My Twitter field has come alive with a burst of chatter about Rep. Joe Kennedy challenging Ed Markey in the 2020 Democratic primary for the US Senate.
One of the first to chime in was Doug Heye, whose Twitter profile states he is a “CNN Political Commentator & WSJ contributor. Former Burr, Cantor, RNC, campaign flack & @HarvardIOP fellow. Fan of Tar Heels, Yankees, Sinatra, Springsteen.”
Kennedy is the real deal. Exact who the Democrats should want. https://t.co/zxsif2ZoTr
— Doug Heye (@DougHeye) August 17, 2019
As I wander about Middlesex County, particularly in the world of potential Democratic primary voters, I can tell you there is a definite Axis of Evil in this world. Regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other demographic marker, that Axis of Evil lays out on two dimensions: Republicans and the New York Yankees.
At this point, I find myself wondering just why a GOP operative, a former Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a former communications director of the Republican National Committee, a former senior advisor to the Iowa Republican Party, and a self-proclaimed fan of the New York Yankees, would be offering such a bold opinion pertaining to a potential Democratic primary in Massachusetts.
I live in the heart of Markey’s old congressional district, and have known Ed since our town was moved out of Tip O’Neill’s former district in the 1992 reapportionment. I would see Ed often; he always marched in Arlington’s Patriots’ Day parade, and when I joined the ranks of elected town officials I would chat with him as we marched down the Avenue. I also spent considerable time in the beginning of the century doing lobbying for education issues, and he had one of two congressional offices with aides we could count on to understand local issues and implications for federal education policy.
Ed is a little on the goofy side, in that he finds this work to be joyous and displays his enthusiasm openly. He is also a policy wonk. He is not a show horse, and he spends considerable energy on the issues that are the locus of his expertise; consumer protection, telecommunications, and environmental policy. He was the lead advocate for environmental policies 20 years ago, when a working subcommittee was relegated to a windowless basement office adjacent to a connecting corridor.
Ed Markey is probably the most under-appreciated senator in the chamber, and that is probably why folks are thinking he would be a great primary target.
Enter Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III. I don’t know why he is suddenly taking an interest in higher office, but my first instincts are to be miffed because of his choice in targets. I appreciate his aspirations for higher office, but when we needed a strong candidate to take on Charlie Baker, he was quite content to stay in his safe house seat. No, he would rather occupy us with the high cost of energy and donations to take out a progressive senator in a year we should be focused on extracting Donald Trump from the White House and Mitch McConnell from his obstructionist perch in the United States Senate.
While the Never Trump GOP would be happy to have us remove Trump, even at the cost of a Democrat in the White House for four years, they certainly don’t want to allow a unified Democratic party to take control of the Senate. They don’t want Democrats to have any success with a progressive agenda. When Republican Yankee fans start to think a Massachusetts senate primary is a really good idea, we really need to wonder why.
Amen.
Joe Kennedy actually reminds me of Seth Moulton and Stephen Lynch — men whose primary motivator seems to be “what’s good for yours truly?”
I lost a lot of respect for Joe when he came out early in support of Hillary Clinton when Bernie Sanders was the one pushing for a health care plan that Joe’s Uncle Ted would have wanted.
“For me this is a season of hope — new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few — new hope.
And this is the cause of my life — new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”
Ted Kennedy 2008
“People who have health emergencies can’t wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.”
Hillary Clinton 2016
Joe went with Hillary…..all I could say was, wow, what a disappointment.
I’m not positive, but didn’t Ed Markey support Hillary as well? He certainly was not in Bernie’s camp.
No, Joe reminds me of a young Eddie Markey. And being self-absorbed is nearly a prerequisite for electoral politics.
Are you kidding?
I knew the young Ed Markey, and Joe Kennedy is not him.
Thanks Lloyd Bentsen.
Was thinking the exact same thing. I had never talked about Kennedy in the same breath as Moulton until yesterday.
If Kennedy’s so eager for a promotion, why didn’t he challenge Charlie Baker last year?
While there have been plenty of people who have been both, being a Governor and a Senator aren’t necessarily interchangeable in terms of interest or skill sets.
Ed Markey needs another six years in the Senate to accomplish everything he didn’t accomplish in his 43 years in Washington DC.
Sure that’s (somewhat) a chip shot. But I’m not inclined to embrace mediocre politicians. And I’m sorry, 43 years in DC and not a lost to show for it. I’m open to learning about alternatives. Sure I’m not thrilled at the dynasty / Kennedy Privilege, so I’m more inclined to look at the other two underdogs. But Markey has to make a huge case to convince me that we need a half-century of him in DC.
It is SO much easier to vote against somebody than for somebody else.
Yes, your comment is a cheap shot. The fact that you aren’t aware of his accomplishments doesn’t lessen their value.
It seems to me that Donald Trump epitomizes the outcome of making electoral choices on the basis of “dump the incumbent”.
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the would-be competitors to Mr. Markey to show why they are better. It seems to me that the task of learning what Mr. Markey has done his forty-odd years of service is YOURS to do.
Charlie made the same comment to me when I posted an anti-markey item. He then posted links to folks lauding Markey for his efforts on privacy rights…but the links and quotes were from a industry trade group representing Goggle, Amazon and others. I’m well aware of Eddie’s “career”. Sure, you spend 43 years at a job and you can blow smoke about all that you’ve done, but put into context (43 years!) and it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
And I find your comments wholly undemocratic and an affront to citizens who feel their role is to hold our politicians accountable. First, while I’m very comfortable about my understanding of Markey’s underwhelming record, why should it be the burden of voters to understand what Markey has accomplished in 40 years? Sure ideally that is the case. But the burden is on the candidate to tell the voters what they accomplished. Secondly, why should there be a “burden of proof” on Markey’s competitors to show why they are better than Markey? Could you cite any political philosophers who agree such a absurd position? Certainly none of the Founders suggested such a thing. No, every election is designed to put people on equal footing with the voters and let the voters make a fresh and informed decision every election. The concept of “burden of proof” belongs in a legal setting, not a political setting.
“To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine
Did I miss something Markey did to offend so many Dems? Why has he already attracted two primary opponents and may get a couple more in a state which historically doesn’t primary incumbents?
Yes, you missed Moulton, AOC, Pressley and others say: I’m not waiting in line for this person to leave. Where is it written–other than the smoke filled back rooms–that people need to wait for incumbents to retire?
You should have an actual reason IMO to primary an incumbent, such as bad voting record, corruption, or not doing their job.
Where do you or anyone else get the idea that new, wet-behind-the-ears, and unknown is better than incumbents that are doing a good job?
