Dear Friends,
The groundswell of support around the idea of challenging Rep. Stephen Lynch comes as no surprise; I have shared with many of you a growing sense of dissatisfaction with my Congressman’s leadership and votes.
His wrong-headed and mystifying vote against one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our time only underscores how out of touch he has been with core Democratic values.
I am deciding whether to run with seriousness and great deliberation, so that when I do make the choice, it will be the correct one for myself, my family, and the voters of the 9th District.
As part of my decision-making process, I am having a series of conversations with people who can share important insight and information as I consider running. These conversations take some time, but please know I am cognizant of the preciousness of time and the need to move swiftly once a sound decision has been made. I ask you to bear with me for a little longer.
Meanwhile, what is clear is that there is a strong, organized movement in Massachusetts that is ready to get to work to make sure progressive values are represented in Washington.
Mr. Lynch MUST be challenged this fall, and the beginning of that process starts right here, with activists, organizers and voters coming together to demand something better, and working together towards that goal. I will keep you updated, and thank you so much for your incredible energy and support.
Lynch has been on the wrong side of too many issues to not have to sweat it out.
<
p>That said — what’s the opportunity cost? We’ve got what seems like an all-time high of open seats in the state legislature. We’ve got an open seat in the 10th. We’ve got serious contests at Governor, Treasurer, Auditor. Niki Tsongas is being targetted by the NRCC.
<
p>Can progressives really afford the resources for a long-shot primary challenge?
<
p>This is not meant as a dig at Harmony Wu (of whom I know little to nothing) nor is it meant as an endorsement of a free pass for Lynch. I just think that the wider scary political climate should be included when discussing a — forgive the term — war of choice.
I posted my thoughts on this on OpenLeft within a day of hearing about Harmony’s willingness to run.
<
p>We’ve got both a need and an opportunity here to join with progressive & netroots groups all around the country in a coordinated way on one of the most important things government can do: if there’s a serious of credible primary challenges against health care reform opponents, around the country, then it’s a national story, and it exerts serious pressure and effective influence on all Democratic Congresscritters.
<
p>As I mentioned in that post, this is the strategy that won the key environmental legislation of the early 1970s, and it’s the strategy that win gay marriage in Massachusetts. It’s one of the most effective political strategies in existence in a democracy like ours. Massachusetts needs to be part of this.
<
p>This is What a Majority is Good For
<
p>Also, as I was saying in 2008 when we were growing the Democratic majority even though a lot of those Democrats weren’t so great: The point of having a solid majority is so that you can primary more freely. When people asked me why they should support not-so-great Democrats in the general election, that was my answer: you want better Democrats? Remember how bad it was when Republicans controlled Congress? The greater the Democratic majority, the more we’ll be able to improve the average quality of our Democrats by working on primary challenges, at a lower risk of turning Congress all the way back.
<
p>If we get as large a majority as we could reasonably expect – or even better than we could’ve expected – and then don’t do this? Then, IMO, what was the point? The whole effort was a waste, and we shouldn’t bother to support any but the best Democrats in the general election.
<
p>What We’ll Gain
<
p>And the payoff: A real progressive in that seat, someone who we not only won’t have to keep worrying about and expending energy on over and over and over just to get some necessary votes – and then lose some key votes anyway – but someone who will actually fight for the things we care about. If we win this one, we not only save a lot of time and effort we can then expend elsewhere, we actually gain a powerful ally.
<
p>Want to build on the health care bill that just passed? Want to actually get that public option that is supported by the president, more than 50% of the Senate, more than 50% of the House, and more than 50% of the public? Then we need to have these primary challenges.
I agree with you Cos. The idea is to have the best Congress you can. In some places it means replacing a Republican with a Democrat, in other places it means replacing a Democrat with another Democrat.
<
p>Democrats typically support a campaign to replace an anti-choice, anti-health care vote with a reliable vote in line with the party platform. Their political party doesn’t matter when the vote is counted; why should it matter when we’re planning for the next election cycle?
The war is unavoidable. As for this battle… I think it helps the overall effort. Yes, it costs money, and time. It also gives progressives something to be excited about in an election cycle where there’s precious little of that.
