I don’t believe that health care question is telling at all, except in that it is a telling tale of biased question construction. The phrasing of the question was bad, incorrect, and stacked against Medicare for All.
“On the issue of healthcare, some people say we should scrap the current system and move to single-payer health care system, otherwise known as Medicare-for-All. Others say we should build upon the foundation of the Affordable Care Act and make the necessary reforms to the current system. Which is closer to your view? Scrap and move to Medicare-for-All. Implement reforms to the Affordable Care Act.”
Saying “scrap” is fear-mongering and an unfortunate right-wing talking point that some Democrats, including Joe Biden, have embraced. It makes people think they are going to lose coverage. They will not. No version of Medicare-for-All proposes that. I wonder what the result would be if they asked “Would you prefer the current health care system or one in which you would pay less, keep your doctors, have no co-pays, deductibles, or co-insurance, and never have to deal with an insurance company?”
Of course this poll result will be used as ammo against Medicare for All, but with the chosen wording, the results are BS.
There are some other interesting things in this poll. This one made me laugh/cry.
On the question of Who is the more liberal candidate – Markey or Kennedy? Kennedy comes out on top 42-24.
I disagree with your interpretation of “scrap” since the question as quoted immediately pivots to what would replace it. I question the reading comprehension skills of anyone who thinks scrap means loss if they can’t be bothered to so much as read the rest of the sentence.
doublemansays
It would be listening comprehension and scrap is a negative word and conjures images of ending current coverage. They could have chosen “transition to,” which would have been correct. “Scrap” implies that current benefits would be ending, and that is misleading.
There are many polls with various phrasings of this similar question. The reasonable conclusion is that a Medicare for All system with universal coverage, no co=pays and no deductibles, is incredibly popular across all groups. Questions about the transition is where support falls off, minimally or significantly depending on the question phrased. There is a big difference between “Would you support giving up your current insurance plan in favor of a single-payer system?” and “Would you support keeping your coverage and doctors and having lower out of pocket expenses under a government managed system?” The first question implies you are losing something you like and not necessarily getting a suitable replacement. The second example focuses on the benefits of the move to a new system. The polling results for these questions would be vastly different. These questions are fraught and this one in the Globe poll is particularly bad with it focusing on a negative word like “scrap.” The wording of these questions is important and worlds apart from “Do you support X for [office].” This Globe question is most notable for evidence of how to win the messaging battle, not a true reflection of what people think about the policy.
Christophersays
I would have answered an emphatic yes to both wordings of the question.
jconwaysays
Trump wanted to “scrap” Obamacare. Aka eliminate the Medicaid expansion, ban on denying coverage for preconditions, etc. Warren and Sanders want to transition from it to Medicare for All which would retain all its benefits and expand the existing Medicare program to include every single American.
I also think the fight between this and a public option is overblown. A public option is an opt in version of MFA while MFA is an opt out version of the public option. At the end of the day, under either plan, way more people will be covered than under ACA. It’s was dishonest for Hillary and dishonest for Biden to be claiming that MFA “scraps” the ACA when it makes the exact same changes/additions their plans would make only coercing everybody and not just those who opt in.
doublemansays
Rahm Emanuel won the weekend with the most disingenuous claims about M4A yesterday on one of the Sunday shows. He said that it is political suicide for the Democrats to pursue it because it will mean 150 million Americans “lose their health care.” He said he travelled around Lake Michigan and didn’t have one person come up to him and say “please take away my health care,” which he is claiming is the same as someone wanting M4A.
That guy should be in prison and yet he’s still on major news shows as a representative of the Democratic party view.
jconwaysays
He would have gotten last place in the runoff if he ran for re-election, which is why he didn’t. Covering up a police murder is his only accomplishment.
scott12masssays
I go for weeks now without reading this site but once in a while check back in. Coming from Trump majority cities in Mass and Fla I hear much different chatter than most on here. Especially in Fla you hear “MFA” and the first question is ” Who pays for the supplement plan? because everyone has a Medicare supplement plan. Do the poor get a free ride and have everything paid for, and I still have to pay for my AARP supplement? It’s a simplistic attempt to buy votes, just like forgiving student debt. And talk about reparations, you’re gonna take my tax money and give it to Oprah? ”
Just passing on what I hear, but you’re going to have to fine tune your messages before you take it outside your party primaries. I’m hoping the Yang gang comes to the Libertarian party and I might even donate to a candidate for the first time ever.
johntmaysays
Why is it that “who is going to pay for this” is the question when working class people get something from the government but never the question when the wealthy class gets something from the government? That’s the question I ask when I hear “who is going to pay for…”…
jconwaysays
I’ve been wondering if Yang will do that, and if so, who he siphons more votes from. Anecdotally my students who like Yang tend to be white or Asian males who are into the Joe Rogan podcast, Jake Rubin, and Jordan Peterson. Most of this subset rejects Alex Jones, but they are indifferent to supportive of Trump.
There’s also some more nerdy STEM students who like Yang just because of the MATH hat. Some of the more left wing ones like him because they like UBI. So it’ll be interesting to keep watching him.
One of the reasons I think basic income is untenable is because it does little to curb the higher cost of services or increase the amount of living wage jobs. It basically is a band aid to paper over an economic system rigged against working people, especially when it’s coupled with safety net cuts as it’s more libertarian proponents purport to do.
I think the argument for MFA comes from lowering the actual cost of healthcare which every other system including ACA and Medicare on its own has failed to do. Trump gets it since he theoretically favors negotiating drug prices. Well why stop there, under MFA the government negotiates all the prices in health care and standardized what the true cost is, so a knee replacement at MGH isn’t ten times more expensive than one done in Oklahoma.
SomervilleTomsays
It’s worth mentioning that the “sticker prices” talked about by providers like MGH has nothing AT ALL to do with the actual price they get paid for a given procedure (never mind their costs).
The health care racket is MUCH worse about this than the automobile market ever was, and that’s hard to accomplish.
It’s worth looking at the EOB (Explanation Of Benefits) that you get for every visit, and comparing what the insurance company allows with what the provider bills.
MGH routinely bills TEN TIMES what they get paid, and then merely credits the difference when the insurance company responds. I don’t doubt that Medicare and BCBS are then able to claim that they “saved” 90% of the costs through “aggressive negotiation”.
It’s also worth mentioning that the “free market” tends to work very badly when the customer is different from the user (where “customer” is whoever pays the bill and “user” is whoever receives the product). Broadcast television sucks because it is optimized for its customers (advertisers) rather than its users (viewers). That’s the same reason why nearly all Microsoft software sucks. The customers of Microsoft Office are purchasing agents. The users are the employees who those purchasing agents buy for.
The entire health care industry is a scam and con-game, so that prices are completely disconnected from costs.
doublemansays
I heard a good interview with Yang on the Chapo Trap House podcast, which was different and much more serious than their usual “dirtbag left” vibe.
Yang is interesting. His early career path and frustrations seem similar to my own and he identifies many of the problems we are facing beautifully. I can understand his appeal to disaffected young men. The problem with Yang is that his prescriptions are wrong, and sometimes depressing. UBI could be a good policy if done more from a leftist, anti-capitalist, and very democratic angle in which it is a solution for a world in which “work” is largely irrelevant because of automation. But Yang’s UBI is exactly what you say – a band aid on a bad system. Yang identifies problems in that system but does not want to take them on. He assumes automation and climate catastrophe can’t really be curtailed so he wants to provide a decent life for people facing hard times. It’s like he forgot that we can actually use power to reverse or at least change these societal trends. He wants to use some taxes to try and claw back some revenue from companies profiting from these changes without mentioning that we could stop these companies, or break them up, or any number of other things to prevent their harms rather than just getting some money back after they cause the harms.
SomervilleTomsays
@ automation and climate change:
I agree we have the collective power to reverse or manage automation, and we should do so.
I think it’s mostly too late for climate change. We still need to make enormous changes, but my read of the evidence is that it’s already too late to avoid many of the dire consequences.
The time for all of us — including young people — to reverse or change the societal trends about climate change was about thirty years ago (before many of today’s young people were born). For whatever reasons, we didn’t do it.
James Hansen gave testimony to congress about global warming and atmospheric CO2 in 1988. It is interesting — and emblematic of the issue — that even though his June 1988 is widely celebrated as historic and groundbreaking, it is difficult or impossible to find on youtube. I did find a two minute excerpt — dubbed in German.
For thirty years, we’ve been paralyzed about climate change. Two two-term Democratic presidents did nothing about it — in 31 years between 1988 and 2019, Democrats held the Oval Office for 16 years. Congress has gone back and forth between the parties during that time, and we did nothing.
