Full disclousure up front. I am a voter in the 6th CD and strong supporter of Congressman John Tierney. I worked hard for his 2012 re-election and will be on the frontlines again in 2014.
According to DailyKos’s campaign update today, Seth Moulton’s supporters are already going negative against Tierney in a fundraising email. Moulton who claims to be a Dem expressed interest in running as an independent in 2012 and is now using the Republican playbook in 2014. Unable to take Congressman Tierney on issues his supporters go to the discredited curruption gambit. Sad and very telling about what Seth Moulton brings to the table as a candidate:
• MA-06: In a new fundraising email for Iraq vet Seth Moulton, the progressive veterans organization VoteVets labels the man he’s hoping to unseat in the Democratic primary, Rep. John Tierney, “a corrupt incumbent.” That’s an ugly, negative move that plays right into Republican attacks on Tierney, particularly since no one has ever produced a single piece of evidence tying Tierney to the tax evasion scandal that sent his wife to prison for a month back in 2011.
And earlier this fall, the House Ethics Committee declined to open an investigation into Tierney’s finances. So I don’t understand why VoteVets feels the need to “go there,” particularly when there’s no there there. (Notably, their ActBlue page leaves off any reference to Tierney.)
VoteVets also refers to Moulton as a “progressive,” but that doesn’t seem to be how Moulton regards himself; rather, Moulton has called himself “fairly centrist.” He also considered running as an independent in 2012 (though he did say he’d caucus as a Democrat).
As a member of a Gold Star family who lost my brother Peter in Vietnam it pains me to have to take issue with a vet. But I cannot remain silent in the face of this blatant lie attacking my friend, Congressman John Tierney,as a ‘corrupt incumbent’.
I have called John friend for 20 years and in all that time he has championed all the liberal causes we embrace with integrity, courage and passion. John fights for economic and social justice and fairness every waking day of his life. He is no ‘Johnny come lately’ to the dream that we all believe in.
I call on Seth Moulton to denounce this shameless attack on this honorable public servant.
Fred Rich LaRiccia, Wakefield Democratic Town Committee
(NOTE: The writer interned for the late Senator Ted Kennedy and is a Founding Member of the Honorary Fellows of the John F. Kennedy Library).
Tierney barely got by the skin of his teeth last time, there will no longer b Obama or a libertarian on the ballot to help him. GOP leaning turnout is higher in off year elections while Democratic leaning turnout plummets. This will be particularly true in the center-right leaning district (case in point Leah Cole). Tierney should do the responsible thing and donate his spare money to a proven progressive like Kim Driscoll rather than risk the seat falling into the hands of a faux moderate like Tisei or an unknown quantity like Moulton. Moulton has already out raised him and has national connections through veterans groups and connections via his business networks. Tierney for the good of the party and the principles he espouses should step down for a better candidate.
who can actually win this seat.
I’ve compared his numbers to Elizabeth Warren’s in the district before on BMG. John Tierney smoked Liz all across the district. This is a really conservative district, not just for Massachusetts, but at a national level, too. A lot of the state’s most conservative communities are in here and it’s only someone like Tierney, who has a large network of support all across the district and can run up the numbers in Lynn and Salem and win Peabody soundly (no easy feat nowadays — they just elected a Republican to the state House).
So, really, jconway, you do not know what the heck you’re talking about here. You simply don’t know the district well enough.
Tierney is a very solid Congressman who’s won a whole bunch of squeakers in this very, very tough — and formerly Republican — district.
Your posts are not helping, especially when your suggestions (ie Kim) aren’t happening. Kim’s great, but she’s not running and she’s one of Tierney’s strongest supporters, so she won’t be running anytime soon and she wouldn’t have as good a chance of winning even if she did.
The day Tierney decides to retire is the day the Republicans are finally likely to win a congressional seat in Massachusetts again. Not before.
…and I did not break out the roughly half of Andover that is not in the 6th. But my quick tabulation gives Warren 186,000 votes in the 6th, against Tierney’s 179,500 votes. What numbers do you have that indicates Liz got “smoked” by Tierney? Warren only got 1,000 less votes that Tierney in the stronghold of Lynn; 600 less votes in Salem; about 100 less votes in Beverly and 1,000 less votes in Peabody. But she out performed Tierney in scores of North Shore communities– including Amesbury, Bedford, Reading, Newburyport and the GOP communities of Boxford, Ipswich and Topsfield.
Yes, Brown beat Warren with 212,500 votes in the 6th. But Tisei and the Libertarian Fishman got a combined 192,600 votes in ’12.
While you dismiss jconway, you don’t address their basic point, that the ’14 electorate will have a very different composition than ’12. One that will be much smaller and probably less liberal.
The Conway’s in Salem knew Tierney well and he attended my grandmas wake and was a classmate of my uncle at Salem high. I respect his distinguished record if public service, and while I think he exercised poor judgement I was willing to forgive him last election. But he is damaged goods and a lot of the people who had his back over the years feel betrayed. Not sure he can repair the damage-better to quit on top and hand the seat over to someone capable of winning.
He won, dude.
Willing to forgive him last election?
Well, it’s the next election in 2016 and there hasn’t been anything more to forgive.
Damaged goods? He’s won time and time again. Obviously, whatever the “damage” the voters don’t give a damn, because they’ve looked at what happened and don’t find him at fault. Nor did they find him at fault in the election before that one, when all the same stuff was out there.
If they did find him at fault, we’d have a Republican in DC from Massachusetts right now. You’re just wrong.
Cook and Sabato have him in the top 10 most vulnerable, He won by less than 3,000 votes, he had Obama and Warren on the ballot, and he had a libertarian pull nearly 4.5% from the GOO. He has drawn two primary challengers one of whom is out raising him. Brown smoked a Coakley, Baker narrowly beat Deval and those elections NOT the last one are better indicators for the turnout. The fact that he out polled Warren demonstrates that this is a lean Brown district which means without the extra turnout for Obama or the libertarian he is toast. Id love to look at polling for these match ups-but the trend lines aren’t looking good.
I care about the district. Parents just moved to the district and I come from a long time Salem family. He’s got my support if he’s the nominee- and I’m not sold on Moulton and DiFranco seems a little unhinged. I am saying I expect him to lose until I see polling otherwise. He doesn’t have the libertarian or Obama pulling him over the edge this time. The fact that it broke against Warren only seems to prove my point about the tilt.
And please don’t confuse my analysis with cheerleading for the other side. I’d rather a reliable liberal vote-more reason for the incumbent to step aside in my view.
While I don’t always agree with Sabato (Nate Silver creams him), I fully agree with him here — Tierney’s seat is very vulnerable.
But that’s in large part due to the nature of MA-06. Any competitive Republican turns the seat into one of the most competitive in the country… because the district is a tiny few pockets of blue in a very, very massive sea of red. John just so happens to out-perform other Democrats in that sea of red (and in the tiny specks of blue).
I tackled all your arguments here and don’t want to retread on it again. I hope you’ll click the link and we can continue any discussion there.
You claim that Tierney “out performs” any other Democrat, yet he got less votes in the District than Warren. Your main point is undermined by the hard electoral numbers.
You’ve presented them in a clever way that basically amounts to apples and oranges. Comparing how each did against their opponent and not how many votes they actually got. After all, your point is Tierney performed better that Warren and the data absolutely proves that to be a wrong statement.
This is true, but Warren got 12498 total votes in Peabody and Tierney got 13,476…a real difference of 1,000 votes or so…not the 4,000 vote illusion you spun.
The reality is Warren got more votes (5920) in Marblehead than Tierney (5808).
In Swampscott, Warren got 32 less votes than Tierney.
This is a whopper of a distortion: Warren-20,673 to Tiereny’s 21,631. A 1,000 vote difference that you spun to appear to be a 4,000 vote difference.
Warren only got 600 less votes in Gloucester than Tierney.
Warren’s 11,791 votes matched Tierney’s 12,410 pretty evenly in Salem–Tierney’s base.
In fact–as you know–the communities you listed represent that core communities of Tierney’s base and, as the numbers clearly demonstrate, he only marginally did better than Warren.
Overall, Warren got more than 5,000 votes in the 6th District than Tierney did, winning many communities outside of Tierney’s base.
