Turns out that progressive champion Pat Jehlen is not the only state legislator facing a Democratic primary challenge. Jehlen, who represents Somerville, Medford and parts of Cambridge and Winchester in the State Senate, will be facing Cambridge City Councilor Leland Cheung in the September primary (and BMG’ers have had lots to say about Cheung’s decision to run against her).
Jehlen has company in the person of third-term State Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier from Pittsfield, who’s being challenged by one Michael Bloomberg — no, not the former Mayor of New York City, but his second cousin.
Senator Jehlen and Representative Farley-Bouvier have teamed up together on some initiatives — for example, they’re the lead sponsors in the Senate and House of bills to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers and to end the policy of automatically denying driver’s licenses to persons who don’t have social security numbers (which puts thousands of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road). They’ve also both been endorsed by the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters. Their primary races also share some demographic similarities. Senator Jehlen is older and has more political experience than Councilor Cheung. Same for Representative Farley-Bouvier and her challenger, who is running for political office for the first time.
So who is this Michael Bloomberg? He’s a 2012 graduate of UMass Amherst who recently moved back to Pittsfield from Connecticut, where he worked for Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund ($154 billion in global investments). His priorities are bolstering Pittsfield’s urban revitalization and economic development.
Bloomberg may have gotten a few lessons in urban revitalization and economic development during his Bridgewater stay. The hedge fund is reported to have negotiated an agreement with the state of Connecticut to expand its headquarters in the town of Westport in exchange for $52 million in state tax credits, grants and loans. The Connecticut State Senate Minority Leader, Republican Len Fasano, had this to say about the deal: “I never thought we should be giving any money to a hedge fund let alone one of the most-successful in the world, with a billionaire CEO to whom $52 million is a rounding error.”
Bloomberg describes himself as a “progressive and pragmatic” Democrat. Democrats may be hoping he elaborates on that definition before September.
….and now this!
As Longshanks said, “If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out.”
problem? We get it. You don’t like Hillary.
No one cares how you feel about Clinton. No one cares whether you trust her or not. No one is going to change their opinion because you’re a troll. And we’ve already voted. Give it up and go vote for Trump.
Instead, this all sounds to me like the difference between utilitarian ethics and virtue ethics. You and I might vote based on outcomes; others on a kind of personal purity. Given the commenter’s ideological origins, a virtue ethics view is unsurprising. From that perspective, associations are very important.
John worked his ass off to get Brown leaners to vote for Warren. He is a great ambassador of progressive politics to working class whites, who we should be bringing into our coalition instead of thumbing our noses at. Warren understood the other day that Trump can only be beaten by populism, and Clinton has yet to embrace it fully to her detriment.
John-Mark is a teacher and selectmen who works his ass off for his community and like you comes from a demographic too many in this state have written off. You guys should email and see how much common ground you share.
Man, even though this is still pretty tame compared to 2008 when I was a huge dick to Clinton supporters, it still hurts to see so many folks I now know offline fighting one another. Let’s remember what we share.
This thread has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton.
The comment from johntmay is a completely gratuitous cheapshot that is vulgar and sexist to wit.
…give up on health care as a human right, a living wage, and end to the growing wealth disparity in our nation so that we can get a “Democrat” into the White House? Folks, that’s a hollow victory.
being obnoxious. Your comments serve no purpose.
You’re doing nothing about getting anyone into the White House by trolling people in the BMG comments. You could win every argument and would still have no effect. Go out and yell in your backyard. It will have the same effect.
…we’re just asking you to stay on topic.
because you are doing absolutely nothing to make it a reality
Sorry, but angry complaining does not actually accomplish anything. And insisting that everyone meet your idealogical purity test to the nth degree pretty much ensures that almost no one will pass the test.
If you want change, you need to help take back the House and Senate, and that simply cannot be done strictly with small donations and ideologically “pure” candidates. The fact is, that even though you clearly hate Hillary, she has more votes than any other candidate right now, and those votes belong to real human beings who you want to have on your side.
To make progress we need all the Hillary and Bernie voters on the same side not at war with each other. That’s a fact.
