The Bay State is losing a House seat, and unless one of your colleagues steps aside or moves to the Other Chamber, you will and the rest of the delegation will be playing musical chairs.
So, you can sit out this special election–and watch future rivals campaign in your district, whatever that might be in four years. Or you can throw your hat in too–not to win, not even to place, but to show.
Think of it as a defensive campaign. Of course, you’d better do well in your district.
Consequently, expect to see a crowded field in the primary, unless Joe gets in (and maybe even then), with a minority plurality victor. Advantage Coakley.
Bets are off if Olver is planning an exit.
Similarly, I see only upside for Charlie Baker to tune his campaign chops and introduce himself to the voters as that rarest of birds, a moderate Republican. Voters will swoon (and vote for Martha or Joe), but preserve a favorable impression for the next big contest in 2010.
Its special and its free, if you don’t play you can’t win, and there’s a heck of a lot else in play besides selecting the next Junior Senator from Massachusetts.
“Bets are off if Olver is planning an exit.”
<
p>I would hope that people don’t think that the answer to redistricting is to consolidate western mass so that the eastern seats stay relatively stable. The western districts are already huge and while they are going to have to increase, they shouldn’t be looked at as the answer.
<
p>And there is no reason to believe that Olver is going to hang it up. He has been very engaged on issues. I saw him (along with Capuano) at a regional transportation meeting in Burlington,Vermont this summer. He comes from a family that is, in his words, “incredibly long lived.” He is a cardinal in Congress and Nancy Pelosi likes him. He has clout and seniority on Ways and Means. In a state that is worried about losing political clout, this doesn’t seem like the best move.
Does a “Cardinal in Congress” have a titular district in DC? If so what is Olver’s?
Cardinals are what the chairs and subcommittee chairs of the Ways and Means Committees are called these days. Olver is currently the only member from the Massachusetts delegation serving on the House Appropriations Committee.
<
p>He is the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and related agencies. This panel has jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak. The Subcommittee also is responsible for the annual budgets of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
<
p>He is also a Senior Whip of the Democratic Caucus
I heard he was forming/has formed a federal campaign committee to run for that Congressional seat “in case” Olver chose not to run again in 2011 in a newly configured seat.
<
p>Andy is a former State Senator who also comes from a big political family centered around Berkshire county. Famous for attending small town Selectman’s meetings at least once and sometimes twice a year.
Yes, this is a good point. Given that nobody has to give up their seat to run in the special, it would indeed be a good way to both raise some money (without necessarily spending a lot, due to the short campaign) and raise one’s profiles in the district. This Senate race and subsequent “Struggle for the Seat” following redistricting is going to be quite a messy battle.
<
p>As far as your speculation on Charlie Baker, though, I don’t see it. You mention only upside, but there are actually several downsides to him running in the special:
<
p>(1) He has to get in place his staff and Lieutenant Governor preference, the first of which might shift if he ran for Senate and the second of which would be pushed off;
<
p>(2) He’s already raising money for the race for Governor, so he’d only be spending more money (in a longer campaign for him, because it doesn’t end at the Dem Primary like it will for most who run);
<
p>(3) If (when) he loses the Senate campaign, it might raise his profile, but it also might brand him a loser in the eyes of some voters, especially if he gets blown out. (Which is likely, because while MA voters will vote for a Republican in the Governor’s race, they won’t in a Senate race);
<
p>(4) He’ll have to answer some “national” policy questions expected of a Senator, which will only distract him from his goal of saying as little as possible in the Governor’s race (a wise strategy against an unpopular incumbent, BTW…keep the focus on the one with the weak numbers and don’t say anything that shifts negative attention on yourself);
<
p>(5) Related to (4), running for a federal office as a Republican makes it more likely that he’ll be associated with the national Republican Party, a no-no in Mass.
<
p>So, in short, it’s not gonna happen. Coakley will win the Dem primary (maybe depending on Joe), and crush whatever meager competition the Republicans put up.
What if a creative Republican, with a compassionate side, real intelligence, and the ability to be fast on their feet emerged to energize the Republican party rather than the “same old” politics of fear, class, and money?
<
p>A two party system, when healthy, keeps governance honest.
<
p>The tragedy in current American politics is that the Republican party – nationally – has become the party of fear, class [as in keep the rich getting richer, and the ‘undeserving poor’ where they belong], and a totally uncompassionate view of governance.
<
p>Think of all the pardons Lincoln wrote, though – and what the Republican party could be if it walked away from the politics of fear, class warfare, and theocracy?
<
p>Just saying. Lately with the Republican Party it is like watching someone paint themselves into a corner with no way out – and that is not healthy for the governance of the USA.
<
p>I actually believe in competition between parties as a healthy force for good government.
<
p>But, as with the Fear Campaign trashing the role of defense counsel – remember that awful parking structure video from Healey’s tone deaf campaign – what I have seen from the Republicans nationally and in this state is negative, caustic, and exclusionary.
<
p>Myself, I agree with FDR and Abraham Maslow that freedom from fear includes freedom from the fear of starving, homelessness, and bigotry – and only once these kinds of basic needs are met can our citizenry really move up into concerns for higher needs … what Maslow called self-actualization. Democrats, as a party, at least believe in theory in “self-actualization” as a goal for the masses. I don’t see that from the Republican party, at all.
But regarding your first sentence…these days that seems like a big if.
If Baker were to turn his sights to Kennedy’s Senate seat, he would make the point, yet again, that a big name Republican would say they want to be governor, but when something they want more arises, they’re quick to dump the voters to chase after the next bigger prize. Failure to fulfill their electoral obligations is the hallmark of the past generation of Republican governors. If Baker is going to be another one of them, why bother giving him one dime of support for this race?
…if a sitting Congressman wins the Senate seat. There are literally hundreds of state reps, senators, county office holders and others calculating their options based on “if” their congressperson runs and wins the seat. And the first “assumed unknown” (or is that an oxymoron) will be what is the point of trying to move up to an open congressional seat if there is a very good likelihood that the redistricting process will either write them out of existence, or pit them against a will known and financed long-term congresscritter?