So your argument that Tierney is the only Democrat that can “win” in this district is flat out wrong. Frankly you owe jconway an apology for saying he don’t know what the heck he is talking about.
comparing how many votes a Senate candidate got to a Congressperson is apples and oranges. There will almost always be more votes cast for Senate than Congress within a Congressional District.
In fact, there could be a lot of races where a lower office could get fewer votes in their district than a US Senate candidate who lost the vote count in the same district. Say, there was a State Rep district where Scott Brown got 10,000 votes to Liz Warren’s 10,500, losing it, but the State Rep candidate won the race receiving fewer than Brown’s 10,000 votes.
Would anyone suggest Scott Brown did better in an area he lost the vote count in than a State Rep candidate who won it, but received fewer raw votes? I don’t think so. It would be a little silly.
So, looking at the vote margins and seeing how well candidates in different races did in comparison to one another is a much better and more accurate way of analyzing how well they did, relatively speaking, than comparing their raw vote totals.
…then you measure the margin by percentages and not raw votes.
Full disclosure, I don’t live in the district, but I have a friend who’s helping Moulton.
Tierney has still never accounted for the casino thing. I LIKE Tierney, he was great at the Blackwater hearings that I’ve never forgiven Hillary for allowing her chief of staff (Mark Penn) to damage.
I’ll take any reasonable explanation:
– It was my wife, she wanted to help her brother, I had vague knowledge but nothing specific.
– I was suspicious, but we wanted to believe him.
– We used to say we couldn’t believe his luck, now we know why.
ANYTHING. But Tierney has never answered the charge well.
And you can tell your friend this. He needs to come on here and tell us what he stands for rather than simply that he is against Tierney and was a vet. We need to hear a positive rationale for why he is the progressive candidate and has our backs in Washington. So far I see a lot of business connections and vague inklings of Broderism. I want a fighter and need him to tell me how he will fight for me.
But we are in agreement on Tierney-great record but terrible explanations and evasions and it’s really cost him a lot of trust among his people.
I suspect we will hear from the Moulton camp as the primary approaches.
apparently, you aren’t interested in listening to them.
If there was a shred of evidence that he did any wrong doing, it would have come up in the investigations of what happened.
There isn’t a shred because he’s not at fault.
Moulton has no shot at winning this seat. Zero. Marisa De Franco may get more votes than him.
…hearing at least a variation of your first option before.
She and Moulton will probably split the anti-Tierney vote.
Sometimes multiple opponents means the incumbent takes the hint.
over multiple opponents makes contrarian commenters take the hint.
If Tierney is so tough, the primary will do him no damage. He’ll destroy the despised Moulton, according to you and your extensive totally non-anecdotal survey of the district.
the primary couldn’t do him any damage whatsoever. Moulton’s challenge could force Tierney to exhaust his funds, while Tisei gets to do whatever the heck he wants — and he’d have had an advantage anyway.
But you take it too far, in objecting to someone running against him. That is anti-democracy. Period.
Never said he didn’t. I just don’t support him and would encourage others to be similarly inclined, because my preference for the impact of his candidacy in this race would be for it to be a lot like Marisa DeFranco’s, so Tierney is able to save his resources for Tisei.
It’s not as if I’m saying he shouldn’t have the right to run. That’s a complete mis-characterization.
I never said you said he didn’t have a right, but you clearly object to him running (which is what I said — look up). What other conclusion could be reached from your comments on this thread?
I know people who are overexcited hate to hear this, but really, you need to calm down.
Tierney is tainted, certainly. Only ego would keep him going — but that’s what keeps most Congressmen going. However, he isn’t proven to be corrupt, just to have bad judgement.
I don’t understand why a candidate would tell voters they just elected a corrupt man. If he’s reaching out to Dems, he’s reaching out to people who (largely) supported Tierney. Explain that he’s wounded and a poor candidate, but why call him corrupt?
Maybe the idea is that the ‘he’s corrupt but he votes right’ is a tangible argument amongst progressives-so that is why we need a clean Democrat to beat him in a primary. Still sort of insulting the intelligence and even the morality of your potential base, though largely the arguments we had to make. If a vote for Tisei wasn’t a vote for Boehner and Ryancare it would’ve been easier to give him a second look for at least one term. But the Weld Republican is long extinct-even Baker has to throw marriage equality under the bus, deny climate change, and oppose sensible gun laws.
It’s a risky strategy for Moulton. Pretty hard to back Tierney for the nomination if he loses since he called him corrupt, pretty hard to back Tisei out of spite since he is a self-proclaimed progressive.
Moulton. They won’t vote for him. Ever.
No Democrat can win this seat without winning a huge margin of votes from Lynn. Tierney’s fought for Lynners his entire career. They vote for him in droves — at a higher margin than they voted for Liz Warren, even.
Can you elaborate on why Lynn Democrats despise Moulton? So far it sounds to me like he’s not well enough known to be despised. That’s different, of course, from being strong Tierney backers, which I can certainly understand.
So, some of what I say is from personal conversations I’ve had with folks and other aspects of it is taking those conversations, as well as what I know of Moulton (dude has nothing to say and no real support in the district) and Lynn (a city with specific issues Moulton ignores, from a town a lot of Lynners consider yuppie) and projecting that against a Congressman who has an amazing track record in Lynn and wins it by a huge margin.
The “despise” comment was strong, but aptly describes the way Moulton runs with many of Lynn’s activist base. I won’t name names, but it’s widespread and it’s from the sort of folks who drive the vote in Lynn. Most of these people know Moulton — some of them try to run in the opposite direction whenever he attempts to track them down. (Literally.)
They are not going to go against a Congressman who’s done a ton for Lynn, certainly not for a guy like Moulton, who has nothing to say about the issues effecting Lynn and personally annoys more than a few of them.
Now the optics: Not only are the activists in Lynn not going to go for Moulton, but there’s the optics of the guy, too. He’s a wealthy Header who’s running to Tierney’s right and even flirted not running as a Democrat at all, who’s only real support comes from wealthy friends and interests outside the district. These are all bad optics, Christopher, especially when he’s running against someone who runs very strong in Lynn. That’s just common sense.
Maybe Moulton will get some votes in Ward 1 (the part of Lynn that neighbors — and feels a lot like — Lynnfield), but honestly I doubt there’s even very many for him there.
Personally, I think Marisa de Franco will get more votes than Moulton in Lynn, because at least she speaks to some of Lynn’s issues, but even she’s not going to get many.
Tierney has long supported Lynn and Lynn’s long supported Tierney — Tierney is going to run very, very strong in Lynn, just like he always has and almost certainly will for as long as he continues running.
A guy who runs without any substance or record and thinks people should vote for him for the virtue of being him. Moulton gives Scott Brown a good run for his money on ego.
Tierney at least has the benefit of having thousands of activists around the district who desperately want him to continue running even despite all the BS he has to put up with every election cycle in the press. I’ve also seen very few politicians who try as hard as he does to personally thank all his volunteers.
Between those two tidbits, I’m not really buying the ego thing for him, at least anywhere out of the ordinary. Certainly, I’d refute the notion that only ego could keep him going when there’s a ton of supporters in the district who badly want him to stay exactly where he is.
of Moulton’s website shows Moulton offering no details on any issues. He’s certainly all for Mom and and apple pie but not even an outline of a plan to tackle any of the issues he says he supports.
And having watched John Tierney vote as a progressive for 12 years on these very issues, I can’t find one that Moulton disagrees with Tierney about. That would explain the “corruption” fundraiser.
I sent an email to Moulton today urging him to publicly denounce the VoteVets fundraising email; to refuse to accept any money raised from that email and challenging him to define clearly those issues he disagrees with John Tierney on and how he would have voted differently from Congressman Tierney.
Tierney has a voting record to stand on. Voters had the opportunity to accept the corruption strategy last election when the 6th was redistricted and the issue around his wife’s family was in the media regularly. While a close call, John Tierney won that election. Moulton’s now running on a 2-year old discredited strategy. I can hear the Tea Party types over at RMG cheering him on now.
I honestly think the voters that brought Tierney over the finish line won’t be showing up this coming election day. While the minority and youth turnout broke Democratic, I don’t think it necessarily broke Tierney. It’s also important to remember that Tisei did considerably better than Romney in the same district-running nearly 4 points ahead of the Republican ticket . This district was solidly for Brown in the special and narrowly for Baker in 2010. Those are the turnouts that are more likely in 2014.
