Today I wrote a column in the Boston Herald calling on Democratic Party officials to basically put up or shut up.
(Here is the link: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1343355)
My premise is simple: The speculation and behind closed-doors buzz coming out of DC about finding a “top-tier” candidate to run against Senator Brown hurts the existing field. It keeps some grassroots organizers on the sidelines, impacts fundraising efforts, and drives media stories about the supposed weakness of the existing field.
The kind of thinking that is going on among Democratic Party officials in DC has not led to electoral success recently in MA. Deval Patrick emerged from a hard-fought primary in 2006 to win back the corner office after 16 years of Republican Governors, Scott Brown won the special after higher profile candidates like Andy Card opted out of running, and Suzanne Bump emerged from a tough primary last year to win against a strong Republican challenger.
Plus, we have a strong field of candidates who have announced or are seriously looking at the race. If the DC crowd has a candidate, let’s get him or her up here now to start doing the hard work at the grassroots level it will take to win in 2012.
The best thing for MA is for candidates who feel like they have a compelling reason to run for U.S. Senate to get in early, do the hard work at the grassroots level and broaden the Democratic message and vision. A clean, hard-fought primary will strengthen the party, energize the grassroots, and give us the best chance to win in 2012.
Anyway, that’s what I think. What do you think?
Just check out his speech at the Democratic Convention on June 4th, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNR2ZNAxWE8&feature=share
They could be tactful about it, but if none of these candidates are drawing serious national money, then I want to know that.
But isn’t there a self-perpetuating cycle here? The DC Dems tell everyone how crummy the field is, leading to big-money donors to hold on to their pocketbooks, which causes the current candidates to have trouble fundraising, which in turn allows the DC Dems to point to the field and say how crummy it is.
I don’t have a horse in the race yet. Of the current crop, I would probably say that Bob Massie has impressed me the most so far, and he’s the only one who has actually won a statewide Dem primary and gotten 15% on a convention ballot before. I am not familiar with Rep. Conroy, but he seems to have an interesting bio, though his speech on Saturday was workmanlike. Mayor Warren seems great, but I’m not sure he’s living up to the hype. For some reason, I always forget that Alan Khazei is running again, which either says something about my memory or about his candidacy. I would be surprised if the other two end up on the primary ballot.
I guess I’m just not that sympathetic in the end. If DC chatter is really rattling a campaign, it has larger problems. Prove them wrong.
Fair point that the campaigns shouldn’t let chatter bother them…but in reality, as these campaigns try to put together a grassroots organization and line up donors, this chatter does have some impact. My point is that it will be tough enough to beat Senator Brown, and any negative talk from party officials in DC just makes it tougher.
The other two were not serious candidates. As in, they took sufficiently leftist positions, and had no particular electoral advantage (track record of being elected, or money), as to be taken seriously. Warren, Conroy, Khazei, and Massie are all at least plasible nominees.
Having a DSCC official declare that there was still time for a first-tier candidate to emerge doesn’t help. If someone new doesn’t, it sends the message to the voters that all we have are second-tier candidates. Mind, that’s all the Republicans have, but they’d never admit it.
Nonsense. An incumbent with high likability and no scandal is a strong position to start from.
Scott Brown is eminently beatable, but there is NO better nominee that the Republicans could currently put forward for that seat than the incumbent.
just Republicans in general. That’s how I read it, anyway.
I took Sab’s line as referring to the crop of candidates the GOP has currently for president. A similar thing is going on there: Both voters and “higher ups” are looking for someone “credible” to step into the race. In both cases, I think the talk doesn’t do any favors for the party in question.
You are all welcome to interpret what I said in the way that makes me seem the smartest in your eyes.
Somehow I doubt Mr. Rubin has the best interests of the Commonwealth at heart.
The DC Dems are saying what need to be said. This editorial contradicts itself. If having a hard-fought primary will strengthen the eventual nominee, then mild criticism from the DC Dems isn’t going to damage the nominee. I guarantee you the candidates will have much worse things to say about each other (or have their supporters say so they can keep their hands clean) as we approach primary day. Mean things get said. It’s how primaries work.
If the delicate flowers currently running get their feelings hurt every time Patty Murray says boo, they’re not going to win a serious election.
I’m all for a contested primary. I just don’t like the current crop of candidates. This is a point that Doug Rubin is trying to hide. Criticizing your candidate doesn’t mean someone opposes having a contested primary. It means they don’t like your candidate. Criticizing your candidate is what supporters of other candidates do in contested elections. The DC Dems never asked for a coronation. They just criticized the current candidates. Exactly what people do during a contested primary.
Mr. Rubin is smart enough to know this, so we can only conclude that he is intentionally trying to pull the wool over our eyes to insulate his candidate from criticism, whoever that may be.
Pagluica has to do with this, or why that somehow proves Rubin doesn’t care about Massachusetts. That’s just silly. Who cares that Rubin worked for Pagliuca? He also worked for Deval Patrick, and for much longer. I suppose that doesn’t mean anything?