The damage is done. Current data suggests that:
1. The climate models were overly conservative. Anthropogenic climate change is happening faster and is more intense than modeled.
2. Multiple tipping points have already been passed
3. Other feedback mechanisms are being discovered — CO2-driven warming causes other changes, such as melting permafrost that releases methane (a very potent greenhouse gas).
It appears to me that mitigation — finding ways to manage the effects that are already inevitable — is now more urgent than prevention, because it is already too late for prevention.
The patient already has lung cancer. Yes, the patient should stop smoking 2 packs a day. That’s not going to cure the cancer.
SomervilleTomsays
Those questions are easy to answer (I’ll do so in a moment). The question I have is whether the questioners even listen to the answers.
Q: “Who pays for the supplement plan”:
A: There is no need for a supplement plan. ALL health care is provided under the same plan
Q: Do the poor get a free ride and …:
A: Everybody gets a “free ride” or nobody gets a “free ride”. Every American is entitled to an education and every American is entitled to health care.
Q: It’s a simplistic attempt to buy votes, just like forgiving student debt.
A: It’s an attempt to solve a universal problem, just like public education. Forgiving student debt addresses the same need. If you don’t like simplistic attempts to “buy votes”, then of course you despise farm subsidies and the most recent Trump administration tax cuts. Right?
Q: You’re gonna take my tax money and …
A: For every dollar of your tax money the government takes, the government will take about ten dollars from the insurance industry. The government will STOP taking your tax money and giving it to Blue Cross Blue Shield.
There are still MANY more whites than “Oprah’s” in America. The largest demographic that will benefit from single-payer government-sponsored health care is working-class whites. That’s because working-class whites still outnumber all the other groups, working-class whites are being CREAMED by health care costs, working-class whites get little or no direct government aid from other sources at the moment, and working-class whites have been last in line to receive the enormous wealth our economy is generating.
The largest group of people who will be hurt by single-payer government-sponsored health care is the group of health-insurance executives, directors, and investors followed by executives, directors, and investors in big health-care providers (watch BIDMC start to squawk).
The reason Donald Trump and Trumpists spend so much time bashing immigrants and telling lies is so that their base doesn’t discover the actual truth about the con-game that Mr. Trump and the Trumpists are selling.
scott12masssays
Q: “Who pays for the supplement plan”:
A: There is no need for a supplement plan. ALL health care is provided under the same plan
Here is the marketing plan problem. Especially this time of year (more in Fla also) you see commercials explaining Medicare DOESN’T pay for all of your medical expenses. You need to buy a supplement plan from FloridaBlue or AARP etc. This is the understanding people have for the Medicare program. Then the Dems are going to tout Medicare for all, better call it something else?
I’m just passing on what I hear at the tee box and the pool. We have a very poorly informed electorate. More people could explain the rules of government on Game of Thrones than in Washington. The current resident in the White House understands the average voter (not just his rabid base) has the attention span of a fruit fly and adjusts his message accordingly. How many independents will read Warren’s position papers, my guess 5%. How many Democrats, my guess 9%. How many on this blog have even read the papers? We will be governed by who has the most stinging tweets.
SomervilleTomsays
Was some part of “The question I have is whether the questioners even listen to the answers” confusing?
The proposed plans eliminate the need for supplemental insurance. That isn’t hard to communicate to anyone willing to listen.
Our current health care system appears to have been designed by fruit flies. I’m reminded of the old joke — “Eat s**t, a hundred million flies can’t be wrong”.
It isn’t that I disagree with your contention, it’s instead that if you are correct then the game is over and American democracy is dead.
Christophersays
I’ve always assumed it would be the same as now. Everyone would be on Medicare and anyone who wants to buy supplemental insurance is free to do so.
Christophersays
OK, but the question provided immediately pivoted to what would replace it. Seriously, scrap only means what some are saying it means if you ignore part of the sentence, kind of like the second amendment only means an absolute right to bear arms if you ignore the first clause thereof. I don’t understand why this is not as obvious to everyone else as it is to me.
SomervilleTomsays
@Kennedy comes out on top 42-24:
I think people must have thought they were talking about Ted Kennedy.
I don’t see how anyone can view Joe Kennedy III as “liberal” in comparison to Ed Markey.
doublemansays
Youth = liberal I guess.
Or maybe on TV more = liberal.
johntmaysays
Joe Kennedy III could have taken the same path as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but he did not. I was an initial supporter of his run for congress and noticed after he was elected I’d receive numerous emails about LGBTQ issues and support of Israel. While important topics, I hoped he would take on wages for the working class and taxing the rich…….but no. His lack of support for health care as a human right, something his Uncle Ted supported, concerned me.
Joe, if you;re reading this, you know me. You know who I am. I’m just a tired, worn out working class citizen of the Commonwealth.
Why should I vote for you?
jconwaysays
Joe’s endorsed Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. This race will come down to whether one values past tenure or future potential.
doublemansays
He endorsed M4A very late. He similarly came around cannabis decriminalization and legalization after it was clear his position was untenable.
I think it’s a race between someone with demonstrated early leadership on important issues and someone who’s been late to the party on important things (and likely therefore should not be expected to lead on them or lead on new things that come up).
drikeosays
I feel like Kennedy positions himself to be the “mainstream” seal of approval. “Hey, Joe Kennedy is finally on board, we’ve gone mainstream!”
I don’t have anything against him, but he’s exceptionally vanilla.
SomervilleTomsays
So far, it looks as though contest is all about the last name and age of the candidates.
jconwaysays
Joe Kennedy has been very visible in the fight for trans equality and LGBT rights. Very visible in the fight for immigration justice. These are two issues that really resonate with younger voters.
I bumped into Joe after church at a major rally in Copley Square for Yes on 3 last year. He was the only politician there. He took the time to take selfies with everyone after the rally, and he and I had a quick talk about Q3 and immigration. He’s aligned himself very closely with Ayanna Pressley on local anti-ICE efforts.
Boston/Cambridge/Somerville progressives I know have a stronger relationship with Kennedy than Markey. I will note that area climate activists, DSA chapters, and PM seem to be more inclined to Markey since they dislike Kennedy’s votes on drugs and foreign policy and recognize Markeys role with AOC in the GND.
This idea that younger voters are confusing him with a senator who’s been dead for ten years is incorrect. This will be a primary between two accomplished progressives. We should feel so blessed to have such talent in our state.
johntmaysays
This will be a primary between two accomplished progressives.
I see it as more of two Democrats being pulled from the corporate center and towards the left, towards the working class. I think it’s good for the party, overall. Let’s see how far we can pull them.
And no, I am not saying that either was firmly in the hands of the corporate center…..but the party is.
jconwaysays
To be clear, I happen to think they are both less impressive and less progressive than Elizabeth Warren, I just find it odd that the rhetoric on this blog makes Markey out to be a saint and Kennedy out to be a crypto Republican devil. Neither is the case, but I view my role here to play devils advocate for Kennedy’s nascent candidacy and against the unmerited canonization of Ed Markey.
fredrichlaricciasays
I don’t see anyone canonizing Senator Ed Markey OR demonizing Congressman Joe Kennedy.
Those of us supporting Senator Markey are trying to make the case for why he should be re-elected.
If you support Congressman Kennedy, why don’t you tell us why we should fire Senator Markey and hire your guy?
SomervilleTomsays
I’m with Fred — I don’t see anybody canonizing or demonizing anybody.
I see a neophyte trading on his age and name, and hoping to take out an incumbent who has been doing an excellent job on a range of issues.
The more you and Mr. Kennedy’s supporters talk about his age and his name, the more you weaken his case.
Joe Kennedy has been very visible in the fight for trans equality and LGBT rights. Very visible in the fight for immigration justice. These are two issues that really resonate with younger voters.
I’m sorry to be so cynical, but “the fight for trans equality” sounds like Oat Bran and gluten free. The literal handful of trans people of course deserve to be treated well by society, just as the relative handful of people who are genuinely allergic to gluten need to have a way to eat safely. I would like to see our party quietly do the right thing and be done with it.
I wish younger voters cared as much about the relatively long list of issues that affect nearly everyone as they do about these fashionable “issues” that affect about 29 people.
What has Joe Kennedy DONE about immigration justice that Ed Markey hasn’t done? Ed Markey was issuing position statements about immigration in 2012. What was Joe Kennedy doing then? Ed Markey was fighting GOP scapegoating of immigrants in 2005. What was Joe Kennedy doing in 2005?
So long as we’re talking about identity, Ed Markey is a second-generation American — his grandparents were immigrants. Joe Kennedy III is the grandson of none other than Robert F. Kennedy.
