I wanted him to be my Senator last year, and I hope I get to vote for him again. For all my reasons, see: http://bluemassgroup.org/diary…
Beyond all of that, I think he has a real chance at beating Scott Brown. I think if you asked every Democrat in Massachusetts today if they voted for Mike Capuano for Senate, twice as many people would say they voted for him than actually did. IMO (and from what the friends who I debated candidates with last year now say) he is the vote that many wish they had cast.
He is a solid progressive with deep blue collar roots. I think he would eat Scott Brown’s barn jacket wearing,”I drive a truck”, sound bite of a campaign for lunch.
And with the Presidential elections next year, Democratic turnout will be through the roof.
I guess we will have to wait until December…
to run against Scott Brown.
<
p>I’ve been wondering if any legitimate democrat would challenge Scott Brown in 2012 — legitimate both as a true (liberal) democrat and as a viable candidate.
<
p>Mike would be great. Thanks for sharing uff.
This is the guy who ran a campaign so incompetent he got creamed by martha coakley, and you think he’s viable against a sitting us senator??
Its never easy to beat an incumbent, ever, even in this election cycle. But the difference is that you are talking about a democratic primary, and I am talking about a general election.
<
p>The difference between Capuano and Coakely in a general election against Brown is Capuano has the progressive values and voting history that would energize the democrats (Coakley clearly didn’t energize the Dems in the general election), and the mainstreet, blue collar cred that would counter any “I drive a truck and wear a barn jacket” common man appeal to independent voters (nothing against Coakley, but IMO she struck out in this regard with independent voters).
<
p>Add on top of all of this the fact that the state has one of the bluest presidential voting records of any state and I think Capuano is a viable candidate.
<
p>Shoe in? no. Up hill battle? sure. But do I think he should run, and could win? absolutely.
People weren’t paying attention; I think many just assumed Coakley had it in the bag and perception became… well… not reality, as it turns out. The media was not a fan of Capuano, so he got no good “free” press. People had a whole host of candidates to consider, a pool of people you could almost count to infinity, given the fact that what a “candidate” was in such a short time period was sort of in flux.
<
p>By the time the real candidates became cemented in the race, it was time to move on to the next round. I also think many in the establishment felt as though it was Coakley’s time — and to a lot of people in the Democratic establishment (as it really goes with any establishment), that means something. For what it’s worth, Coakley also had the support of most of the local candidates, who are more closely connected to the people than the national types (who tended to back Capuano).
<
p>Probably most importantly of all, it was such a short duration, given that it was a special election, that there was never any time for Capuano to coalesce a true, statewide campaign. Coakley at least had a statewide name to build on. If Capuano had another 3-4 months in the primary, I think he would have won it.
<
p>My bottom line… yeah, Capuano never really resonated during the election, but he didn’t really have a chance to, either. Now he really has all the time in the world and more name recognition from across the state. If he runs, I’d view him as the favorite in the primary.
After seeing Capuano work a room a few times, I think with a full election cycle, he’d have a really good chance winning both a primary and the general. The situation is similar to Deval Patrick in 2005/6 – he built his base up slowly, a handful of supporters at a time. That’s what Capuano would have to do, and that takes more than a few weeks.
since he already built his base in that primary.
And he didn’t. He failed to resonate bc he was completely tone deaf. Maybe no one else remembers, but I remember his stupid “experience” theme in an election where that’s not what voters wanted. He was just as much an establishment candidate as coakley, but his faction of the establishment was weaker. If he wanted to run for senate, he had ample time to start laying a foundation when kennedy was diagnosed, or even earlier, when everyone thought kerry would be president, and a fundraising edge over coakley thanks to already having a federal campaign committee. He lost because he hired the same tone deaf losers as john kerry and ran just as poor a campaign. He will lose if dems make the mistake of nominating him. There are plenty of democratic congressmen and statewide officials to choose from; choosing capuano because its his turn, like the republicans did with first place loser john mccain, is a really bad idea.
Capuano’s loss had little to do with being tone deaf. His “experience” argument was not going to resonate because it was a bad argument, it wasn’t going to resonate because Democrats’ ears were not open to hearing any argument from any other candidate. This was Coakley’s race from the beginning. It was like the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary – it was Clinton’s from the beginning except for a remarkably charismatic person running an absolutely perfect campaign over the course of 18 months. In a two-month race, even Barack Obama would have lost.
<
p>I knew many Democrats (mostly women, to be honest) that were with Coakley from the get-go and would not have changed candidates regardless of who entered the race. Coakley had in the 40s from the beginning and that’s what she ended with. She had enough support from the beginning to win. And having a money advantage wasn’t going to matter much (see: Steve Pagliuca).