AOC is at least offering substantive proposals. I see precious little of that from Ms. Pressley, and Mr. Moulton appears to going in the other direction.
Pressley is fighting ICE with Joe Kennedy and sponsoring bills left and right with AOC. What did Capuano ever accomplish in 19 years other than losing his hometown in a primary?
Where do you or Christopher get the idea that elections are a bad thing? That being a long-time incumbent somehow grants you immunity from our democratic process. I can’t even believe I have to make such a basic point.
Unnecessary primaries dilute resources that could be spared for fighting Republicans. Of course I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed, but priorities and perspective would be nice.
That is the typical answer (from both the left and the right) of entrenched activists that think the world evolves around the tight social club they are part of (state and local political committees, activist organizations). But the people/electorate as a whole reject that idea…fortunately.
@That is the typical answer:
And THAT is the typical answer from those who won’t do the work needed to actually compare an incumbent to a would-be challenger.
Term limits, voting against an incumbent because he or she “has been there long enough”, and similar canards too often result in losing excellent officials in the mistaken belief that new is the same as better.
It is true that some incumbents get stale and take their office and constituents for granted. It is also true that a great many would-be candidates don’t know the first thing about how to actually perform the office they seek.
In a world of limited resources, it is foolish to squander those limited resources in primary challenges where the challenger will not be any better than the incumbent even if successful (and too often will be much worse).
I think it’s hypocritical to demand primary challengers for Lynch and Neal, as many here have done, while arguing about wasting resources when incumbents we like are challenged.
I’m glad DFER wasted a ton of money on Leland Cheung challenging Pat Jehlen since it strengthened the No on 2 vote in her district and had downballot coattails that elected Mike Connolly. It was a popular demonstration of why people liked Jehlen and it ended Cheung’s ladder climbing.
A lot of people I know who worked on both of those campaigns later ran for office or used that experience to organize Somerville/Cambridge for progressive campaigns down the lines
I think forcing Markey to run to defend his record would inevitably make him a better known and better regarded Senator than he is now. 40% of voters have no opinion of him, it doesn’t mean he isn’t doing a good job on policy, it does mean his constituent outreach sucks. Forcing him to fix that problem
makes a good Senator even better.
Already we’ve seen a groundswell of progressives coming to Markey’s defense from Warren to BMG to Progressive Mass to the Sierra Club and even to less progressive Dems like Walsh and DeLeo. We did not see a similar outpouring of support for Capuano and we aren’t seeing it for Seth Moulton.
Why is it at all hypocritical to encourage primaries against people we don’t like, but discourage them against people we do? That seems to be pretty basic politics to me.
You worked in the private sector Tom, sometimes you hire someone for one role and the needs of the client or the position evolve over time and that person doesn’t fit anymore. It happens all the time.
Look at my new district. Tierney had to go cause he was so unpopular he almost lost to a nobody Republican in 2010. He then almost lost to Tisei in 2012, despite it being a banner year for Democrats. Seth challenging him kept that seat in Democratic hands in a Republican year in 2014.
Now Seth has outlived his welcome, and we want a member of Congress who actually takes care of the district they were sent to represent instead of alienating the Speaker and gallivanting around the country complaining about teachers unions. Bosses don’t think twice about moving pieces around to solve for different needs-voters shouldn’t either.
I did indeed work in the private sector. When the needs of a client or of a position evolve over time, it is straightforward to describe what the new requirements are and to address any gaps between the current person and those requirements.
An employer for which the following is either cited or shown to be true:
– The current worker is “too old”
– The current worker is white/black/Hispanic etc
– The current worker is male/female
is guilty of illegal discrimination.
Successful managers think far more than twice about firing somebody. The “institutional memory” of each and every worker who is dismissed or who retires is VERY expensive to replace. It takes years for a new hire to absorb and internalize company culture — values and priorities of the company, who matters and who doesn’t, which policy statements are real and fundamental and which are window-dressing to assuage overactive HR departments, and so on., Successful companies work hard to avoid firing or laying off anybody in the absence of cause.
Loyalty of workers towards their employers is becoming old-fashioned. It is still a very valuable commodity. Companies who develop a reputation for being a “burn-out shop” and for cavalierly firing people (even when able) find it increasingly difficult to attract and hire good people.
The premise you sketch is much more consistent with “The Apprentice” than real life.
There’s no such thing as anti-white discrimination and it’s offensive to argue that this happened to Rep. Capuano. He’s lucky he had his two decades representing a majority minority district. The fact that he lost his election in a surprise landslide, and narrowly lost his home town, shows that he was sleep walking and taking his seat for granted and he was not as popular and effective as people thought.
They wanted a more representative figure and they got one. You’re the only person here who’s still upset about this-even Mike Capuano accepted his defeat graciously and conceded it was time for this exciting change. I celebrate that a city once represented by Louise Day Hicks in Congress now has a bold black woman with the national profile to take on Trump. It’s really sad you can’t see that and blame her landslide victory on “anti white discrimination” instead of a more talented campaigner outfoxing a tired one.
Age totally matters in Congress. If you run in seniority it’s hypocritical to scream ageism when a more youthful opponent emerges. I might add a young Ed Markey and a young Joe Biden both played the young outsider card to defeat older incumbents.
You’re welcome to choose seniority and experience over youth and diversity-it’s becoming obvious the emerging majority of progressive voters in this state value the other factors more.
@jconway: I fear you misconstrue my comment.
I responded to this very specific paragraph of yours:
There is a difference between experience and age. In the private sector, if it is shown that an employer laid off a number of 50+ workers with five years experience in their current role and replaced them with a similar number of 30-35 year old workers with five years experience, that employer would very likely be facing a very expensive age discrimination lawsuit.
Slow down, there, partner.
From 1998 to 2013 — the majority of the time Mr. Capuano held office — he represented CD8 (the district now held by Stephen Lynch).
CD8 is NOT a majority-minority district. Mr. Capuano’s predecessor was Joe Kennedy II, and his successor Stephen Lynch.
Meanwhile, CD7 was very ably represented by Ed Markey until 2013 when it was redrawn to its current boundaries.
I encourage you to walk back your incorrect statements about Mr. Capuano. I have not argued that Mr. Capuano was a victim of anti-white discrimination.
I have argued, instead, that Ms. Pressley emphasized her age, her race, and her gender during her primary campaign.
The electorate in Somerville has become DRAMATICALLY younger, much more affluent, and much more liberal (even radical) between 2013 and the the 2018 election. I know a fair number of neighbors who supported Ms. Pressley over Mr. Capuano. I’ve talked to a great many more.