<
p>The HCR vote was more important than anything that will happen under the watch of whoever is Governor next year. DINOs need to get the message that siding with the Republicans was the wrong move. Every Democrat in Congress knows the DCCC will try to protect whatever seats the Dems have. It’s up to activists outside the official party apparatus to let Congressmembers know that we will do everything we can for those who did the right thing, but those who did the wrong thing are on their own. That message needs to be sent because the next close vote may not come out the right way if Republicans are scary and primary challenges aren’t.
<
p>Although if you personally think Harmony Wu running is a waste of resources, feel free to give money instead to a vulnerable member of Congress who voted yes or to the challenger of a more vulnerable no vote. I’m partial to Betsy Markey, because she appears to have taken the biggest risk to vote yes.
Making the party stronger isn’t just about challenging the DINO’s, it’s about supporting the Reps who actually did the right thing. Capuano is getting a donation from me this cycle – both because he was honest enough to share his legit concerns and let the people lobby him on them, and because he came down on the right side in the end. That’s political courage both ways.
Also keep in mind that we do not have serious contests in September for Governor, Tsongas’ seat, etc. And come the November election, having a combined coordinated effort throughout the state helps all of them. The more excited and enthusiastic people are in the 9th district about their Democratic candidate for Congress, the better Deval Patrick does.
The thing is it won’t take that much in terms of resources to see if Lynch is vulnerable in the grand scheme of things. Giving some seed money and volunteers to Wu may be very enlightening. Personally, I think this district is ripe for a primary fight — and Wu seems like a pretty good, respectable progressive that could unite the unhappy base activists against Lynch, of which there are many. There are plenty of downsides to not trying, but absolutely none to giving it a go — and the upside is simply huge, in terms of replacing a DINO with a progressive and in terms of stirring up a base that needs a stirring going into this year.
…lest a Republican ride the anti-incumbent wave. It doesn’t make sense to a lot of us, but some people will be equally willing to vote for a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican as long as it’s not the incumbent. An example is 1992 when Meehan knocked off incumbent Chet Atkins, who had written bad checks, thus keeping the seat Democratic. If Atkins had stayed in the 5th might well have fallen to the GOP in the 1994 wave.
as “Mr. Lynne must be challenged this fall.” đŸ˜€
… of my political power can be intimidating, I’ll admit. But I’m married to Lynne, so I’m challenged every fall anyway (and spring and summer and tuesdays…). đŸ˜‰
Mr. Lynne MUST be challenged Wed-Mon in the winter months.
I think a good rule of thumb when looking at these seats is will a primary challenge result in a better Democrat taking the seat.
<
p>In some cases, Stephanie Herseth and Heath Schulyer spring to mind, a primary will likely take ‘the best Democrat that district can get’ and replace him/her with a Republican. I would also argue this is in the case of Bart Stupak who is now getting serious challengers from the left and right. But for Lynch who thus far has no Republican challengers and is sitting on a pretty safe seat a primary challenge from the left will result either in his losing the seat or him moving to the left. Either way results in a better Democrat. 538 had a chart and next to Artur Davis (who gets a pass because he is running for Governor), Lynch is the least valuable Democrat due to the relative D+ swing of his districts and the record of votes he has taken against his party. I would say Lynch in MA and Lipinski in IL should be the top two prospects of a concerted effort to get DINOs out and replace them with progressives. Lieberman rises to the top of that list on the Senate side in 12′.
I agree that we should try to primary Stephen Lynch. However, I don’t hold out much hope for Harmony Wu to do the honors.
<
p>However wonderful she may be, and however great an organizer, her highest elected office so far has been Needham Town Meeting. And the percentage of people in even Needham who have heard of her isn’t particularly high.
<
p>I very much hope that Harmony Wu does run for office. But I think she’ll have a hard time being taken seriously in a run for US Representative. Now State Rep Lida Harkins (who’s running for Brown’s State Senate seat) or State Senator Brian Joyce (who lost to Lynch a few years ago) would likely do much, much better. And I’m sure they’re other good candidates with with actual political resumes.
<
p>I don’t care if someone’s been a state legislator. YOU may not care. But enough people do care, that it’s hard to get elected as a US Representative without previously having been a legislator or mayor.
<
p>Jeremy White
Needham
Off the top of my head, some currently-serving members of Congress who had never held any elected office before running for the one they hold now (along with what they did before becoming US Representatives):
<
p>Rush Holt (D-NJ), physicist.
<
p>Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), grassroots organizer.
<
p>Jerry McNerny (D-CA), engineer/entrepeneur.