Not to mention not only did it go strongly for Brown but it strongly rejected Coakley-who may be topping the ticket Tierney is on come November. I would be a lot more comfortable about this race staying in Democratic hands if Tierney got out, and a serious progressive like Driscoll got in.
Uncle John is a classmate of Tierney’s, he was at grandma’s wake, he’s always voted the right way and did the right thing in office, but he exhibited extremely poor judgment regarding his approach to his wife’s criminal dealings and while he has been cleared of any wrong doing I don’t think progressive who despise predatory industries like gambling and want good governance should stand idly by and call it a wash. On top of that he barely won in a solidly Democratic year. He is toast next fall. Stating so does not mean I respect his voting record any less, but it’s time for him to quit while he’s ahead.
…I can’t see them being Dem voters in ’14.
And watch the better funded Tisei successfully keep him off the ballot if he tries again.
He also got killed by nearly $2million worth of outside spending from liberal PACs, if he forced Tierney into a Peoples pledge it could also damage him. Considering his issues, it would really box him into a corner.
Anyone constitutionally eligible can run and collecting the signatures needed for Congress is not exactly insurmountable. The Libertarian may not get his 4% next time, but if he wants to run, he can easily do so.
PS. Tisei would never “force” Tierney into a “People’s Pledge” because Tisei stands to gain more from outside money than Tierney does.
It might make more electoral sense to neutralize Tierney’s negative ads at the expense of more ads for Tisei. You could be right though. As to the ballot it would behoove him to challenge signatures and marginalize the libertarian candidate as much as possible. Of course he can’t keep him off the ballot but he clearly underestimated the threat last time.
Sorry for the disagreement here-I’m approaching this from a political science background rather than as a committed supporter. It’s all about the numbers and trend lines and as pogo and I have shown-they aren’t great.
from a polisci background? I just disagree with part of your assessment and find pogo’s very flawed.
Where I do agree with you is that this race is going to be tough, though. That’s real. We just have a selection of three different candidates running for this seat and of the three, John’s the only one with any real shot.
I’m not opposed to seeing a Congresswoman Driscoll someday soon — I’m a big fan of Kim — but she’s not running this cycle. We have to deal with that. Arguing her merits at this point in time are moot.
Only 46% Warren. 48% Tierney. The guy ran ahead of Warren here by the only metric that counts. Even though Warren had a significant spending advantage over Brown, while Tisei had the spending advantage over Tierney. Give Tierney more money and he widens his lead. Basically, the party has left him for dead the last two cycles and he held on. So if we actually help him fight this time, the win won’t be so narrow. Tierney is the only candidate who has proven he can win a general election here.
P.S. If you think Driscoll’s a progressive, read up on her stance on power plants.
Didn’t leave him for dead in 2010. I was thinking of Keating on that one.
given that you had what seemed like a different position in the mayor’s race and that was only weeks ago.
I like Tierney and don’t really know much about Moulton. But my take from reading this post is that Tierney folks are nervous about Moulton.
Was this directed to me and if so enlighten me on the connection.
If I can take a guess it’s that I backed Walsh who was pro-casino, but so was Connolly so it was a wash there. Here we have someone who is directly related to people that were running an illegal gambling operation. So on top of being predatory it’s illegal. I am stating that it’s difficult for people that condemn as regressive the efforts of Steve Wynn to get legal licenses in MA to turn around and state Tierney get’s a pass. That’s all.
Or is it that I am nicer to Tierney now than I was earlier? That is because I respect the voting record and where Fred Rich and Striker are coming from. He was a good man who fell in with bad people and is now damaged politically, possibly beyond repair. I think to glibly suggest the voters saw the scandal and looked the other way grossly misses the demographics and dynamics of the upcoming election by comparing it to the last one.
Tierney will crush Moulton, who has almost no support in the district (just look at the fundraising numbers).
The danger is that Moulton’s pointless campaign weakens the only candidate who can actually win the general, which is Tierney.
I’ve compared Tierney’s numbers to Liz Warren’s in the district before on BMG and Tierney smoked her. It isn’t even close. If he can run that much further ahead of Liz Warren in an election that was a huge victory for Liz, we’re just not going to find a better person to run.
But this fake-Democrat ego-run by Moulton, who has almost zero support in the district but wealthy friends, runs the very high risk of giving Tisei an advantage in the general — and nasty emails like this demonstrate why.
n/t
on what I should be nervous about.
Moulton winning? Nope. His chances are so small they border on zero.
Of him running a nasty and well funded campaign (from $$ outside the district), forcing Tierney to spend money he should be spending on the general, while perhaps weakening him with negative attacks? That’s a little more legitimate, particularly regarding his resources.
Tierney will win this primary by at least 10%. Maybe 20. The question is only the general — that’s probably going to be close anyway, making it really unfortunate if Tierney had to divert his resources for a primary. Tierney has proven he can win the close ones, but he’s never had to empty his war chest in the primary before facing the close one in the general. Sometimes that can be too much for anyone to ask, at least when Tisei will walk to the nomination.
As I pointed out when you first tired to make that point. How can Tierney smoke someone who got more votes than him?
She only got more votes due to people not voting in the House race. Warren got crushed in this district. She lost by 8 points. Tierney won by 1 point.
The “strategy” was Tierney’s — make Tisei so unacceptable that people stuck with him. (Tisei also overplayed his hand.) That question was settled.
Now there’s a new question: whether a Democratic alternative is preferable.
In an ideal world, I’d agree with you. I’d rather candidates stayed positive and didn’t salt open wounds. But the wound is open because Tierney never closed it.
of the district or the candidates, but the questions I would ask are,
Does VoteVets know what it’s doing?
Anyone can hang up a shingle if they have the money. That doesn’t mean they have the chops.
What else is Moulton going to run on besides Tierney?
He has very little resume to work with. He lacks governmental or political experience. He lacks ideological depth. He’s started a company the exact function of which I can’t understand. Is is consulting? Does it survive on grants? He’s a well-educated veteran, and if he weren’t a veteran, he’d have nothing going for him as a candidate.
Why would Tierney be at a disadvantage in a primary? If there’s low turnout, GOTV is key. For most primaries, the key to GOTV is campaign organization. Marisa DeFranco is mainly an activist and lacked a solid campaign organization. (She showed up to her MTA interview with her parents). Moulton is a superficially appealing candidate. He may have talent, but he has NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE. He’ll need a good campaign staff to get past that.
1) They are smart that in an off-year his issues will become far more paramount than they were in a Presidential campaign, and they are a far greater liability
2) It’s all he needs-Democrats had to choose between a scandal plagued Democrat and a Republican and picked the Democrat. That’s hardly the ringing endorsement Striker makes it out to be, Democrats who held their nose now have two choices. Moulton being the more electable of the two.
3) He is at a disadvantage since now the big Republican boogeyman narrative is entirely negated. Either of his opponents are Democrats, Di Franco quite possibly to his left, and if either of the two can eek out a plurality he is toast. He will have to spend a lot of money to beat Seth in a primary making him very vulnerable in a general.
Now Seth needs to win the nomination or his career is DOA. Barring that, maybe he is hoping to push Tierney out of the race by outfundraising him and demonstrating he is willing to get nasty early. Not sure what his tactics are here.
If I was Seth I’d run as a progressive alternative to Tierney. I think he can ask Will Brownsberger how running as a Broder approved centrist worked in an activist primary. I’d take issues to Tierney’s left down the count and then make clean elections and anti-lobbying a core component. He has to be squeaky clean, Peoples Pledge it up, and highlight veterans issues and his military service while hammering Tierney on accountability and ethics. It’s how Rangel nearly lost. It’s how Obama tried to do in Rush. But, as those examples point out, it’s incredibly hard. Particularly when Tierney’s offenses aren’t nearly as significant.
as a progressive is that he evidently isn’t one. He thought he was an independent at one point. That’s a major problem for Democratic primary voters. Giving your Democratic primary opponent a low blow doesn’t tend to go over well either.
I’m assuming you know more about Tierney than I do, but I would wonder if he’s hit bottom and there’s nowhere go to but up. How much do Democrats hate Tierney? They are the ones who are going to vote in the primary. I think district-wide primaries are more about Party and Personality than ideology.
DeFranco didn’t make many friends in the senatorial election. She actually criticized and insulted many of us who supported Warren by calling the convention a sham. Moulton’s at best an unknown, possibly a light-weight. If the district’s voters really want to get rid of Tierney, he’s got a fight ahead of him. I have no idea if that’s the case.