Those neighbors (a) came into Somerville even later than my wife and I (we moved here in 2010). They, like you, wanted somebody younger. They, like you, wanted to replace an older white man with a younger black woman. However you want to characterize it, those three factors (age, race, gender) are what motivated those neighbors to vote for Ms. Pressley. None of them live in Boston. None of them could name even one issue where they thought Ms. Pressley was right and Mr. Capuano wrong.
What I heard was “It’s time for a change. He’s too old, too white, and too male.”
My wife and I could not possibly afford to buy today the property that we acquired in 2012 — our owner-occupied two-family near Ball Square has nearly tripled in value between then and now. The Somerville that voted for Ms. Pressley is NOT the same city that elected Mr. Capuano Mayor several times over and then sent him to Washington.
The primary challengers that Ms. Jehlen and Ms. Provost had in the past few years have come from the right, not the left. It would have been a foolish waste of resources for a left-leaning progressive activist to primary Ms. Provost because she “isn’t liberal enough”.
It would also have been wrong to primary her because she is “too old” or had been in office too long. Whatever label we apply to it, it would have been foolish and wrong for a black man to primary Ms. Provost and proclaim “It is time for a man of color to represent Somerville.”
Surely we can at least agree to keep our exchanges fact-based. The transformation of CD7 into a majority-minority district happened in 2013.
It is perfectly appropriate and not surprising for Mr. Capuano to be replaced by candidate who is more in line with the dramatically changed demographics of CD7 in 2018 as opposed to CD7 in 2013.
This is literally all I’ve been saying Tom. Glad you agree and I’m glad you understand your neighbors perspectives.
I’m glad that we’re nearing consensus.
You said something well beyond what we’ve agreed on. For example, you wrote: “He’s lucky he had his two decades representing a majority minority district.”
That was factually incorrect and greatly diminishes Mike Capuano’s many years of excellent service.
The electorate of CD7 changed dramatically. Mike Capuano did not ignore minority constituents in Roxbury — Roxbury was not in his district until after 2013.
The seat in CD8 that he held before the redistricting is now held by Stephen Lynch. Ironically as it pertains to our exchanges here, that’s the seat held by Tip O’Neill from 1963 to 1987, and by Joe Kennedy II until Mr. Kennedy’s retirement. Mike Capuano’s primary opponent in his first House campaign was Ray Flynn. Somerville residents in turned out in droves to support Mr. Capuano in the 1998 primary, many who knew him from his long and successful tenure as mayor.
I would like us to agree that Ms. Pressley is more representative of the current demographics of CD7 without insulting Mike Capuano (or his supporters) and without diminishing Mr. Capuano’s many years of providing excellent public service.
So if you have an actual reason, and likely to lose the general and ignoring the district are both valid ones, then fine, but primary just to primary when the incumbent’s been doing a great job makes no sense.
Obviously a majority of the voters of the CD-7 did not think Mike Capuano was doing a great job or adequately representing them. Similarly, the voters are welcome to feel that way in other districts and about other incumbents. I think an environment where incumbents actually have to contest an election every two years is what the framers intended and what democracy is about.
Tip O’Neil welcomed primary challenges and survived several of them, including two close ones, because he bothered to come back home and he adapted to change with the views of his district. This is exactly the marketplace of ideas we should want and we should not reward complacency.
Some of our parties biggest rising stars came from primary challenges. Beto, AOC, Pressley. Locally we have Sonia Chang Diaz, Mike Connolly, Jose Santiago, and Nika Elguardo to consider. This is how we get new talent to emerge and how we change the culture of complacency on Beacon Hill and in congress.
I hate to break it to you, but “Beto” is a candidate whose time has come and gone. He’s done, put a fork in him.
I don’t think either Christopher or I am arguing against primaries where the challenger has substantive policy differences with the incumbent and runs based on those substantive differences.
I welcome candidates who compete in the marketplace of ideas. I have no use for candidates who throw elbows and pull facemasks while promoting “identity” politics — whatever tribe the candidate claims to represent.
Age, race and gender are not ideas.
Tip O’Neill retired from the House in 1986, after serving since 1952. It was not “complacency” that kept him in office for those 34 years.
I agreed wholeheartedly with your other comment up thread that it is perfectly appropriate for him to be replaced by someone younger and more diverse. All I’ve been saying.
As I stated in my thread on this potential primary, all Kennedy had going for him was youth and name recognition. To me, it’s still a valid reason to run, not a good enough reason to vote for him. We basically agree on that too.
Beto would still be a city councilor if he waited his turn. Ditto Ayanna. None of the house members running for president have gained any traction. So if Kennedy wants to be president someday, he has to get to the senate. If Warren doesn’t win, he’s stuck waiting another six years. I don’t see those calculations as immoral. It’s how politics should work. Give people choices.
@ Beto would still be a city councilor if ..:
I fear you miss my point.
I’m not arguing that anybody should wait their turn. Mr. O’Rourke defeated incumbent Sylvestre Reyes in a closely-fought primary. Mr. Reyes supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supported expanded surveillance provisions in the aftermath of 9/11. Serious issues of substance separated the two candidates — including credible evidence that Mr. Reyes had improperly channeled public funds to family members. Mr. O’Rourke supported the legalization of marijuana and extending health benefits to partners of gay city employees.
Mr. O’Rourke aggressively challenged an incumbent from the left and won. He was then re-elected for several terms in the House.
His failed Senate campaign in 2018 was the high-water mark of his celebrity up to now.
If Mr. Kennedy wants to be president someday, he has to show the electorate that he has the right stuff. Mr. O’Rourke demonstrates that such a demonstration requires more than fleeting media celebrity.
I have never opposed giving people choices. I do not want to encourage those elements of society who believe that somebody who is effectively performing their job should be fired based on race, gender or age.
I think the money argument is a red herring and a double standard. You rarely see people complain about incumbents in non-competitive races raising money and hoarding it for themselves or if they want to run for higher office. As soon as a primary challenger emerges we see people argue they divert money.
AOC has done far more for the visibility of the Democratic Party and it’s issues than Joe Crowley ever did. Ayanna Pressley’s primary turnout trickled downballot to candidates running against DeLeo lieutenants. The absurdly crowded CD-3 was way more expensive and nobody complained about its cost or shout circular firing squad since it was for an open seat.
Parties should embrace their members and their voters, especially ones that call themselves Democratic.
Also Barack Obama challenged two incumbents during his career as well in Democratic primaries. He jumped into a state senate race and when the retiring incumbent jumped back in at the last minute, he got her off the ballot with signature challenges. Then he ran and lost to Bobby Rush. I think both of these things made him an eventual candidate for president.
@ Barack Obama challenging two incumbents:
You seem to be responding to an argument that nobody is making.
