In recent years, Massachusetts Democratic politics has seen a divide between the establishment who have been active in party politics for many years, and the enthusiastic new progressives. Some of the progressive groups, such as CPPAX, have been in the game for just as long, but numbers swelled mainly due to the Reich and Dean campaigns, not just numbers of activists but also of organized local groups. In other words, the progressive “wing” has, at its core, a some groups and politicians who have been involved for decades but were marginalized in some aspects of their program, bolstered by a huge influx of new people and groups from the past four years.
This divide hasn’t been, for the most part, left vs. right, because the party establishment already had liberal and conservative wings. The new progressives are very solidly on the left, and tipped that balance dramatically – resulting in our legislature moving dramatically leftward. But the establishment/progressive divide exists separately from that alliance, and it’s not a stable long term divide. It portends upcoming shifts, and new alliances.
Michael Capuano is establishment, through and through. When I first lived in Somerville, he was mayor, and we used to call him “mayor for life”. When he ran for Congress, turnout in Somervile was, IIRC, 15% higher than anywhere else in the district. I used to joke that that extra 15% was all the people who didn’t want him as mayor, knew they could never defeat him in an election, and saw their chance to be rid of him by turning out in high numbers to send him to Washington. In Congress, he’s been a strong ally of the Massachusetts delegation, of Kennedy and Kerry, while keeping much of his old machine here at home.
Capuano is also clearly part of the liberal wing of our state party. When it comes to traditional left/right divide issues, like health care, labor, reproductive rights, gays, civil liberties, or war, he’s clearly a liberal. He was, in fact, one of only 66 members of the House to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
The trend we’ve been seeing in the Governor’s race in recent months is that while progressives are almost 90% supporting Deval Patrick, Reilly is not getting complementary levels of support from the party establishment. Instead, much of the liberal side of the establishment is going with Patrick. I think Capuano’s endorsment both solidifies and underscores that trend. This is now a solid part of the dynamic of this race. (We’ll see how Chris Gabrieli alters things – he still has significant support among progressives, but many of his likely supporters are already committed to Patrick)
In addition, as I hinted at above, Michael Capuano has significant political strength in the most Democratic of Massachusetts’ ten congressional districts. Patrick and Reilly are competing in a Democratic primary, so the districts are not equal, and in this election, the 8th will matter more than most. Capuano solidly won a very tough, competitive 10-candidate primary here less than a decade ago, and has had to run for re-election every two years since. He’s got good fundraising capability here too. And with pretty much every local progressive group (PDS, DFA-Boston, PD-JP, …) and the city committees of both Cambridge and Somerville behind Deval Patrick already, this has the makings of an alliance that could turn out a lot of votes for Patrick on primary day.
(Disclosure: I volunteered for Deval’s campaign last year, and still support him. I’ve had no involvement in any of Capuano’s campaigns, though I tend to call his office almost every month about some legislative issue or other 🙂
I haven’t lived here that long, and it’s been tough finding broad information as you’ve related in local newspapers. I look forward to any similar posts in the future.
I had no idea of Capuano’s (my rep’s) politics – now I do 🙂
<
p>
As an aside Cos, I don’t it’s necessary to disclose when you volunteer (as oppose to doing paid work) for a campaign … activism on the part of bloggers is assumed.
as I posted in another comment here today, was his very intelligent ”present” vote on the GOP stunt Iraq withdrawal resolution.
<
p>
Glad to see him on board with Deval.
<
p>
I had wondered if people like Capuano would eventually endorse one of the gub. candidates.
<
p>
What do congressmen stand to gain from these endorsements? Credibility with their base?
What do congressmen stand to gain from these endorsements?
<
p>
First, the same thing any of us stand to gain from supporting a candidate: the Congressman may have a strong opinion about who should be our next governor, and feel they can help by endorsing. What he stands to gain, is a greater chance of getting the Governor he prefers.
<
p>
Secondly, alliance building. Candidates have organizations, other organizations endorse them, and by officially endorsing, a candidate can link up with those and work together with them if he wants to. He may want ties with those people or groups.
<
p>
A third possibility is voter support. The Congressman may feel that the voters he needs to win over may thank him for it, or that this will help him make his base more enthusiastic about him.