<
p>Moreover, Coakley ran a decent primary campaign, but completely failed to campaign at all in the general until the last couple weeks. She could have and should have won, but she didn’t really try to win.
<
p>Capuano was able to increase his share from single digits (in early polls) to 28% in just two months; I think that’s the opposite of incompetent. If this had been a normal race with lots of time, things may have been different.
<
p>Primaries (especially the 2009 special primary) are just different animals than generals.
<
p>For example, Mike Castle couldn’t win the DE Senate primary, but every analyst thinks he would have walked away with the general.
<
p>And remember Shannon O’Brien? She won the Dem primary, but do people really think she was the best candidate to go against Romney? She was horrible in those debates. Do you think Robert Reich would have performed so poorly?
<
p>And you say there are plenty of other Congressmen to choose from. Who would you recommend as having a better chance than Capuano?
<
p>Markey won’t run, and neither will Frank (and he’d probably lose). Tierney can’t run now. Lynch would lose, and he sucks. Neal stinks and is unknown in eastern MA. Niki Tsongas would get destroyed. Olver is close to retiring anyway. Keating, if he wins, could not run. That leaves McGovern and Capuano. I think both have the liberal cred to jazz up Dems and the toughness and smarts to beat up on Brown. I’d be happy with either.
<
p>I don’t think Capuano is a perfect candidate, but I like him a lot and think he has a good shot to beat Brown. He can talk to working class voters as well as anyone, and certainly much better than Coakley could. And he has the toughness to really put a hurting on Brown in debates (something that would have hurt him had he really tried it against Coakley). Also, 2012 should be a very different year politically and economically. Obama is going to easily win Massachusetts and I can’t imagine quite as many fired up tea-partiers going to the polls then.
<
p>
about the too angry, aggressive Capuano. He got my vote in the primary.
This seems like a perfectly legitimate comment. It’s a question any reasonable person would ask, i.e., if Capuano lost against Coakley what argument or evidence does one have that he’d do better the second time around.
<
p>Zeros should be reserved for something other than mere disagreement.
but recall that (1) the timing was really weird in the special, favoring an EMILY-funded incumbent, (2) ditto favoring the statewide-office holder versus the guy who is only known in his district, and (3) Coakley actually campaigned in the primary.
<
p>So the idea of Capuano is credible to me, which is not the same thing as a slam dunk.
Can’t really think of anyone else who wants to run and would have a better shot. I’m sure some of our other Congressman have thought about it, but I don’t think they’ll make the commitment. The Lt. Governor could give it a go and have a fair shot, I suppose. Does Meehan think he can win statewide?
<
p>Lynch obviously wants to run, and may even have a decent shot against a Scott Brown in a general (would still be a long shot), but for reasons that should be obvious, I don’t think he has the ability to win a statewide democratic primary.
Mike Capuano for Senator. It would be terrific if he ran. There is plenty of ammunition against Scott Brown this time around. I think his vote against extending unemployment benefits ought to do him in.
It would really be fun to see Mike Capuano pick up on every one of Scott Brown’s votes that were against the interests of working men and women, or against the interests of Massachusetts. He will effectively make the case that Brown and his ideas are not compatible with our expectations for a United States Senator.
I was a big fan of Mike but he got creamed, and creamed badly. Brown one in part because he ran as a Washington and Beacon Hill outsider, we need another candidate able to do that. A businessman like Gabrielli, an insider with a small amount of time on Beacon Hill like Murray, Bump, or Grossman could also suffice. State-wide name recognition, blue collar appeal, progressive values. Thats what we need. Murray IMO has all of those, and a sizable warchest to get the ground running now. Roots in Western MA and Worcester, a key city that Brown won.
You’re jumping the gun a bit proposing them as senate candidates. Bump hasn’t won an election in 20 years and grossman never has. Worry about this election before you propose them as senate candidates. Bump especially is in a tight race. Murray, while a better campaigner than coakley, has the same insider problem. She only had 3 years on beacon hill. He’ll have 4 or 6, and no way to distance himself from the patrick administration. If you’re going to go that route, governor patrick would be a better choice.
Tim Murray has great approval ratings and a lot going for him. Wouldn’t be surprised to see him as Governor in four or eight years.
In 2008, I don’t know how many people could have predicted the current electoral climate, just two years later (I’m sure they are out there and will reveal themselves đŸ˜‰ ). So I can’t quite accept the argument that we need a candidate who would fit today’s climate when we’re not sure what things will be like in 2012.
<
p>Also, I think the whole insider/outsider thing comes into play more when a campaign (usually the losing one) is poorly run. A well run, agile, grassroots campaign is a bigger weapon than any insider/outsider status, regardless of the political climate.
Jasiu, you’re right as far as open seats go. But if you’re challenging an incumbent, you need a change message. If the status quo is good enough, why bother electing a new senator?