I haven’t heard anybody object to aggressively entering a primary in order to vigorously advance a policy agenda that is different from the incumbent.
For example, Christopher offered the following upthread:
I’m responding to the following exchange:
Neither Christopher nor I have argued that its improper for any challenger to skip the line. We instead argue that any primary challenge should be motivated by a agenda.
That’s fair, I’m arguing that there was an agenda even in this hypothetical challenge. You can disagree with the agenda of the challenger and vote for the incumbent-and I likely would vote for Markey-but Kennedy was going to run on his ideas and vision and contrast them to Markey.
I just don’t get the outrage here that always accompanies the news that a local incumbent is possibly being challenged while some of the same people always call for challengers for incumbents they don’t like.
I think the founders would be far more disturbed by the 93% retention rate we have in Congress and the fact that 75% of primaries in this state are totally uncontested. We have one of the worst rates of competitiveness in local elections, and high profile primaries trickle downballot and improve our democracy.
Like make the argument that Markey is a better Senator than Kennedy would be. That’s fair, that’s a debate worth having. That’s in fact an argument we are only even having because Kennedy went public with the trial balloon. The argument that primary challenges of incumbents we like is a waste of party resources is a fairly weak one. I think they strengthen the party regardless of outcome. They get more people involved and force the incumbent to campaign. I don’t see the harm involved.
For me the burden is on the challenger. I do not judge a Kennedy challenge to Markey the same way as I would a Kennedy vs. Markey race for an open seat.
That’s exactly how I would judge it, I just find it strange that some here are relieved to be deprived of that debate and that choice.
I haven’t heard anybody here say that they are relieved to be deprived of any debate or choice.
I agree with you that given the same two candidates, I don’t judge a primary challenge any differently from a race for an open seat.
The objections I’ve been raising here are to the nature of the “debate” between two candidates, regardless of whether the race is to challenge a sitting incumbent or replace a retiring or deceased incumbent.
Here is your succinct and reasonably accurate summary of my contention (as it pertained to Mr. Capuano vs Ms. Pressley):
In the case of the speculated contest between Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Markey, the first sentence in my quote would be changed to “He’s too old”.
I agree that the demographics and electorate has changed between 2013 and today. One of those changes profoundly disturbs me — portions of today’s electorate are far too eager to pursue “identity” concerns such as I highlighted in the first part of your quote.
Even if Mr. Markey and Mr. Kennedy were running for the same seat, I still reject the contention that Mr. Kennedy is the better choice because he is younger.
Age, race, eye color, gender, hair color, ethnicity, height, weight, and so on are all highly relevant to choosing a lover or life partner.
They are not relevant for choosing a member of government.
Again Tom it’s odd it’s see you echoing Christopher and equating race and gender with eye color. Especially when you argued against that very analogy quite eloquently and quite recently when it was not related to older white male incumbents you wish were free from primary challenges.
I think Barack Obama had a substantially harder time being president than a white president would have had, I think that’s self evident. For all the right wing conspiracy theories thrown at Hillary Clinton none of them doubted her birth or American origin. Her right wing detractors constantly lied about her, but even they did not think to lie about that. Her whiteness protected her from it.
Similarly, Barack Obama did not endure the sexist questions about fitness for office, ability to lead troops, and preoccupation with the candidates fashion and emotions that Hillary Clinton endured. So if people will hold it against them, we should be mindful of that and work to promote talented candidates of color and talented women.
As long as there are regressive Americans who will prevent women and people of color from getting elected, through voter suppression like they did to Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gollum or through falsehoods spread by the media, there should be progressive Americans committed to getting them elected.
I support Emily’s List and Emerge, I think you do too, but you’re statement here would indicate those things are not relevant when they are. Katherine Clark was endorsed by Emilys List over several equally progressive men in a primary because she was a pro-choice woman. I don’t think that was a mistake, and it helped elevate her in both that primary and in the House Leadership today where the Speaker is a woman. They know identity matters. So should we.
Also you even conceded in your statement that it was relevant a younger and minority majority district selected Pressley over Capuano. So I think those issues do matter when it comes to government. Governments change when women and people of color are in the room where it happens.
@ I conceded:
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter, I said I think it shouldn’t matter.
I think my young and affluent new neighbors were wrong when cited race, gender, and age as their motivations for choosing Ms. Pressley over Mr. Capuano.
Yes, they cited those reasons. Yes, they supported Ms. Pressley. I think that is an example of devolution in our electorate.
None of my neighbors was able to cite even a single policy issue where they liked Ms. Pressley. Most of them didn’t even know who Mike Capuano is (they also had never heard of Joe Curtatone, the current mayor).
They voted because Ms. Pressley was young, black and female (in that order). That’s what they told me.
Christopher asserts that we live in a post-racial society. I do not.
You seem to argue that being black is in and of itself a relevant qualification for elected office. I disagree with that premise.
Race is, of course, different from eye color. It is less different from gender — gender discrimination is arguably even more pervasive than race discrimination because it is as present in minority populations as in whites.
Christopher argues against affirmative action programs. I support them. Christopher argues that systemic racism doesn’t exist. I strongly disagree with that.
My disagreement with you is not about the general question of racism and instead about the very specific assertion that race is a relevant qualification for being elected to congress, governor, president, and so on.
You argue that it is, and I argue that it is not.
Tom, can you PLEASE at very least get my arguments correct. It is NOT my contention that we live in a post-racial society or that there is still some systemic racism. Even my views on affirmative action involve more nuance than you imply. I’m fairly certain I have said these things repeatedly and consistently.
Christopher, you have rejected the very existence of systemic racism for as long as we’ve interacted here. You have always maintained that “racism” requires a personal animus and therefore the concept of “systemic racism” can’t exist. You’ve repeatedly argued against the straightforward measures of discrimination that form the statistical basis for affirmative action. Consider, for instance, an employer with a 0.1% minority representation in its workforce and a 10% minority population in its qualified applicant pool. That employer is racist by virtually every legal measure, yet you consistently insist that explicitly racist corporate policies must be shown.
I was not trying to disparage you, I was instead responding to this comment:
I think that identity politics is very different from how racial, gender, and age discrimination is handled in the workplace and in society writ large. I invite you to clarify our differences in that context.
Sure. I don’t see how we dismantle systematic racism or sexism if we do not make Congress look more like America and less like an LL Bean catalog. Er go, if there is an open primary or a primary challenger, their race and gender is relevant. It’s not the only thing, but one of many things to consider. I think elevating black leadership is a key component of anti-racism and elevating women leaders is a key component of feminism.