My hypothesis is that most Democrats are content with him at this point and that Democratic Party machinery is going to support him, which means workers and money. He’s had campaigns before and his people know how to run a ground game. Time will tell if Moulton and his people have a clue.
You’re dealing with supervoters who vote all the time.
he’s backed by powerful interests outside of the district.
Tierney is backed by working class folks inside it.
Seth also has absolutely no shot in hell of winning this primary, with absolutely no networks in the district and the fact that he’s done as much behind the scenes to annoy and piss off the activist base across the district, who by and large despise Moulton.
Who do you think gets people out to vote?
More electable? Says who? You know, there’s one person in this race who’s running and has a long history of winning difficult races.
That’s just lazy writing.
Between Moulton and DIFRANCO, Moulton is the more electable challenger against Tierney. I make no claims for the general. I’ve outlined in other posts on this very thread that Moulton has a lot of real risks and an uphill battle in the primary. Obama couldn’t beat a Rush, Rangel won, Jefferson “moneys in the freezer” won his primary, Tierney is nowhere near as endangered as those incumbents who had better challengers that still lost. I’ve already said that!
Tierney will have an uphill fight in the general and pretending he won’t only makes him all the more vulnerable. That’s all I’ve been saying. Got nothing against the guy personally-he was a class act at the wake. But he made a major mistake that we would be taking a Republican over the coals if they made it and survived by the skin if his teeth. An off year election could be fatal. Denying the disease doesn’t help the patient get better.
re: your first sentence.
Re: your last paragraph, you ignore the fact that Tierney ran significantly ahead of Liz Warren across the district. Do you honestly think there’s someone other than John in the district who could run better in it than someone as popular as Liz Warren did?
I have no doubts this race will be challenging, but the solution to a challenging race isn’t to throw a few more hurdles in it. Moulton’s ability to raise money outside the district is another hurdle, at least for the general should it force to Tierney to spend for a primary fight. We don’t need to encourage that hurdle on BMG by having a guy from Chicago (no offense) posting as if he has a better idea of who’s the better candidate than the activist base that’s chosen to back Tierney time and time again.
Creating that unified front is how we make any hurdle that much easier to jump over. The activist base in the 6th is primed and ready for this battle. We know what we’re doing and we’re all strongly behind Tierney. We will steamroll Moulton on the way to the general election, but it’s annoying to at least me to have to read posts from Chicago about how we’re somehow something other than what we are re: our excitement and support for Tierney or who thinks he has some better idea than the activist base about who the “better candidate” is.
The better candidate is whoever the heck we decide it is, and for over a decade now – including in numerous close elections – we’ve decided it’s John Tierney. That’s not changing in the primary and while I expect a tough fight, I doubt it’s going to change for many years to come.
I don’t know how many times Tierney has to prove the critics wrong, but he’s become very good at it by now.
First with the notion I’m from Chicago. Born and raised in North Cambridge and my dad and ma live in Wakefield now-also dad and uncle John went to Salem High. I’ve always been a MA voter, consider this state my home, and am working incredibly hard to come back-possibly as soon as February or March depending on my last interview. I know you weren’t trying to be offensive with that comment and none was taken-but saying I’m “from” Chicago is about as accurate as saying Harvard students are “from” Cambridge.
I’m not a supporter which is why I’m approaching this race analytically and dispassionately. We want slightly different things. I want a liberal Democrat to win this race and you want Tierney to win this race. I am not convinced he is capable of winning and won’t until I see solid numbers and a plan. I think we’d be safer with a different nominee. I have never said Moulton is that nominee and have been careful not to. I’ve also tried to be respectful of Tierney and his supporters- but I want what’s best for the party and I’m unconvinced he’s it.
JConway Argument #1: Electing a strong liberal is important.
Flaw: If Moulton is so liberal, where’s the policy? Why was he going to run as an independent last cycle before skipping out? Why can’t he manage to build a strong base of support in some of the most strategically important communities in the district, which just so happen to be the liberal ones right in his backyard?
Further Rebuttal: John Tierney is a liberal champion who has long served the 6th District admirably, pushing strongly for progressive policy.
J Conway Argument #2: John doesn’t have a great chance of winning.
Rebuttal: John’s won close elections of all kinds for almost 18 years now.
Furthermore, John has historically run much better than even popular Democrats on the same ballot within his district, including Liz Warren.
John Tierney is +14.5k votes on Liz within the 6th right there. I could have gone on and on, and demonstrated that even in places where John lost (including big towns that were new to the district), Liz generally lost by a lot more. Take Billerica for example: Liz lost by 4k, John by 1k. That’s another +3k for John in Billerica alone.
He also outperformed Deval Patrick in the 6th in 2006.
Given that Tierney has run so much stronger than even popular Democratic candidates within the 6th, how reasonable is it to assume a neophyte with no strong base of support behind him can outpeform Tierney?
JConway Argument #3: 2012 was during a Presidential year, which typically benefits Democrats. 2014 will be an off year, so the race will be much harder. We need a replacement!
Flaw in your argument: Moulton would be running in the very same off-year election, but without any of the powerful advantages of incumbency.
Further Rebuttal: The notion that Democrats fair poorer in off-year elections may often be true in aggregate, but they call aggregate data aggregate for a reason: it’s very difficult to apply it to local levels.
Case in point: When John was first elected, he beat a two-time incumbent Republican in 1996. It was a Presidential year and the race was every bit as close as it was in 2012.
In 1998, the Republican who lost his seat in ’96 ran again. It was an off-election year, so a lot of people thought he’d get it back, thinking along the same lines as you have here. The result? Tierney increased his margin by quite a bit, as he very well could against Tisei in a world where aggregate data shouldn’t be used to make large assumptions in localized ways.
JConway Argument #4: The scandal, the scandal, the scandal!
Rebuttal: Have you considered that the “scandal” hit the presses nearly five years and three election cycles ago? Are you aware that polls were done in 2012 showing that nearly everyone in the district was aware of the “scandal” and almost no one cared?
What exactly has changed about it now that wasn’t true in ’10 or ’12?
This “scandal” is almost as old news as The Keating Five is to John McCain.
Final Question: Have I wrapped all of your major arguments up?
Okay, let’s compare arguments, yours and mine:
You say there’s a scandal and an off year election to worry about. I’ve suggested the scandal hasn’t hurt him electorally in the *five years* it’s been out there and that Moulton would have to run in the very same off-year election, just without Tierney’s incumbency and historic district advantages.
You’ve argued we need to elect a liberal Democrat and I’d agree, which is why I’ve demonstrated we know nothing about Moulton to suggest he’s any kind of liberal or progressive — and that we have plenty of reason to believe he’s not.
I think it’s fair to say my arguments have been the stronger ones here, J.
As my comment above demonstrates, you are spinning numbers to tell a lie: That Tierney out performed Warren in the 6th District in 2012.
I raised this point early on in this discussion and you just ignored it. Instead you continue to plow away with your fabrications.
And now you’ve clearly crossed a line from “spinning” to out right lying.
You claim that Tierney got more than 14,500 votes than Warren in the communities you listed. But a simple comparison of Tierney votes and Warren votes tells a completely different (and accurate) story.
Warren got about 3,000 less votes than Tierney in the communities you claim he trumped her by more than 14,500 votes. That is a huge discrepancy that really strips away any credibility you have. Like you berated jconway in your comment…”I could have gone on and on”…and I think I will.
As I pointed out several times, without you disputing it (because it is hard to dispute the truth) Warren got about 186,000 votes in the 6th CD (I did not account for the split district in Andover) and Tierney only got 179,603. On what planet does that add up to “Tienrey outperformed Warren”?
Yet you continue to make things up…like your comment above about Tierney getting 3,000 voted more than Warren in Billerica. WOW! I’ll give you credit for having a lot of balls trying to pitch that load of manure. The FACT is Warren got 8022 votes in Billerica and Tierney got 8316. Again, on what planet does a 300 vote margin for Tierney translate into a 3,000 vote margin?
Of course I know what you are doing. You are comparing the winning margins Tierney received in a community against Tesei and then comparing the margins in the Warren/Brown race. So using smoke and mirrors, Tierney getting 300 more votes in Billerica magically translates into a 3,000 vote margin over Warren. Amateurish.