<
p>Niki Tsongas (D-MA), lawyer (& married to a Senator).
<
p>Joe Sestak (D-PA), Navy admiral.
<
p>Bill Foster (D-IL), physicist.
<
p>Donna Edwards (D-MD), lawyer/activist.
<
p>Jim McGovern (D-MA), legislative staffer.
<
p>John Tierney (D-MA), lawyer
<
p>Walt Minnick (D-ID), civil servant then businessman.
<
p>Chris Carney (D-PA), navy reservist and college politics professor.
<
p>John Yarmuth (D-KY), journalist, publisher of a quirky alt-weekly.
<
p>Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), nurse.
<
p>I’m sure there are plenty of others I don’t know of. It’s quite common, anyway. And if you add in people who previously only held minor local office, like city council, board of education, county comissioner, etc. you get a bunch more.
<
p>I don’t recall ever hearing anyone say they wouldn’t consider voting for an individual running for Congress because that person hadn’t been elected to some other office before. I have plenty of times hear people say what you’re saying: I worry that others won’t consider the candidate if they haven’t been elected before. It seems a lot like that “electability” argument that propelled John Kerry to the Democratic nomination in 2004: everyone trying to guess who other people with very different views would support, without solid evidence.
<
p>It IS true that holding an office like state rep or city mayor can be a big help in getting elected to Congress, but it’s not because people are more likely to consider voting for someone because they’ve held that office. If you reduce it to that, it becomes a self-perpetuating logic bubble. In fact, there are plenty of other things that are also helpful in getting elected to Congress; being a state rep or a mayor or something like that is just one of those things. It also helps to have a public name, or to have a hot button issue you’ve got a record on, or to be in a politically well-connected family, or to have the support of politically active groups and organizations, or to be a lawyer, or to be a successful political or community organizer, or to have a lot of money, or to be very good at talking to people in person or at giving speeches, or … (not an exhaustive list, of course)
<
p>No candidate ever has all of these things. Successful candidates put together some combination of a few of them.
All good points — and very well argued.
<
p>That doesn’t change the fact, however, that people with virtually no name recognition have a much harder time getting elected than those with high name recognition.
<
p>It’s certainly possible for Harmony Wu to beat Stephen Lynch. But from where we’re standing right now, it is less likely that she will succeed than would someone like State Senator Brian Joyce, or former State Senator Cheryl Jacques.
<
p>And I take it back — I do care what sort of experience people have when I’m considering voting for them. And I look for some sort of leadership experience, whether in politics, business or non-profits.
<
p>Jeremy
Opposing health insurance reform? He may have been disingenuous(LOL, he probably was)but he gave the appropriate liberal argument against his bill, and believe it or not, there are liberals who oppose this bill. Given the Scott Brown victory in this district I don’t know what you hope to gain. Finally, while many die hard Obama supporters are thrilled with this bill, many liberals didn’t like it and don’t actually like Romney Care, so I don’t see what enthusiasm would be out there for the candidate saying I would have voted for health insurance reform.
quite a bit of good for people who need help now?
<
p>Also, your characterization that people are “thrilled” with the bill is actually inaccurate. People, I believe are thrilled that something meaningful has occurred in moving this nation towards a health care policy that makes sense. It’s a first step, not an end in itself. There are many reasons to be pleased about the bill’s passage if you care about people in other states who are shut out of the health insurance market.
<
p>Yes, Lynch’s district runs a bit red, but that doesn’t mean that a better Democrat shouldn’t run in the primary. I suspect that the The anomalous election of Scott Brown is an incident, not a trend in Massachusetts.
Lynch’s district has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+11, which means in recent elections it has tended to go for Democrats by about 11% more than the national average (and the national vote has been solidly Democratic in those elections, this is D+11 relative to that). Brown won all of Massachusetts too, but that doesn’t mean we should say “Massachusetts runs a little red”. Any district can fall to a Republican if the Republican runs a competent campaign and the Democrat doesn’t. Let’s not do that again, sure, but let’s not call a blue district red đŸ™‚
Or at least the teabaggers:
<
p>
<
p>I’m still trying to figure out what forn of corruption “job job” is code for…
and some of us would argue it harms others. Some people don’t see it as a first step forward but a step sideways. People have differing views on the health insurance legislation. He gave the liberal case against it, so I am wondering how that would look in a debate.