The irony of citing “immigration justice” as an argument for choosing Joe Kennedy III over Ed Markey is striking.
doublemansays
Yikes, Tom. Awful and gross comparison. Really disgusting.
Your dismissiveness about trans individuals is part of the reason why their lives are so broadly under threat in this country. Even people who claim to accept their rights will talk about it as a non-issue or dismiss it as “fashionable.”
The issues at stake are the lives and livelihoods of people in our community (many more than you would realize) and whether we will be an inclusive and equitable society or whether we will continue to reject and be violent towards the “other.”
I know you seem to hate references to young people but these are the issues people are engaging with everyday with themselves, in their families, and among their friends and classmates. This was not the case 20 years ago because coming out as anything other than cisgendered was one of the most dangerous things a person could do. It’s different now, but nowhere near where it should be. Your comments are reflective of the work that still needs to be done.
SomervilleTomsays
@ Yikes:
Yeah, I know. Deal with it.
What is your estimate of the percentage of trans people in the population? What is the basis of that estimate?
doublemansays
The percentage of people in Massachusetts who are trans, non-binary, or genderqueer, have family in those communities, have friends in those communities, or interact with those communities is 100%.
You sound like someone who would say “I’ve never met a gay person.”
SomervilleTomsays
You ducked my question.
Let’s try not to insult each other, please. It isn’t helpful to tell me who I sound like to you, and I doubt it will be helpful for me to tell you who you sound like to me.
doublemansays
I answered why the issue is important. Your question was designed to minimize the issue.
SomervilleTomsays
My question was designed to ask you to look outside your own opinion.
Feel free to answer my other question instead — which of “trans equality” and “immigration justice” do you think should the first priority of whomever wins the election?
SomervilleTomsays
For what it’s worth, I’ve been knowingly welcoming and supporting gay men and women since before you were born.
doublemansays
And I have gay friends who are blisteringly misinformed and insensitive on this issue. I hear “what’s a they?” and “she’s not pulling it off” far too many times from people in the LGBTQ community (although maybe that is is a misnomer because for far too many it is just the LG community).
It’s new and challenging for lots of people but I think the best approach is being open and not try to marginalize or minimize. Casting it as something only important to a small minority is minimizing it.
For many high school and college kids now, these are issues that they have been engaging with and discussing everyday for years. They often get it. Most people of older generations don’t.
SomervilleTomsays
@blisteringly misinformed:
Great.
What should be the first priority — “trans equality” or “immigration justice”?
doublemansays
I think a good candidate can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Part of leading on things like trans equality is actually being open about it and speaking on the issue. And appointing people from the community. They can be doing that without programs the size of the Green New Deal.
Your question of priority belies an underlying issue – that we have to prioritize as if this is zero sum. We can and should do lots . . . at the same time. I don’t want to set issues and supporters up against each other.
SomervilleTomsays
I’m not surprised that you refuse to talk about priorities. A consequence of leading on things like trans equality is validating complaints that we Democrats lack focus.
I don’t see anything about immigration justice in your commentary here. Babies are being ripped from their mother’s arms. Sick children dying of cancer are being deported along with their families. All this happening, and the only thing you write about is trans equality.
That’s not walking while chewing gum, it’s polishing the silverware on the Titanic.
doublemansays
I’m talking about it because you’ve said bigoted things on the issue. I don’t care about your priority point because politicians can deal with more than one issue. You seem to be happy with telling this community “wait your turn, we have more important issues to deal with.” That same logic could be applied to immigration because we have major health care issues or climate things to address.
If Markey takes your advice and makes choices like this he will lose, and he deserves to.
SomervilleTomsays
I think that stopping the ongoing abuse of immigrants is more urgent than “trans equality”. That’s not “bigoted”, it’s a statement of priorities.
@that same logic could be applied:
Indeed it could. This exchange started because jconway mentioned trans equality and immigration justice as the two issues JKIII is focused on.
We have a relatively long list of issues that affect far more people in far more grievous ways than trans equality. So far as I know, Massachusetts has not passed any bathroom bills (that was North Carolina). Massachusetts does have dying immigrant children being forced to leave Boston Children’s Hospital by brutal and cruel immigration authorities.
Apparently you don’t care enough about those children to talk about them. I do.
doublemansays
Tom, you’re being ridiculous and intentionally misreading things I’ve written (as usual). I am focusing on trans equality simply because you said bigoted things about it (it’s like gluten intolerance, not important). People used to say the same about equal marriage and gay rights generally – or any other issue involving minority groups. And I’m not sure if you realize this but this type of minimization is incredibly harmful. You are not being an ally.
We have a relatively long list of issues that affect far more people in far more grievous ways than trans equality.
You say that. What about the kid facing this issue? Their family? Their friends? Nothing is more important to them. When a politician shows up in those communities and meets people, shows them that they are seen, shows them that they are cared about, and follows it up with votes and policies, that matters. For trans equality, for migrant families . . . for people who want more bike lanes in cities, for anything.
JKIII has been showing up in more communities and earning support.
I still think Markey would be a better Senator, but your insistence about telling people what they should focus on and care about is gross, and also a surefire way for someone to lose an election.
jconwaysays
Apparently you don’t care enough about those children to talk about them. I do.
Totally uncalled for Tom. My entire point was that JFK3 was talking about an issue that Markey is not prioritizing.
Doubleman was responding to your transphobic dismissal of trans rights as an issue deserving of priority. It did when it was on the ballot. Kennedy showed up. Markey didn’t. That does matter.
You’re the one pitting trans kids against immigrant kids. Joe’s SOTU response was explicitly dedicated to the premise that in America we don’t have to do that, it’s a false choice. Progressives shouldn’t do that either.
Take a step back and ask if your rhetoric here is convincing people to support your candidate or alienating them. The two biggest influences on my vote for Pressley was my mentor teacher in Roxbury who showed me all the work she did with our students on body cameras and your posts against her on BMG. I started off as a Capuano supporter, and you and my mentor teacher in your own way made me a Pressley supporter.
SomervilleTomsays
In this thread, we’re talking about trans equality and immigration justice.
Which of those do you think is the first priority?
SomervilleTomsays
Downrated for asking a simple question.
I guess some of us feel that some questions should not be asked.
bob-gardnersays
Downrated for the patronizing ton and the negativity.
jconwaysays
I would argue they are both bigger priorities for Kennedy than they are for Markey who is pretty climate first and everything else second. Kennedy has been to the border and the Boston detention centers many many times. My point is that he’s shown up more to both communities and my friends and family in those communities have heard of his work and don’t know who Markey is.
SomervilleTomsays
@both are bigger issues:
Ed Markey has done far more for immigration than JKIII, I’ve cited links to that here.
Media appearances and photo ops are not the same as actually addressing the issue.
I agree that JKIII might be winning the media and PR contest. That’s sort of my point.
jconwaysays
I disagree with that characterization of his actions, but I’ll also add that being visible on the issue and generating publicity for it is part of the job of a Senator. RFK never filed significant legislation on Vietnam or the California grape workers, but publicly turning against LBJ in the Senate press room and fasting with Chavez brought the countries attention to those issues more than subcommittee hearings and pieces of legislation nobody has heard of.
I think part of what we are contrasting is approach, and Kennedy is far more approachable and visible than Markey and that’s a problem for Ed if he wants to get re-elected. Rather than argue it shouldn’t be a problem or attack the people who don’t know what he’s doing, his campaign should actually respond to it and make a real effort to correct it. He’s got a good record, he should fight for it.
fredrichlaricciasays
As a member of LGBTQ community and campaign manager to the first transgender congressional candidate to make it onto the ballot in Massachusetts, Alexandra Chandler, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to LGBTQ equality. And I would never support any candidate who did.
Ed Markey has been a steadfast champion to our community for the more than 40 years I have been honored to call him friend.
doublemansays
I don’t think anyone is claiming Markey is bad here. He’s Not! But JKIII has been out more actively in the community and he’s a more recognized leader in the space among many younger voters.
Markey has a great record but he’s going to need to be out there a lot more telling that story. JKIII has been in more active campaign mode for a few years and he says nice things so people think his record is great.
SomervilleTomsays
I agree with you that JKIII has been promoting himself more.
I’d like every voter — young and old — to be casting their vote based on actual substance rather than marketing hype.
I agree that JKIII spends a lot of time talking the talk. Ed Markey is the only one I see walking the walk.
fredrichlaricciasays
Or as someone once said, Ed Markey is more interested in doing the job than having the job.
jconwaysays
Coming to that rally was something he didn’t have to do and it made a big difference for the trans people there to see someone with his pedigree and passion show up.
jconwaysays
Oh trans rights I would argue Kennedy did more for Yes on 3 than Markey. The same Markey who once voted for DOMA, once opposed a woman’s right to choose, once opposed busing, and once opposed marriage equality when it first happened in MA. Again I forgive Ed for being wrong on that stuff-but the downside to a long record is that he’s been on the wrong side of a lot of things in his career that voters might not forgive.
