Wired and ready, Marisa DeFranco is not intimidated by US Sen. Scott Brown’s millions or Elizabeth Warren’s public and party support. She’s itching for debates and forums. She figures she’s going to win first the Dem primary and then the general on issues.
“I am the only progressive in this race,” she told us today at Left Ahead. Click the player below for the 35-minute podcast.
An immigration attorney, she declares herself also the one from either party who has the most real-world experience, foreign policy knowledge, and solutions in her platform. Moreover, she differentiates herself from the other candidates by saying she is the only one with a real jobs plan.
To her, the incumbent and other candidates speak in vagueries and talking points. She says there are two kinds of campaigns, the talking point variety and her specific and plainspoken one. “My whole campaign is based on real talk,” she said.
She admitted that voters won’t necessarily agree with all her platform, but they’ll have no question what she means or intends to accomplish. In contrast, she said that Brown came to office with the single priority of job creating, but has neither done that nor even produced a plan.
While she has the least in the bank of any Dem candidate, she said ad money won’t make the difference in this race. “Democrats aren’t going to get people to hate Scott Brown in this state,” she said. Also, they “are making a fundamental mistake in playing the money game against Brown.” she figures whatever the Dem nominee raises, Brown’s supporters will at least double. Instead, she believes voters “are tired of the mouthpiece politics” of generalities.
She said for the past 11 months, she has based her organizing and speaking on a “focus on message, message, and message, and grassroots.”
As for Warren, DeFranco said that working for the Obama administration and spending many years at Harvard are not good preparation for the Senate and are not marks of an outsider. “I am the real outsider,” she said, “the person on the ground and from the streets.” She noted that in her many advocacy trips to the legislature, “I haven’t seen Elizabeth Warren in any of my travels.” Moreover, she was similarly plainspoken about Warren taking contributions from those in the financial industry and claiming those are the ones who want reform. She called it “disingenuous to say, ‘My rich guys are better than your rich guys.’”
For Warren’s centerpiece of the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, DeFranco remains unimpressed. She notes that it came with no prosecutorial powers. Also, she says that its (and Warren’s) emphasis on making lenders and companies reduce complex contracts to two pages does not do much. As an attorney, she says she knows that “mortgagte companies can make a two-page document hard to understand too.” She said that the CFPB is trying to regulate want instead of could; the customer may really want to buy that house, but the danger is what the lender can do on its side, regardless of how clearly the customer is thinking.
DeFranco says her plain talk has gotten support from both parties as well as independents. She says that she doesn’t “know where Elizabeth Warren would stand on so many issues.” For Brown, it returns to “Where’s his job plan. That’s my biggest problem with him.”
Short term, she’s in the process of directing her volunteers to gather the necessary 10,000 valid signatures to make sure she’s on the ballot.
This is cross-posted at Left Ahead.
…is a bigtime non-starter for me. She strikes me as going for the “never be satisfied” vote, which is ironic considering that many of Warren’s fans are in turn disappointed with the President. It is also not Warren’s fault that the CFPB is not as powerful as it could be, though it did get more teeth than some were hoping for.
I am generally sympathetic to a primary fight. My guess is that DeFranco will get 20% at the convention, many from delegates who like to get people on the ballot. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Jim King doesn’t get the signatures.) However, I can hardly see her winning the Dem primary and she lives in a town represented in both the state house and senate by Republicans who often go unchallenged. I would love to see her abandon the US Senate race in favor of one of those seats. To be clear that is the only reason she should consider going a different direction. If those other seats were safely in Dem hands I would say full steam ahead on the federal race.
A six if we had one. I’m tired of good Democrats aiming for the sky, and deciding that nothing else is good enough if they don’t reach it.
Apparently, a heck of a lot more Democrats are tired of candidates who don’t reach for anything:
So how’s the current strategy workin’ out for you?
I don’t think that many of us are deciding that “nothing is good enough if they don’t reach it”–what we’re dissatisfied with is that they don’t bother reaching for it. Maybe DeFranco’s odds are pretty slim; I STILL need canddiates who at least TALK about single payer. About a 25% cut to defense. About closing military bases. About “The People’s Budget.” About, basically, all those things that drew me back into the Democratic fold, but that are apparently verboten. You certainly don’t see Ms Warren talking about them.
…to never be satisfied.
will be interesting this year, and I’ll go, since, for a change, it’s only short drive a way. I made up my mind a long time ago to support Warren.
I haven’t seen anything compelling about Ms. DeFranco or her campaign. She seems like a nice person, I’m sure she’s intelligent, but her campaign has the feel of a Green Party bid.