<
p>
A fourth one I can think of, is wanting to get behind the winning team. You don’t always know who that’s going to be, but you can still bet on one or the other. By endorsing early, the Congressman may get some benefits if his endorsee wins. For example, the candidate may be in a good position to help him out in a future election.
<
p>
I didn’t spend too much time thinking about it, but those were the four possibilities that I could think of off the top of my head. Got any others to suggest?
As soon as I posted that, I thought of a fifth 🙂
<
p>
The Congressman may already have alliances with groups or people who have asked him to help. If he’s got longstanding ties with them, and/or feels that they’re pursuing similar political goals, he may endorse to help out his allies on general principle, since they’ve helped him before and will in the future. That sort of relationship-building helps do things like pass legislation or get a message out, later on.
<
p>
For example, in this case, the fact that the city committees of Cambridge and Somerville are supporting Deval Patrick may be one of the reasons for Capuano to endorse.
“The new progressives are very solidly on the left, and tipped that balance dramatically – resulting in our legislature moving dramatically leftward.”
<
p>
Although there is much in your analysis that I find flawed, the above statement is plainly wrong. The Mass. Legislature, more than anything, reflects the ideology of its leaders. The Mass. House was firmly left under Charlie Flaherty, then moved to the right under Tom Finneran, and now is shifting left under Sal DiMasi. In contrast, the Senate, mostly right under Bill Bulger, moved to the left under Tom Birmingham, and is now tacking right under Travaglini. The health care bill is a perfect example – largely the same House that would never have supported an employer mandate under the Finneran reign, now does so under the more liberal leadership of Sal DiMasi. And the Senate that most assuredly would have supported such a mandate under Tom Birmingham failed to do so under Bob Travaglini.
<
p>
For the life of me, I can’t see how the so-called “new progressives” had anything to do with this.
I think you’re not seeing the shift because you’re looking too closely at particular personalities, and missing broader shifts. For the most part, who the specific leaders of the two houses are is much less systemic, and involves a lot of individual factors, personal alliances, and so on. But the broader environment is shifting because of the one thing that motivates legislators more than anything else: election results, especially surprising ones.
<
p>
Carl Sciortino unseating Vinnie Ciampa, Avi Green coming within striking distance of Tim Toomey, Peter Vickery’s surprising win in western MA, Stephen Canessa unseating Mark Howland in New Bedford, Tim Schofield coming out of nowhere to a razor-close second with Mike Moran 1st and Glennon 3rd, and especially Pat Jehlen’s blowout victory last year – this is statewide, system, surprising, and has real effects. It pushes many, many legislators a little further left than they would have otherwise been. It makes them fear certain kinds of votes, because they think the progressives will come after them, and that it matters.
<
p>
The most dramatic shift we’ve seen is on gay marriage. The first time the amendment was voted on, voting for it was considered the politically safe thing to do. Just one year later (and after all of the elections I listed above), voting against was clearly the politically safe choice, and we gained over 60 votes in one year! Another drastic shift, though we haven’t seen it in such dramatic turns, is on reproductive rights. Just a few years ago, we had a more-or-less anti-choice House. It was hard to pin down because basic abortion rights are constitutionally protected, but it affected some important legislation. We now have a very pro-choice House. The overwhelming support for the Emergency Contraception bill, and the promptness with which the legislature stomped on Romney’s veto, would not have happened a few years ago. We’ll be seeing this shift on a lot of other issues soon. It was quite a fight to get modest minimum wage increases during Finneran’s time, but we’re going to get a pretty major minimum wage increase soon, with an automatic COLA. Sure, the health care compromise we got is disappointing, but we’ve made more progress this year than in the past decade, and even more progress is clearly on the way in the next few years.
<
p>
Individually, things shift back and for in many directions, month to month and year to year. Systemically, broadly, progressive forces are moving the Massachusetts legislature to the left at an amazingly fast pace.
This, Cos, is why we’ve had Republican governors since Weld and I predict today Muffy will win in November because people like me are sick of people like you and we vote against our own personal self-interests so people like you will lose with all your ideological horsecrap
Thanks for adding some realizm to this blog john. I am liberal myself, but I too get sick of the liberal blathering that goes on.