Christophersays
Some of us are tired of the theory that millennials are the holy grail of electoral success, and that the world has to revolve around them, especially when some act too cool for school.
jconwaysays
Thanks Hillary. That’s how you lose elections.
doublemansays
Some people still think Millennials are just college kids and not about to be the largest voting block ranging in age from 23 to 38.
SomervilleTomsays
@largest voting block:
I hope they vote. I hope they inform themselves before they vote.
I welcome Millennials to the electorate — I simply disagree with you about some of the positions they take and some of their priorities.
jconwaysays
They are informed. Most educated and most politically informed generation in history, and I can tell you the next group coming up after us is very active and engaged. In ways even I am trying to catch up with. I think what we reject is the idea that politicians are automatically owed our votes because of tenure or party labels. They gotta make their case to us directly and care about the issues we care about. That’s politics 101, I don’t see how we are asking for special treatment. We are just tired of being ignored.
SomervilleTomsays
@Thanks Hillary:
Thanks, Mike (Dukakis). And John (Kerry).
I suggest that we Democrats have lost MANY elections by focusing on things that most of the electorate don’t care about. Barack Obama didn’t focus his campaign on special interest groups, and neither did Bill Clinton before him.
When was the last time a Democrat won by appealing to special interest groups?
doublemansays
@When was the last time a Democrat won by appealing to special interest groups?
Uhhh, the last time a Democrat won. Barack Obama and his campaign were incredibly active in all sorts of communities (youth, LGBT, minority, migrant) and that’s how he had a coalition and won a landslide victory with record turnout from groups that turn out less frequently. They were engaged with directly and their concerns heard and incorporated into plans. It was not a campaign built on appealing to a white middle class moderate midwest voter.
SomervilleTomsays
I’m sorry, guys, but the “trans” population is small subset of the LGBT population, and that is a relatively small minority of the total population.
@ It was not a campaign built on appealing to a white middle class moderate midwest voter.
Nobody said anything about appealing to “white middle class moderate midwest” voters.
Barack Obama did not campaign on or win because of trans equality. I’m not sure the issue was even named in 2008.
His record turnout was across the board, and was especially strong in urban minority communities.
I’ll tell you that the heart of Barack Obama’s support was Americans of ALL races, colors, creeds, national origins, and genders who were being crushed by the financial mismanagement of the Bush administration and the GOP, who were appalled at the war crimes of that administration, and who enthusiastically welcomed a poised, informed, and articulate candidate who presented a clear and striking contrast to John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin, for crying out loud.
doublemansays
I really don’t understand why you keep minimizing a community, especially when that is not the real issue.
Seriously, what are you talking about? NO ONE is running as a single issue trans equality candidate. You’re stretching so hard to make it seem like JKIII is or that we are saying he is. JKIII is not going to put Trans Equality on his damn lawn signs. What he is doing is showing up and building relationships in communities.
He is actively engaging with communities of voters in a way that Markey has not been doing (same goes for Ayanna v. Capuano). All we are saying is that Markey needs to do a much better job campaigning.
Obama and his team and surrogates were doing the same. They were active in the communities that came out for them. It wasn’t just good speeches that turned people out. There were people on the ground in these communities doing the work, and for many it was the very first time they were ever touched by a campaign. AOC’s campaign is illustrative of the same. She had so little money and really a small profile until she won. But she was building relationships and organizing among people that Crowley never engaged at all. That’s how she won. Too many people in office for too long take votes for granted and forget how to campaign. Some (like Crowley) have very bad records.
Clinton’s campaign was not focused on those less likely voters from minority communities. They thought that they could flip suburban whites. They didn’t build a big enough coalition in the areas they needed to win.
jconwaysays
While Markey is issuing position papers, Kennedy and Pressley are going to the border and checking out detention centers. They have both co-sponsored bills to tie the hands of ICE agents and have worked with the local community on local solutions as well. Markey also has gone there, but the idea that he’s doing something while Kennedy is doing nothing is a falsehood.
The trans community is subjected to more violence than almost any other, and there were very few legislators or national democrats who had their back when the equality bill was first introduced. I worked firsthand with the lobbyists for that cause and Baker has to be dragged across the finish line and insisted it go to the ballot.
Baker wasn’t there. Walsh wasn’t there. Markey wasn’t there. Kennedy was there and that matters to me. My best friend is trans and has faced isolation from their family, their co workers to the point where they quit their job, and from some of our mutual friends. I’ll always love them and support them and I don’t think it’s an oat brain issue at all. When we’re together I escort them into bathrooms to make sure nothing happens and I’m on guard when we ride the T together, particularly when we’re out at night. It’s a real issue, even in Massachusetts.
SomervilleTomsays
I’m glad you’re doing all those things, and I have great empathy for your friend.
It is because there are so few trans people and because they are treated so badly that I think society has an active obligation to protect them.
Having said that, I think the trans equality issue pales in comparison to even the immigration justice issue, never mind the long list of other urgent priorities that we face.
I support Ed Markey in the primary, just as I supported Mike Capuano in the primary. If Mr. Markey is turned out, I will choose JKIII over a GOP opponent if he has one.
If we turn out Ed Markey in favor of JKIII, I think we will have greatly hurt the governance of our state and nation. I am still waiting for Ms. Pressley to show me that we have lost ground in choosing her over Mr. Capuano.
That’s why I support Ed Markey in the primary.
jconwaysays
I probably am voting for Markey too. But you asked a question about why younger voters support Kennedy more and I think I answered it. He is more visible on those issues we care about, and that’s entirely relevant for our vote. To the extent climate is an issue we care about, I think Markey has done a lousy job talking about his substantial record and list of accomplishments on that issue and other issues relevant to younger voters. You may think it’s unfair he has to win over our constituency, it voter outreach is the name of the game for politicians who want to get re-elected.
jconwaysays
As Kennedy said in his speech which everyone praised here back when he wasn’t challenging their favored incumbent, it’s not an either or question. It’s both and. You help the immigrants and the laid off native born workers. You can defend trans people and defend the planet. It’s aspirational. If Markey runs his campaign in Senatese with excuses about what he couldn’t get done, he’s in for a rude awakening. If he comes to us with a bolder agenda than Kennedy he will win.
SomervilleTomsays
I know this is hard to believe, but both of you (jconway and doubleman) will, God willing, be in your sixties a few decades from now.
Unless we do something about our ageism between now and then, you too will be turned out to pasture with no ability to get a job even though you will be as skilled as you ever were.
You, too, will see elected officials that you’ve known and worked with for decades turned out because of their age. Ayanna Pressley will be an “old warhorse” one day, just like Maxine Waters and just like Mike Capuano.
I’m pretty sure that if JKIII were doing and saying exactly what he’s doing and saying now, and was 73 years old, you’d both be ignoring him.
“Younger” is NOT synonymous with “better”, “fresher”, “more energetic”, “more creative” or any of the other accolades that are being thrown around these days. I get that Maxine Waters is not as telegenic as AOC or Ayanna Pressley. That doesn’t mean she should be fired.
Identity politics is a disease that will infect each of you too, whether or not you are able to recognize that today.
doublemansays
Nah, we’ll be dead by then. The world will be on fire and our life expectancies will be decades shorter because of the people in power over the last 40 years.
You are making a lot of assumptions about age being the reason, and ignoring the fact that these people spent time engaging with communities often overlooked by those in office. Relationships and organizing matter, so do speaking to issues that diverse sets of voters care about.
That’s why a 78-year-old presidential candidate is doing much better with younger voters than the candidates under 40 combined.
bob-gardnersays
Downrated for self-pity.
jconwaysays
The only ageism I see on this blog is against younger candidates having the temerity to jump the line and disrupt the status quo.
SomervilleTomsays
Understood that that’s all you see.
That’s why I’m writing about it.
SomervilleTomsays
I wonder if you are as receptive to the experiences of seniors who are experiencing ageism as you are to those who experience other kinds of discrimination.
SomervilleTomsays
@ Younger voters confusing him with Ted Kennedy:
I was being facetious.
jconwaysays
Hard to tell these days Tom.
SomervilleTomsays
I guess I’ll put a tag on my next facetious comment.
doubleman says
I don’t believe that health care question is telling at all, except in that it is a telling tale of biased question construction. The phrasing of the question was bad, incorrect, and stacked against Medicare for All.