Systems consist of a collection of individuals and their motivations. Systems can be and are racist if multiple individuals with such attitudes populate that system. We must guard against this by weeding out the individuals and make sure that everything we do in law really does manifest equal protection as mandated by the 14th amendment. You are right that stats alone in a narrow context such as hiring do not automatically prove racism IMO. In your example, what if the hiring authority didn’t know race? Also, if the ratio you offer applied to blonds or redheads would you accuse the company of discrimination on that basis? Yes, I do continue to use the analogy as they are all physical traits with no bearing on one’s ability to do the job.
In answer to your last question about blonds and redheads — yes, the data you provide would show that the employer discriminated against blondes and redheads. It would have few ramifications because neither is a “protected class” under the law.
I wonder if you also object to the term “systemic evil”. Consider an example. US law provides that executives and directors of a public corporation have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. That means that if it costs a corporation a billion dollars to, for example, stop polluting a waterway while the legal penalty for such pollution is a million dollars, then the corporation is obligated by law to continue polluting. Shell Oil cited this decades ago as a reason why it was unable to spend more to limit its environmental impacts.
There is nothing in the law that explicitly mentions pollution, and the opinion of company executives doesn’t matter. The unintended consequence of a collection of neutral laws is that evil is done. That is what the term “systemic evil” or “systematic evil” means.
The same is true for systemic racism.
You agree that I’ve accurately summarized your denial that systematic racism exists. Since systematic racism lies at the very core of affirmative action, your posture results in you opposing affirmative action. Hence my characterization of your position upthread.
I do not agree that race, gender, or age should be a factor in choosing one candidate over another.
I don’t think I seriously misrepresented Christopher’s position on race, and I hope I’ve clarified (for jconway) the distinction between Christopher and I and why that is irrelevant (in my view) to a political campaign.
I just have to say more about this canard.
This is simply NOT how systems work.
We have known for decades that systems demonstrate emergent behavior that is NOT connected to any one individual.
A commonly cited example is an ant colony. A video camera mounted so that the entire colony is in view will show that when a piece of food is encountered by an ant at the edge of the colony, a clearly visible signal will propagate in expanding circles (like ripples on a pond) and groups of ants will begin migrating towards the food. The bit of food will end up being jostled towards the interior of the colony while thousands of ants bump up against it and each other. No specific ant has any “food receptors”, and there is no evidence that any ant formulates any sort of strategy towards moving food “home”.
It is a textbook example of an “epiphenomenon”. The world is chock full of systems that work this way — in biology a newly-fertilized egg self-organizes into the embryonic structure of a new organism without any central “plan” or anything comparable to “motivation”. Each cell has exactly the same DNA, and so each cell is an exact duplicate. What happens is that the micro-environment at one side of the developing blastocyst is different from other, and so the cells in that area express different proteins. The result is a feedback loop that causes the cells in the organism to differentiate, driven by their immediate environment.
In software, there is a whole class of things called Cellular Automata — a well-known example is the game of “Life“. These are systems with VERY simple rules that display very complex behavior when iterated over time. There is nothing in the rules of Life that says anything about ANY of the structures that are clearly visible while the game is running, yet those structures exist, have visible behavior, and can even perform computations.
Just as a running game of Life produces “gliders” and similar artifacts even though nothing in the rules spells those out, so too does a complex system like a corporation or government produce racism and similar artifacts even though nobody in the corporation or government hates minorities.
The GOP has been playing this game recently with its scurrilous “voter fraud” legislation. Nothing in that legislation is explicitly racist, yet the clear and intentional effect is to suppress minority votes.
We see the same thing in the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census form. Nothing in that question is explicitly hostile to immigrants, but the clear and intentional effect of adding the question is to suppress the count of immigrants in the census. This “statistical gerrymandering” has the effect of reducing the representation of immigrant populations. Not surprisingly, the bluest states will be hit the hardest.
The list of examples like this is endless (actually it’s “countably infinite”), but you get the point.
Your assertion that racism of individuals is a necessary condition for racist behavior of a system is simply false.
“The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard. Politics is about the improvement of people’s lives.” Senator Paul Wellstone
I have called Ed Markey friend for 45 years. I don’t know a more passionate, hard working. honest, accomplished public servant alive today.
Cause he’s nearly invisible in the state and has never had a competitive election since 1976? Since polling shows 40% of active Democratic voters have no opinion of him? Since polls show Kennedy easily beating him?
I am not saying Markey isn’t doing a good job on policy, I am saying he has taken the voters for granted for too long. Aligning with AOC and the GND was a smart move to introduce him to younger voters.
I am inclined to support Markey on the basis of the GND and climate policy, Kennedy is too center right on criminal justice and Iran. I will say Kennedy is a potential president and it’s unlikely the actuary tables will give Markey will a term after this one. So there’s that to consider too.
I think every elected official should be challenged. It’s healthy and it keeps incumbents proving their worth. I think Markey has been fine. Sadly, he has not been among the 12-15 senators who regularly vote against most of Trump’s nominees, including all of the federal judges. He is, however, among the 35-35 Dems who regularly vote against some of the more egregious characters. I cannot for the life of me understand why all Dems are voting against these freaks. It’s generational change stuff and most Dems are sleeping on the job – and the leadership absolutely needs a change, Schumer is useless. Markey, has been better than many other Dems and has led on some issues, like climate change. He’s no Warren, though.
BUT, Kennedy offers nothing. He’s more centrist than Markey and it’s clear that his whole purpose for running for anything is to raise his profile. He thinks he’s destined to be President. He thinks it’s owed to him.
While I like challenges, I hope Markey beats Kennedy handedly.
I think Pressley’s challenge to Capuano shows that a new person can make a big difference. Capuano was good, Pressley is helping to change national conversations. It’s great. Kennedy offers nothing of the sort.
If Ms. Pressley chooses to run against Mr. Markey, she certainly WILL change national conversations — and in a very negative way.
Mike Capuano WAS good. I don’t see any evidence yet that Ms. Pressley is better or even about the same. I am disgusted that she even entertains the idea of running against Mr. Markey in the 2020 primaries.
I don’t think anyone is talking about Pressley running against Markey. There is some chatter that she may run if the Warren seat opens if Warren becomes President – as there is chatter for almost all potential candidates with some decent-sized profile.
If you think Pressley has been the same or not as good as Capuano in her short time in office, you are not paying attention or you’re really out of touch with the demographic makeup of the district.
@I don’t think anyone is talking about Pressley running against Markey:
Ah, I see, you’re quite correct. I misunderstood the reference to her in the other thread about Joe Kennedy. Apparently it is indeed the election to replace Ms. Warren (if that becomes necessary) that is referenced. My mistake.