I instead meant to UPRATE you. By a LOT.
looking out for my brothers and sisters. No, I do not like Hillary, or hedge fund managers, or health insurance CEO’s, or people with money hidden in the Cayman Islands. The Democratic Party used to stand for folks like me, but no more, it seems. I aim to change that.
Please pay attention and at least be honest in your criticisms.
Wages flat since 1973. Read “Winner Take All Politics” . It might give you some insight.
“In an innovative historical departure, Hacker and Pierson trace the rise of the winner-take-all economy back to the late 1970s when, under a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, a major transformation of American politics occurred. With big business and conservative ideologues organizing themselves to undo the regulations and progressive tax policies that had helped ensure a fair distribution of economic rewards, deregulation got under way, taxes were cut for the wealthiest, and business decisively defeated labor in Washington. And this transformation continued under Reagan and the Bushes as well as under Clinton, with both parties catering to the interests of those at the very top. Hacker and Pierson’s gripping narration of the epic battles waged during President Obama’s first two years in office reveals an unpleasant but catalyzing truth: winner-take-all politics, while under challenge, is still very much with us.”
No one is arguing about the situation. It’s hard to see how alienating other people fixes it.
…have consistently done better under Dem Presidents than Republican ones. During the first Clinton presidency, for example, incomes rose at all levels of the economic spectrum. Dem Presidents also tend to preside over greater job growth than Republicans. Yes, the last 40 years have been harsh on the middle class, but the not-a-dime’s-worth-of-difference argument is neither helpful nor accurate.
Really?
I call for health care as a human right, not a privilege, and that alienates me with “main stream” Democrats?
I ask all candidates to drop their financial ties to a particularly immoral branch of Wall Street and that pisses Democrats off about my stand?
Where am I?
didn’t see it.
The quote from the movie illustrated the tactic being employed by the Republicans. Since they cannot convince the members of the Democratic Party that their views are best, they will infiltrate the party with members of their own.
There is no point to miss, and adopting the tactics of those you attack by yourself going after a SON-IN-LAW is offensive.
The one immediately above said nothing about alienation, and I suspect many Dems (myself included for that matter) are closer to you on the merits regarding both health care and Wall Street. I do find your holier than thou attitude to be alienating, however.
And realize how condescending it is.
I’ve reread all my comments on this thread and don’t see condescension, just frustration.
As far as I’m concerned, this specific line is WAY WAY over the edge:
“If we can’t get out, we’ll breed them out”
This has more in common with the juvenile references to “hand” size on the other side than with anything reasonable.
I don’t care about why, this kind of commentary is way outside the envelope of what I come to this community for.
“Enough is Enough”.
…and hasn’t gotten nearly as personal with HRC as you have.
I simply list what she has said, where she gets her money, who she associates with. None of that is personal.
…sounding as if she personally robbed your house and shot your puppy, an attitude I could only begin to muster against someone who has hurt me directly.
You directly call her names and attack her. Go back and read through your comments.
Does her daughters choice for a husband fall under the category of “who she associates with”? You should drop the son-in-law jabs, they serve no purpose.
She met the young man while both parents were casual friends. His father was also a “money guy” and eventually went to prison for investment fraud. For some people, it’s all about the money and the power it brings. As I said, birds of a feather. The Clinton family brags about years of public service as if they are paupers. Hillary Clinton says she and Bill were ‘dead broke’. and yet somehow today, they have a combined net worth of over $100 Million
Why the deception, the constant deception? Why?
“I simply list what she has said, where she gets her money, who she associates with. None of that is personal.”
You list out the little boxes where your criticism of her fall into. Then stretch it to her daughter and the son of a long time family friend to be Hillary’s associations.
Look, there is a lot to criticize. I may not agree with it, but there is plenty of fodder without the son-in-law jab. Does that really matter? Is that something the people care about?
Yes, it matters and it’s something voters should care about when a presidential candidate claims to have their best interests at heart. Does she walk the walk or just talk the talk? The biggest issue that I have with her is trust. She has not given me a reason to trust her.
You win.
If you are of the opinion that voters should care that Chelsea Clinton is married to a “hedge-fund guy” and that it speaks to a candidates character, then this conversation is never going to go anywhere.
His feelings are important because he’s a working stiff looking out for his working brothers and sisters.
…whether she has walked the walked needs to brush up on their knowledge of her legal and political career, starting with the Childrens Defense Fund.