“On the issue of healthcare, some people say we should scrap the current system and move to single-payer health care system, otherwise known as Medicare-for-All. Others say we should build upon the foundation of the Affordable Care Act and make the necessary reforms to the current system. Which is closer to your view? Scrap and move to Medicare-for-All. Implement reforms to the Affordable Care Act.”
Saying “scrap” is fear-mongering and an unfortunate right-wing talking point that some Democrats, including Joe Biden, have embraced. It makes people think they are going to lose coverage. They will not. No version of Medicare-for-All proposes that. I wonder what the result would be if they asked “Would you prefer the current health care system or one in which you would pay less, keep your doctors, have no co-pays, deductibles, or co-insurance, and never have to deal with an insurance company?”
Of course this poll result will be used as ammo against Medicare for All, but with the chosen wording, the results are BS.
There are some other interesting things in this poll. This one made me laugh/cry.
On the question of Who is the more liberal candidate – Markey or Kennedy? Kennedy comes out on top 42-24.
Some other interesting tidbits pointed out by Jonathan Cohn.
Warren primary voters:
–Warren favorability 99% – 1%
–Baker favorability 53% – 40%
Biden primary voters
–Warren favorability 64% – 27%
–Baker favorability 72% – 15%
Christopher says
I disagree with your interpretation of “scrap” since the question as quoted immediately pivots to what would replace it. I question the reading comprehension skills of anyone who thinks scrap means loss if they can’t be bothered to so much as read the rest of the sentence.
doubleman says
It would be listening comprehension and scrap is a negative word and conjures images of ending current coverage. They could have chosen “transition to,” which would have been correct. “Scrap” implies that current benefits would be ending, and that is misleading.
There are many polls with various phrasings of this similar question. The reasonable conclusion is that a Medicare for All system with universal coverage, no co=pays and no deductibles, is incredibly popular across all groups. Questions about the transition is where support falls off, minimally or significantly depending on the question phrased. There is a big difference between “Would you support giving up your current insurance plan in favor of a single-payer system?” and “Would you support keeping your coverage and doctors and having lower out of pocket expenses under a government managed system?” The first question implies you are losing something you like and not necessarily getting a suitable replacement. The second example focuses on the benefits of the move to a new system. The polling results for these questions would be vastly different. These questions are fraught and this one in the Globe poll is particularly bad with it focusing on a negative word like “scrap.” The wording of these questions is important and worlds apart from “Do you support X for [office].” This Globe question is most notable for evidence of how to win the messaging battle, not a true reflection of what people think about the policy.
Christopher says
I would have answered an emphatic yes to both wordings of the question.
jconway says
Trump wanted to “scrap” Obamacare. Aka eliminate the Medicaid expansion, ban on denying coverage for preconditions, etc. Warren and Sanders want to transition from it to Medicare for All which would retain all its benefits and expand the existing Medicare program to include every single American.
I also think the fight between this and a public option is overblown. A public option is an opt in version of MFA while MFA is an opt out version of the public option. At the end of the day, under either plan, way more people will be covered than under ACA. It’s was dishonest for Hillary and dishonest for Biden to be claiming that MFA “scraps” the ACA when it makes the exact same changes/additions their plans would make only coercing everybody and not just those who opt in.
doubleman says
Rahm Emanuel won the weekend with the most disingenuous claims about M4A yesterday on one of the Sunday shows. He said that it is political suicide for the Democrats to pursue it because it will mean 150 million Americans “lose their health care.” He said he travelled around Lake Michigan and didn’t have one person come up to him and say “please take away my health care,” which he is claiming is the same as someone wanting M4A.
That guy should be in prison and yet he’s still on major news shows as a representative of the Democratic party view.
jconway says
He would have gotten last place in the runoff if he ran for re-election, which is why he didn’t. Covering up a police murder is his only accomplishment.
scott12mass says
I go for weeks now without reading this site but once in a while check back in. Coming from Trump majority cities in Mass and Fla I hear much different chatter than most on here. Especially in Fla you hear “MFA” and the first question is ” Who pays for the supplement plan? because everyone has a Medicare supplement plan. Do the poor get a free ride and have everything paid for, and I still have to pay for my AARP supplement? It’s a simplistic attempt to buy votes, just like forgiving student debt. And talk about reparations, you’re gonna take my tax money and give it to Oprah? ”
Just passing on what I hear, but you’re going to have to fine tune your messages before you take it outside your party primaries. I’m hoping the Yang gang comes to the Libertarian party and I might even donate to a candidate for the first time ever.
johntmay says
Why is it that “who is going to pay for this” is the question when working class people get something from the government but never the question when the wealthy class gets something from the government? That’s the question I ask when I hear “who is going to pay for…”…
jconway says
I’ve been wondering if Yang will do that, and if so, who he siphons more votes from. Anecdotally my students who like Yang tend to be white or Asian males who are into the Joe Rogan podcast, Jake Rubin, and Jordan Peterson. Most of this subset rejects Alex Jones, but they are indifferent to supportive of Trump.
There’s also some more nerdy STEM students who like Yang just because of the MATH hat. Some of the more left wing ones like him because they like UBI. So it’ll be interesting to keep watching him.
One of the reasons I think basic income is untenable is because it does little to curb the higher cost of services or increase the amount of living wage jobs. It basically is a band aid to paper over an economic system rigged against working people, especially when it’s coupled with safety net cuts as it’s more libertarian proponents purport to do.
I think the argument for MFA comes from lowering the actual cost of healthcare which every other system including ACA and Medicare on its own has failed to do. Trump gets it since he theoretically favors negotiating drug prices. Well why stop there, under MFA the government negotiates all the prices in health care and standardized what the true cost is, so a knee replacement at MGH isn’t ten times more expensive than one done in Oklahoma.
SomervilleTom says
It’s worth mentioning that the “sticker prices” talked about by providers like MGH has nothing AT ALL to do with the actual price they get paid for a given procedure (never mind their costs).
The health care racket is MUCH worse about this than the automobile market ever was, and that’s hard to accomplish.
It’s worth looking at the EOB (Explanation Of Benefits) that you get for every visit, and comparing what the insurance company allows with what the provider bills.
MGH routinely bills TEN TIMES what they get paid, and then merely credits the difference when the insurance company responds. I don’t doubt that Medicare and BCBS are then able to claim that they “saved” 90% of the costs through “aggressive negotiation”.
It’s also worth mentioning that the “free market” tends to work very badly when the customer is different from the user (where “customer” is whoever pays the bill and “user” is whoever receives the product). Broadcast television sucks because it is optimized for its customers (advertisers) rather than its users (viewers). That’s the same reason why nearly all Microsoft software sucks. The customers of Microsoft Office are purchasing agents. The users are the employees who those purchasing agents buy for.
The entire health care industry is a scam and con-game, so that prices are completely disconnected from costs.
doubleman says
I heard a good interview with Yang on the Chapo Trap House podcast, which was different and much more serious than their usual “dirtbag left” vibe.
Yang is interesting. His early career path and frustrations seem similar to my own and he identifies many of the problems we are facing beautifully. I can understand his appeal to disaffected young men. The problem with Yang is that his prescriptions are wrong, and sometimes depressing. UBI could be a good policy if done more from a leftist, anti-capitalist, and very democratic angle in which it is a solution for a world in which “work” is largely irrelevant because of automation. But Yang’s UBI is exactly what you say – a band aid on a bad system. Yang identifies problems in that system but does not want to take them on. He assumes automation and climate catastrophe can’t really be curtailed so he wants to provide a decent life for people facing hard times. It’s like he forgot that we can actually use power to reverse or at least change these societal trends. He wants to use some taxes to try and claw back some revenue from companies profiting from these changes without mentioning that we could stop these companies, or break them up, or any number of other things to prevent their harms rather than just getting some money back after they cause the harms.
SomervilleTom says
@ automation and climate change:
I agree we have the collective power to reverse or manage automation, and we should do so.
I think it’s mostly too late for climate change. We still need to make enormous changes, but my read of the evidence is that it’s already too late to avoid many of the dire consequences.
The time for all of us — including young people — to reverse or change the societal trends about climate change was about thirty years ago (before many of today’s young people were born). For whatever reasons, we didn’t do it.
James Hansen gave testimony to congress about global warming and atmospheric CO2 in 1988. It is interesting — and emblematic of the issue — that even though his June 1988 is widely celebrated as historic and groundbreaking, it is difficult or impossible to find on youtube. I did find a two minute excerpt — dubbed in German.
For thirty years, we’ve been paralyzed about climate change. Two two-term Democratic presidents did nothing about it — in 31 years between 1988 and 2019, Democrats held the Oval Office for 16 years. Congress has gone back and forth between the parties during that time, and we did nothing.