Ms. Pressley is my Representative, as was Mr. Capuano before her. I certainly am “paying attention” — please share what you think she’s doing that Mr. Capuano would not have done. What do you mean by “demographic makeup”?
I get that identity politics played a large role in her win over Mr. Capuano. I’m asking what substance she brings to the seat, in comparison to her predecessor.
Being a woman of color matters. You don’t think it is substance. It is, especially to many of the people in her district but also to girls of color around the country who now see someone that looks like them in a leadership position. She already has more of a national profile than Capuano ever did (she was on a few national shows last week alone). And she, along with a few other new women Reps are leading on the progressive direction of the party – all while their lives are under threat because of the racist, misogynist, fascist occupant of the White House.
Maybe Capuano was a better inside baseball legislative guy after his 20 years in the role, but as a public leader, she has already eclipsed him in 8 months.
Kennedy, on the other hand, would be a clear step backward. He already does have a more national profile than Markey but as a proponent of mediocre centrist ideas, that is not a good thing.
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree about the role that Ms. Pressley’s gender and race plays in society.
I have raised three daughters to adulthood. I have some sensitivity about the multitude of ways that we suppress and repress women in our culture. In my view, we do best by our young people — and especially our young women — when we hold up figures for them to emulate that are respected and loved for their accomplishments and that are ALSO women (or black, or Hispanic, or Latino, or whatever).
I think that when we lead with identity, we send a not-very-subtle message that society MUST rig the game in their favor because those poor little waifs can’t possibly compete on an even playing field. I think that’s sexist and demeaning. When we do it to blacks, I think it’s racist and demeaning.
I think Mike Capuano would have been FAR more effective leading the charge against Mr. Trump than Ms. Pressley has been. I think Mr. Capuano knows (or knew) which buttons and levers to manipulate in the machinery of government and where they are. I think that in critical times like these, actually CHANGING THE COURSE of the ship of state is much more important than media headlines and celebrity.
We agree about Mr. Kennedy in comparison to Mr. Markey.
This is laughable Tom. Voters in Somerville didn’t know what Capuano did, while Pressley has already been attacked by Donald Trump and has been a national leader on the fight against ICE. She’s clearly gotten under his skin. It’s really sad she and Harris have apparently gotten under yours.
I am confident that Mike Capuano would have been just as effective as Ms. Pressley at getting under Mr. Trump’s notoriously thin skin.
I like the media play she’s been getting. I don’t yet see accomplishments (beyond media play) that merit a promotion from Representative to Senator.
She is enduring death threats from supporters of this President who believe she should “go back” to Africa instead of be a member of Congress. I doubt Capuano would have endured that as a white man. I doubt Trump would be threatened by that the same way he has been by women and women of color who challenge him. I want my member of Congress to visibly confront this administration at every turn. She has done more to raise her profile in Congress and the issues affecting the district in a year and a half than Capuano did in 19 years.
Of course Capuano would not be threatened that way, but at the end of the day members of Congress basically vote for a living so unless there’s reason to believe voting records would be different (or the incumbent is corrupt) I just don’t see the point of changing the guard. Plus, you have to set the seniority clock back to zero.
It’s hard to do things in the minority. Both Capuano and Pressley are folks who would make an impact in the majority, but in different ways. Kennedy? Not so much.
I note that since the competition Ms. Pressley is contemplating is a race to replace Elizabeth Warren, she will be compared to Ms. Warren and to her other competitors — presumably Maura Healey.
Ms. Warren and Ms. Healey are both white women of substance. Black voters are still a minority statewide in Massachusetts, even if CD-7 is now different. In a campaign against Maura Healey to replace Elizabeth Warren (because Ms. Warren has just become our first woman president!), Ms. Pressley won’t gain anything by saying “vote for me because I’m a woman”.
Are you suggesting that a winning strategy for her is to say “vote for me because I’m black”? Or are you perhaps suggesting that she wins by saying “vote for me because I’m more famous”? I think those are losing strategies. I think she wins a primary campaign against Maura Healey by pointing to her record and to her position on policies.
I think Ms. Pressley needs to build a strong and successful record of leadership and legislative success in the role she’s in before she seeks a promotion.
You act as if she had no record of accomplishment in the city council. It’s despicable how you try to reduce her. You think representation doesn’t matter and that her whole campaign was just about saying “vote for me, I’m a black woman.” It’s disgusting, Tom.
But on this supposed race for Warren’s seat, I suspect that Pressley and Healey will never run against each other for a seat. It would be interesting to see the conversations they have with Barbara Lee if the seat is open and both express interest.
I think Pressley would be an easy choice over Healey, regardless of whether she has bills or amendments attached to her name, which she won’t because the House is not doing much of anything right now and the things they do go to die in the Senate, and that will continue for the next year. In that environment it is important to be making a public case on important issues – like immigration, like criminal justice reform, like Trump’s racism.
Healey has a record as prosecutor, not as a legislator (or similar, like city councilor), so while she has an extensive record, she’s also been in a role with much more power to do things than a legislator does. Healey is good but she is still a law and order candidate. Much better than her predecessor but still in that liberal prosecutor mold. I find that incredibly unattractive in a legislator candidate.
I’m well aware of the many battles she fought as city councilor. I’m not aware of the battles she won. Perhaps you can inform me.
As far as I can tell, her campaign was in fact about “vote for me because I am a young black woman and the incumbent is an old white man”. Mixed in with that was “the incumbent is wealthy and I am not.” Another dynamic that you ignore is the shift in power from the Somerville part of CD7 to the Boston part of CD7.
There was no virtually NO difference between Mike Capuano and Ms. Pressley on ANY issues of national importance — which are issues that count in a race for US Congress.
She got body cameras on the BPD. She got the affordable housing mix to 15%. She helped make Boston a sanctuary city and she’s leading the fight against ICE today.
By the way, it seems to me that it is inconsistent to simultaneously argue that “Being a woman of color matters” and then argue that it is “It’s despicable [to] try to reduce her” when I observe that she “being a woman of color” was central to her appeal (as you admit in your initial comment).
There is NO difference between the positions she has taken in office and the positions her predecessor would have taken.
Maura Healey endorsed Ayanna Pressley over Mike Capuano. Mainly due to Ayanna’s tenacity in single handedly putting body cameras on BPD officers. A policy suggested to her by my former students in Roxbury. So they clearly have a tremendous amount of respect for each other.
@Body cameras on police:
Body cameras on police is a major accomplishment. I invite you to offer evidence that Ms. Pressley played a leadership role in making that happen.
I went looking for news reports about that. I found two hits about body cams in Boston and Alyssa Pressley.
