wooing delegates who want to be wined, dined, entertained and ever so briefly adored. The convention should start to mean something again and in the case of the Senate race used to help clear the field.
I can easily imagine a non-endorsed candidate campaigning on theme of, “My opponent is the candidate of the party bosses and insiders; I’m the candidate of the people.”
<
p>That being said, I do also think there is merit to making the endorsement mean something, even if it’s just the privilege of being listed first on the ballot and/or marked on the ballot as the endorsed candidate.
is going to be determined by the candidate who gets the endorsement and by the people who gave it to them. Adding all sorts of new rules and policies to help give it new “meaning” may just rob it of some.
If anyone is going to be able to prick the media bubble it may well be an unconventional candidate who runs an unconventional campaign, precisely the kind of person who would not be anointed in advance.
And one way to sort this all out is to jump in early, and show both “fire in the belly” for the job and willingness to work for it long and hard.
<
p>So, yes, I am supporting Bob Massie rather than “waiting for the field to be fully declared.”
<
p>No coy candidates for me, thank you. In or out, please and now.
Fire away! But then you leave your flanks exposed. And the Republican party might just squeak by in more elections. You’re already being seriously challenged in town elections.
I’m running for Moderator in my town and I know at least a few Republicans supporting me. I don’t know off hand the party affiliation of my opponent.
Our DTC put up a candidate for Redevelopment Authority. An uncared about, unfilled position. Until a Republican filled the position by appointment, and began to display his skills to selectmen, the town manager, and even the board itself.
The DTC candidate knows everyone in town, as he himself says. Problem being, I have yet to hear anyone who DOES know him, speak well of him.
Town government is supposedly, and should be nonpartisan, I’ll readily agree with that. But of course, we know better.
But in Millbury, we at least try to do what’s best for the town. I hope.
I know there are some, myself included, who sympathize with the idea of letting the voters decide and passing everyone through convention. However, getting 15% takes some organization so there is a bit of separating the men from the boys (so to speak). Plus mathematically it is impossible for more than 6 candidates to survive convention.
While it may be an uphill battle to beat Brown, given his continuing popularity and large warchest, potential Democratic candidates seem to be far too pessimistic about this race.
<
p>Brown will be up for reelection in a high-turnout election in a strongly Democratic state; he will be forced into plenty of tough decisions between now and Nov. 2012 thanks to the Tea Party-pressured Republican leadership; the presidential candidate at the top of the GOP ticket could be a disaster for Massachusetts Republicans (if it’s someone like Newt or Huckabee); the nominee will get lots of money from the national party, which rightly sees this as the Dems’ best opportunity in the Senate next fall.
<
p>Too many MA Dems are being too risk-averse here, given our structural advantages in the next election. I’m fully in agreement that they need to “wise up,” and quickly.
A number of my right-wing card carrying NRA (pre-TEA party), to the right of Republicans and Attila the Hun – self described as “Libertarian” friends and neighbors voted for Deval Patrick in the primary in 2006. Their mindset was Kerry Healey would be in better shape going against Deval Patrick (“the outlier black guy from…who knows where?”).
<
p>We know how that worked out…..but maybe we should hope Newt-wit gets the GOP nod.
I believe that if people knew the actual voting record of the barn coat, truck, and boyish grin, they’d be highly disinclined to vote for it.
<
p>It would behoove us to spend a good long time making sure that everyone in the state had it burned into their brain that Brown forced tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, voted to repeal health care reform, and so forth.
<
p>Brown’s a skunk, hermetically sealed in a puppy costume – we need to tear the costume off and expose the voters to his true scent.
but also nonsense.
<
p>For starters, I’m sure tens of thousands of active democrats in this state would agree with you: it would nice if the field cleared and we all got behind the candidate early on. And I’m sure that everyone would agree that their individual favorite candidate is the perfect person to rally around. It’s just that all of our individual favorites are going to just so happen to be different.
<
p>Telling people we need to all rally around one of many possible candidates with little statewide name recognition and core statewide base is like standing in front of the beach and trying to hold back the tide. Ain’t gonna happen.
<
p>Beyond that — there’s absolutely, positively nothing that can be done to prevent people from running and even getting their 15% at the convention, at least if they’re at all credible in their candidacy. IF it were to happen, and somehow the state party crushed all opposition in favor of their anointed choice, it would have to come down from all of the state’s big whigs in charge of the party right — and for both the party chairman and our state’s top democrat, the gov, that’s not exactly how they roll.
<
p>And while our state party is pretty good working together, it’s not cohesive enough to even get all those ducks in order without a really, really tier-1 type candidate who has that kind of muscle. And if THAT were to happen, how do you expect supporters of other candidates to react when they realize their was an anointed choice? It may not be pretty.
<
p>The only candidates who could really clear the field — Patrick being the obvious choice, but possibly even Vicki or someone who was (really* close to the Senator — have made it beyond obvious that they’re not going to run. And if they were going to run, they should already be making it known soon that it’s going to happen, otherwise they’re simply not going to have the time to pull it off.
<
p>——-
<
p>Where does that leave us? Either we believe your political sport-like rundown — that Deval Patrick’s essentially the only candidate who can beat Brown, and either we get him to run or just hand the seat to Brown indefinitely — or we actually recognize the fact that it’s way too far out to make judgments on whether or not some of these other candidates have a chance.