The damage is done. Current data suggests that:
1. The climate models were overly conservative. Anthropogenic climate change is happening faster and is more intense than modeled.
2. Multiple tipping points have already been passed
3. Other feedback mechanisms are being discovered — CO2-driven warming causes other changes, such as melting permafrost that releases methane (a very potent greenhouse gas).
It appears to me that mitigation — finding ways to manage the effects that are already inevitable — is now more urgent than prevention, because it is already too late for prevention.
The patient already has lung cancer. Yes, the patient should stop smoking 2 packs a day. That’s not going to cure the cancer.
SomervilleTom says
Those questions are easy to answer (I’ll do so in a moment). The question I have is whether the questioners even listen to the answers.
Q: “Who pays for the supplement plan”:
A: There is no need for a supplement plan. ALL health care is provided under the same plan
Q: Do the poor get a free ride and …:
A: Everybody gets a “free ride” or nobody gets a “free ride”. Every American is entitled to an education and every American is entitled to health care.
Q: It’s a simplistic attempt to buy votes, just like forgiving student debt.
A: It’s an attempt to solve a universal problem, just like public education. Forgiving student debt addresses the same need. If you don’t like simplistic attempts to “buy votes”, then of course you despise farm subsidies and the most recent Trump administration tax cuts. Right?
Q: You’re gonna take my tax money and …
A: For every dollar of your tax money the government takes, the government will take about ten dollars from the insurance industry. The government will STOP taking your tax money and giving it to Blue Cross Blue Shield.
There are still MANY more whites than “Oprah’s” in America. The largest demographic that will benefit from single-payer government-sponsored health care is working-class whites. That’s because working-class whites still outnumber all the other groups, working-class whites are being CREAMED by health care costs, working-class whites get little or no direct government aid from other sources at the moment, and working-class whites have been last in line to receive the enormous wealth our economy is generating.
The largest group of people who will be hurt by single-payer government-sponsored health care is the group of health-insurance executives, directors, and investors followed by executives, directors, and investors in big health-care providers (watch BIDMC start to squawk).
The reason Donald Trump and Trumpists spend so much time bashing immigrants and telling lies is so that their base doesn’t discover the actual truth about the con-game that Mr. Trump and the Trumpists are selling.
scott12mass says
Q: “Who pays for the supplement plan”:
A: There is no need for a supplement plan. ALL health care is provided under the same plan
Here is the marketing plan problem. Especially this time of year (more in Fla also) you see commercials explaining Medicare DOESN’T pay for all of your medical expenses. You need to buy a supplement plan from FloridaBlue or AARP etc. This is the understanding people have for the Medicare program. Then the Dems are going to tout Medicare for all, better call it something else?
I’m just passing on what I hear at the tee box and the pool. We have a very poorly informed electorate. More people could explain the rules of government on Game of Thrones than in Washington. The current resident in the White House understands the average voter (not just his rabid base) has the attention span of a fruit fly and adjusts his message accordingly. How many independents will read Warren’s position papers, my guess 5%. How many Democrats, my guess 9%. How many on this blog have even read the papers? We will be governed by who has the most stinging tweets.
SomervilleTom says
Was some part of “The question I have is whether the questioners even listen to the answers” confusing?
The proposed plans eliminate the need for supplemental insurance. That isn’t hard to communicate to anyone willing to listen.
Our current health care system appears to have been designed by fruit flies. I’m reminded of the old joke — “Eat s**t, a hundred million flies can’t be wrong”.
It isn’t that I disagree with your contention, it’s instead that if you are correct then the game is over and American democracy is dead.
Christopher says
I’ve always assumed it would be the same as now. Everyone would be on Medicare and anyone who wants to buy supplemental insurance is free to do so.
Christopher says
OK, but the question provided immediately pivoted to what would replace it. Seriously, scrap only means what some are saying it means if you ignore part of the sentence, kind of like the second amendment only means an absolute right to bear arms if you ignore the first clause thereof. I don’t understand why this is not as obvious to everyone else as it is to me.
SomervilleTom says
@Kennedy comes out on top 42-24:
I think people must have thought they were talking about Ted Kennedy.
I don’t see how anyone can view Joe Kennedy III as “liberal” in comparison to Ed Markey.
doubleman says
Youth = liberal I guess.
Or maybe on TV more = liberal.
johntmay says
Joe Kennedy III could have taken the same path as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but he did not. I was an initial supporter of his run for congress and noticed after he was elected I’d receive numerous emails about LGBTQ issues and support of Israel. While important topics, I hoped he would take on wages for the working class and taxing the rich…….but no. His lack of support for health care as a human right, something his Uncle Ted supported, concerned me.
Joe, if you;re reading this, you know me. You know who I am. I’m just a tired, worn out working class citizen of the Commonwealth.
Why should I vote for you?
jconway says
Joe’s endorsed Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. This race will come down to whether one values past tenure or future potential.
doubleman says
He endorsed M4A very late. He similarly came around cannabis decriminalization and legalization after it was clear his position was untenable.
I think it’s a race between someone with demonstrated early leadership on important issues and someone who’s been late to the party on important things (and likely therefore should not be expected to lead on them or lead on new things that come up).
drikeo says
I feel like Kennedy positions himself to be the “mainstream” seal of approval. “Hey, Joe Kennedy is finally on board, we’ve gone mainstream!”
I don’t have anything against him, but he’s exceptionally vanilla.
SomervilleTom says
So far, it looks as though contest is all about the last name and age of the candidates.
jconway says
Joe Kennedy has been very visible in the fight for trans equality and LGBT rights. Very visible in the fight for immigration justice. These are two issues that really resonate with younger voters.
I bumped into Joe after church at a major rally in Copley Square for Yes on 3 last year. He was the only politician there. He took the time to take selfies with everyone after the rally, and he and I had a quick talk about Q3 and immigration. He’s aligned himself very closely with Ayanna Pressley on local anti-ICE efforts.
Boston/Cambridge/Somerville progressives I know have a stronger relationship with Kennedy than Markey. I will note that area climate activists, DSA chapters, and PM seem to be more inclined to Markey since they dislike Kennedy’s votes on drugs and foreign policy and recognize Markeys role with AOC in the GND.
This idea that younger voters are confusing him with a senator who’s been dead for ten years is incorrect. This will be a primary between two accomplished progressives. We should feel so blessed to have such talent in our state.
johntmay says
I see it as more of two Democrats being pulled from the corporate center and towards the left, towards the working class. I think it’s good for the party, overall. Let’s see how far we can pull them.
And no, I am not saying that either was firmly in the hands of the corporate center…..but the party is.
jconway says
To be clear, I happen to think they are both less impressive and less progressive than Elizabeth Warren, I just find it odd that the rhetoric on this blog makes Markey out to be a saint and Kennedy out to be a crypto Republican devil. Neither is the case, but I view my role here to play devils advocate for Kennedy’s nascent candidacy and against the unmerited canonization of Ed Markey.
fredrichlariccia says
I don’t see anyone canonizing Senator Ed Markey OR demonizing Congressman Joe Kennedy.
Those of us supporting Senator Markey are trying to make the case for why he should be re-elected.
If you support Congressman Kennedy, why don’t you tell us why we should fire Senator Markey and hire your guy?
SomervilleTom says
I’m with Fred — I don’t see anybody canonizing or demonizing anybody.
I see a neophyte trading on his age and name, and hoping to take out an incumbent who has been doing an excellent job on a range of issues.
The more you and Mr. Kennedy’s supporters talk about his age and his name, the more you weaken his case.
I’m sorry to be so cynical, but “the fight for trans equality” sounds like Oat Bran and gluten free. The literal handful of trans people of course deserve to be treated well by society, just as the relative handful of people who are genuinely allergic to gluten need to have a way to eat safely. I would like to see our party quietly do the right thing and be done with it.
I wish younger voters cared as much about the relatively long list of issues that affect nearly everyone as they do about these fashionable “issues” that affect about 29 people.
What has Joe Kennedy DONE about immigration justice that Ed Markey hasn’t done? Ed Markey was issuing position statements about immigration in 2012. What was Joe Kennedy doing then? Ed Markey was fighting GOP scapegoating of immigrants in 2005. What was Joe Kennedy doing in 2005?
So long as we’re talking about identity, Ed Markey is a second-generation American — his grandparents were immigrants. Joe Kennedy III is the grandson of none other than Robert F. Kennedy.
The irony of citing “immigration justice” as an argument for choosing Joe Kennedy III over Ed Markey is striking.
doubleman says
Yikes, Tom. Awful and gross comparison. Really disgusting.
