Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

2010, 2012 and the Democratic bench in MA

By

Another thought that occurs to me today … who takes on Brown in 2012? Look around … and surprisingly, the options really aren't that great.

  • Markey? Nah. Too old at this point, and too powerful in his current position. He's staying put. 
  • Frank? Same deal.
  • Delahunt? Not well-known or popular statewide.
  • Tierney? Who?
  • Meehan? Maybe … but why didn't he run this time?
  • Olver? About to retire.
  • Neal? Pro-life. Obscure.
  • Lynch? Hell no.
  • Tsongas? Probably will get redistricted out of a seat. This is the end of the line.
  • Capuano? Might want to run again, but the concerns about him in the primary don't go away.
  • Deval? That would be political comeback of the century.
  • Tim Murray? Hmmm … getting warmer. Shows political aggressiveness and gradually more thematic sophistication. Can raise $$$. Might want to be governor in 2014 instead.
  • Jim McGovern? Warmer still. Central MA, anti-establishment, straight-talking progressive, no BS kind of guy. Of this list, he'd be my choice.
  • Jamie Eldridge? Love Jamie … but he's really low-key. He would need to get more Hollywood. Not sure that's in him.
  • Any other stars in the lege right now? Ugh … hard to see that as a selling point … either fairly or unfairly.
  • Duh, I forgot our guy Alan Khazei. Love the guy, but image-wise, he has to do something really substantial to move out of the bourgeouis-liberal/idealist boutique. Don't know what that would be.
  • Hey, Ray M adds State Sen. Mark Montigny. There's a crusading prog for ya. Good call, Ray.

Hardly anyone would have thought Brown would catch lightning in a bottle like this … but he did. And the GOP has a strong candidate in Charlie Baker for gov. I'm concerned our bench needs some fresh faces … and soon.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. No one knew him before the special and he didn’t have enough time to coalesce, but even so, he did surprisingly well, given where people thought he’d finish when he first announced (which was probably roughly between “not on the ballot” and “1 or 2%”). Furthermore, he’d appeal to many of the people who we actually lost yesterday in suburbia — even my hometown went for Brown, by about 200 votes, which is the first time my town’s voted for a Republican for that seat in, well, ever. Marblehead, next door, voted Brown too, and that’s another liberal town just like Swampscott, only even more liberal (by a little). I don’t see Khazei losing those votes.

    <

    p>—

    <

    p>Tim Murray’s another intriguing option. He’d certainly appeal to blue collar types, who we lost, and we know he can carry Worcester by a landslide (Coakley only won it be about 2k, and the turnout there was a pretty lousy 42%), and do better in the surrounding area as well as other blue collar cities and towns.

    <

    p>—

    <

    p>There’s good and bad about this race. The good is Brown’s only there a few years till reelection. The good is those years could be enough to damage him, if he’s extra fringey. The bad is we’ll have to suffer through him for a few years… but the good is those few years may just provide room for some new person to emerge who could take Brown on. You almost dismiss a Jamie Eldridge now, but we don’t know where he goes in two years. Finally, we get a full scale election, where Brown will be the front runner (and thus get a level of scrutiny he did not get during this race), not be able to build the critical wave of momentum at just the right time, while we’re about to attract exciting primary campaigns that will have the time to take off on their and build momentum the momentum and excitement we’ll need.

    • totally get behind Khazei. With two years, that man could build a grassroots campaign second to none (even Patrick’s 06) in a long timeframe. Problem with Khazei this time round was lack of name recognition in a short short race, and a short race also kills any hope of a real grassroots campaign.

      <

      p>But a real actual November election in two and a half years – man, I wanna see that. Plus I think he has gained some experience so that his greenness becomes less of a concern for me (he did make some missteps in some of the things he said in the race, not that I disagree with him but I disagreed about the timing and tenor of it).

      <

      p>Khazei for 2012! Definitely! New face, some poly campaign XP now, plus a ton of organizing know how and a REALLY for the people attitude and background.

