We’re about a week out from the special primary to replace Anthony Petruccelli in the Senate, and it’s overwhelmingly likely (probably >99%) that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the new Senator.
There are other races taking of the majority of political attention, but this is a pretty interesting race with a good mix of candidates.
I live in the district and I’m still undecided. I’d love to see a discussion here to flesh out the candidates. Here’s what I see as the general lay of the land:
Jay Livingstone, who currently reps my neighborhood (although not my street) is someone I like, although he’s pretty close to House leadership. Petruccelli never seemed that interested in the Cambridge end of the district, and Livingstone likely would. I would think that Livingstone would have to be considered one of the favorites given his electoral history and support from many elected officials, labor unions, and environmental groups. He only represents part of the district, but it may be enough if he can drive up margins there in this seven-person race.
Dan Rizzo is the former Revere mayor, and city councilor before that. If you’re looking for more of an old-school Dem, it’s probably Rizzo. His biggest priority as mayor was bringing a casino to Revere. He had support from some Cambridge pols last time around when he challenged Petruccelli, only Jarrett Barrios has endorsed him this time.
Diana Hwang has political experience but has never been elected. I’ve heard nothing but great things about her, and she has the backing of many progressive leaders (including some elected officials). She has released a clever new ad; the only ad I’ve seen at all for this race. In a race where name recognition is almost everything, a fun and memorable introduction like this seems perfect. It’s also a testament to her fundraising strength.
Lydia Edwards has done great work as an attorney and advocate. She has a couple great endorsements and a lot of labor support. Unfortunately, the recent controversy over choice is really bad. Only the diehards will be coming out for a special primary, and I can’t imagine many will be too thrilled about her staking out a pro-life position and then apparently reversing that in a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. When some of the only media coverage the campaign has received is a negative article in the Globe, that’s not good.
Joseph Boncore is a Winthrop defense attorney and seems to hit most of the progressive notes on the issues. I don’t know much more about him than that (and I’ve been derelict in attending events). His bio sounds good and I love his commitment to public service. I suspect it will be very tough for him to win this one, though.
Steven Morabito is a city councilor from Revere. He doesn’t have a dedicated website, so this campaign probably isn’t running at the level it needs to in order to win. He also needs to fix his twitter feed. Otherwise he sounds like a good guy and I like that he has directly mentioned his support for trans rights. It’s probably not his time for this, but let’s hope he keeps at the public service.
Paul Rogers is a small business owner from East Boston. It doesn’t seem like he has that much traction. Running is very hard, especially the first time, and even more so when running against more experienced candidates. I applaud his commitment.
I’m choosing between Livingstone and Hwang and I would bet on Livingstone winning.
Who you got and why? Who do you think will win?
I’m not in the district, but I would bet on Jay Livingstone. He’s not just smart, he’s astute. His progressive principles are solid, and he’s a great guy.
Like the special to replace Ed Markey, another election where IRV could’ve played an important role in ensuring a majority of the district was represented. I am hopeful turnout isn’t low, but my suspicion is that it will be which will hurt the candidates of color who are competing for a limited
bloc of votes.
I think Jay’s voters are more likely to turn out along with the precincts in Revere and Winthrop which will likely be split between the three candidates from that part of the world. Boncore’s old man is a Winthrop municipal pol close to DeLeo, so he may do better than expected. Morabito has a sharp campaign manager with a lot of connections to the Latino community, which shockingly considering the demographics, does not have one of its own running in this race. It’s gonna be awfully close and the winner of the primary will coast through the special general, but deserves a challenge in the November general.
It’s a special election making it all about who gets their vote out? The SEIU will do that for Livingstone but that’s about it. Plus his own “machine”.
The guy is a Martha Coakley protege who doesn’t have the base he needs and from his endorsements he seems to have joined a voting block that demands unity on all issues yet often cares more about headlines than accomplishments.
Rizzo knows how to get his vote out and will work on additional votes from East Boston and Winthrop.
Hwang state house background, savvy ad, (and isn’t Marty Walsh behind her too) makes me think she has been pounding the pavement and will turn out a retty good vote.
Turn out prediction 10,000
It begins” LYDIA EDWARDS HAS led the fight to pass important legislation at the State House — and she’s not even a member yet. It’s rare to find a first-time candidate for office so qualified, and voters in the First Suffolk and Middlesex state Senate district should send a promising new voice into the Legislature by picking her in the special senate Democratic primary April 12.”
It concludes “Special elections often suffer from low turnout, but the winners often stay in office for decades. Both Democrats and unenrolled voters can participate in next week’s primary. Edwards, a true champion for the disenfranchised, is the best choice and has the Globe’s enthusiastic endorsement.”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/04/04/lydia-edwards-for-state-senate/bi7CoFX6zhh8JD17bltrIK/story.html
One thing to keep in mind is that they can do it all over again in September for the regular primary, perhaps with a smaller field.
…that the state Constitution should be amended to provide that any legislator who wins a special election in an even-numbered year should be exempt from having to immediately seek re-election in that year’s regular cycle.
That’s a better amendment as it ensures every election has a higher turnout, and it also helps reduce the legislator-lobbyist pipeline which the departing Senator is not alone in taken advantage of. Your reform is the opposite of a reform; it ensures that a low turnout election dominated by older, whiter, and hyper partisan voters determines the outcome and exempts the legislator from accountability for a longer period of time.
Exceptions would need to be made in the case of Robert Hedlund or Stephen Hay who got elected Mayor of their city, or Peter K and Rachel K who took other appointments. Though a broader argument could be made that those local elections should be concurrent with the biennial races for state and federal office. Barring the latter reform, and considering how often dubious double dipping occurs, I’m open to them doing both jobs until a regular election fulfills their vacancy. But the Lynn hand off was planned years in advance and certainly subverts democratic accountability, as does the Petrucelli case to a lesser extent.
Not to introduce another topic, but I’m open to the Boston City Council’s proposal on four year terms for that reason, since it makes sense to elect them with the Mayor when turnout is higher. On the other hand, it would likely have benefitted the ousted incumbents by giving them more time to fundraise and it strengthens an already strong Mayoral system.
…will barely have a record to run on this fall. Let the person figure out where the State House restrooms are before needing to run again. People can and should turn out to vote in the special so the makeup of the electorate is not a persuasive argument with me. I don’t want double office holding and we can’t force people to stay in since life happens, though maybe we could prohibit legislators from taking a position with any institution with business before the legislature, or at least themselves being a lobbyist, during the term for which they were elected (though I thought we already had revolving door laws with longer periods).
I would force Petrucelli to finish his term or at least finish the bulk of it before leaving it vacant for a time. And it’s too bad Hedlunds and Hay’s replacement couldn’t have been elected the same race they were, even through a home rule petition. But these specials are a fact of life around here and people have to figure out how to win. Jon Hecht won an all write in special when Rachel K took her job in the Patrick administration, somethin I’ve always been impressed with.
Play out your idea. Petrucelli is somehow bound into, what, slavery to fill out his term of office? No. He does what most legislators do, he goes to work with his new employer, continues to collect his legislative pay and leaves his district unrepresented. Who benefits? Nobody, certainly not the people who live in his district and too bad if you need legislative representation.
Every simple problem always has a simple answer… and it is always wrong.
Depending on which primary they choose to participate in.