…is that due to legal fees accrued to the Clintons courtesy for the VRWC, they were in debt for more than their assets, which I believe means, yes, technically broke.
maybe those Trump University classes paid off.
This primary has little to do with the presidential one. Primaries are healthy for democracy, competitive general elections are even better. But absolutely the challenger has to show why he is going to be better than the incumbent, and why he’s a better progressive. Even better, they should both come on here!
Could it be that the GOP (and more importantly the big money behind it) is simply trying to infiltrate the Democratic Party where it can, with representatives sympathetic to the “job creators”…?
…or in this case second cousin? Let’s take the candidate on his own merits. (I don’t know what those merits are and I’m not supporting anyone in a House primary on the other side of the state, but let’s not assume anything either.)
He worked for Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund. Hedge funds are notoriously known as one of the leading causes of the massive wealth disparity we are now saddled with.
…is automatically a bad guy? Sorry, more stereotypical than I can handle.
It does not automatically make one a bad guy, but it’s an indicator of where one stands and a sign of what’s wrong with this nation, its growing wealth disparity, and the power of those who now control it.
Banking used to be boring. The lower ranked graduates from college entered that profession and did well enough. There were no fortunes to be made. All that changed when deregulation hit. Today, the easiest way to get rich is with other people’s money. I strongly suggest you read “Other People’s Money” by John Kay.
by a hedge fund is “an indicator of where one stands and a sign of what’s wrong with this nation.”
Please show me what specific things she or her husband have done to raise wages for the ordinary citizens of this nation, bring them health care as a human right, and how either of them have reigned in the power or Wall Street. Really. I’d like to know.
Your insistence on guilt by association is Trumpist.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I do NOT want to live in society where women are judged by what their husbands do or vice-versa — never mind where men or women are judged by the spouses their children choose.
You are advocating Trumpist tyranny.
in American politics that has brought us to this point, with a revolving door between K Street and government. And please, stop the personal attacks against me. If you do not change your tone, I will cease to enter into a debate with you.
we might all benefit from the cessation.
to put up with your stupid comments without getting a response? Say something intelligent. You talk like a right-winger, you just insert the terms and policy positions of the left into your sentences.
You don’t trust Hillary? Who cares about your feelings?
You’re a working class guy? That doesn’t make you a special snowflake.
Guilt by association? Stupidity that make the world stupider.
You want respect earn it. You’ve lost most of what you started out with.
When you repeat Trumpist commentary, I’m going to call it that. My criticism is of your commentary, not you.
“Debate” does not include guilt-by-association attacks on family members of candidates.
If you actually cared, you actually do the research. Hillary’s senate record is easily accessible on Wikipedia. Her proposals for financial regulation are outlined on her campaign website under Wall Street reform. But since you already have your mind made up, you’ll just bend reality to your point of view.
…Bill Clinton pushed for and got a federal minimum wage increase while he was POTUS. You may recall that universal health care was THE fight of the first half of his first term and he might have lost the Dem House majority for the first time in 40 years over it. HRC pushed through CHIPS.
Is there any chance we’re over-reacting here? She sounds like an excellent rep, but I’m not sure I’ve read about a primary challenge to a third-term state rep (any third-term state rep) on BMG before.
In other words, unless there’s a reason to tie it to Cheung’s bid, I don’t see a connection other than young men with ambition.
That said, three would be a trend.
Here are some things I don’t know but would like to:
1. How often do primary challenges to third-term state reps even happen, such that they might be the subject of BMG commentary?
2. AFAIK, there’s no front runner for the Senate seat that covers Pittsfield that Ben Downing is vacating, so why would Mr. Bloomberg decide on an intra-party challenge instead of an open seat?
3. Are there any other Dem primary challenges as of now, or are the only ones against these two Democratic women? Why is no young man with ambition challenging Jim Miceli?
…is Phyllis Jones challenging Diana DiZoglio for the 14th Essex that includes parts of Lawrence, Methuen, N. Andover, and Haverhill.
