Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Sonia Chang-Diaz is running again!

By

Community organizer, Democratic activist, and former teacher Sonia Chang-Diaz is going to run again for the State Senate in Boston’s Second Suffolk District.  I saw her a few weeks ago, when she was weighing the decision, and encouraged her to run.  I just spoke to her today and she confirmed she has decided to run!  She will officially announce next week.

Sonia Chang-Diaz has a long history of community involvement and political participation.  She was legislative aid to State Senator Cheryl Jacques (who later became executive director of the Human Rights Campaign) and then managed Angus McQuilken’s run for State Senate (he’s now at Planned Parenthood of MA).  She is active on the Boston Ward 19 Democratic Committee, and is on the board of MassVOTE, an electoral reform and voter mobilization organization that seeks to involve more people in politics, especially minorities, low income, and new voters.  Since her last run for office, Sonia has been working at the Mass Budget & Policy Center.

I met Sonia when I was a precinct captain on Pat Jehlen’s winning State Senate campaign in 2005.  Hundreds of volunteers, including precinct captains for the eastern half of the senate district, participated in an amazing get out the vote campaign coordinated by Sonia.  In 2006, when Blue Mass Group endorsed her, Sonia came within 6% of defeating incumbent Dianne Wilkerson, despite the fact that she had entered the race late, mostly unknown to the voters in much of the district.  Wilkerson got all the big name endorsements and Sonia Chang-Diaz worked on a small, hastily-raised budget, yet received an impressive level of enthusiastic support.

BMG blogger eury13 recently noticed Sonia’s impressive fundraising in 2007, ending the year with almost $30,000 in the bank — more than Dianne Wilkerson, and more than 40% of her total spending in the 2006 campaign.  Building on her strong support in the district and her extensive campaign experience, Sonia is well prepared to win.

Disclosure: I volunteered on Sonia Chang-Diaz’s 2006 campaign and intend to volunteer again this year.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  3. I have only met Sonia a couple times, but I think she is a very appealing progressive with some great experience.  Where I have mixed feelings is that MA only has one state senator, Dianne Wilkerson, who is a person of color now that Jarrett Barrios has left.  This is an important symbolic position to hold.  I’m torn between wanting to see new blood and wanting to honor a courageous trail-blazer; torn between feeling like I’d rather expand the pie than have to choose between a known advocate and a dynamic emerging leader.

    <

    p>I moved to Massachusetts in 2004, and soon after arrival, I attended a “Racial/Ethnic Health Disparities” conference where Dianne Wilkerson was an ad hoc speaker.  Her unprepared remarks were incredibly powerful and moving.  Despite all her faults, I think Sen. Wilkerson is a strong representative and staunch advocate for communities of color and vulnerable populations.  Sonia would be too.  Admittedly, I don’t live in the district, but I will be interested to see how this plays out.

    • are both people of color.  So replacing W with C-D would not be stepping back in that regard.  Just your bad luck that they are both in the same district if you like them both.  Maybe you can convince Wilkerson to move to a new senatorial district and boot out the riff raff.  May I suggest she choose from one of the following: Brown, Creedon, Hedlund, Moore, Panagiotakos. 😉

      • … he said he’d rather expand the number of state senators of color.  It’s sad that people of color are often pitting against one another.  That may not be the way many people here percieve the race, but it’s ultimately what’s happening.

        <

        p>I’m neutral in this race, but my preference is if there was any possibility Sonia could run in another district, or run for state house within the district, and then succeed Wilkerson when she was ready to retire or move up to the US House or some statewide position like Lt. Governor or something else.

    • …when are we going to stop voting for people based on their color?

      <

      p>I happen to agree with you about Dianne Wilkerson.  For all of the problems she has had, I still like her and think she is a powerful voice for the disenfranchised.  But, my liking her has nothing to do with her color, and it shouldn’t.  

      <

      p>I don’t know a whole lot about Ms. Diaz, but she sounds like a good candidate as well.  That Senate district is fortunate to have such a difficult choice.

      <

      p>It’s just that I am getting so weary of folks deciding who they are going to vote for based on ethnic or racial considerations.  Are we ever going to get over all of that and just vote for the best person for the job?