    • Thinking about it, Brown’s win is sort of the best of both worlds. He’s likely to be extreme and in lockstep with the RepubliClones so it’ll so much fun, if we get a good candidate, to run against him in 2 years, and so instead of a pretty OK sort of Coakley-who-is-another-Kerry (nothing wrong with Kerry but he is no Ted Kennedy lion-roaring get-on-the-ground-with-the-people guy), we might end up with a Murray or a Khazei and REALLY like our senator after the next election.

      <

      p>That is if we find the right candidate, and I am guessing we’ll have a primary to see who gets the privilege of running against Brown so hopefully the good candidate can get through that unscathed.

      <

      p>But if. If if if!

    • The problem with Khazei (other than name recognition, which he could remedy) is that I’m not sure if has the type of appeal with those voters Coakley appears to have struggled with: namely, working-class whites, blacks and Latino voters, suburbanites, and true swing independent voters.

      <

      p>Khazei would have by far the greatest appeal among politically active liberals (including policy wonks), but these are precisely the people Coakley over performed with, and still lost. (At least according to her performance in places like Cambridge, Newton, Northampton, etc.)

      <

      p>You make the case for Khazei’s appeal among suburbanites, but I’m not sure if he has the type of appeal to win over Brown suburban voters. He definitely doesn’t have much appeal, not yet anyway, among minorities and blue-collar whites. He’s just another pointy-headed liberal to much of that part of the Dem coalition.

      <

      p>That’s why I like the possibilities of people with cross-over appeal. Murray’s very good here, and McGovern might be the best of all because he has unquestionable progressive credentials combined with cross-over appeal (sort of like Capuano, except less abrasive and from a “better” part of the state politically for a state-wide run). Plus he can raise money and will work hard for votes, unlike some.

      • You make the case for Khazei’s appeal among suburbanites, but I’m not sure if he has the type of appeal to win over Brown suburban voters.

        <

        p>That runs contrary to pretty much every big win we’ve seen in the past few years. Certainly, there’s a lot of suburban towns that are just republican, but even more are swing areas that we can win — be it metrowest or middlesex. Those votes are eminently winnable with the right candidate and message. Khazei is exactly the sort of person who could make that appeal, and create the kind of organization capable of reaching them.

        <

        p>I don’t want to go crusading for Khazei in 2012 quite yet, because I think there are a lot of other good candidates, too (I’m a huge fan of Murray), but I have no doubts Khazei could reach suburban voters, building the right kind of excitement and organization to win almost every county in this state. I feel the same way about Tim Murray, who I’ve long been a huge fan of. In fact, those are the two candidates I’d be most interested to look at in that campaign, as well as the two who I think will be best able to defeat Brown, given what I know now. Honestly, I hope both run, because I think a healthy, exciting campaign, pitting two heavyweights against each other, growing two huge grassroots organizations, can only benefit our party.

  2. leadership needs to allow some young, dynamic Democrats in the lege to shine.  Give ’em a little slack, let them push on their agenda a bit.

    <

    p>Also… any mayors in the mix?

    • Hands down. If she’s the face of future leadership in our party we could do no better. She’s awesome, articulate, strongly progressive, a fighter…take a good look at her, I hope to see her move up if possible.

      <

      p>Problem is, this leadership is loathe to let any true progressive with a clean way of doing business any f-ing leverage.

    • for leadership to let the Sciortinos of the world start to control the agenda, though it’s never going to happen… unless the house progressives get the kind of numbers to take command (which will take at least a few more election cycles.. let us hope for many, many DINO retirements).

      <

      p>That said, I don’t think any dems in the statehouse win a Govt or Senate race so long as they’re in the state house. They need to broaden their platform first, when the bench for these races are so deep. I’m actually a little disappointed we didn’t see any talented progressives take a closer look at a few of the open statewide seats that became available this year, because there’s more than one of them and they could certainly use that as a platform for both their priorities and opinions, as well as higher office, once they prove themselves in their roles.  