Your dismissiveness about trans individuals is part of the reason why their lives are so broadly under threat in this country. Even people who claim to accept their rights will talk about it as a non-issue or dismiss it as “fashionable.”
The issues at stake are the lives and livelihoods of people in our community (many more than you would realize) and whether we will be an inclusive and equitable society or whether we will continue to reject and be violent towards the “other.”
I know you seem to hate references to young people but these are the issues people are engaging with everyday with themselves, in their families, and among their friends and classmates. This was not the case 20 years ago because coming out as anything other than cisgendered was one of the most dangerous things a person could do. It’s different now, but nowhere near where it should be. Your comments are reflective of the work that still needs to be done.
SomervilleTom says
@ Yikes:
Yeah, I know. Deal with it.
What is your estimate of the percentage of trans people in the population? What is the basis of that estimate?
doubleman says
The percentage of people in Massachusetts who are trans, non-binary, or genderqueer, have family in those communities, have friends in those communities, or interact with those communities is 100%.
You sound like someone who would say “I’ve never met a gay person.”
SomervilleTom says
You ducked my question.
Let’s try not to insult each other, please. It isn’t helpful to tell me who I sound like to you, and I doubt it will be helpful for me to tell you who you sound like to me.
doubleman says
I answered why the issue is important. Your question was designed to minimize the issue.
SomervilleTom says
My question was designed to ask you to look outside your own opinion.
Feel free to answer my other question instead — which of “trans equality” and “immigration justice” do you think should the first priority of whomever wins the election?
SomervilleTom says
For what it’s worth, I’ve been knowingly welcoming and supporting gay men and women since before you were born.
doubleman says
And I have gay friends who are blisteringly misinformed and insensitive on this issue. I hear “what’s a they?” and “she’s not pulling it off” far too many times from people in the LGBTQ community (although maybe that is is a misnomer because for far too many it is just the LG community).
It’s new and challenging for lots of people but I think the best approach is being open and not try to marginalize or minimize. Casting it as something only important to a small minority is minimizing it.
For many high school and college kids now, these are issues that they have been engaging with and discussing everyday for years. They often get it. Most people of older generations don’t.
SomervilleTom says
@blisteringly misinformed:
Great.
What should be the first priority — “trans equality” or “immigration justice”?
doubleman says
I think a good candidate can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Part of leading on things like trans equality is actually being open about it and speaking on the issue. And appointing people from the community. They can be doing that without programs the size of the Green New Deal.
Your question of priority belies an underlying issue – that we have to prioritize as if this is zero sum. We can and should do lots . . . at the same time. I don’t want to set issues and supporters up against each other.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not surprised that you refuse to talk about priorities. A consequence of leading on things like trans equality is validating complaints that we Democrats lack focus.
I don’t see anything about immigration justice in your commentary here. Babies are being ripped from their mother’s arms. Sick children dying of cancer are being deported along with their families. All this happening, and the only thing you write about is trans equality.
That’s not walking while chewing gum, it’s polishing the silverware on the Titanic.
doubleman says
I’m talking about it because you’ve said bigoted things on the issue. I don’t care about your priority point because politicians can deal with more than one issue. You seem to be happy with telling this community “wait your turn, we have more important issues to deal with.” That same logic could be applied to immigration because we have major health care issues or climate things to address.
If Markey takes your advice and makes choices like this he will lose, and he deserves to.
SomervilleTom says
I think that stopping the ongoing abuse of immigrants is more urgent than “trans equality”. That’s not “bigoted”, it’s a statement of priorities.
@that same logic could be applied:
Indeed it could. This exchange started because jconway mentioned trans equality and immigration justice as the two issues JKIII is focused on.
We have a relatively long list of issues that affect far more people in far more grievous ways than trans equality. So far as I know, Massachusetts has not passed any bathroom bills (that was North Carolina). Massachusetts does have dying immigrant children being forced to leave Boston Children’s Hospital by brutal and cruel immigration authorities.
Apparently you don’t care enough about those children to talk about them. I do.
doubleman says
Tom, you’re being ridiculous and intentionally misreading things I’ve written (as usual). I am focusing on trans equality simply because you said bigoted things about it (it’s like gluten intolerance, not important). People used to say the same about equal marriage and gay rights generally – or any other issue involving minority groups. And I’m not sure if you realize this but this type of minimization is incredibly harmful. You are not being an ally.
You say that. What about the kid facing this issue? Their family? Their friends? Nothing is more important to them. When a politician shows up in those communities and meets people, shows them that they are seen, shows them that they are cared about, and follows it up with votes and policies, that matters. For trans equality, for migrant families . . . for people who want more bike lanes in cities, for anything.
JKIII has been showing up in more communities and earning support.
I still think Markey would be a better Senator, but your insistence about telling people what they should focus on and care about is gross, and also a surefire way for someone to lose an election.
jconway says
Totally uncalled for Tom. My entire point was that JFK3 was talking about an issue that Markey is not prioritizing.
Doubleman was responding to your transphobic dismissal of trans rights as an issue deserving of priority. It did when it was on the ballot. Kennedy showed up. Markey didn’t. That does matter.
You’re the one pitting trans kids against immigrant kids. Joe’s SOTU response was explicitly dedicated to the premise that in America we don’t have to do that, it’s a false choice. Progressives shouldn’t do that either.
Take a step back and ask if your rhetoric here is convincing people to support your candidate or alienating them. The two biggest influences on my vote for Pressley was my mentor teacher in Roxbury who showed me all the work she did with our students on body cameras and your posts against her on BMG. I started off as a Capuano supporter, and you and my mentor teacher in your own way made me a Pressley supporter.
SomervilleTom says
In this thread, we’re talking about trans equality and immigration justice.
Which of those do you think is the first priority?
SomervilleTom says
Downrated for asking a simple question.
I guess some of us feel that some questions should not be asked.
bob-gardner says
Downrated for the patronizing ton and the negativity.
jconway says
I would argue they are both bigger priorities for Kennedy than they are for Markey who is pretty climate first and everything else second. Kennedy has been to the border and the Boston detention centers many many times. My point is that he’s shown up more to both communities and my friends and family in those communities have heard of his work and don’t know who Markey is.
SomervilleTom says
@both are bigger issues:
Ed Markey has done far more for immigration than JKIII, I’ve cited links to that here.
Media appearances and photo ops are not the same as actually addressing the issue.
I agree that JKIII might be winning the media and PR contest. That’s sort of my point.
jconway says
I disagree with that characterization of his actions, but I’ll also add that being visible on the issue and generating publicity for it is part of the job of a Senator. RFK never filed significant legislation on Vietnam or the California grape workers, but publicly turning against LBJ in the Senate press room and fasting with Chavez brought the countries attention to those issues more than subcommittee hearings and pieces of legislation nobody has heard of.
I think part of what we are contrasting is approach, and Kennedy is far more approachable and visible than Markey and that’s a problem for Ed if he wants to get re-elected. Rather than argue it shouldn’t be a problem or attack the people who don’t know what he’s doing, his campaign should actually respond to it and make a real effort to correct it. He’s got a good record, he should fight for it.
fredrichlariccia says
As a member of LGBTQ community and campaign manager to the first transgender congressional candidate to make it onto the ballot in Massachusetts, Alexandra Chandler, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to LGBTQ equality. And I would never support any candidate who did.
Ed Markey has been a steadfast champion to our community for the more than 40 years I have been honored to call him friend.
doubleman says
I don’t think anyone is claiming Markey is bad here. He’s Not! But JKIII has been out more actively in the community and he’s a more recognized leader in the space among many younger voters.
Markey has a great record but he’s going to need to be out there a lot more telling that story. JKIII has been in more active campaign mode for a few years and he says nice things so people think his record is great.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with you that JKIII has been promoting himself more.
I’d like every voter — young and old — to be casting their vote based on actual substance rather than marketing hype.
I agree that JKIII spends a lot of time talking the talk. Ed Markey is the only one I see walking the walk.
fredrichlariccia says
Or as someone once said, Ed Markey is more interested in doing the job than having the job.
jconway says
Coming to that rally was something he didn’t have to do and it made a big difference for the trans people there to see someone with his pedigree and passion show up.
jconway says
Oh trans rights I would argue Kennedy did more for Yes on 3 than Markey. The same Markey who once voted for DOMA, once opposed a woman’s right to choose, once opposed busing, and once opposed marriage equality when it first happened in MA. Again I forgive Ed for being wrong on that stuff-but the downside to a long record is that he’s been on the wrong side of a lot of things in his career that voters might not forgive.
Christopher says
Some of us are tired of the theory that millennials are the holy grail of electoral success, and that the world has to revolve around them, especially when some act too cool for school.
jconway says
Thanks Hillary. That’s how you lose elections.
doubleman says
Some people still think Millennials are just college kids and not about to be the largest voting block ranging in age from 23 to 38.