An August 2015 piece on MassLive titled Boston police commissioner open to body cameras as City Council weighs mandate quotes Ms. Presley as follows:
That doesn’t strike me as somebody demonstrating leadership. Somebody who is “grappling with the issue of body cameras” is not leading the charge to put them in place.
Similarly, I found a more recent response Ms. Pressley submitted to the ACLU in October of 2017 (emphasis original):
So … no answer to a direct question about what she role she think body cameras should play at the Boston Police Department. Is that answer consistent with an official that is leading the effort to make body camera’s happen? Surely Elizabeth Warren would respond “I have a plan for that” and summarize it.
The final question and answer is the typical fall-back position for EVERY politician who doesn’t want to stake out a position — promise to “work with advocacy groups” while making sure to highlight the reasons to go slow (public transparency and personal privacy”.
I’m not saying these answers are wrong. I’m saying that I see no evidence that Ms. Pressley was leading on this issue as late as 2017. That’s pretty late in the game for body cams!
Let me be clear about my position on this — I absolutely believe that body cams should be worn by every police officer. I’m glad that the BPD is doing it.
I haven’t yet seen evidence that Ms. Pressley played a leadership role in making that happen.
Body cameras on cops are great, but that proves she’s a good City Councilor and I’m not sure how it’s a relevant comparison to Capuano.
Doesn’t matter since he isn’t relevant anymore.
These people vote for a living. Substantive basically means voting record. Are there any votes Pressley has taken that are different that Capuano would have?
Indeed, that is precisely the issue. I appreciate the way you phrase it so succinctly.
So only the votes matter? Warren is the same as Markey with their substantially similar voting records?
Reducing the job to just votes is so dumb and narrow. Capuano may have been a great voter, but he didn’t lead much beyond that. Pressley is different and doing more than votes, which is also why she’s getting hundreds of death threats because Trump attack her.
Elizabeth Warren took office in 2013. Since then, she has essentially defined the progressive agenda for the entire Democratic Party. On issue after issue, Ms. Warren has been out front with both visibility and concrete plans to support her proposals.
Her activism essentially created the Consumer Protection Agency. She was a nationally-recognized expert in bankruptcy policy and in how economic policy devastates the middle and working classes.
Ms. Pressley and Ms. Healey are running to replace her.
What has either done that is remotely comparable to Ms. Warren’s stellar career?
Ms. Warren is what I mean by “substantive contributions”. I’m not trying to be argumentative. Ms. Pressley is my Representative and I want to support, respect, and like her.
I think Ms. Pressley and Ms. Healey should each demonstrate substantive accomplishments in order to seek higher office.
You just said it was about the votes, I said other things matter beyond the votes and have pointed (as has jconway) to things Pressley is doing beyond the votes that are likely very different than what Capuano would do.
You’re absolutely right about Warren (except for one thing*) and it shows that one can be a leader beyond just votes and make an outsized impact. Pressley has not done Warren-level stuff yet but she is showing a lot of promise in her short time. Capuano did not in almost 20 years.
*
Not really. The other guy she’s running against has defined the agenda to a greater degree.
Ms. Warren has been talking about the working class, wealth and income concentration, and the devastating impact of our economic policies for LONG before Mr. Sanders started getting attention in 2016. She was recognized by the University of California for her leadership way back in 2008.
Ms. Warren is the real deal.
Funny, Tom. Sanders has been saying the same thing (often literally) going back 40 years. The stuff ain’t new.
She’s been awesome on those things and done so much and has moved the party on them. The same is not true for the majority of issues prioritized by progressives today.
I get that you prefer her, but it’s patently ridiculous to say that the agenda put forth by Sanders isn’t the dominant one for Democrats now. Medicare for All, free college, criminal justice reform, higher minimum wage, etc. If you have to identify a national leader on these, you’re not picking Warren as the early champion.
They have different signature issues, but if one were already a Senator and the other not I would not necessarily want the non-Senator challenging the other in a primary.
It’s a matter of emphasis. He focused on his past record of opposing the Bush administration on civil liberties and foreign policy. She is focusing on the present fights which are about identity in the era of Trump. Trump attacked her because she is the House leader on the fight against ICE.
Capuano voted the right way, but he clearly wasn’t present in the communities he represented. He never took on the cops, he never took on ICE in a meaningful way, and these fights matter more than “voting the right way” on a particular issue. It’s about leadership and emphasis.
@ wasn’t present in the communities he represented:
Let’s be crystal clear. Mike Capuano was ALWAYS present in Somerville. He was the former Mayor, for crying out loud. He may have been less present in Roxbury and Dorchester (I don’t know, I don’t live there).
“The present fights which are about identity” is just another euphemism for “young black woman”.
I want to go beyond that.
I think that was the bigger issue. 70% of the population is Boston based and he was not a factor for those communities of color and while you think he ably represented Somerville, a majority of that city also voted for Pressley. I’d get over the primary and support her. She’s a unique voice in Congress and I’m sad she’s no longer my Congressman. Though I’m excited to have the opportunity to vote against Moulton in the fall. We can at least agree that he has to go.
Now your sounding like Christopher. We cannot push a post-racial politics and effectively combat the most overtly racist president in my lifetime. Pressley has publicly picked battles with Trump time and time again and has been a very visible and vocal advocate for the undocumented community in her district. A majority of whom are central or Dominican Americans and not from her community. She has also done a good job linking the issue of chronic gun violence in the inner city to the broader issue of gun safety.
She and Joe Kennedy were great on Braude a few weeks back outlining their fact finding mission to the border. I don’t recall Capuano going to the detention centers to check in on the kids in cages. She has highlighted a markedly different portfolio than he has and it’s the issues that matter to the working families in the district.
Read this Politico profile of Pressley. It shows an intelligent and pragmatic rising star in the mold of a Warren or a Katherine Clark and not a benchwarmer like Capuano. She is also leading a renewed effort to abolish the federal death penalty and has been a key advocate for criminal justice reform. These simply were not issues Capuano talked about.
@sounding like Christopher:
I’ve written here multiple times that I’m well aware of, and support, the effort to close the detention centers. I’m also well aware of her success at getting media coverage for fighting for that. Mike Capuano was also a fighter.
Mike Capuano most certainly DID go to the detention centers to check on kids in cages — specifically in June of 2018 (emphasis mine):
You are unfairly and inaccurately characterizing Mr. Capuano as a “benchwarmer”.
I do support Ms. Pressley. I voted for her, I approve of her positions, I like her energy, and I support and encourage her fight.
I am arguing that she should notch some WINS in that fight before she attempts to seek higher office.
That’s fair. I also want her to settle into the role she just got elected to. Kennedy is a better mix of youth and experience with a broader statewide appeal, but I prefer he runs for an open seat. Healey should run for Governor to stop a third term of Baker.