    • and running a business (maximize profits) and running a government (maximize public good) don’t have all that much in common.

      <

      p>Would you put someone in as CEO and Chairman if he or she had no experience in business?  If not, what makes you think that putting someone in the senate with no experience legislating is a good idea?

      • And I’m not saying that in the populist, HOORAH AMERICA, FUCK DEMOCRATS sort of way either.

        <

        p>A person who runs a business, or is a firefighter, or works in a lumberyard is not unqualified, they simply have a different set of skills and points of knowledge.   We are supposed to have a government that is run by the citizens, but instead are veering into politics being a profession rather than something normal citizens taking breaks in their lives to take part in.

        <

        p>On that note:

        If not, what makes you think that putting someone in the senate with no experience legislating is a good idea?

        <

        p>And how much experience legislating did Martha have?  It doesn’t matter.  It wasn’t a sticking point for me.  What she brings to the table as a Senator coming from the life of a prosecutor has value.  A man who comes to the table with experience as a business owner has value.  

        <

        p>You elect a legislature full of people who have done nothign else besides run for office their entire lives is like electing a government of used-car salesmen.  

        <

        p>Don’t get me wrong – you’ll need people who have experience in legislating.  However, when your list of potential candidates is entirely pols, it’s a problem.  

        <

        p>Gimme some diveristy!  đŸ™‚

        • but I want some experience in government.  I want people who understand how to work with civil servants.  Who understand constituent service.  Who understand coalition building.  Who understand public policy, law.

          <

          p>Nothing about being a successful businessmen makes a person a successful politician — anymore than a successful cab driver, plumber, IT professional, or homemaker.  It’s absolutely true that people from all of those professions may have skills to make great politicians, but in fact most businessmen, firefighters, indeed citizens are rather unqualified to be US Senators.

          <

          p>

          We are supposed to have a government that is run by the citizens

          <

          p>I challenge you to find a single POTUS, Congressman, or member of SCOTUS who isn’t a citizen of the United States of America.

          <

          p>

          And how much experience legislating did Martha have?

          <

          p>Fair, but at the same time she did have experience working with legislators, working with other parts of government, working for constituents, etc.

          <

          p>

          You elect a legislature full of people who have done nothing else besides run for office their entire lives is like electing a government of used-car salesmen.  

          <

          p>But if that used-car salesman is a citizen….  đŸ™‚

          <

          p>As far as I can tell, there are two routes to the US Senate:
          1.  Work your way up the political ladder
          2.  Be rich

          <

          p>Neither guarantees you a seat to be sure, but it’s awfully hard to get there otherwise.  The only ones I could find who don’t appear to qualify under (1) include Franken, Hatch, Bennett, with Webb as a sorta-kinda.  So while I like the idea of Mr. Smith going to Washington, the reality is that if it comes down to Mr. Smith the plumber vs. Mr. Jones the corporate manager, Mr. Jones wins far too often, and successful businessmen don’t exactly have a reputation for being everyman kinda guys either.

        • For the record I am definitely in the camp that likes politics as a profession like law, medicine, business, academia, etc.

    • While I like political experience, it’s not a necessary condition. That said, when people are discussing hypothetical situations this far out, it’s a little hard to guess at people in the private sector… because we don’t know who they are. If Charley knew some prominent private sector employees, or people with government experience, but maybe not in an elected capacity, he probably would have included them. But we don’t know. So we go with what we’ve got.

      <

      p>Personally, I’m excited to see what democrats will jump onto the political scene in the next 2-3 years. Will they be bench warmers in the State House, leapfrogging the Galvins of the world (again… and again), or will they be complete political unknowns? Could a US Congressperson in MassachusetCts win statewide? I don’t know. It’d be fun to find out.