2. But there are other candidates? If the field is other state reps, Mr. Bloomberg would be at a disadvantage.
3. I have no idea. But people have to file with the Secretary of State, right? With a deadline of June 1 or so?
It has become very hard for a challenger to mount a fight against an incumbent legislator unless the challenger has both a voter base (municipal office holder) and access to serious money, either personal or a large network. A House seat cost an average of $47,000 and a Senate seat cost $105,000 in 2010 and that includes uncontested races. Contested seats are much more expensive than the average cost. And things have become much more expensive since then with the advent of super PACS, independent expenditures and dark money.
See
http://classic.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=487&ext=1#Campaigns%20for%20State%20Legislatures,%202009–2010
Why aren’t progressives running primaries against DINOs?
A) They lose
Ask the women of color who lost in the February specials, ask any challenger who loses the September primary because nobody shows up.
B) They win and are ineffective
Steve Ultrino was one of the good guys I indentified for scaring off Charlie Fallon, but now he’s voting with the Speaker a majority of the time and with Progressive Mass just 67% of the time. Most people don’t have the balls or safety of a good district like John Hecht and do what they need to do to move up the ladder which means kissing the ring and voting against more transparency in the house.
C) Progressives Don’t Live in these Districts
HesterPrynne asked up thread about Jim Miceli. He is my #1 target. Even you would back our candidate against him Pablo! He just advanced the Gun Owners Action League legislative agenda, he is anti choice, anti gay and vocally anti transgender, hasn’t meant a tax cut for the wealthy he didn’t vote for or a program he didn’t vote against. The man would be a Republican in any other state, but he’s always been close to leadership and votes their way against transparency and term limits and gets plum positions. He’s also been in office for over 40 years!
He has beaten back every primary challenger and handedly beat a very progressive Republican named Doug Sears. A Wilmington selectmen and Unitarian minister who called himself a “Saltonstall Republican” over the phone and was the nephew of John Sears the last Boston Republican elected to the City Council and Statehouse.
So find me these young men or women Hester and I’ll run them in Wilmington and we will see if they can crack the 40% his other challengers did.
BTW it’s Wilmington and 2/3rds of Tewksbury.
His district loves him because he does awesome constituent service. He will even take care of issues for people who live in the two precincts in Tewksbury which are not his.
Thanks for the correction TBD, Fallon’s voting record was so Republican I assumed he was a Charlie 😉
And I agree with about Ultrino, he fooled a lot of people me included. John Sears sounds like a lovely man, I recall Dan Winslow singing his praises here and Doug was quite close to his uncle and remembered him fondly during our phonecall.
And MG brings up a good point. I talked to people about challenging Linehan and it’s the same thing, he does great constituent work. There are worse ways to stay in office with bad voting records. And it’s probably why Tim Toomey will leave office the same way. He still goes to every wake, ball game and school spaghetti supper in the district and uses his council position to help folks Cambridge wide with their issues. It’s why these guys are hard to beat.
Tim Toomey has a progressive primary opponent this year, Mike Connolly.
Mikes a good man and I had a beer with him to discuss this race. I wish him luck but don’t see a path to victory for him in the Democratic primary, he respectfully disagreed and I wish him the best of luck in his effort. He has a solid and hard working campaign manager and they are capable of proving me wrong.
And you were promoting Ultrino. Yuck. There are lots of great progressives in Malden, especially involved with Tri-CAP. Ultrino was never one of them. Unfortunately, most of the progressives are more interested in taking care of the immediate needs of the poor, not getting dirty in elections. It is the young white boys who think that they are destined for greatness as a DeLeo backbencher, or even a pathetic committee chair (e.g., Tom Golden).
Miceli will be carted out in a stretcher, not beaten by a progressive. It is not hard to do some quick math based on bell-weather elections for President, US Senator, Congress, and especially ballot question to find the gap between what we used to call the “progressive quotient” and the incumbent’s record. The coalition that was known as the Working Family Agenda did that really well to squeeze Finneran’s closest allies and moved the ball down the field. I don’t know what happened to them as I have left that realm mostly.
BTW, the appropriate phrase is “kiss the Speaker’s ring, after he places it in his back pocket.” LOL.
I remember John Sears well, one of the last of the classic Brahmins. He had the grace to die on Election Day in 2014, as a mighty good public servant should. RIP.
I’ve been asking about this. I think I get it.
The word has lost its original meaning. Like “gourmet,” which apparently just means, “you can eat this.”