Agreed on all counts.
My big hesitation with Healey running for Governor is that I can think of 4 AGs who tried and failed to grab that particular brass ring.
I think any Democrat will have a hard time beating Charlie Baker for a third term. It will likely deter a lot of credible candidates from running-again.
Um, I think you fight the most racist president in our lifetimes by doubling down on insisting we get post-racial fast! Of course we do have to fight to make it so.
Post-racial is a concept whites invented to dismiss the legitimacy of systematic racism and white supremacy. Again, TNC. The election of Donald Trump is proof positive we seen nowhere closer to a “post-racial” America.
It’s also proof we have to get there stat! When someone with his position and profile is constantly demeaning people on account of race people of goodwill must stand up and say NO! – race is not what defines us. We will no longer tolerate those who will divide us by race. Of course the post-racial concept comes from whites as it should. Whites made the racial mess we’re in so it’s the responsibility of whites to clean it up by insisting on dismantling the legacy you refer to by treating everyone as a brother or sister. You consistently misconstrue my comments about what needs to happen as claims as to what is already the case! We need to quit racism and race-consciousness cold turkey – several generations overdue.
Read the article. I do not misconstrue where you are coming from-but insisting that race does not matter is not the way to ensure race does not matter. It does. Yes it’s a social construct but one deeply embedded in our laws and customs and we have to take the painful steps to acknowledge this in order to undo the artifice brick by brick.
Maybe we will be “post-racial” by 2100. I worry we are sliding backward under this President and as too many well meaning whites and blacks alike misconstrue the election of Obama as the beginning of a post-racial America. It’s far from it-especially since Trump immediately followed.
If we seek racial justice we have to acknowledge that race matters.
Race has absolutely mattered, but it’s been 50+ years since Dr. King dreamed of judging on content of character rather than color of skin and I for one am getting really impatient for that day to come.
@impatient:
Sadly, impatience does not make reality change. It is more likely to color our perception of reality.
I suggest that our black brothers and sisters are even more impatient than you — and answer very differently when asked whether we are a post-racial society.
You too?! For crying out loud am I being that unclear? You and jconway have both mistakenly (and consistently) attributed to me a belief that we are a post-racial society – we are NOT! However, we very much should be and should have been long before I was born. My prescription for that is stop thinking about race, or if we have to at all, think of skin color as a mere physical trait no more significant than a difference in eye or hair color. Let’s not pussyfoot around it either. We must commit, yes, as members of the race that got us into this mess, to just stop, today, cold turkey.
And it’s solely white peoples fault that the day hasn’t happened yet. They should acknowledge their privilege and work to dismantle it, not deny that it exists or vote to keep it entrenched. Too often those words by Dr. King are abused to deny racism or argue we are somehow post-racial. The rise of white identity politics, white terrorism, and its entrenchment in a major party should give us all pause about that dream being a reality.
It might surprise you to know that I do in fact agree with your above comment. I just think the way to dismantle it is to say to all who will listen it no longer matters.
Joe should be mindful of his reputation.
All of the possible Markey challengers would essentially be running against Markey from the right. For Kennedy, the optics of seeking to oust a bona fide progressive won’t play well going forward.
Unless he becomes a Senator. Then its worth the risk. Like Tierney and Capuano, Markey is a largely invisible presence in the state who only runs in non-competitive elections and has basically run on autopilot since 1976. He’s no Lynch or Neal-his politics have stayed in step with his constituents. His association with AOC should help him stay relevant to a new generation of primary voters. Also this primary should draw higher turnout for downballot races.
As I’ve said elsewhere, Joe gets to run for what he likes. But there are consequences, even for a Kennedy. Victory (if that happens) notwithstanding.
Well he has to quit his seat to run against Markey, right? He wouldn’t need to do that in a special. So that’s a risk if he does run. My guess is this is a trial balloon to scare Markey into early retirement which would be an easier race. It may have backfired.
If so then Joe gets points off for stupid as well as not paying attention to the man he’d have to beat (also stupid). Not saying you are right though.
Who are these Democrats who have been talking up the idea with Kennedy? Any idea?
lol. Maybe some health care execs who like that Kennedy won’t back Medicare for All but Markey will.
In a one party state, consultants need contested elections to make commission. I’d follow the money to see who did the polling and which firm they typically work with. I also know a lot of national Democrats like Kennedy and were panicked by Markey’s anemic campaigning to date.
Largely invisible? You have to get out more!
Nah, Ed Markey does
He’s out plenty. I see him at events all the time. He is currently going around the state touting the GND at town halls.
Heh — According to CBS, Joe Kennedy says it ain’t so:
If this was a trial balloon, let’s hope this deflates it.
That was over pretty quick.
That trial balloon had thousands of holes in it before it was above the treetops. Looks like swiss cheese.
i’m trying to think of how many dozens of people I’d list as potential Markey challengers before I got to Joe Kennedy. If anything, Kennedy looks ripe for a challenge for his Congressional seat. He’s been on the leading edge of nothing since he went to Washington. Markey’s been outstanding on tech and environmental issues.
He’s pretty popular in his district, but you’re welcome to explore those options. I would prioritize Richard Neal, if only to move him to the right place on financial regulations and oversight on Trump. He seems too content with foot dragging and doing Mass Mutuals bidding.
I’m in JK’s district. He’s kind of a cardboard cutout of a Rep. Doesn’t do anything horribly wrong, but doesn’t do anything notable either. He’s just sort of there. It’s not a district laden with talent like the MA-7. So maybe he’s safe forever, but I’d swap him out for Tommy Vitolo in a heartbeat.
He was the headliner at Tommy’s last fundraiser so I don’t see that happening -but I agree he’s been a breath of fresh air to Beacon Hill. More of us should follow him from these pages to those halls!
The only campaign emails I ever got were about our friends in Israel and LGBTQ issues. I wish I kept a tally of them over the years. I do not recall getting any on issues central to my working class roots.
Isn’t Kennedy’s big issue opposing and reversing legalization of marijuana? I would not be in favor of replacing one of the strongest voices on privacy and technology in favor of that, particularly if done in a cycle that would divert a lot of Democratic fundraising to Massachusetts of all places.
The fact that most of the posts in this thread are about another candidate demonstrates why this trial balloon deflated so quickly.
He changed positions and supports legalization now (state by state and decrim federally) now that the political headwinds are perfectly clear on that issue. It’s good that he came around.
I hope he comes around on other things too. For example he has not co-sponsored the Medicare for All bill which 124 of his House colleagues have.
I think he received the answer on this trial balloon and it was a very different response than what Pressley heard when she first planned a run.