Clearly jimc is right, I think you doth protest too much. And frankly your other points are so weak they are laughable…you’re trying to spin that the recent Tierney “scandal” is as old news as the 1989 Keating Five scandal!!!
And what is particularly galling is your arrogance. You’ve attempted to belittle people (so as your “you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about” upthread) and your smugness at the end of this comment is classic:
I think it is fair to say that you are completely making stuff up!
I was referring to margins. His margin was 3k votes higher in Billerica than Liz. I don’t take why you would find me discussing he margins as an issue.
If anything, the fact that Tierney’s raw margins are so much better in the 6th than Liz, despite the fact that — as anyone would expect — more people voted for US Senate than a rung below is another point in my favor.
When fewer people vote for a particular seat than another, you would expect the raw margins to be lower.
It wasn’t in the 6th and that’s because Tierney does better than one would expect a Democrat in the 6th to do.
That is an incredibly offensive — and fracking lazy — argument. I LINKED TO THE NUMBERS! Read them yourself, dude.
…given that you were only presenting raw numbers.
The BMG audience is very sophisticated. I’m going to let our comments and links stand for themselves and let the readers decide.
from the text of Ryan’s comments it was pretty clear it was about margins. Warren won/lost a town by X, Tierney won the same town by Y. Relative to an opponent, Tierney outperformed by 14K in those communities.
Don’t really have a horse in this race otherwise, but I’ve seen nothing out of Moulton to make me think he’s got a better chance of Tierney at holding the district, or that I’d actually want him in DC. I also tend to agree that the “scandal” will be much less of an issue this time around.
When you set up straw man parodies of the actual arguments I made and refuse to actually read what I wrote or engage with it, or with the actual numbers pogo has been bringing to the table, than of course you’re arguments look better.
I’ve made my case and will stand by what I wrote. I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I am backing Moulton, that Moulton is a better choice, or that Moulton is a better progressive. Anywhere. I’ve said time and time again he needs to do a better job talking about what he is for, he needs to articulate his own strategy, and he will face an uphill battle against Tierney in the primary. You continue choose to ignore this and twist my ambivalence about either candidate into support for Moulton and opposition to Tierney’s record on policy which I have repeatedly stated is a good record and a proud progressive one.
We are not debating ideology or policy. We are debating the fact that Tierney is an incredibly endangered incumbent, and if just 3,000 voters who showed up to back Obama and vote straight Democratic in 2012 don’t show up again, if the libertarian doesn’t draw 4.5% of Tisei’s support again, and if the Baker and Brown voters who overwhelmingly voted Republican in the 2010 special and general show up in 2014-a similar environment to 2010 and a dissimilar environment to 2012-than his goose his cooked. And it’s not disloyal or conservative or centrist of me to argue that this is the political reality in the 6th CD in what is supposed to be a reality based community.
Your main arguments are that Moulton is someone you don’t like, don’t trust, and someone who can’t beat Tierney in a general or a primary. I can’t comment on his ideology, record, or whether he is liked or even known in the district since there is literally nothing out there showing these facts one way or the other. I am an agnostic on Moulton. My family has known Tierney in Salem and I appreciate all he has done-I am not attacking his record or his character. I am stating it may be good for the party if he walks away now, avoiding a bad primary with Moulton, and allows someone like Driscoll to run with his endorsement, support, and finances.
You state Lynn loves Tierney-but a lot of that support came from the Hispanic community which historically does not show up in similar numbers in midterms as it does in presidential years. That support cannot be counted on as a given to ensure victory a second time.
But I admire your passion and if you feel that the grassroots can deliver another victory to Tierney than I am willing to believe it. But a good argument can be made that in a D+7 district according to PPV and Charlie Cook, we should try and get a candidate who does better than eek out a 1% victory. And maybe the time, money, grassroots volunteers, and energy wasted giving this endangered incumbent another 1% victory might be better spent on keeping the Corner Office, state legislative races, and the money might be better spent on a candidate capable of getting the 7% victory a generic Democrat should be able to get here.
Here are the facts that back up your point regarding the different turnouts…in the last non-Presidental election (2010) about 21,051 voted in Lynn’s election, with Patrick defeating Baker by around 3,800 votes.
In the Presidential election of 2012, 31,699 voted in Lynn. If ’14 mirrors ’10, then there will be a a 50% drop in the Lynn turnout (which is a common drop in off years). Interesting to note, Tierney got more votes himself (21,631) in 2012 in Lynn, then the total amount of Lynn votes in ’10 (21,051).
Another factoid that should gave Democrats who want to retain this seat pause:
In 2010, Tierney got 14,670 votes in Lynn.
In 2012 Tierney got 21,631 votes in Lynn.
So just in Lynn, Tierney is 7,000 votes in the hole in the upcoming off year election, after winning the entire district by about 5,000 votes.
It was not my intent to come across as “anti-Tierney” but ryepower12’s flawed (and intellectually dishonest) numbers just got me digging, because I also shared jconway’s feeling that the ’14 electoral composition was not pretty for Tierney. So for those mad at me for digging up these numbers–you can thank ryepower12.
But the off-year turnout issues will effect any candidate equally.
If there’s an advantage for the Republican because it’s an off-year, it will be an advantage to the Republican no matter what Democrat runs.
So the “turnout” arguments are a fallacy since they haven’t been applied equally. Not a single person has written anything as to why only John Tierney would be effected by a mid year turnout drop — and not any other random dem.
Sure, Tierney’s 7,000 in the hole in terms of absolute vote numbers. But Tisei’s totals go down in a lower-turnout election as well. The question is which side’s turnout goes down by how much. I’ve posted at length about the dangers of lower Democratic turnout in midterm years, but it’s not entirely fair to assume Tierney’s vote total goes down 7,000 in Lynn and his opponent’s goes down zero.
Keep in mind, too, that we’ve got open races in key statewide offices. We’ve got potential ballot questions on minimum wage and earned sick time, which tend to boost lower-income turnout. There are a lot of factors here.
These are the four arguments I listed that I’ve seen you make in this thread.
Please explain how they are unfair summations of your argument.
That I pointed out flaws or made rebuttals to them is not a “straw man parody.”
True enough, but when you’re saying Tierney has to step aside and Moulton is the only semi serious competitor and none of your preferred politicians are even considering the seat, that’s the clear result of your argument. If Kim Driscoll wanted to run, she would. It’s just not going to happen.
Your methodology about the margins and your point about low turnout affecting the race regardless of which candidate we run are in fact valid rebuttals to my arguments. I see one big flaw still
I have never argued he is a semi serious competitor and have repeatedly stated he has his own flaws, I am not convinced he could beat Tierney running the campaign he is. I am not suggesting he would be better against Tisei either. I am not suggesting he is a terrible candidate-as you are-but I am not in any way stating he would be my preference.
On ideological and electability grounds-our best bet would be for Tierney toe strongly hand off the gavel (so to speak) to Driscoll and give her his war chest. As you and Striker have pointed out, she hasn’t thrown her hat into the ring, but perhaps this is due to deference to Tierney.
You are stating that Tierney was a strong candidate and run ahead of Warren in 2012-I am pointing out that with historically high turnout in a D+7 district-he still managed to beat his opponent by less than 3,000 votes and by less than 1%. Considering how effectively Obama clobbered Romney in the district, it is hard to argue that Tierney’s difficulties in 2012 are due to the D next to his name. I am stating that the same voters who split tickets will show up in 2014 and vote against him, and the voters that saved his ass, particularly the Hispanics in Lynn, will not be there in 2014. But those voters who split tickets may still be inclined to vote for Driscoll as the D on top.
And again, nowhere am I saying they would be more inclined to vote Moulton. If anything, he is setting himself up so that he would have to scorch the Earth to beat Tierney and activists like you would stay home and blank ballots. Very risky strategy-as I’ve said repeatedly upthread. But if we can get a candidate who lacks Tierney’s negatives with lean Democratic voters in the district while keeping the grassroots involved-*cough**Cough* Driscoll-we may have a shot at keeping the seat.
Perhaps she is playing the long game and betting Tierney goes down and she smokes Tisei in a presidential year in 2016. Looks like that might the outcome at this point.
to Moulton winning the seat this year. But I agree with Ryan that counting Tierney out could be a mistake.