      <

      p>The great thing about having a full-scale election is it gives a candidate time to start campaigning early on, going to cities and towns 2-3 years ahead of time, introducing themselves to town committees and ward committees and generally building up a network that could serve as a platform. This is exactly what Deval Patrick did, when he came out of no where to win in 2006. We could certainly have another candidacy like vintage 2006 Deval Patrick, which would be both great fun for democratic activists — and great danger to Scott Brown.  

      • Honestly … I don’t hate Steve Pagliuca. I was prepared to hate him, but I really didn’t. Smart dude.

        <

        p>I’d love for folks with some imagination, depth, and intellectual curiosity to come out of the private sector — even if they didn’t make BOATLOADS of cash.

  5. Would have ate Brown for Lunch. Im still not sure what the “concerns” were. The truck-mystique would have been laughable with Capuano on the other side of it.
    As for 2012? I think he would have to give up his seat to run.

    • I think Capuano, and the rest of the Dem leadership, state and nationwide, would have seen to be up 19 points one month before the general and done very little different from what was done here.  He too, would have given the voters too much credit for being able to see Brown for what he is.

      <

      p>The voters fell for a con:  Scott Brown simultaneously campaigned as an ‘independent’ anti-Kennedy.  Objective analysis has long revealed the cognitive dissonance to be stunning in both its boldness and it’s entropy.

      <

      p>Wherefor, then, does Capuano have an answer for that that every other Dem politico working on this campaign did not?  

      • I have a lot of confidence that Capuano, Khazei, and probably even Pagliuca would have spent the 6 weeks between the primary and the general actually campaigning — you know, getting out and meeting voters, shaking hands, standing in the cold at Fenway park, reaching out to the other campaigns, doing public events, etc.  Most importantly, I don’t think any of them would have taken a win for granted.

        <

        p>As far as I could see, she didn’t do a whole lot of any of those things until about a week ago, when the race had tightened.

  6. Is there not a trend here where, with uncanny consistency, inbred Mass dems that don’t know how to campaign because they occupy seats where they virtually never have to run in a competitive race get smoked in the general election?

  7. I take strong issue with Charley’s contention that six-term 10th Congressional Bill Delahunt is not popular or well-known statewide. He is extremely popular in his South Shore and Cape and Islands District, where Brown did very well on Election Night and Bill has trounced every Republican opponent since his election 1996. Moreover, Bill is the long-time, well-respected former District Attorney of Norfolk County, Brown’s political home base, and a former member of the Coast Guard Reserve who actually knows more than a truism or two about criminal law and procedure and national security, as opposed to Senator-elect (ugh, that is truly a sickening moniker) Brown.  

    <

    p>Moreover, Congressman Delahunt is very well-known for his advocacy of behalf of the fisheries and aquaculture, his national security credential through his work on Coast Guard and port defense issues, and his passionate and effective defense of civil liberties on the House Judiciary Committee against intrusions by the Bush administration.

    <

    p>Congressman Delahunt will be 71 years old in 2012, and he represents (for now) a safe Democratic House seat, both of which may mean a Senate fight against Sen-elect Brown would not be appealing to Bill. McGovern would be an appealing candidate, but I agree that Khazei distinguished himself admirably in the primary campaign and deserves serious consideration for 2012, should he desire to make a second effort for the Senate seat.

    <

    p>Finally, I don’t believe even the politically inept leadership of the Massachusetts legislature will make the foolhardy decision of redistricting the sole female federal elected officeholder, Nikki Tsongas, out her job. Aren’t Coakley’s ardent women supporters already pointing to sexism as one reason for her defeat yesterday? I have to believe if, as increasingly appears likely, Massachusetts loses a U.S. House seat in 2012 due to redistricting, we are much more likely to see Congressman Lynch and Markey or Congressman Lynch and Capuano square off to save their respective Congressional careers. Bay State Democrats cannot afford to provide another ostensible reason for unmarried female Independents to abandon the Democratic party, if they hope to recapture in 2012 the critical Mass. Senate seat they crushingly lost yesterday.