What does that mean exactly? The Green Party is what the Democrats used to be before they became so centrist that they have become unrecognizable.
I think it means a campaign that says what most of us think, but which isn’t sufficiently well-funded by those who most certainly do not think the way we do to get any traction.
with orthodox liberal values, little or no experience, and no chance.
well said.
n.t.
And, likewise, no one fears her.
Not to be glib, but that’s the reality. I’d be shocked if she gets 10,000 signatures; even moreso if she gets 15% of the delegates at the convention. She should seriously consider Fred Berry’s Senate seat, before it’s too late.
I can’t guarantee the delegates. But she’ll get the 10k sigs.
“She should do ” … what her conscience and her supporters want to her to do, not what the Party establishment deems to be in its best interests.
Seriously, wouldn’t you prefer a spirited primary in which all those things Warren refuses to address actually get talked about? What a Party you’d have if, rather than mocking and dismissing contenders to the throne of your anointed ones, you encouraged your own candidate to publicy debate her positions (I’m personally appalled at Warren’s bowing out of so many, but I suppose that with so many having a W to Marisa on BOTH debates, her well-heeled handlers would prefer not to expose her again).
is to see Marisa have a future in MA politics. If she continues her current quixotic quest to the bitter end, that’s dubious. If she goes after a race that she can win – and there are lots of those – that’s different.
Running on a set of principles that the frontrunner does not espouse will render a candidate from this party toxic in the future?
I find it far more admirable to run on those principles and advocate positions the frontrunner decidedly does not than to go the route of the Khazies and Massies and cover one’s own rear for the future.
the question is whether a candidate wants to win, or wants to use a campaign as a soapbox for issues that are important to her. I can see a rational argument for the latter, but in general, my interest is limited to the former. And bear in mind that candidates (other than self-funders) are generally asking for and then spending other people’s money in the course of running their campaigns, which I think carries an obligation to be honest both with oneself and with donors about whether a win is realistic.
why doesn’t she primary Obama?
I know that actually living in the district you want to run in seems passe with the Kennedy/Ross/Congressional lust…but, I think there is something to be said for electing candidates that really live in their district. I would never vote for a candidate who moved in to run…there are plenty of qualified people who can represent their own district.
I’d prefer she knock off a GOP incumbent, which she can do without moving out of Middleton.
Tarr is well-liked and well-funded. He’ll be hard to beat.
I like both candidates but to tell you the truth I would rather see Marisa DeFranco win this election. I think it’s unlikely that she will win but I am very thankful for her voice out there and wish more than anything that we had more like her running for every office, including the presidency.
…you’ve said a couple of things that I’m fairly certain are not true. I am not aware of issues Elizabeth Warren has refused to address, just issues she doesn’t bring up unless asked. She does after all have a very focused message related to her experience and expertise which I would argue is also most relevant to these times. I also am not aware of her refusing to or bowing out of debates. She debated at UMass Lowell and did fine as far as I could tell. She was accused of dropping out of one that was going to be in Concord, but that was cancelled by the organizers due to technical difficulties. I have heard no comments from her indicating reluctance to debate.
Yes, her position is VERY focused and very relevant. But she’s going to be voting on a heckofa lot besides, and on a lot of life-and-death issues. I AM aware of a few positions upon which I decidely disagree. But since you feel I’m just making this stuff up, let me ask–where does she stand on
single-payer?
IRV?
“The People’s Budget?”
Glass-Steagall?
Ag subsidies?
Withdrawal from Afghanistan timetable?
Rep Frank’s call for a 25% reduction in military spending?
That’s my short list. I’ve read her web site, public statements, and what endiorsement questionnaires have been made public. I see a lot of non-answers.
As for the debates, I’m not making stuff there either: the Concord debate was, I believe, cancelled twice–and there was also one scheduled for the Cape this month. I know for a fact that Ms DeFranco was ready to go–what happened there? There has also been more than one forum to which all candidates were invited that Ms Warren has eschewed.Yeah, I get the strategy–why even bother sharing a stage with a contender when you have the lead you do? But I firmly believe that we better off as both a people and a party when candidates go head to head.
You wrote:
Let me pose a simple multiple-choice question for you:
Who has benefited most from the spirited GOP primary fight-to-the-death?
a) Newt Gingrich
b) Mitt Romney
c) Barack Obama
Getting 10,000 signatures requires approximately 1000 man hours just to gather.
It requires a greater organization than I bet Ms. DeFranco has.
I think that whether you support Ms. DeFranco or not, it’s a good thing to have another candidate on the ballot. If not, then just for the political process. It will be a lot of work to get those signatures, but I know that she’ll do it.