As for the comment that the “current crop” should be able to handle the criticism from DC…. who says they haven’t? But, more to the point, Rubin’s not criticizing them for criticizing any particular members of the field. What Rubin is annoyed with is that the DC Democrats are ultimately doing by criticizing the field itself is delegitimizing it — undermining all of them in the process. They’re doing this without promise of actually recruiting any “top tier” candidate they approve of — such a candidate may or may not materialize, and by the time they may, it may not even matter, should much more time go by.
That’s some nice 12th Dimensional Chess you’re playing there. Even if you were right, though, does it even matter? Would it somehow change the landscape of what was going on — a group of outsiders undermining our local efforts, without any promise of delivering a candidate of their own, regardless of that candidate’s ability to actually win here. I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere on this thread: the national party could do wonders if it reinvested in Tip O’Neill’s biggest lesson in politics: All politics is local. DC interfering with local races has almost never helped, and quite often blows up in our own faces… and it’s we, the people, who end up suffering with the likes of Scott Brown because of it, not the national party.
The point of the pags comment was that Rubin is clearly willing to work for DINOs, and may end up having a financial interest in this race. His comments are being given weight because he worked for the Governor. But Rubin has his own agenda here and doesn’t deserve the credibility he has been afforded.
Pagliuca aside, your comment is way off. Is Congressman Olver an outsider? Is Barney Frank an outsider? Is Mayor Menino an outsider? These are all people who know more about Massachusetts politics than any of us posting here. It’s not some outsiders telling us what to do. It’s people who know their voters telling us the current field is weak.
Again, I don’t see how Patty Murray’s or John Olver’s or anyone else’s comments are going to hurt the current candidates if a contested primary is a good thing. Complaining about their comments is just a way to shield one’s candidate from criticism that the candidate can’t address on the merits. Either contested primaries are good, or they aren’t. Rubin pays lip service to the notion of contested primaries while begging for a coronation.
The distinction between criticizing particular members of the field vs all of them is a false one. By that reasoning, candidates who have multiple opponents should only criticize one of them and leave the rest alone.
What I suspect is going on here is that Barney Frank et al DO know of someone better who’s planning to run, and they are doing exactly what loyal supporters of candidates in contested primaries always do. And so is Doug Rubin, except he has to use trickery to make his point because he knows the criticism is correct on the merits.
Really, that’s what this comes down to. If the criticism is wrong on the merits, the candidates on the receiving end would prove it wrong. Complaining about how terrible it is to criticize candidates is what you do when you can’t prove the criticism wrong.
First, I like Steve Pagliuca and won’t apologize for working his campaign. Steve’s has been a big supporter of the Governor and the President, and has added his expertise to the policy work being done around economic development in the state.
I am not supporting any candidate yet, but I do respect all the candidiates for diving into the race, and feel like the chatter from DC diminishes their work and makes it harder for them to be successful.
So while you’re right that it hurts the current field, you’re wrong to claim it hurts the Dems’ chances overall.
And the way you’ve chosen to argue that is dishonest. Rather than debate their claims on the merits, you act like criticism of your candidate is a plea for a coronation.
You may not have officially sided with a candidate yet, but let’s be serious: you have a preference. Most of us do, and I don’t think you’d distort the facts as you have if it weren’t on someone’s behalf.
I’ll come out and say I’m biased in Capuano’s favor. You owe your readers the same courtesy.
Bob Massie met with my ward committee ten days before the convention and we were all quite impressed. His personal narrative and unusually broad background make him the man for the job. If he entered the convention a 2nd tier candidate and I question that premise, his speech and how he was able to connect with the people transformed him into a first tier candidate right before our eyes! It was almost magical! I hope the DC guys can tell a winner when they see one — I believe we have our nominee!
and I hope people will listen to you. DC almost always seems to fudge this sort of stuff. This race will sort itself out if we let it happen organically, but if I continue to read in newspapers around the country about how “democratic sources” are “disappointed” in our “field,” it’s only going to undermine the efforts.
National pundits and “experts” seem to think the lack of a big name means the field is weak. I think they’ve forgotten Deval Patrick’s 2006 pretty quickly — never mind Brown’s own race last time around, starting from almost complete obscurity. Sometimes the best candidates are the ones the general public doesn’t know well — they get a shot to define themselves in a way a “top tier” candidate simply can’t.
Sometimes I think it’s better to support an incumbent than throw them out because they are the wrong party. Case in point, Deval Patrick got the votes of a lot of people like me who voted for Brown and McCain, because he proved himself to be competent and reasonable and really the governor of the whole state, not a tool of the radical extremists, and so it didn’t really matter who the Republicans nominated, lots of us felt that reasonableness and competence should be rewarded and the state will be better off than with an extremist from our own party.