If you have a useful point to make, please make it. If you just want to throw invective, please go to one of the websites that welcome-condone-sustain that.
Most of the victories you cited were in the Boston area. The exceptions were Vickery’s win (and I find it hard to draw too many conclusions from a Governor’s Council race), and Canessa’s win, which I honestly know too little about to draw anything from. The Boston area has always been more liberal than the rest of the state — as Frank Skeffington pointed out in the Murray/Silbert money post, it’s the suburban counties (especially Middlesex) that are hurting the Dems in statewide elections. Is the progressive trend that you talk about reaching into the suburbs? It’s possible, but I’m just not sure; the failure of the immigrant tuition bill proved that there’s still plenty of suburban conservatism that can scare legislators. I’d be happy to be shown to be wrong — any good examples of progressive shifts in the suburbs, particularly the 128/495 belt?
<
p>
Here’s the disclosure part: I’m a Patrick delegate and former Goldberg intern. I really like both Deval and Deb (for many reasons), but I also feel that they both are well-positioned to do much better than O’Brien/Gabrieli in the suburbs. Many suburban voters are not anti-government, per se, but they have a deep suspicion of Beacon Hill, which many people view as a haven of waste, patronage, and gritty machine politics. The negative suburban view of the Legislature has subsided somewhat since the height of Finneran’s reign, but Healey will still try to portray herself as an outsider, fighting against corrupt special interests. A Patrick/Goldberg ticket, IMHO, is best suited to counter that charge and carry areas that did not go Democratic in 2002.
<
p>
Obviously, this analysis is unscientific, but I do think it’s important to look at both the potential and the limits of any progressive groundswell in MA.
It’s somewhat misleading to look at this the way you describe, because it obscures the factors legislators care most about. In particular, they care about two things:
In many of those cases, they’ll be competing either in a primary, or a special election. Voter turnout will be low. They’ll desperately need money, and volunteers, quickly. So will their opponents.
<
p>
So the real question is, what factors might give their opponents money and volunteers to beat them with? What might give them the money and volunteers they need to beat their opponents? And who has the skills to run good campaigns?
<
p>
The campaigns I cited are a fairly broad set. Don’t be fooled by the fact that a majority of them are in metro Boston – a majority of the state’s population is in metro Boston, too. What people look at is the surprise factor: How did these elections differ from what should’ve been expected? And why?
<
p>
Just because Allston-Brighton is a liberal district, for example, doesn’t mean that a brand new very young unheard of candidate like Tim Schofield should be able to come 64 votes behind longtime neighborhood favorite and repeat candidate Mike Moran, and ahead of the annointed successor to and former aide for the retiring incumbent. Just because the Second Middlesex is a liberal district doesn’t mean Pat Jehlen should have such a stunning blowout victory over Joe Mackey, who after all is extremely liberal himself. Just because Governor’s Councilor isn’t a high profile position, doesn’t mean a newbie like Peter Vickery should be able to win a competitive race in which he was the underdog, without running a very good campaign. Just because east Cambridge & east Somerville is in metro Boston doesn’t mean a brand new, young candidate like Avi Green should be able to give longtime incumbent rep & city councilor Tim Toomey such a scare, and get 45% of the vote.
<
p>
The common factor in all of these races was the progressive movement. MassEquality, SEIU, Progressive Democrats and DFA groups, and so on, provided significant numbers of volunteers and money to help these candidates achieve surprising results. That’s the sort of thing legislators notice, and it leads to changes in their behavior in the state house. Which is exactly how electoral politics is supposed to work.
Good points, but I wonder if they can be extrapolated to the guv race (I know that your original point was that the Legislature has moved farther to the left, but I’m curious about the statewide ramifications).
<
p>
Some of the elections that you cited were special elections, which are usually the only game in town and allow groups like MassEquality, SEIU, etc. to focus their resources. Even during the usual legislative election cycle, there are relatively few elections that are truly competitive, which allows those groups to focus their resources in a similar fashion.
