I’ve seen enough: Sen. Ed Markey (D) has defeated Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D) in the #MASEN Democratic primary.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) September 2, 2020
Markey wins.
This is a signature moment, and you all know this one is close to my heart.
I did a phone-banking shift this morning, and I can tell you … I’ve never, ever gotten the kinds of enthusiastic, cheerful, even grateful responses from the folks on the list.
The first thing to do is congratulate the candidate, who — unbeknownst to our political press, for the most part — leveraged a career of constituency-building in under-appreciated areas, like climate change/environment and consumer protection; and otherwise cannily moved over the course of years to where the movements and enthusiasm were — a place he inhabited rather naturally, as if it were always where he wanted to be.
One cannot say enough about the guidance of campaign manager John Walsh, the Man Who Does Not Miss. Walsh comes at campaigns from a place of real dignity. Yes, he’ll throw a punch and fight hard; but he has to really believe in a candidate. On messaging, he doesn’t go with lame and petty arguments to score points in the news cycle. He goes with his his candidate’s best qualities; his best argument, his best line; and hammers away. And far more importantly, he simply believes in organization, sweat equity, and shoe leather — or, in this pandemic age, hoarse voices from phone-banking — which is a kind of Massachusetts-Democrat religion in the Mike Dukakis/Kate Donaghue mold.
Digital director Paul Bologna deserves an immense amount of credit as well, for encouraging and creating a free-wheeling, relentlessly positive and sometimes hilarious re-mythologizing of Markey — one based on a long history, after all. He corralled the energy of an astonishingly young, astonishingly self-possessed and emotionally intelligent group of campaign fellows. Fueled by enthusiasm for the planet-preserving, economy-reviving Green New Deal, they turned tweets and lofi-remixes into phone bank shifts and millions of calls, unleashing a tsunami of Gen-Z electoral power.
Out-of-state campaigns take note; consider if this formula is replicable for progressive candidates in your state. Again, you need a deeply credible candidate. You need a very steady hand at campaign manager, one who doesn’t ride the “pollercoaster”; doesn’t blow all your dough on consultants and lame, safe ads; and one who believes in the iron power of deep relational campaigning.
And your fans, your stans, your youthful leaders — the ones who have the most at stake in the future, after all — they need to be shown a good example and given a long leash of responsibility. They’ll get it done; they just did.
You earned this one assuming the prediction holds. At the end of the race I was happy if either of them won, at the start I was really eager to retire Markey and now he has shown himself to have another term in him and maybe more. He was the more energetic and future oriented candidate. I hope Kennedy will make a comeback. While pundits are writing his obit, I’d be remiss to remind people the last Kennedy to lose a primary ended up becoming a better Senator for it.
I predict all the incumbents in Congress will be retained, the 4th CD goes to a recount, and Fontes beats the other Kennedy on the ballot for Governors Council. My friend Joe Gravellese just conceded, my friend Andrew Flowers still has a shot.
Hope my other challengers win!
Man, I’m sorry about Joe [Gravellese]. He made an *excellent* impression on me, and I’m sure he’ll do something amazing.
JC regularly reminds is that primaries are always good. Certainly in this case Markey has emerged politically stronger and with a deeper connection to the Commonwealth beyond his old congressional district.
It is also a win for the kind of campaign Markey and his people waged—gutsy, disciplined, joyful. May others take heed. And, a profound hat tip (is that a thing?) to John Walsh.
I hope Joe finds a way to serve that suits him. He certainly has many opportunities.
Walsh is the GOAT. Also it shows campaigns still matter. I really thought name recognition and demographics would determine this one, but Markey carved out a new coalition overnight. Something a gubernatorial candidate should look to replicate.
Kennedy won’t beat Healy or Pressley (or even Moulton) in the primary for Warren’s seat. Pressley v Baker would be a fun race.
I would definitely give Kennedy the edge vs. Moulton, though I confess I’m surprised by how well the latter did tonight.