And Brown is proving that he can be reasonable and lead his party away from the extremists, as he did with getting them to back off from the destruction of medicare. Isn’t it better to have a voice in the Republican caucus who talks some sense to the rest of them, than to elect another Dem who will only make them more rabidly polarized and extreme?
I might have agreed with this line of reasoning before Bush2, but the Republican Party has gone so far into crazy land that absolutely anyone who is willing to label themselves as one cannot be trusted to work in the best interests of the American people as far as I am concerned.
then, I respond: That’s why it’s all the more important to elect moderates into the Republican party. All we’ve been doing lately is electing more and more polarizing extremists, letting each party drift into crazyland, bossed around by bullies who force everyone in their party to take litmus tests on how extreme they are.
the Republican brand has been permanently tainted and number of moderates is going to fix it. Besides we have been screwed too many times by Republicans claiming to be moderate before they swing to the right. Besides which, you won’t find a single Republican who hasn’t participated in deeply irresponsible tax cuts while claiming they care about the deficit.
There is no such thing as a party being “permanently tainted.” Democrats weren’t after 1968 and 1972, Republicans weren’t after Watergate, and they aren’t now.
They are going through a change in the power structure of what has been their coalition for the last 40 years. Eventually, one side will get the upper hand and will define the party for awhile. If the party is not successful, then the power structure will change again.
As far as I am concerned the Republican party is permanently tainted. I will *never* vote for another Republican, no matter how seemingly reasonable they may appear to be.
While I don’t believe that the party will go away, especially with all of the big money backing it, it is definitely not inherently impossible for parties to become defunct. Whatever happened to the Whigs?
Members of the party always vote for their team. What Republican have you ever voted for before the taint?
and although I am a registered Democrat currently, I would have no aversion to voting for third party candidates and have done so from time to time. I definitely won’t blindly support someone just because they are a Democrat.
When Tom Conroy won his seat in the legislature, nobody thought that he could beat his opponent, an entrenched Republican, in a district that had been held by Republicans for decades.
As a legislator, he has been a leader, taking strong initiatives.
And he gave a rousing speech! See the video at http://www.tomconroy.org.
As for the notion that Brown is a moderate, his vacillation on Medicare was typical, first pledging to vote to end Medicare as we know it, then backing off when he saw how strong the opposition was. On many important issues, he keeps us waiting to see what his position will be, as he balances the extremist Republican orthodoxy vs. what MA will accept. At no time has he given any indication of having values or principles of his own.
Tom will be a leader in the Senate as he has been in the legislature. We won’t be wondering where he stands.
Susan Pope was and is extremely popular when Tom Conroy won a first election and he won the rematch as well. He made a name for himself going door to door.
Democrats have some promising candidates. Democratic voters should let them go up against one another and let the strongest candidate win. It’s not time to anoint anyone in advance.
As for Scott Brown he’s obviously personally popular but the current Democrats have records just as or more impressive than Brown’s at the time that Brown won.
I think Rubin is right to criticize the DSCC for whining about there not be a top tier candidate though. Let that candidate man up and come forward and start running. What I don’t like about Capuano is that he is playing it safe, waiting to see how redistricting turns out, and waiting to see if going up against Brown is worth risking is lifetime seat for. If your not willing to give up your seat to fight Brown than you lack the cojones and the ability to beat Brown, the longer he stays out the more likely it is would be supporters like me and many others will saddle up with the candidates we have.
At this point I like the idea of a Maddow or Liz Warren candidacy as well though that also seems unlikely. It seems that most professionals are reading the tea leaves and giving this one a pass-that said a no name candidate with a D next to his name has a built in 40-45% to work with, so Brown is beatable, we just need a candidate who can appeal to independents. The fact that these guys are tripping over themselves to out progressive the progressives is not a good sign either. Progressive economics yes, especially since they win over independents and blue collar Dems. But lets not make the primary a referendum over publicly funded abortion, global warming, gay rights, or Teddy’s legacy. It didnt work the last time…
They’ve made some pretty crappy decisions in the past, like supporting Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln even though all the polling showed their challengers would do better in the general.
But that was Bob Menendez’s DSCC, and everything I’ve heard about it was bad. Apparently donors were getting pissed off b/c Menendez wasn’t even asking them for money. I’m more optimistic about Patty Murray’s DSCC.
I’m especially intrigued by the comments from Olver/Frank/Menino. I don’t think they’d all be attacking the current field in such quick succession unless it’s pretty clear to them that someone better is going to run, whether that’s Capuano, Elizabeth Warren, or someone else.
What advantage, exactly, does Capuano get from an early announcement? He’s already got a federal account, so he can raise money without announcing. He gets more media coverage at this stage by being mysterious and having people try to read the tea leaves every time he speaks than he would have with an announcement. He’s already got decent name recognition. He’s less of a target for Scott Brown to attack. Seems to me that as a matter of campaign strategy he’s better off waiting.
I have no problem with other candidates jumping in…as I said in the column, if the DC crowd has a candidate, let’s get him or her up her and doing the hard work at the grassroots it will take to win.