    • Were, at one point: Frank, Markey, and Meehan. I don’t think that’s changed much. They were the ones who I’d heard of even from out of state. And Delahunt’s opposition to Cape Wind has definitely softened his statewide support.

      <

      p>So I stand by my description.

      • when I warned you that he was nothing but a shameless, ambulance-chasing, pretty boy political hypocrite. Perhaps, you’ve matured politically over the last two years.

        <

        p>I tend to believe Cape Wind will be a non-issue by 2012. Either construction will have commenced and everyone will forget about who supported and who opposed the controversial project or it will be rejected by the federal government and the opponents will be vindicated.

        <

        p>In either case, the prevailing winds of the state and national economy, the fate and results of any health care reform legislation, and national security/civil liberties will much more heavily determine the prevailing Democratic primary and general election U.S. Senate candidate than his or her position on Cape Wind.  

        • You ever back anyone who was disappointing?

          <

          p>Besides … frankly I never expected Edwards to win. He always polled consistently behind Obama and Hillary, and would have needed an extra-marital affair from one of them to win, LOL. But his positions on the issues were right, more detailed and earlier-stated than the others, so I wanted to maximize his influence. I noticed the narcissism back then.

          <

          p>Now, did you tell me that he was having an affair back then?

        • think about how others percieve themselves when they write stuff like this:

          <

          p>

          Perhaps, you’ve matured politically over the last two years.

          <

          p>In the interest of observing the rules of the road, I won’t describe to you how I’d describe it. Suffice it to say, Charley was certainly politically mature two years ago, thankyouverymuch. Just because you disagree with his opinion on something, doesn’t mean you can dismiss him as a person. How very Karl Rove of you.

          <

          p>I happen to think the Senate health care bill, if passed, will be arsenic in the political waters of 2010 for Democrats – and feel very strongly about it… but I don’t go saying Charley’s a doofus for thinking otherwise.

          <

          p>And your reference of Edwards was a shameful low-blow. List all the politicians you’ve ever supported before. I’m sure I’ll find one of them who fracked the hell up in epic proportions. Voters can’t control what candidates do with their penis, or to what lengths they’re willing to go to cover it up.  

          • but I think Charley and I are big boys, and am confident Charley can take a little good-natured ribbing, even after smarting from the disappointing drubbing Coakley suffered last night.  

  9. I still think Joe Kennedy (D) might still be convinced to run. I’d be in favor of that.

    <

    p>Other names that might be mentioned, but aren’t exactly inspiring to me, might be:

    <

    p>Chris Gabrieli — although the “three losses and you’re out” rule might apply to him at this point.

    <

    p>Steve Grossman — if he isn’t elected Treasurer in 2010, and maybe even if he is. He can self-fund, which will give him some appeal among DSCC types.

    <

    p>Robert Reich — yes, out of left field and I doubt he has interest, but you never know.

    <

    p>Phil Johnston — again, maybe a little crazy, but former party chairs seem to pop out of the woodwork years later.

    • I don’t like any of them.

      <

      p>Joe: Rusty in politics … kind of retro.
      Gabs: Nice guy, wrong tone for these days. Too nice, really.
      Grossman: Also very nice … but not Hollywood at all.
      Reich: Has a beard. Nuff said.
      Johnston: Nice guy … I don’t see it. Old “party hand” often translates to the public as “party hack.”

      • Also, would someone explain to me how Murray DOESN’T get associated with Deval Patrick?  

        • where I see him daily pontificating on the economy courtesy of CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN.

          <

          p>Honestly, it is difficult to keep up with the peripatetic Robert Reich. Is he at UCal Berkeley now? I saw Reich a couple of years ago on a Cape Cod National Seashore Beach in Truro, but I can’t believe he’d endure winters on Cape Cod.  