“Progressive” now means “vote for me.” That’s all.
Bleh.
liberal.
There is no way that the words “urban redevelopment” and “Westport” should ever be near each other. Westport is a town of 26,000 people with median household income of $159,719. Pittsfield’s is $45,647.
A ten-year old should be able to redevelop in a community with that much income.
[I received this email introduction from candidate Mike Bloomberg yesterday, which I’m posting on his behalf.}
Hi All,
I am the Mike Bloomberg in question and happy to answer some of the questions posed in the article and also the comment section. If you have any additional questions or follow-ups please reach out to bloombergforpittsfield@gmail.com or find me on Facebook.
What do I mean by progressive and pragmatic? – To me the word “progressive” does not belong to a caucus, a faction or a party. To me progressive is a mindset. I believe that both Tricia and I share the same hopes for our community, but I also believe that given her record, and my intentions, we see very different paths to progress, that’s where the pragmatism comes in.
I am pragmatic in that I am data-driven when it comes to achieving goals. I look at both the micro and macro trends that create obstacles and opportunities for achieving success in the city. Okay that sounds fancy, so what do I mean? – One example is our consistent offering of tax incentives for businesses to relocate to Pittsfield. When you look at the macro trends we see that this is only effective if the business can then continue to thrive after the incentives run out, and/or if the city will get a return on its subsidies. The data shows that this doesn’t work in Pittsfield – in that either we give more in tax breaks than we receive in revenue + job creation, OR the business can no longer succeed once the tax incentives run out. The progressive and pragmatic approach is for economically depressed cities like Pittsfield to invest in people and programs, not structures.
My time at Bridgewater – My time at Bridgewater taught me to think hyper-rationally, question myself and my decisions, and put goals above ego. It did not give me any lessons on urban redevelopment and whoever pointed out that Westport and Pittsfield are very different places couldn’t be more correct.
Why Rep and not Senate – Contrary to those who suggested it may be because there are established candidates running, that is not true in this case. None of the 4 local reps have decided to run for the seat, and the two declared Dems are both coming from non-political backgrounds. I am running for the 3rd Berkshire Rep seat because I grew up in Pittsfield, and my interest is urban revitalization. The Senate district represents 52 towns… not exactly urban focused. My hope is that in cooperation with many people and organizations, we can develop a Pittsfield model that provides a solid foundation for urban redevelopment that can be replicated in other Gateway Cities.
Beyond that… this is my home. This city invested in me, and I believe the impact I can have here is of much greater good than the impact I would have working in Finance in New York. Even if it means leaving an Upper East Side apartment to move back in with my mom.
Thank you all for being great Dems and advocates here in MA.
-Mike
I’m really glad this is here.
Hearing about learning to think “hyper-rationally” while working at one of the largest hedge funds is not comforting, though.
Can he be more specific? If this is “job training and education”, sorry, that dog won’t hunt. As I have pointed out many times, stagnant wages have been the story for the past 40+ years as high school and college graduation rates have risen.
I’m also wondering about the term “hyper-rationally.” Is this industry slang?
A few replies –
On hyper-rationally – Just short-hand for trying to see problems from an unbiased lens.
On Investing in people and programs not structure –
I sure do mean education, but that doesn’t mean I’m suggesting that we just raise taxes and give XX% more to our existing school budgets. Increases in high school grad. and college grad. rates have not necessarily resulted in higher incomes and we still have a huge poverty problem in this country and here in Pittsfield. People and programs is higher pay for teachers and principals, more after school programs (arts, sports, tutoring etc.) and promoting advancement in our ed. system that can keep up with a private sector that long ago moved towards a knowledge/service economy.
How do we pay for it? – Pittsfield has underfunded its public school janitorial and maintenance service by ~2/3. City roads and buildings are in constant need of repair, our infrastructure, which was once home to 59k people, and built for 70k, is now home to 43k at most. Yet the city continuously applies for and receives money from the state and fed for new roads, buildings, and bridges. These infrastructure projects do not address poverty, crime, or education and they add to the long-term capital expenses of the city. Its a pattern of urban sprawl that has devastated many towns and cities across the country. I would like to see Massachusetts take the lead in reversing that trend.
-Mike