And why swap a Senator in the majority for a freshman in the minority?
or do you think they’ll get Nelson or Lieberman or others to cross the aisle and change allegiances?
<
p>I find neither scenario likely (based on polling and other data), but I’d love to hear why you think that
<
p>(1) the GOP will have the senate in 2011
(2) the voters will believe that the GOP will maintain that majority after the Nov 2012 election, and
(3) that the voters would weight that particular dynamic (majority vs. minority) more heavily then, say, values.
I think that the Democrats lose these seats: Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington.
<
p>I don’t think that they pick up Kentucky, Ayn Rand and Hayek’s road notwithstanding.
<
p>So far, that is a one seat advantage, Dems.
<
p>That means that they must hold two of Wisconsin, California, and Nevada, against a strong adverse tide. And these are all in tossup land, which favor the GOP candidate.
<
p>I think, based on nothing but my gut, mind you, that the results will be more of a Republican win than Democrats are expecting.
You are prejudging the political environment of 2012. Will status quo really be good enough? Or will there be enthusiasm for change, and if so what sort of change will that be? I have no idea.
<
p>My point: A good candidate that can build up an early, solid base can adapt to the conditions. A candidate whose campaign is based on the existence of a particular political environment will fail miserably if the situation pans out differently. I believe this regardless of whether it’s an open seat or not.
You’ve got to be kidding.
<
p>How many campaigns do you need to bring out the Winnebago before it is called the Loserbago? He has already jumped that shark.
<
p>I love Murray, and I hope he will be the next governor. I would also be happy if Murray is the next senator and Capuano is the next governor.
He is the Howard Stassen of local politics. I think Murray would make the better Senate candidate but the better Governor, and the reverse is true for Capuano.
A special election is very different from a normal primary. With proper time, and not running against a statewide office holder in a primary, and with MA Democrats now recognizing they need a candidate with ideas and leadership, I think Mike’s ideal.
Yeah I think Mike would have a great shot. I live in the 8th but grew up in western MA, and I think that if he works to really build a state-wide organization people will like what they see. I remember talking to some folks back home about Cap during the primary — solid reliable progressives — but they just didn’t know that much about him, other than vague notions that he was a pretty liberal guy. I think one of the issues is that he can sometimes come across a little too much like a Boston street pol, and based on first impressions, that doesn’t necessarily connect with folks in other parts of the state. When you have such a condensed timeframe as in the last election it’s tough to get beyond those kind of snap judgments, unfair though they might be. With a bigger time window I think he’d be just fine.
<
p>The only potential hiccup I see here is if this Pelosi-bashing business gains a lot of traction and Mike’s ties to her become an issue. Tough to say though, two years out.
<
p>Just my $.02
She (sadly) won’t be speaker then. But we’ll have our own bogeyman to go after – that orange guy.
Mike Capuano is a solid campaigner, and would make an excellent Senator. He should go for, and I think he’s likely to be the Democratic nominee.
<
p>That being said, Scott Brown is a better campaigner and strategist than some of us on this side perhaps give him credit for. Unless something big happens, Scott Brown is likely to hold on to his Senate seat.
<
p>But, things do happen, and Capuano is a good candidate. Besides, as he found out the last time, running a positive state wide campaign, even if you lose, can be good for one’s ratings.
He’d have to give up his congressional seat to run this time. I think that would be the biggest concern on his part – if he did not win, he’d be representing no one.
<
p>I’m guessing that the re-working of the congressional districts will have a lot to do with who might and might not run for the senate seat.
<
p>But I do agree with you, Jeremy.
of a Congressional district. I don’t know if it will be in play for the 2012 election, but if so, someone could be on the outside anyway, a loss this election not being considered. This is a possible way of retaining that talent.
Brown avoided issues, so moderates could project a moderate image on the blank screen, tea partiers could also project their hard-right visions. In 2012 he will have a record that he needs to run on (or run away from) which will cost him many of the votes he received in the last election.
<
p>I like Capuano because he will be very effective in contrasting his positions with Scott Brown’s, and explaining why his record is much more in line with the people of Massachusetts.
The guy’s done a level job as mayor but clearly needs new challenges, he’d crush anybody running against him, he knows lots of people on the national scene, and he can out-everyman Brown all day and all night.
… there’s a whole lot of voters beyond the Boston city limits. Boston folks love Menino because he is a responsive mayor who makes the city work, but I don’t think he will play very well two blocks beyond the city limits.
Pablo, I agree with you on menino. I think the same reasoning applies to capuano. Capuano will come across as too aggressive and kind of a jerk. That’s not going to change. No matter how long the campaign, his opponents0will have all that time to make him look bad in the primary and hell have only 6 weeks to undo the damage. We need someone who won’t be perceived that way in the first place.