Using money and backing by the “hoi-polloi” to limit candidacies is part of what has gone wrong with democracy and the Democratic party. I am personally opposed to keeping candidates off the primary ballot. The whole strategy of slamming the door in the face of a vigorous and passionate candidate who displays a fundamental commitment to the values of the “old Democratic Party” as offposed to the move of the Democratic Party into the territory of what was once a moderate Republican offends me. Ergo, I will do signature collection for DeFranco, if provided with petitions because the strategy of “slam the door, protect the favorite” is offensive on a personal, moral level.
I understand (though I don’t share) your reaction to the Elizabeth Warren candidacy. I even get (and have sympathy with) your reaction to the rightward shift of the Democratic Party.
I reject your characterization of the recommendation for Marisa DeFranco to end her primary campaign for Scott Brown’s seat as “slam the door, protect the favorite”. That certainly isn’t my posture, and I don’t hear that in the comments from others here.
I’d like to instead ask you to address the same question I posed earlier:
Who will benefit the most from a stubborn fight-to-the-death primary campaign of Marisa DeFranco against Elizabeth Warren?
a) Marisa DeFranco
b) Elizabeth Warren
c) Scott Brown
(d) Democracy and my answer is “(d)”.
A real primary might lead to a Warren candidacy that is well-developed on issues that also matter to me, more so than at present. No slamming the door on candidates might lead to a healthier democracy. I find you argument both unpersuasive and disingenuous.
and there you have it.
First some full disclosure: I support DeFranco.
The premise that a primary challenge to Elizabeth Warren based upon principle automatically accrues to Scott Brown’s advantage is not supported by the evidence to date: DeFranco is not Newt Gingrich, and she hasn’t demonized her opponent. Frankly, the attempt to turn the election into a coronation does both Warren and the Massachusetts Democratic Party a disservice.
I find the zero-sum-game premise behind a contested primary to be more indicative of cultural entitlement than honest political analysis, and the expressions thereof on this thread to be premised on a scorched-earth approach totally absent from DeFranco’s campaign.
Furthermore, and irrespective of the winner in the primary, Democrats can only benefit by an honest airing of the issues by two dedicated and accountable candidates.
Finally, underdog status, in and of itself, is not a disqualification, particularly if it triggers and insures accountability by the frontrunner. I do the Warren campaign no disservice by noting that her campaign to date has been conspicuously cautious in its approach to the issues. Intellectually, I have no problem with this in the context of primary politics; emotionally I find it irritating. My support for her aside, DeFranco raises issues that, left to its own devices and for valid political reasons, the Warren campaign would prefer to avoid.
In a political environment where economic insecurity and union membership correlated with Brown’s support in the Special Election, robust competition between the candidates can only benefit the Democratic Party.
First, some more full disclosure: I support Elizabeth Warren. I have nothing whatsoever to do with her campaign. My comments are those of an individual (Democratic) voter.
I said nothing about “automatic”, nor did I say anybody was demonizing anybody. I certainly said nothing about any coronation. All those sentiments are yours, not mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
The Democratic primary is on September 6, 2012. By all appearances, Ms. DeFranco intends to stay in the race until then. That means that the Democratic Party will have an actual nominee for only 60 days prior to this vital election. I think that, alone, is a good reason for the party to coalesce behind a viable candidate well before then (at the convention would be good) unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. For example, Marisa DeFranco could get a good “bump” for herself, the party, and Elizabeth Warren by withdrawing and offering her endorsement at the convention.
When I say all that, I am saying nothing about coronation or entitlement. I haven’t “scorched” any “earth”. Instead, I’ve made a simple and factual observation about the calendar.
The harsh invective in this thread seems to be coming from you and amberpaw, not from me. I mean, seriously — “turn the election into a coronation”? “honest political analysis” (with the not very subtle implication that whatever it I’m offering is dishonest)? “scorched-earth approach”?
Perhaps a “robust competition beteen the candidates” might benefit the Democratic Party in some future election. I think there is precious little evidence (as in “none”) to suggest that delaying the selection of the Democrat nominee until September will help anybody in this election except Scott Brown.
Why did not not include (d)?
Why did you use the biased phrase “fight-to-the-death” rather than “open and democratic” – your choice of such biased words and options is not doing your purported chosen candidate any good with those of us who are not committed – it does come across in a very “push-poll”, condescending, and at least to me, bullying way. You can consider my language anything you like (democracy is like that) – I consider my language open, honest, and passionate – and yours biased, condescending, and disingenuous.
