Yeah, it’s like reading tea leaves. But it makes sense all the same. Maybe it’s time for Scott Brown to hold a town meeting.
Elizabeth Warren’s calendar sure looks like the schedule of a woman considering a Senate bid, or at least someone being courted by power players in Massachusetts and the Senate Democrats’ campaign operation in Washington.
In recent weeks, Warren has met in person or spoke on the phone with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, David Axelrod, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Massachusetts Democratic Reps. Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch and John Tierney. The phone call with Murray took place in early June, Roll Call has learned. Warren attended a community banking event with Tierney in the Bay State and dined with Schumer, a former DSCC chairman and an aggressive recruiter who remains involved in DSCC activities.
You can read her schedule here.
Because, let’s face it — the current crop of candidates we have is pathetic. That’s not to say Setti Warren or Alan Khazei are “pathetic” individuals — indeed, I think they are great people and have good, progressive values. But neither can beat Scott Brown.
It’s past time to get someone legit into this race, and Elizabeth Warren would possibly fit the bill — she’d at least be better than the field we have now. If she gets in, I would expect at least a few of the current candidates to back out.
Well, I’m not at all convinced that either Setti Warren or Alan Khazei are particularly progressive. Elizabeth Warren does impress me much more.
However, don’t you think that really what’s going on in Washington is that all this maneuvering is designed to get Warren out of the way so as to take the heat off of Pres. Obama when he finally officially caves to the Republicans and fails to appoint Warren as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection?
She’s not getting the gig, even if she’s the perfect person for it. Republicans are terrified of her and Obama’s terrified of Republicans.
..but that’s not the point I was trying to make. It does seem to me that a big component of this push for Elizabeth Warren (who I like a lot, by the way) is simply to get her out of the way and provide cover for the President. And it’s not a pleasant thing to see. It’s a little bit like a number of companies I’ve worked for where you would see an announcement that some vice-president had left “to pursue other interests.”
Hmmm … don’t know about that. A lot will be a referendum on the incumbent, and I think public opinion about Brown is pretty fluid at the moment. It depends on how many right-wing outrages and gaffes he commits in proportion to his high-profile “moderate” apple-polishing.
I was reasonably impressed with Setti’s political skills, and think he would be able to make a pretty strong case against Brown.
Khazei is less disciplined as a *messenger*, and seemed a lot more like a lefty boutique candidate last time around, for sure. But I wouldn’t call him “pathetic” as a candidate, yet. He needs to convince Dem primary voters that he can win a general election, and has an issue agenda that can motivate Joe and Jane Median Voter — not simply convince us that he’s a good guy with good intentions.
Tom is an outstanding candidate, the most liberal in the race, and the only one with actual legislative experience. He is the only one who has taken on and defeated one entrenched Republican, and now he can do it again with another.
Tom also has the most real foreign policy experience of anyone in the race, having managed programs in Thailand and Haiti and serving as adviser to Senators Gary Hart and Barbara Mikulski.
He has a strong economics background, has documented the futility of legalized gambling as a way to raise revenue, and is vice chair of a House committee on health care costs.
I am proud to support him and will continue to support him, whoever enters the race.
Frankly, I’m not crazy about political power brokers choosing our candidate. Elizabeth Warren is an academic with very little name recognition outside Harvard/beltway circles and no political experience. Who knows how she would present herself as a candidate or connect with voters.
These people who are pushing her candidacy are out of touch with Mass. voters. She may have many fine qualities, but she is certainly not the “big name” candidate that Schumer, Frank, Kerry, etc. think she is. And if they do think she has name recognition, they need to get out more often – in Mass, not Washington
She is untested and may not be the “big name” that could really be a game-changer in this race. But the way this is shaping up, if the Dems want to beat Brown, we need someone who the “political power brokers” in the national Democratic Party are fully behind.
Brown would be hard enough to beat even with a top-flight candidate. The current candidates have very little shot even if Obama, as expected, trounces in the Presidential race here. There will be a lot of split ticket voters.
is obvious to those of us who follow the news: that Scott Brown waits till the last minute to announce his position on many controversial issues (hardly the sign of a leader), that he arrives at his positions based on calculating how acceptable the extremist Republican position is to MA, that in all of this he shows no sign of having any values or principles of his own.
in the primary, that’s the good way to either make sure an inferior milquetoast candidate gets pushed through, or that the best candidate gets dramatically weakened. I’m fine with party insiders, national and state, trying to recruit strong candidates, but undermining the primary process is another story.
At the end of the day, party power brokers will get behind whoever wins the primary, usually very quickly. Whether Warren runs and wins the primary, or it’s one of the other announced candidates, will matter very little in the end in terms of getting party support to defeat Brown, particularly given the fact that he’s our best pickup opportunity in the Senate — regardless of who gets through the primary.