      • People will stop, or at the very least you will be justified in expecting them to stop, considering skin color and ethnicity (which is different from “voting…based on their color,” with its rather insulting implication that there are no other considerations involved) as factors in their decisions to vote for candidates of color just as soon as skin color and ethnicity stop being unacknowledged factors in the decisions of a very large percentage* of our population to vote against them, and in the near-ubiquitous cultural messaging that they can’t possibly be the best people for the job.

        <

        p>*My suspicion is that this is not merely “a large percentage” but indeed probably a large majority, but I’m not in a position right now to back up any claims to that effect.

        <

        p>(It should also go without saying that it would be just as accurate to substitute “gender” for “skin color and ethnicity” above.)

        • I was responding to the poster above who was unsure that he/she wanted to vote to replace Sen. Wilkerson because she was the only person of color in the State Senate.  He/she has some valid points about both candidates, but my point is that the decision should be made without regard to color of skin.

          <

          p>And I couldn’t agree with you more…it should go without saying that gender, sexual orientation, skin color or ethnicity should have nothing to do with the way people decide who to vote for or against.  I, for one, look forward to that day.

          <

          p>I happen to be gay…we’ve had to fight pretty hard to gain some of the basic rights that most other people in this state and country take for granted.  However, I would not even think of voting for a candidate just because he or she was gay…there should be a lot of other factors involved in choosing a candidate to support.

          • …but you also say things like “But, my liking her has nothing to do with her color, and it shouldn’t” and “the decision should be made without regard to color of skin.”  I don’t think that’s true: your liking Wilkerson shouldn’t be because of her skin color or ethnicity and no other reason, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that, among other important considerations, having a person of color in the state Senate is a good thing in and of itself against the background context of a society in which people of color are still subject to significant systemic disadvantages.

            <

            p>I didn’t read scchan’s comment as suggesting that Wilkerson’s ethnicity was the only reason, or the only reason that mattered, for wanting her to stay in the Senate, but that among other considerations, the presence of a person of color in the Senate is better than the absence thereof.

            • …we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.  For me, a person’s skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicty, etc. is not only not “among other important considerations”, it is not a consideration at all.

    • I was impressed that she filed on time this year. Of course, looking through her report shows that she paid a hefty sum for bookkeeping expenses, but as long as it keeps her name out of the papers, it’s probably worth it for her.

      • It is a sad sad day when we are “impressed” that any legislator follows the laws they write. God save the queen.

  5. I got a call about a month back clearly paid for by Chang-Diaz, clearly exploring the viability of her candidacy. But it was ugly — like a push poll — and makes me really consider whether Chang-Diaz is the kind of person I want representing my district.  

    <

    p>The poll went along the lines of:

    <

    p>”Would you be more or less likely to vote for Diane Wilkerson if you knew that she had……[and then each question hinted at one of her foibles].  Then there were corresponding questions asking me if I would vote for Chang-Diaz if I knew that she had……[and then each question mentioned something positive that she might have done].

    <

    p>No mention of Diane’s long-standing, tenacious advocacy for progressive issues.  No way to confirm whether the basis for each question was accurate.  I hate manipulative polls like that and I don’t think highly of candidates that use them.  Chang-Diaz may be a great candidate, but she’s starting with a negative trust balance with this voter.

    <

    p>Diane is a flawed State Senator for sure.  But she’s my flawed State Senator.  She’s been a strong voice on the Senate floor and a strong voice in my community.  I’m not into change for change’s sake.  And I’m not into candidates who will do or say anything to get elected.  

    <

    p>FWIW  

    • Before you accuse someone of dirty campaigning, you should confirm a trail of attribution.  Things aren’t always what they seem.

      • Your point is well taken. But “trails of attribution” are pretty elusive when it comes to these kinds of things.  That’s why they’re so perniciously effective.

        <

        p>I asked the pollster whether Chang-Diaz was paying for the survey and what company was conducting the survey.  He was not very forthcoming.  After asking several times, he finally told me who the company was (I don’t recall now) but he didn’t know anything more.  

        <

        p>You suggest that things aren’t always what they seem — but often they’re exactly what they seem.  

        <

        p>Clearly this wasn’t a traditional push poll trying to get me to vote for Chang-Diaz.  After all, at the time she hadn’t even announced her candidacy.  