<
p>
A statewide race is very different, though. Certainly, progressive groups can have a big impact, but they won’t be able to bring a large amount of volunteers to one particular area and have the same impact that they would during a state legislative election. In 2002, progressive groups were not able to pull the state over the line. Of course, that was before Howard Dean, Deval Patrick, gay marriage, MassEquality, BlueMassGroup, and many other people, groups, and events that have helped develop the progressive movement in MA. So maybe this time will be different. I fervently hope so.
In 2002, the new progressive movement barely existed. The first smattering of groups I call “new progressives” mostly came out of the Reich campaign, after the Reich campaign ended in September 2002. The next big influx came in 2003 in the form of Dean meetups, but in 2003 they were all focused on Dean’s campaign for president. MassEquality came into being in response to the Goodrich decision, at the same time as all this was happening. CPPAX, Neighbor to Neighbor, and legislators like Ellen Story and Pat Jehlen had all of course been with us before this, but it wasn’t until 2004 that the movement I’m describing really existed in the way I mean.
<
p>
Some of the elections I described were specials, but others were not. Canessa, Vickery, Sciortino, and Green vs. Toomey, were all on the standard election cycle, in 2004.
<
p>
Special elections matter a lot, though, because they’re among the most competitive and least predictable of elections, and as such, they’re the kind of elections legislators look at to feel the political winds. Breezing through another standard re-election isn’t usually a big deal. But what happens if the state Senate seat above you opens up, you decide to go for it, and so do two or three or four other people? Who’s gonna come to your aid then? How are your opponents going to get their strength? What should you do, and not do, to set yourself up for a good run?
<
p>
We weren’t electing statewide offices in 2004, so this year is the first time since the new progressive movement came on the scene. I don’t know how it will ultimately turn out, but we’ve already taken candidate for governor who was considered a long shot and turned him into a clearly viable contender. I think that is being noticed.
<
p>
P.S. Blue Mass Group isn’t part of the new progressive movement. I am, but I’m a favored guest, not one of the three people in charge 🙂
Can’t hear you over the sound of that axe you’re grinding against Moran.
<
p>
Interesting enough one of the examples you brought up, voting AGAINST gay-marriage being the new safe thing to do, highlights why need to put that thing down.
<
p>
It was Progressive Democrat Representative Moran from Allston and Brighton who was calling those who switched their votes election year cowards.
Cos is erring on the side of caution, relative to full disclosure. A few weeks ago, as a result of some discussion, we were asked to disclose our relationship to candidates. I feel that it is important to respect the requests of people who oversee this blog.
Its a win, win for him . He has three choices. Endorse Reilly. Stay neutral.Endorse Patrick.
<
p>
Obviously, he alienates the progressive and left wing supporters in his district by endorsing Reilly. It would never happen .
<
p>
Part of the political game is picking strategic alliances when your political gains far outweigh any political or practical losses. Since there is no political loss and the Governor has no power over congress , a potential Reilly win does not change his lifestyle.
<
p>
As indicated above by others on this post,endorsing Patrick gives him a big chip to use with the left in his next campaign. The number of alliances and liberal activists in the Peoples Republic can only help him in the next election.
<
p>
What is really interesting is the rumor that Patrick is going through this entire exercise running for Governor to set himself up for the next Senate seat. Similar, as Romney did against Kerry…. Romney built name recognition for a future race, and then he ran for Governor, now President. What if Capuano runs for the Senate seat and has to confront Patrick? You heard it here first.
I can see Deval Patrick running for Senate after being Governor, when one of our US Senate seats opens up. However, Capuano has already flirted publically with running for Governor himself. I suspect if Patrick becomes Governor and then a Senate seat opens up and Patrick runs for it, Capuano would run for Governor.
<
p>
As noted above, this is just wild speculation 🙂
In a stinging, sometimes sarcastic column in today Boston Globe Brian McGrory makes clear his feelings about the Capuano endorsement. In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve not made up my mind on the governor’s race but McGrory paints a revealing picture if what he describes is true.
Mikey C survived a corruption probe by Reilly; of course he isn’t going to support him. Mikey C expects all the people to thank him daily that we have him working for us. I could go to Dunkin Donuts and find several people sitting around drinking coffee that could do his job better. Mikey C is a fraud, “streetkid” my ass, he was wearing a bowtie at 13 and running home to mama’s meatballs if any streetkid trouble started. He screwed Sean O’Donovan, but O’D survived, and people voted for Mikey C just to get him out of Somerville.