At work situations, at least, when there have been differences of opinion, I’ve always found it better to detach the arguments from their owners. Since I assume we all want a liberal Democrat in this seat and the problem is predicting the best strategy to achieve that next election cycle, it’s not as if there’s a wide chasm in goals. So maybe we can dispense with JConway Argument #8 and Ryan Point #2.3?
It would be nice to start off by getting some agreement on the facts on the recent elections.
I’m waiting for ryepower12 to present his.
As for methodology. Mine is simple and ryepower12’s is convoluted at best. I simply took the amount of votes Tierney got in community X and compared them to what Warren got. After all, we are trying to compare who got the most mosts in the 6CD or individual communities. ryepower12’s is taking the # of votes Tierney and Warren got against their respective opponent and then uses that # as a measure of how well Tierney/Warren did against each other.
kbusch, which methodology do you think is a better approach with regards to how Tierney and Warren performed in the 6th?
Relative to other candidates on the same ballot in the 6th, Tierney’s margins were better over all. What is “convoluted” about that?
I compared raw numbers for a race with fewer voters in it. I guess that could have been confusing, but it does not hurt my argument.
When there are fewer people voting for a particular race than another, one would normally expect the raw margins to be smaller, whether the margins are positive or negative. They weren’t here, and that’s where I’m demonstrating John Tierney performed better than other Democrats in the 6th.
Instead of comparing their numbers, I could have merely compared their percentages, to the same result.
Tierney won Lynn with 70% of the vote.
Liz won Lynn with 65% of the vote.
Tierney won Salem with 65% of the vote.
Liz won Salem with 61% of the vote.
(The numbers are based off the same Boston Globe raw counts as I originally linked to when bringing these numbers up. You can find them here and here and feel free to check my math.)
Feel free to run the percentages to all of my numbers and you’ll find the same result. I just happened to use the raw numbers at first because it was one less calculation to make for each datapoint (ie, it’s a time saver).
Given that the more prestigious the race, the more votes that race will get, the only accurate way to compare the relative performances of candidates running for different offices in the same area is through comparing their margins.
I don’t see how anyone couldn’t find that fact that John Tierney’s margins were higher than Liz in the 6th as anything other than meaningful. It demonstrates that far from John Tierney having had some terrible election, the 6th is just a tough District. Had Liz Warren needed to win the 6th to be elected, she would have lost.
No matter who we throw up there, it’s going to be tough race, but I haven’t seen a single argument made here that suggests any other Democrat would have a better chance to win it than Tierney.
Where previously your were talking raw numbers. But difference.
I could have left out the word “JConway” but does it really matter that I wrote that in there? Was it substantively important in anyway? I was simply referencing the arguments he’s written here and addressing them as thoughtfully as I could.
If we want an agreement on the facts, here’s one I’d like to start with:
Can we all agree that if arguments based on off-year turnout are going to be made, then we should apply those issues equally or demonstrate through evidence why they shouldn’t be applied equally?
In other words, if people are concerned for Tierney’s prospects because it’s an off-year election and turnout will be down, isn’t that an equal concern for any other Democrat in the race? No one has provided any evidence to suggest that another Democrat would somehow be immune to a drop in turnout because it’s an off year election.
You are suggesting that 2012 proves that Tierney won a tough race in a tough district for any Demcorat. I am stating that Tierney ran significantly behind the Presidential ticket and the Senate ticket in a D+7 district. His negatives specifically dragged him down. The Republicans are also running the most electable candidate they can, who now has had two years to reintroduce himself and will be running with Baker at the top of the ticket.
This would be challenging for another Democrat sure, but I would argue we would not see Tierney in the tossup column if the scandal and his damaged goods narrative still wasn’t lingering. Whether it was justified or not-he is simply damaged goods. In a presidential year with strong Democratic turnout and the wind at his back he should have done significantly better, even with a strong opponent, whom I might add, he wouldn’t have drawn without the scandal in the first place.
The impetus to elect a moderate Republican who is safe and integral completely evaporates when we present the voter with the choice of electing a scandal free Democrat who shares their values and concerns. I think if the polling comes out it will show Generic D doing better than Tierney.
We have Tierney, Moulton, and DeFranco. DeFranco has managed to annoy 96% of the activists in the district, and Moulton’s a “strong centrist,” which I most certainly don’t want. Tierney’s good on the issues and does have a record of winning tough races. Neither “Democratic” alternative can say that.
I didn’t like how she handled the Senate race either, but she is bit more of a known quantity. For me at least, it’s starting to sound like I would support her over him if I had to choose. I’d be interested in what powerful interests Ryan refers to and what they want. This VoteVets group so far just sounds like a group that likes to promote fellow veterans, but don’t necessarily have a lot of clout.
“Seth isn’t a progressive.”
the dude flirted running as an independent last time around and has nothing to say on any progressive issue thus far.
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…
At the very least, Seth Moulton has no interest in policy and will do or say whatever to win. In addition and even more likely, he’s right of center for a Democrat and maybe even some combination of that and will do/say whatever.
He flirted with running as an independent after the filing deadline for the primary and said he would caucus with the Democrats. He also said he was “fairly centrist” which is a statement that means absolutely nothing. Nowhere did he say he was conservative or right of anything. Granted I know next to nothing about him and he could very well be a Booker clone with his preppy background and work experience in venture capital. Could be a lot of hot air and he has done himself no favors by starting negative-as I already said above.
But it doesn’t make your side good to assert he is the worst person ever-or at least the worst person since Scott Brown. I updated Strikers comments-Tierney has a great record and we know next to nothing about Moulton. I can name Kayyem’s policy stances on nearly most statewide issues and she’s been running for less time than Moulton.
He should come on BMG and state his case! So should Tierney!
and if someone is willing to say something like that in Massachusetts, then they’re running in the wrong primary.
I don’t think he’s the worst person ever or anything close to that. I simply think he’s a bad choice.
This could well be true. I am willing to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt to come here and express himself and his views for why he is running and what his issues and priorities are. If it turns out he is like Pagliuca and obviously inauthentic, if he is pulling a Brownsberger and is just crossing too many third rails for the fun of it, or if he sounds like Booker-I ain’t interested.
My suspicion is that he came straight out of the military and if he ran as an independent in a majority un-enrolled district centrist was the way to go in 2012. But certainly, his candidacy generates more question marks than exclamation points in my book.
Stop the presses, political organization uses negative rhetoric in a fundraising appeal for a candidate.
Opponent’s supporter is SHOCKED that negative campaigning is happening.
Frankly, this only get Moulton’s name around more.
unfavorable scrutiny. It’s negative advertising jujitsu.
is he has absolutely nothing substantive to say and is running negative.
This only serves as affirmation of it.
the author of this diary caring one bit about going negative on John Connolly during the Boston mayoral race when it benefitted his candidate. Tierney’s problems are self-inflicted. He earned himself a challenger when he essentially plead willful ignorance of what was going on with his wife.
that’s what his wife did — willful ignorance is exactly what she was convicted of — and she served her time.
Most importantly, she’s not John Tierney, who was cleared after exhaustive investigations that went on for years in the sort of case that could have made any prosecutor’s career.
So, far from your suggestion, the only thing John Tierney is “essentially” ‘guilty’ of is association — and any arguments which use guilt by association is a form of an ad hominem attack.
As for the challenger he earned? Well, he beat one, then beat another. Anyone is welcome again to try, but the result will likely be the same — because people have looked at this five year old issue and have decided it isn’t a big deal.
I get that you’re 100% in for Tierney. Fine. And yes, he was not convicted of a crime. We had poor judgment of associates and opened himself up to poor optics. The stuff for which politicians get canned all the time. I’m not saying Moulton is the guy to take him out, but he is a very wounded incumbent right now, and he barely slid in on Obama’s coattails last time. It doesn’t make sense to shout at anyone who sees that.
I am just saying rye and striker lose the right to come whining about Tierney after he loses-we are not Chicken Little’s, we have data and evidence to back up our claims he is a DOA incumbent-and keeping our options open for a challenger or asking Tierney to step down is not a mark of disloyalty to him, progressives, or Democrats-it’s just common sense.
jconway makes some good points regarding Congressman Tierney’s vunerability in the final election. I don’t dispute that at all. Nor do I think of challengers or urging an incumbent not to run as disloyal. I do have an issue with primary challengers whose core supporters begin a campaign with false statements.