…is that “democracy” cannot ultimately win an election. It takes a natural person to do that. Thus the choices are Warren, DeFranco, and Brown (and I suppose Jim King). As for me, the ONLY reason I’m suggesting DeFranco consider leaving is that there are other opportunities this year that otherwise may not have Democratic candidates at all given the historical record.
When I wrote “stubborn fight-to-the-death primary campaign”, I meant a campaign that insists on continuing through the September 6, 2012 primary election — with no regard to whether or not the candidate has even a remote chance of winning. Ralph Nader and his supporters used similar rationale to stay in the 2000 election (leaving aside the financial and ballot presence incentives for the Green party).
I’m happy to reword the question with your characterization:
Who will benefit the most from an open and democratic primary campaign, extending to the primary election, of Marisa DeFranco against Elizabeth Warren?
a) Marisa DeFranco
b) Elizabeth Warren
c) Scott Brown
The choice remains the same.
I don’t now nor have I ever question your openness, honesty, or passion. The supporters of Ralph Nader in 2000 were similarly open, honest, and passionate. The effect of that campaign was to assure the victory of George W. Bush. I fear a similar effect this year. If that makes me “biased, condescending, and disingenuous”, then so be it.
First, let me state that I wasn’t talking about you in isolation (I was trying to respond to the entire thread, not just you – I apologize about my clumsiness with the “reply” button.) That said, I find “harsh invective” a little…exaggerated as a description.
I stand by my word choice about Warren’s nomination as a coronation by supporters in and out of the Party structure. Political faits accompli during primary cycles do not always work to the benefit of nominees, particularly against an opponent as skilled and successful at playing populist cards as Brown.
A principled intra-mural competition tends to engage supporters (on all sides) on behalf of the eventual nominee in final elections. If these competitions maintain the high road, they expose weaknesses early enough for preventive maintenance in general elections.
Which is why we have Unity Breakfasts.
If Marisa DeFranco stays in the race until she loses on September 6, it leaves precious little time for “preventive maintenance” — no matter how many unity breakfasts are hosted.
Perhaps “harsh invective” is too strong. I just read “biased, condescending, and disingenuous” from amberpaw. That sounds pretty harsh to me, but maybe it fails the “invective” test 🙂
I didn’t say “always”. I generally like the idea of primary campaigns. Having said that, scheduling a primary sixty days before the general election reflects either lunacy, arrogance, or both. I suppose that if the GOP nominee is totally unelectable (and GOP nominees for Senate prior to Scott Brown usually were) and the Democrat Party completely dominant (which was true for a long time), then a late primary may be better. If the most important decision facing the voters face is who will be the Democratic nominee, then a late primary provides valuable time to vett that choice.
This campaign, this year, is different from that. Scott Brown is a dangerously strong incumbent. It is a nationally prominent race, with an enormous amount at stake — for Massachusetts, for America, for the world. In THIS campaign, I think a delay until September in choosing a nominee will benefit Scott Brown more than anybody else.
Given a well-run campaign, with a good field operations and respect among its pre-election factions, seven days is more than enough time to put together a unity structure for final elections.
Your points about Brown and the prominence of this Senate race are well taken; but I think that a contested primary provides the best environment for Democrats to face unpleasant political realities, and thus overcome them.
This does posit avoiding circular firing squads.
I’m supporting Warren; I’m excited to support Warren and don’t feel like I’m compromising my progressive principles in supporting Warren. That being said, bring on the spirited primary fight! If Elizabeth Warren deserves to be our Senator, as I’m sure she does, she will make the best of whatever the campaign road before her brings. If Ms. DeFranco has a future in MA politics, she will do the same. Congratulations to anyone who throws their hat in the ring and to all who put in the hard work to support them. And, to quote Elizabeth Warren, “I know who my enemies are; I’m not going to take potshots at those fighting along side me.”
…I like Marisa. But I don’t know why I’m wasting time talking about a candidacy that has zero viability. By what measure of objective criteria can anyone say this candidacy has any chance of success? She has a whooping 600 likes on her candidate Facebook page compared to Warren’s 95,000–show much for grassroots support. And in the evil money department, Marsha has $4600 cash on hand, compared to Warren’s $3 million and Brown’s $10.5 million. I’m sorry to use the word “silly” but can any of her supporters really present a coherent and realistic path to anything but an embarrassing ending to this story?
I’m sorry to be harsh, because I do admire Marsha’s energy and passion. But I agree that she’d be wonderful challenging Tarr or either Hill or Jones (depending on where she lives and what happened in redistricting to affect Middleton). As mentioned about, they maybe uphill fights, but at least she has a fighting chance, instead of chasing a windmill.
…that Marsha was really a typo…apologies all around.