Well, the revealing picture McGrory paints is all about Capuano’s motivation. It doesn’t say anything about Deval Patrick, so shouldn’t play into making up your mind about the governor’s race one way or the other. It also doesn’t really address the effect of Capuano’s endorsement, it just suggests a less than honorable motive for Capuano. I don’t know how true it is – it’s not like this endorsement was a great mystery in need of an explanation, since there are plenty of other good reasons Capuano might endorse, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true either.
<
p>
True or not, Capuano did endorse, and he does have a good political and fundraising machine in the district. If it’s personal vendetta as McGrory suggests, all the more reason for Capuano to use his strengths to defeat Reilly by supporting Patrick. So, I withhold judgement about Capuano’s motivation; I don’t think it’s the important part of this story for most voters.
The original post is about how significant the endorsement is. Now after the McGory column you’re saying Capuano’s motivations are not important. Uh? And you don’t think his motivation for the endorsement is important to voters…just that the endorsement was made?
<
p>
The bottom line for me is that the Congressman who represents arguably the most liberal district in the state endorsed the most liberal candidate for Governor. The significance of that is ZERO. The motivation is clear–keep the very important activist base in his district happy.
<
p>
Now I may not weigh in with the same level of verbiage as you, but I think my reasoning is jsut as sound.
State your reasoning, but please don’t insult.
<
p>
My post was about why Capuano’s endorsement is significant: in other words, how it may affect the race. I deliberately withheld judgement about why he endorsed, for the simple reason that a) I don’t know, and b) I don’t think it makes a different when talking about how his endorsement matters. Someone then asked, “what do congressmen get out of” endorsing, and you’ll notice that I answered very generally with a list of various reasons congressmen may choose to endorse, without spending much time on why I think Capuano endorsed in this particular case.
<
p>
I think I explained myself pretty clearly. Apparently, you think Capuano’s motivation is a) dishonorable, and b) undermines everything else I said about the effects of his endorsement. I take no stand on point a, and think I made that clear. On point b, I disagree. That’s no reason to fly off your handle or insult me. Please be civil.
and political dissection of the progressives and how they are now moving into the main stream democratic arena…blah…blah..blah…is just a bunch of crap. He endorsed Patrick for two reasons. To please his liberal constituents and payback to Reilly. period…end of story.
That’s a pretty good analysis. Capuano’s endorsement is definately the type of endorsement that can make an impact, even if only at a district level. He stands a lot to gain and little to lose, except of course political clout if his risk doesn’t pay off.
<
p>
I’m curious to see if this starts a bandwagon of support from Congressmen in the coming weeks – or potential backlash in politicians feeling the need to endorse Reilly.
Capuano woirks hard and gets his vote out in Somerville and Cambridge and elsewhere for Deval. Moderate and woirking class dems.
<
p>
If Cap thinks Healy is next gov he is not going to work hard for him.
<
p>
Time will tell for all parties.
Endorsements mean less then the ink they are printed on, just ask Sen. Harkin. If anything they can really backfire.
Lets not forget McGovern who came out and endorsed Deval early on in the Fall of 2005.
<
p>
I agree with what Frank said – Capuano represents a fairly liberal district (Cambridge/Somerville), but I don’t think his motivations were in the wrong place. He is a fairly smart progressive politician himself and if he knows the majority of his district is supporting Deval and he sides with him on most issues, why wouldn’t he endorse him.
<
p>
((For disclosure – this is politicalfeminista – I decided to change names because I was getting sick of the other one))
A lot
Lets not forget McGovern who came out and endorsed Deval early on in the Fall of 2005.
<
p>
I agree with what Frank said – Capuano represents a fairly liberal district (Cambridge/Somerville), but I don’t think his motivations were in the wrong place. He is a fairly smart progressive politician himself and if he knows the majority of his district is supporting Deval and he sides with him on most issues, why wouldn’t he endorse him.
<
p>
((For disclosure – this is politicalfeminista – I decided to change names because I was getting sick of the other one))