SomervilleTom says
@largest voting block:
I hope they vote. I hope they inform themselves before they vote.
I welcome Millennials to the electorate — I simply disagree with you about some of the positions they take and some of their priorities.
jconway says
They are informed. Most educated and most politically informed generation in history, and I can tell you the next group coming up after us is very active and engaged. In ways even I am trying to catch up with. I think what we reject is the idea that politicians are automatically owed our votes because of tenure or party labels. They gotta make their case to us directly and care about the issues we care about. That’s politics 101, I don’t see how we are asking for special treatment. We are just tired of being ignored.
SomervilleTom says
@Thanks Hillary:
Thanks, Mike (Dukakis). And John (Kerry).
I suggest that we Democrats have lost MANY elections by focusing on things that most of the electorate don’t care about. Barack Obama didn’t focus his campaign on special interest groups, and neither did Bill Clinton before him.
When was the last time a Democrat won by appealing to special interest groups?
doubleman says
@When was the last time a Democrat won by appealing to special interest groups?
Uhhh, the last time a Democrat won. Barack Obama and his campaign were incredibly active in all sorts of communities (youth, LGBT, minority, migrant) and that’s how he had a coalition and won a landslide victory with record turnout from groups that turn out less frequently. They were engaged with directly and their concerns heard and incorporated into plans. It was not a campaign built on appealing to a white middle class moderate midwest voter.
SomervilleTom says
I’m sorry, guys, but the “trans” population is small subset of the LGBT population, and that is a relatively small minority of the total population.
@ It was not a campaign built on appealing to a white middle class moderate midwest voter.
Nobody said anything about appealing to “white middle class moderate midwest” voters.
Barack Obama did not campaign on or win because of trans equality. I’m not sure the issue was even named in 2008.
His record turnout was across the board, and was especially strong in urban minority communities.
I’ll tell you that the heart of Barack Obama’s support was Americans of ALL races, colors, creeds, national origins, and genders who were being crushed by the financial mismanagement of the Bush administration and the GOP, who were appalled at the war crimes of that administration, and who enthusiastically welcomed a poised, informed, and articulate candidate who presented a clear and striking contrast to John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin, for crying out loud.
doubleman says
I really don’t understand why you keep minimizing a community, especially when that is not the real issue.
Seriously, what are you talking about? NO ONE is running as a single issue trans equality candidate. You’re stretching so hard to make it seem like JKIII is or that we are saying he is. JKIII is not going to put Trans Equality on his damn lawn signs. What he is doing is showing up and building relationships in communities.
He is actively engaging with communities of voters in a way that Markey has not been doing (same goes for Ayanna v. Capuano). All we are saying is that Markey needs to do a much better job campaigning.
Obama and his team and surrogates were doing the same. They were active in the communities that came out for them. It wasn’t just good speeches that turned people out. There were people on the ground in these communities doing the work, and for many it was the very first time they were ever touched by a campaign. AOC’s campaign is illustrative of the same. She had so little money and really a small profile until she won. But she was building relationships and organizing among people that Crowley never engaged at all. That’s how she won. Too many people in office for too long take votes for granted and forget how to campaign. Some (like Crowley) have very bad records.
Clinton’s campaign was not focused on those less likely voters from minority communities. They thought that they could flip suburban whites. They didn’t build a big enough coalition in the areas they needed to win.
jconway says
While Markey is issuing position papers, Kennedy and Pressley are going to the border and checking out detention centers. They have both co-sponsored bills to tie the hands of ICE agents and have worked with the local community on local solutions as well. Markey also has gone there, but the idea that he’s doing something while Kennedy is doing nothing is a falsehood.
The trans community is subjected to more violence than almost any other, and there were very few legislators or national democrats who had their back when the equality bill was first introduced. I worked firsthand with the lobbyists for that cause and Baker has to be dragged across the finish line and insisted it go to the ballot.
Baker wasn’t there. Walsh wasn’t there. Markey wasn’t there. Kennedy was there and that matters to me. My best friend is trans and has faced isolation from their family, their co workers to the point where they quit their job, and from some of our mutual friends. I’ll always love them and support them and I don’t think it’s an oat brain issue at all. When we’re together I escort them into bathrooms to make sure nothing happens and I’m on guard when we ride the T together, particularly when we’re out at night. It’s a real issue, even in Massachusetts.
SomervilleTom says
I’m glad you’re doing all those things, and I have great empathy for your friend.
It is because there are so few trans people and because they are treated so badly that I think society has an active obligation to protect them.
Having said that, I think the trans equality issue pales in comparison to even the immigration justice issue, never mind the long list of other urgent priorities that we face.
I support Ed Markey in the primary, just as I supported Mike Capuano in the primary. If Mr. Markey is turned out, I will choose JKIII over a GOP opponent if he has one.
If we turn out Ed Markey in favor of JKIII, I think we will have greatly hurt the governance of our state and nation. I am still waiting for Ms. Pressley to show me that we have lost ground in choosing her over Mr. Capuano.
That’s why I support Ed Markey in the primary.
jconway says
I probably am voting for Markey too. But you asked a question about why younger voters support Kennedy more and I think I answered it. He is more visible on those issues we care about, and that’s entirely relevant for our vote. To the extent climate is an issue we care about, I think Markey has done a lousy job talking about his substantial record and list of accomplishments on that issue and other issues relevant to younger voters. You may think it’s unfair he has to win over our constituency, it voter outreach is the name of the game for politicians who want to get re-elected.
jconway says
As Kennedy said in his speech which everyone praised here back when he wasn’t challenging their favored incumbent, it’s not an either or question. It’s both and. You help the immigrants and the laid off native born workers. You can defend trans people and defend the planet. It’s aspirational. If Markey runs his campaign in Senatese with excuses about what he couldn’t get done, he’s in for a rude awakening. If he comes to us with a bolder agenda than Kennedy he will win.
SomervilleTom says
I know this is hard to believe, but both of you (jconway and doubleman) will, God willing, be in your sixties a few decades from now.
Unless we do something about our ageism between now and then, you too will be turned out to pasture with no ability to get a job even though you will be as skilled as you ever were.
You, too, will see elected officials that you’ve known and worked with for decades turned out because of their age. Ayanna Pressley will be an “old warhorse” one day, just like Maxine Waters and just like Mike Capuano.
I’m pretty sure that if JKIII were doing and saying exactly what he’s doing and saying now, and was 73 years old, you’d both be ignoring him.
“Younger” is NOT synonymous with “better”, “fresher”, “more energetic”, “more creative” or any of the other accolades that are being thrown around these days. I get that Maxine Waters is not as telegenic as AOC or Ayanna Pressley. That doesn’t mean she should be fired.
Identity politics is a disease that will infect each of you too, whether or not you are able to recognize that today.
doubleman says
Nah, we’ll be dead by then. The world will be on fire and our life expectancies will be decades shorter because of the people in power over the last 40 years.
You are making a lot of assumptions about age being the reason, and ignoring the fact that these people spent time engaging with communities often overlooked by those in office. Relationships and organizing matter, so do speaking to issues that diverse sets of voters care about.
That’s why a 78-year-old presidential candidate is doing much better with younger voters than the candidates under 40 combined.
bob-gardner says
Downrated for self-pity.
jconway says
The only ageism I see on this blog is against younger candidates having the temerity to jump the line and disrupt the status quo.
SomervilleTom says
Understood that that’s all you see.
That’s why I’m writing about it.
SomervilleTom says
I wonder if you are as receptive to the experiences of seniors who are experiencing ageism as you are to those who experience other kinds of discrimination.
SomervilleTom says
@ Younger voters confusing him with Ted Kennedy:
I was being facetious.
jconway says
Hard to tell these days Tom.
SomervilleTom says
I guess I’ll put a tag on my next facetious comment.
bob-gardner says
Markey is pretty awful on Israel/Palestine, but Kennedy is worse, even taking Trump’s side over Obama. https://twitter.com/repjoekennedy/status/812414617343393793?lang=en
jconway says
Thanks Bob. That’s substantive criticism of Kennedy we should be hearing more about. Again, there are also two other people running for this office.
fredrichlariccia says
Chump’s approval drops to 38%. That’s down from 44% in July according to the Washington Post/ABC News poll taken from September 2 to 5.
Keep pouring it on, Dems! All his crazy is starting to take a toll on the Bed Bug in Chief!
fredrichlariccia says
“I’m glad President Obama killed Osama bin Laden before Trump had a chance to become friends with him.” from a friend, on the 18th anniversary of 9/11