November 2014 turnout will be different from 2012. With no apparent challenge to Senator Markey, the Governor’s and other statewide offices will drive turnout. Given the 6th CD’s makeup that is problematic for Tierney (and much more problematic for a lesser know Democrat should Tierney lose the primary). Two years ago Congressman Tierney ran in a newly configured CD and facing a mountion of negative media coverage and ads. He survived that election, has had two years to work in the newer parts of the District and having anticipated another tough final has built a stronger grassroots campaign.
Am I frustrated that the Congressman will have a primary? Yes, very much so because it uses resources that could be needed in the final. Am I disappointed that Moulton’s core supporters have taken the low road as an opening gambit? Most assuredly so.
Congressman Tierney is a solid progressive vote and leader in the US Congress. Not one bit of evidence has been presented that he is in any way corrupt. It fair game to question any elected officials’ judgement. From where I sit, Congressman Tierney faced a family crisis, he stood by his wife and faced the voters as that crisis unfolded. I’ll trust his judgement based on that.
My common sense tells me I’ll take the solid – battle tested – incumbent over the first time challenger in what will be a difficult final election.
We still disagree that Tierney is the best choice-but I appreciate that you took the time to engage with my arguments and concede it’s an uphill battle and no picnic for the incumbent. That was literally all I was trying to say.
I think a good point can be made that in a D+7 district can’t we find a candidate who is significantly less vulnerable and won’t this free up resources for other difficult campaigns? Don’t you think if Tierney backed out gracefully and endorsed Driscoll and gave her his funds that we would have a better chance of both keeping this seat in Democratic hands and supporting a known progressive? Those were my key unanswered questions from your side fontina debate. I share skepticism regarding Moulton but am open to hearing his side. I’d agree spouting the corruption talking point is not the wisest way to introduce a new candidate to the district.
with regard to the strongest candidate to hold the seat. While the back and forth over 2010 and 2012 turnout is interesting, my sense of campaigns is that GOTV will make a difference. Tierney has a voter ID base and name recognition throughout the 6th CD. Any first time candidate starts out behind the eight ball, especially against a Republican that has already run district wide.
An example of my GOTV point: Congressman Tierney has an outstanding Labor record and AFL-CIO Unions as well as unaffiiliated unions will target this race (primary and final) in an coordinated Labor campaign (think Warren in 2012 or Marty Walsh this year). While I like Mayor Driscoll she has had her share of disagreements with public and private sector unions. Organized Labor’s commitment to Driscoll, in a busy election year, would be less than complete.
The numbers don’t show that another candidate would have a better chance of winning, they do show that any Dem candidate faces a challenge (not an uphill battle IMO) to hold the seat.
Would they rather get behind the unknown Moulton or the known anti-labor Tierney?
The percentage of voters that split their tickets, voting Warren and/or Obama who still voted for Tisei is small but not negligible. If they were to come back to a Democrat without any ethical issues (fair or unfair), and with a strong record in Salem, that could be something.
At this point though, you are correct it’s unlikely that either announced challenger could get the same kind of support, and it’s also unlikely Driscoll enters or wins without Tierney exiting. It seems that he has a solid base of grassroots and labor support. One of my strongest arguments, one endorsed by the BMG Editors, for keeping Tierney in last time was to ensure that the seat stayed in Democratic hands, partly so that we could have an easy transfer to someone better capable of competing in this election. Tierney won’t leave without outside pressure forcing him out, I’d rather that pressure and money align behind a progressive. Time will tell.
I appreciate your respectful disagreement and perspective as always Striker.
You’ll have to back that one up, especially since the comment just above yours Striker says just about the opposite.
That should read pro-labor not anti! My bad!
I can’t read the article that’s behind the paywall, but there is a first paragraph: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/11/08/razor-edge-win-for-representative-john-tierney-attributed-labor-organization-issues/yuez5upaaxFiD2FthldkRP/story.html
Tierney serves on the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Project Vote Smart indexes many interest groups and their ratings or endorsements of candidates.
That, all things considered, you’d rather Kim Driscoll or another candidate with a strong existing base of support in the district. My suggestion, though, is that perhaps it’s a little too late to make that happen.
If any Democrat is going to win this seat other than Tierney, they need the advantage of being able to get around the district with as much advance as possible to start planting roots and fertilizing the ones that already exist.
And I am thinking she may be looking to 2016 when the generic environment is more favorable and she has a Republican to run against.
I just feel Tisei can do a lot of damage in two years and give a lot of bad cover to Republicans that don’t deserve it-I’d rather he not. I just feel that if Tierney put party before self he’d have arranged to step down and recruited Kim. I strongly doubt he will win re-election.
Plead in the legal sense. I meant that when asked if he knew that his wife was moving around very large sums of money for her brother who happened to live Antigua and run online gambling sites, he said he had no idea any of it was happening.
Think about how you’d treat Tierney if he had (R-MA) after his name. Would you, and many of the other Dems from the 6th be so understanding? I have no problem with Rep. Tierney — in fact I like him and I think he’s a reliable vote. But to suggest that no one should challenge him or ask questions about his wife’s legal issues? Sorry, I don’t agree.
And several of the people staunchly defending Tierney on this thread were supporting the efforts to paint Connolly as a spoiled rich kid in the mayoral race. How is what Moulton is doing any different than what happened there?
Seems some people are still bitter that Marty Walsh beat John Connolly and are trying to drag that into this thread.
As a strong Walsh supporter, I remember that Walsh came out immediately opposing the negative attacks on Connolly. Still waiting for Moulton to do that.
The rap on Connolly as being out-of-touch with Boston’s middle class was a matter of opinion. VoteVets said “corrupt incumbent” – a negative attack directly refering to the legal situation with Congressman Tierney’s wike. No evidence has ever been brought forward against Congressman Tierney so VoteVets is a smear campaign. (note – I never attacked John Connolly on BMG or anywhere else. I actively supported Mayor-elect Walsh and pointed out that anti-progressive organizations supported Connolly over Walsh)
The Votevets email does NOT ask questiions about Tierney’s wife’s legal issues. It attacks John Tierney as corrupt – a far different tactic than “asking questions”.
Cong. Tierney is a lucky man because Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll has no interest in being a Congresswoman. She is a leader who is clearly the most popular politician in the 6th District and would have strong and enthusiastic support from Lynn to Peabody to Gloucester to Beverly to Newburyport and Lawrence. Had she chosen to run for Congress 2 years ago, she would be in DC right now. Her star will continue to rise statewide.
Cong. Tierney is a lucky man because neither Mayor Driscoll nor Rep. Steven Walsh (D-Lynn) entered a Democratic Primary for Congress (2 yrs ago or now)…Lynn saved him last time out in a very, very close final race, but Lynn would not save him in a contest involving Driscoll or Walsh as an opponent.
While I’m a fan of Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll (I supported her in the primary against two others in her first run for Mayor) I don’t see her beating John Tierney in Lynn. It’s easy to speculate on primary challenges that never happened. Mayor Driscoll has passed up two cycles of potential higher office, including open statewide offices in 2014, so if wishes were horses beggers would ride.
I’m very happy with Driscoll as Mayor of Salem and as a force in the North Shore. Her long standing support of expanded gaming and the jobs it brings is a plus. Her full support of the Suffolk Downs Revere gaming license is appreciated by those of us who support the revenue and jobs the Revere proposal will bring to the region.
I did not say Driscoll would win Lynn, I said John Tierney would not be able to count on Lynn (to vote in such large numbers) to save him again. And she would have cut him deep in his base of Salem. The 6th Dist. Mayors would have been with her with enthusuiasm.
Two years ago, given the Tierney problems, Driscoll would have taken him in the primary, little doubt. So he got lucky and won the election by a sliver.
Driscoll is refreshing in that she is not the usual pol who is always looking for the next thing to run for rather than committing to the job at hand. That’s why she is such a respected and successful administrator. She is young with a young family…no need to be jumping into statewide contests just to say you did. I predict she will be governor one day and that will be a very good day for the Commonwealth.
The “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride” quote could not apply less in this instance. Today, politicians and operatives focus on the election/the race: who can win? who can raise the money? who polls well in the horse race? It’s not about who can do the job if they win or even if they really want the actual job they are running for…it’s just about winning, steppingstones to the next level. Perhaps that is why the quality of officials has declined. Once they win they start looking for the next thing to run for…Driscoll stands out because she does the job she was elected to do. She does not feel compelled to jump into every open contest just because she could. She is a true leader and her time will come.