I’d rather see the primary process work through before the national Dems get involved in most races. But in this case, it makes more sense. The Massachusetts Democratic party, as well as the grassroots, have not been pushing strong for any particular candidate to enter the race. This is in part because so few people are interested in running — despite the fact that a top-tier candidate would have a solid chance of beating Brown in a presidential election year.
In this case, there isn’t even an “inferior milquetoast candidate” for the national Dems to push. That’s why the danger of them screwing this up and backing a poor candidate is lessened. Any efforts to help get better candidates in this race — one in which we should have a bevy of choices — is fine by me.
a lot of candidates considered Deval Patrick a “pathetic” candidate in 2005, and a lot of people thought our attorney general an unbeatable candidate in 2010.
We have elections to separate the wheat from the chaff. I have no idea whether any of the current candidates are pathetic, stellar or something in between — and I’d be dubious to trust anyone’s political instincts who says anything otherwise.
At this point in the race, it’s good enough to look at fund-raising and name recognition, as well as institutional and grassroots support. The fundraising for our side has indeed been pathetic, particularly compared to Brown. This in a state that is an ATM for Democratic candidates nationally.
This factor is made considerably worse due to that fact that none of our candidates have name recognition and need money they don’t have to get their names out; that the institutional Democrats are fumbling to get someone else in the race; and that the Dem grassroots are far from settled on one of these candidates.
Few of these applied to Patrick in 2005. He started with low name recognition, but was a great fundraiser and had significant personal cash. The grassroots were behind him early, so he had a natural base. Democrats in general were pleased with the field that year. Not to mention that he was, in my opinion, an unusual political talent of the sort that does not come around all the time. His primary win was certainly an upset looking at it from 2005, but his situation hardly compares to the current crop of candidates in this Senate race.
Do our current Senate candidates have a 0% chance of winning in November 2012? Of course not — you never know what could happen down-ticket in a presidential year in a deeply blue state. So at least a warm body with a “D” next to it is better than nothing. But we’d be much better of with a stronger field than with the hope that someone can mimic Patrick’s unusual 2005/2006 success.
Once again national Democrats, state Democrats, and Democrats on this site are underestimating Brown. Frankly were the election held tomorrow I am confident he would get 53-55% of the vote, as most polls indicate, no matter how well Obama does and no matter who runs against him. We have wasted the past year and a half without any serious candidates in the race and without any serious statewide effort to define Brown and hit him with hard ads, the League of Women Voters not withstanding (an ad that likely backfired I might add). The funniest thing is that all those who were gung ho for Warren months ago are now turning on her since she lost her hipster street cred since power brokers are willing to back her. I say good, at least they are paying attention to this race, and at least we have a candidate willing to get in and really stick it to Brown.
The reality is the current Congress will not allow her to have that post, its a waste of the President’s time to try and place her there, starting a new czar post with a recess appointment is a bad hand to play and smacks of desperation. I am also more convinced now that she would have a greater impact in the Senate. Rye makes some good points though, Deval and Brown were both unknowns and are now the two most successful politicians in the state. The main difference is this crop of candidates reminds me of the LG nominees in 2006, unimpressive no names the lot of em. So we need to see how well they campaign. Another good point Rye makes is her lack of name recognition amongst rank and file, and the fact that Coakley was similarly annointed and squandered her position. That said, having seen her interviews, and knowing what we know now, it seems likely that she will be serious and certainly won’t view this election as a cakewalk or a vacation. I am tired of Capuano’s dithering about entering the race and his back stabbing Obama on Libya, so if Warren does indeed enter she will be my woman.
But there’s crossing a line, and in this case, the political power brokers have done just that. Schumer, Kerry, and Frank think they can manipulate the electoral process through the withholding of support and donations until their chosen candidate enters the race. If Elizabeth Warren does enter this race and suddenly the big donors from the Democratic Party come out of the woodwork, you can watch the rank and file walk away.
And while they’re at it, when the big money starts to flow, the Party leaders better to be ready to tell all their high end donors to set aside the next year to put their boots to the ground to get her elected. They seem to have forgotten that it takes a combination of money and political activism for a win. As one who sends small donations but who’s done tons of phone banking and GOTV calling, canvassed, organized visibilities, etc. for Democratic candidates, you can count me out of this next election if this is how it plays out. I’ll vote for the Democratic candidate, but I won’t work for a candidate whom Washington decides is the “chosen one”, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.
Recruiting is one thing, but manipulation is a step too far. To put an untested candidate in a situation where she has to explain away the sudden appearance of big money donors is a risk not worth taking. It’s 2011, not 2010, and that makes all the difference.
I’ll try to keep an open mind about him.