        <

        p>But do you have a plausible alternative theory other than 1) Chang-Diaz was gauging the viability of a run for Wilkerson’s seat and 2) testing the potential effectiveness of emphsizing Wilkerson’s negatives?  Who else would pay for this survey?

        <

        p>Trying to win a Senate seat by slamming Wilkerson’s negatives will not represent change.  It will just be more of the same polarizing bullcrap politics.  I hope that Chang-Diaz doesn’t go there.  But I predict that she will.  If she does, my support will solidify for Diane.  

        <

        p>

        • is that the gop is testing to see if the district is weak enough to entertain one of their candidates.

          • AS is often the case in focus groups.  Not to say that that is what happened here, but it’s certainly been done by candidates before.

            <

            p>I supported SCD last time, as one who was a) frustrated by the constant “problems” with finances, etc and failing to file for the ballot was just the latest frustration and b) of the opinion that our neighborhood wasn’t seeing a lot of the incumbent (still basically true, some of which stems from continual staffing issues — we don’t always need to see the elected official, just send us someone!).  And, in full disclosure, I’ve made a small donation to SCD’s effort.

            <

            p>This time around, the race has to be about who will most effectively represent all of the Second Suffolk and what they will do to make our lives better.  Everyone knows the history, and can factor that in, now we should look to the future.  So candidates, what are you going to do for us — on public safety, on development, on health care and on jobs, and why are you the best person to accomplish successes on these issues.

            <

            p>Thanks, give us a race we can be proud of.

            • Apparently she did the same thing 2 years ago.  

              <

              p>Here’s a link to a Phoenix article from 2006:

              <

              p>http://thephoenix.com/TalkingP…

              <

              p>And below is the SDC press release copy detailing the findings of the eerily similar poll conducted in 2006.  The good news for the SDC campaign is that they won’t need to bother writing a new press release…..

              <

              p>”Once voters hear about Dianne Wilkerson’s documented legal and ethical transgressions, they are even less likely to vote for her.

              <

              p>Over half of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for Dianne Wilkerson once they learn about her legal and ethical transgressions. Further more, 48.7% said they would be more likely to vote for Chang-Díaz once they learn that she is running against Wilkerson because of these legal and ethical problems.

              <

              p>Voters are drawn to Sonia Chang-Díaz’s background and message.

              <

              p>The poll tested voter response to Chang-Díaz’s bio, her background, her agenda, and her reasons for running. Each of these pieces of information drew strong positive support and virtually no negative response.

              <

              p>Voters appreciate Dianne Wilkerson’s positions on the issues…but don’t believe that is enough to re-elect her .

              <

              p>The poll tested Wilkerson’s bio, her record, and a positive message on her behalf. The poll finds that although respondents appreciate her stance on the issues and her legislative record, only a minority of the electorate feels this makes her deserving of re-election.

              <

              p>Once voters learn about Sonia Chang-Díaz, her background, and why she is running, they support her – and her support increases to within the margin of error.”

          • We had a good candidate in Samiyah Diaz last time–if Sonia runs as an Independent rather than in the Democratic primary, she’d have the Republican votes in that district.  All six of them.  So no push polls by the GOP.  It looks like the Dems will have a choice between two equally progressive, articulate and attractive candidates this time.  And if character counts for anything in your Party, an easy choice.

        • But I think there are two things you have to take into account here:

          <

          p>First, no one needs to slam Diane’s negatives.  Unfortunately, she’s done it herself.

          <

          p>Second, a lot of these phone passes are from press folks and other meddlers clumsily trying to gauge factors in the given election (I know reporters who’ve confessed to doing this sort of thing).

          <

          p>For the record, I know and like Sen. Wilkerson.  I’ve worked with her on local issues and been impressed by her intelligence and commitment.  I’ve also been nonplussed and saddened by her astonishing public and private screw-ups.

          <

          p>I also know and like Sonia, who has made no secret of her opinions of the senator’s missteps and how they motivated her to mount a challenge.  She doesn’t need to do anything as backhanded as a push poll.  It’s all up front.

    • “I’m not into change for change’s sake.  And I’m not into candidates who will do or say anything to get elected.”  Well, guess that rules out Barack and Hillary….  

      • It certainly rules out Hillary.  But, McCain?  Please…..

        <

        p>I support Barack — not for change’s sake and not for change slogans.  I simply believe his vision, leadership and capacity to inspire are desparately needed.

Archives