<
p>I for one think some of them do have a chance. I like Massie and think he could certainly be a compelling candidate and could win statewide if he made it through the primary (and crazier things have happened — see Deval Patrick, 2006). So long as the party doesn’t annoint a candidate and we have a good primary, democrats will ultimately unite behind the winner because we know exactly how hard it will be to win with any of the candidates — even Governor Patrick. And I also think you scoff at Elizabeth Warren at your own peril — I don’t think she’ll run, but no one could make the economic case of just how dangerous Brown’s policies are better than she could.
<
p>Beating Brown is certainly going to be an uphill battle, but it makes no sense to stifle the debate or turn off the volunteers from working hard. That’s the opposite of what the state party is trying to do right now, in the interim before the next election. The state’s staying wholly focused on keeping people actively involved with their local democratic groups, even if the things they’re staying active doing isn’t completely political. The important thing to do here is not to panic and realize that Brown can be beaten; we just have to ensure as many people are active in the election as possible, and that we do a much better job of defining ourselves in this next election at the very same time that we ensure people realize who Brown really is as a politician. And in that light, someone who’s a relative unknown can actually be an asset — as Patrick was in 2006 — because there is no preconceived notion about that kind of a candidate, so we have free reign to define ourselves as the party who’s really going to go out there and get after those jobs and look out for the Bay State’s best interests.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis that offers a more democratic approach to the process than the original post. Senator Brown is a shiny new pol, just as President Obama was at one time. Voters, media and our society are fickle. Time will ripen and mature Brown’s appeal or he will age and his policies/votes/beliefs will be seen for what they are. Then the voters will get to decide if he is a match for the once-upon-a-time, but not so much, liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
<
p>I would not fret too much about 2012 with Brown…run great campaigns against him but be realistic.
<
p>Frankly, I think the POTUS in trouble and needs our collective support including getting our a$$e$ out of these wars.
<
p>Strategically, with limited resources of time, people and money, it seems that we might need to make a choice….let the senate seat go for another day and aim to keep the POTUS, or go for both and split resources.
Heartland…I’m surprised to read your suggestion that we pass on the Senate race, concede it to Brown in 2012 and give our time, people, money and resources to save Obama! If Obama needs saving in Massachusetts all is lost!
<
p>I am not willing to concede SIX years of bad votes to Brown. He may win, but not without a fight. Eventually he will destroy himself with his antics and smarmy nonsense but should we just sit around and wait for the inevitable to happen? Everyone, including the media, will eventually catch on to his act, but can’t we help educate them?
<
p>The DC geniuses suck the resources out of Massachusetts constantly in support of races around the country…maybe it’s time to get the donations and resources heading in the opposite direction.
<
p>If Massachusetts Democrats can’t handle a Senate race and Presidential race in the same year, they should pack up their tents. John Walsh won my respect when he had the integrity to admit that the state party had dropped the ball and not done what it should have to win the Special Senate race. And, he took action to make sure it would not be repeated by marshaling a statewide grassroots effort to defeat Baker. That same effort will be required again in 2012. I believe it can be done. But how much better and easier to do if we do not to waste resources on a primary debacle.
My DNA has fight all over it. My intellect however, tells me it is at best “an uphill battle” as posters have stated upstream.
<
p>You suggest a strategy to consolidate forces early-in (which would have been shortly after Coakley lost the seat to a Republican, imho). But since I don’t think we have a cannon and Senator Brown is well-liked by the majority of Mass voters, I think some realistic and strategic planning is required. That is what I suggested above. Clearly, you are passionate about this issue (Obama is in trouble and will need activists to help nationwide) and it worries me that the many party loyalists still, still (!) don’t get it that Independents are the majority and not everyone is liberal in Massachusetts. Some of the pundits say that people voted for Brown because he drove a truck. So be it….he is a savvy self-promoter which is a great skill for a pol.
<
p>He is however much smarter and harder working than folks here seem to be willing to acknowledge. He won because the people liked what they heard from him and it was a conservative message.
<
p>I hope we have a candidate with a strong progressive message to re-educate voters on values and policies and drive the discourse back to the left.
Brown is savvy enough to be on the winning side of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Planned Parenthood de-funding.
<
p>Those folks who thought he would burn himself by tipping too far right were way off. He is looking very reasonable and moderate to many.
<
p>At least he seems to be actively disassembling Tea Party support for a senator representing Massachusetts.
And I agree…the artful dodger is making clever moves to put himself on both sides of hot button issues…but eventually that will catch up to him and his act will not be as effective.
<
p>I am totally with you on the independent thing…I’ve never been deluded into thinking that Liberals control Massachusetts electorate, that’s a tired myth, the Independent voters are in charge of who wins.
<
p>Interesting to note: Two years ago Coakley had a name recognition over 90% and a positive/favorable rating of around 70%. Incredible, some said “unbeatable” numbers…today Brown, who was virtually unknown two years ago, has similar high poll numbers….what goes up can just as easily come down.
like Walsh ran last time, is we really can embrace a full slate and win with a high degree of success. My hope is that the President’s people took a long, hard look at Walsh’s campaign and decide to integrate it at a national level. If we do that, helping defeat Brown is the same thing as helping Obama win.