I worked hard for Elizabeth Warren at the state convention. Many people don’t know that the convention effort started with the February caucuses. It was a lot of work, and the victory made it worthwhile.
I am still angry with Marisa DeFranco’s response to our victory. She didn’t endorse Elizabeth. Instead, she just left the convention, and she fed the republican efforts to spin the convention as a sham.
So, now, Marisa is running against John Tierney an incumbent congressman. I am skeptical of her motivations.
Disclosure: I don’t like Marisa DeFranco.
Some people whom I respect here at BMG supported her. I think DeFranco falls into that category of activists that don’t understand actual politics or political parties. She thinks just because she runs everyone should automatically care. For success, you need the right support, a good campaign organization, and a serious amount of work.
I was also insulted when DeFranco insinuated that our convention wasn’t democratic. It’s representative democracy. The rules are clear. EB3 and the Globe tried to take DeFranco’s ball and criticize the convention, but I was there. We were devoted for Elizabeth Warren.
I was at an MTA thing when the candidates showed up for the interviews that would lead to result in the union endorsement. After the interview, candidates were allowed to pop in and say hello (no campaign pitches). Warren blew the others away just saying hello. Marisa DeFranco showed up with and introduced us to her parents! WTF?
But I just HAVE to in case no one else does.
You’re mad at Marisa DeFranco for failing to endorse Elizabeth Warren. Fair enough. Or it would be, but —
Apparently it’s OK for you to say nasty things about Katherine Clark after she wins her primary. Am I missing something here?
In addition to not endorsing Elizabeth, Maris DeFranco criticized the state Democratic convention as a sham. The people who attend a state convention are generally people who sincerely care about the party and want to genuinely participate in a democratic process. Marisa DeFranco’s comments were an insult to those of us who participated in that convention and worked for Elizabeth Warren at that convention,
But your comments did not insult local people who helped Clark, I assume?
I never intended to insult anybody, and I respect anybody who volunteers to help in the political process. I did intend to criticize Clark, and my views have not changed. For me, it’s not enough that a candidate is a woman. She has to stand for something that I think is important.
Also, we should not hijack this thread by repeating a discussion about Clark. You are obviously still unhappy that I am not one of her supporters. That’s fine, but this thread is about the sixth congressional district.
I stand by my comments concerning Marisa DeFranco.
Never really got that with blue watch on that one. But he/she isn’t a fan of Clark’s suffice to say. In any case, she is now our newest Congressman and I congratulate her again! Were Driscoll to replace Tierney we could add a third woman to the delegation-also a plus!
One thing I will say about DeFranco…she brings people together…
During the recent MA-5 special, bluewatch and I disagreed re: Katherine Clark…but holy cow do we (still) both have equally negative feelings re: DeFranco…
I was at the 2012 convention too, as a Warren delegate, and it still really ticks me off that DeFranco suggested it wasn’t fair, negating all the hard work that bluewatch and I and hundreds of other activists did to help with that amazing result. It was really offensive how she fed Republican memes about the “corrupt” Democratic insiders ie delegates most of whom, like me, are just local volunteers and activists. I hope the activists in MA-6 who helped elect Warren remember this episode too. Perhaps they also recall DeFranco’s quite embarrassing convention speech. Ye gads…
Oh and the nugget from the MTA endorsement interview re her parents — mark-bail thank you for sharing that LOL.
BMGers may have been there too.
Maybe Sabutai.
And I agree about DeFranco – how can I miss her if she won’t go away?
…and that is what Marisa Defranco did against Warren on the ’12 Convention. Think about that! She worked very hard to alienate so many people…give her credit for that!
I’m kind of sad to see the take-no-prisoners harshness of some of these comments, and I felt that way about the comments in the Walsh/Connolly race, too. Do the participants in these conversations enjoy them? Are they engaged in friendly persuasion, or something else?
Re Moulton: I don’t know anything about him as a grown-up. I sang tenor with him in the University Choir in Memorial Church–seemed like a nice guy.
I don’t know the guy. I believe he is nice. This is what politics is like, however. In this case, the conversation is online.
In DeFranco’s case, it’s personal. Not individually personal, but politically personal.
This is an interesting race to watch.
There is an argument that Kim Driscoll would have been a better person to run in this race than the damaged John Tierney.
I don’t think that is quite the case this time. The GOP is running their best option here (Tisei). He has the name recognition and people know (sort of) where he stands. I believe John Tierney is the Dems greatest hope at holding the MA-06 seat this election. He could be the only Democrat that has the name recognition to compete with Tisei (I think it is to late for Driscoll this cycle).
I won’t be holding my nose when casting my ballot for Tierney. I actually like him! He is a progressive vote, he has answered anything I have asked over the years, and I appreciate that I have actually seen him around town (not in an election year).
We must not forget, Tisei is still a vote for Republican leadership. He could still draw Hudak-like opposition and he can still put his foot in his mouth when he speaks.
Although, I suppose it is all about who actually shows up to vote.
Get out the vote, then there will be nothing to worry about.
One question I’d like to throw out there that hasn’t been adequately discussed or explored here on this thread is this:
How much potency does the Antigua/gambling/Patrice Tierney stuff still have?
I’ll make the pitch that this family gambling controversy first arose in the 2010 election in which Tierney ran against full blown nutter Bill Hudak. Indeed, JT’s wife pled guilty to aiding and abetting her brother’s filing of false tax returns in early October 2010 — almost exactly a month before the 2010 election.
Obviously, Richard Tisei and the third party Rove-type groups beat the hell out of this story in 2012 and JT managed to pull out that election with obvious assists from Elizabeth Warren and President Obama.
Since the 2012 election, the House Ethics Committee has declined to open an investigation for lack of evidence. In response to that finding, the Salem Evening News — which never, ever, ever misses the opportunity to kick the shit out of Tierney — wrote the following in an editorial:
“While there are no assurances that challengers won’t raise personal and credibility concerns, the Ethic Committee’s statement that evidence ‘does not warrant a finding that Representative Tierney intentionally mischaracterized the nature of the payments for financial disclosure or tax purposes’ should take the case off the campaign table.” http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1612843747/Our-view-Ethics-panel-finding-on-Tierney-should-bring-better-campaign
So, the question really must be discussed: What, if anything, does this scandal have left? If Tisei pursues this again for the third election in a row, will the blowback consume him?
In addition to being a proven progressive with a great voting record, John Tierney is also a fiercely smart guy and a killer campaigner on the issues. He’s easily one of the best speakers on the issues in the delegation…maybe the best. If this campaign can be fought either in whole or in part on the substance, I’ll take Tierney 10 times out of 10 and he’ll eviscerate Tisei (who has always been a complete lightweight on substantive issues)
Between hard core Tierney supports, some people
That like Moulton, and guys like pogo and me trying to crunch the numbers and anticipate a result. Nate Silver’s we are not, but it never hurts to try and get that perspective.
I would love to see polling on this, particularly polling that assess the scandal and it’s lingering impact (if any) on people’s votes, numbers for Tierney-Tisei, Moulton-Tisei, Tierney-Moulton, Tierney-DiFranci, Tierney-generic, generic-Tisei. Town by town would be great to.
The NRCC thinks it can score points by bashing Tierney for voting for the Congressional Progressives’ budget:
By the way, the NRCC (which, with a straight face, says “Tierney is also one of the most extreme and partisan members of Congress whose unwillingness to work in a bipartisan way is holding our economy hostage.”) does some serious cherry-picking when it says Bill Clinton critiqued the Progressive Budget. Clinton’s much more nuanced full take on it is on pages 79 to 81 of his 2011 book.
For the record, I don’t agree with the criticisms he does make. FIrst, I do not see why, after three decades of lower taxes on the wealthiest, we need to make 50-50 tax increases and spending cuts as he proposes. We’ve already cut everything but the Pentagon and corporate subsidies enough. Second, he says the budget “does not address” demographic pressures on Social Security, etc. Nor should it, since Social Security is an off-budget program with its own dedicated funding source. Even Reagan was clear on that.
Anyway, I think Tierney could run pretty well on:
and call bullshit on GOP budgeting.
…why assume the R will be Tisei? Essex county has a higher concentration of GOP legislators than most (all?) other areas of the state. Has anyone else made noise about running?