        • I wasn’t sure whether Reich still lived here, so that’s good to know (not that he couldn’t come back and run anyway, but that’s unlikely).

          <

          p>As for Murray, I remember seeing a recent poll that showed Murray’s favorability rating still quite high — certainly much higher than Patrick. So given his low profile in the Administration, he might not be tarnished.

          <

          p>Still, now that we know the Senate seat will need a challenger in 2012, I wonder if it would be on balance better for Murray to get out now while he still can. It’s probably too risky of a move to resign before November, but if he does have some sort of a legitimate backup plan between now and 2012, it’s worth considering.  

    • It’d be nice to see what Grossman does with Treasurer, should he win. A lot of people in this state like him. He’d have good will to do something with it. I sometimes feel a lot of the constitutional offices in Mass get overshadowed, stuffed with stuffy, complacent, stale politicians, who don’t understand the platform they have to actually do stuff (coughGalvincough).

      <

      p>I’d have loved Reich to stay involved in Mass politics. I feel as though he definitely could have won something here…. had he stayed. But he didn’t. He’s tied himself too closely to California to come back and quickly mount a campaign, and quite frankly I don’t know if he’d ever want to again. It is, after all, a lot of work… and he has a great platform to make an impact on policy from his current position.

      <

      p>Gabrieli’s cooked. While there have been at least some three time losers to later win something, how would he ever survive all the Springfield shenanigans? Other campaigns could have a field day with all that stuff… rightfully so. The moral of his story: Don’t sign up for a job you either don’t want or can’t do, especially when hundreds of thousands of people have a stake in that job.

      <

      p>To get a scent of how bad things were in Springfield, where Gabrieli chaired their Control Board (aka State Overseers, who came in to “fix” Springfield’s finances — FAIL), here’s a quote from a BMG diary.

      Once you slog through the details it’s just gets more disturbing.  Springfield basically gave $50 million of its hard-saved money to Merrill Lynch in 2006 for safe short term investing.  From April – June 2007 Merrill Lynch invested about $14 mil of the cash in complex securities comprised of subprime mortgages.  Apparently, Springfield did not get an actual description of the investments when they made them.  By August the $14 million had lost 25% of its value, by Sept. it had lost 50% of its value- $7 million.  It’s wasn’t until late November, when the investment was worth on paper $1.3 paper (but, actually, impossible to sell) that anybody thought to actually ask for a written explanation of what they had bought.  

      <

      p>Joe Kennedy is an interesting pick, but would he run after passing up so many other opportunities — and having left the biz so long ago? I’d be interested to see what Vicki Kennedy would be interested in doing, too, because I find her to be particularly impressive, engaging and smart.

  10. Ever since I read his column on gambling (“My father and the loan sharks,” Boston Globe, August 16, 2007), I have felt that David D’Alessandro would bring class, integrity, a common touch, business acumen, a sense of humor, and intelligence to government.  In 2009, Governor Patrick asked him to give advice on the MBTA and he (and his team) produced a set of sensible, realistic recommendations.  This ratified my feelings about him.  

    <

    p>David D’Alessandro would make a very good Senator.

    • he promised to abolish the useless and expensive Boston Marathon he is so proud of saving, but that costs my hometown far too much money in police, fire, public works, and sanitation overtime and gums up my commute to work every third Monday in April.  

  11. I know Marty Meehan isn’t the progressives’ favorite choice or the party establishment’s favorite choice (lot of criticism of him hoarding the $5 million in his campaign account) but I definitely think it was reasonable for him not to run this year.  If he left UMass Lowell after only two years it would have looked really bad for him and there was no guarantee he’d have locked up the nomination after the early momentum given to Coakley.  Its obvious that he can’t run for office and remain the head of an academic institution at the same time.  In 2012, I can definitely see him giving up his chancellorship for the campaign. In 2009, the timing just wasn’t right.  He’s not a perfect candidate but he definitely would fight harder than Martha did (but who wouldn’t at this point?)  

Archives