He benefited from dropping out early enough in his run not to be damaged from the presidential race and he kept a low profile and stayed in the district for most of this time. Also the pandemic, Senate race, and presidential race all competed for eyeballs. Neither of his challengers were particularly well known to voters. The whole voting against Pelosi thing is the kind of inside baseball stuff voters don’t care about. I hope he stays put and grows into the role before seeking another office. He is a good voice on foreign policy.
I had actually sensed a fair amount of anger over his Pelosi challenge and eye-rolling about his presidential race. There was a sense of ambition for its own sake. My prediction would have been he would have pulled it out, but only because the vote against him was split. The 78% he got was shocking to me.
That’s was largely plugged in folks like us complaining about it. My parents didn’t like it at the time, but forgot about it and voted for him last week. I do think it would’ve been closer if he had better known challengers.
I was going by what I was seeing at his town halls. He had at least a couple of intense confrontations with constituents about his Pelosi challenge.
He deserved them and I suspect those were among the 25% or so that voted for one of his opponents. Moulton screwed up on that and running for President, Neal royally screwed up on getting the presidents taxes, but at the end of the day, ordinary constituents like their member of Congress unless there’s a scandal.
Progressives either have to reconcile themselves to the fact that Lynch, Neal, Moulton, and perhaps Auchincloss fit their districts or else recruit progressive candidates that will do a better job reaching out to non-progressive voters. It is not only possible but preferable to find candidates that can do this.
For Lynch I would look to an Asian American city councilor from Quincy or a Latina from Brockton to take him on. The white and/or not from the district progressives we keep throwing at him aren’t doing the trick. Finding a black candidate who can win Springfield or a blue collar kid from Pittsfield to take on Neal should work. Lesser is another option who might be more broadly appealing than Morse. For Moulton the best answer has always been Kim Driscoll. It’s hers for the taking it she were to run. I would also love to see Lori Ehrich run, although I think she’d have a higher climb. Tom McGee is another popular figure in the district.
You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and other than Morse, it was nobodies who ran.
This is a big win and a big night for team Markey.
I just turned off MSNBC — again — because Lawrence O’Donnell is rehashing excerpts from the latest tell-all book and ignoring (so far as I can tell) a real-live election with actual impact.
I’m happy that Ed Markey won tonight. After being accurately and correctly accused of being too caught up in inside baseball (which I definitely am), I wonder how representative democracy is supposed to work in a culture where the information sources we rely on can’t be bothered to even talk about a Kennedy challenging a sitting Democratic senator in Massachusetts — and losing.
Ed Markey is awesome. MSNBC sucks.
Steve Kornacki couldn’t even be bothered to activate his yellow monochromatic map.
Very pleased that Markey will stay in DC, and also that Kennedy’s fellow rich Democrats (Pelosi, Beto) couldn’t drag him over the finish line. It’s amazing how things have moved to the left in the past 6 years or so, American’s are waking up, very encouraging. If we survive Trump, I expect the Democratic Wing of our party will soon own the place.
My hottest take is that MA is actually a pretty moderate state. We elected Baker twice, voted for Biden and Clinton in the primaries, vote down statewide tax increases, and outside of Boston and the Berkshires dislike radical candidates. So to paraphrase Biden, it’s a pretty big deal the Green New Deal author beat a Kennedy. I think this should show the Biden campaign that bold climate action wins those suburban moderates as much as the young activists. Both groups came together tonight to renominate Markey.
Auchincloss potentially (probably) winning the 4th with 23-24% while 4 women candidates combine for >60% of the vote is awful.
JKIII should just run for that seat again in two years.
As of this 8:30 am Wednesday morning, with 80% counted, Ms. Mermell still leads by a microscopic margin.
Your point is well taken.
Yes, but looking at the towns not reporting, they are not in areas where Mermell has performed well. She might run 3rd or 4th in those towns.
She needs to do really well in like Dover and maybe Milford. But Franklin, Norton, and the remainder of Fall River will likely call this.
Vote yes on 2!
A win is a win, but here’s a fly for the ointment. Markey lost Brockton, Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester and Springfield, all poorer, more working-class, less economically privileged than the wealthy suburbs and gentrified areas that voted for him.
I’ll take the win, but the progressive movement should be strongest in those cities, instead of leaving them behind.
I absolutely agree with your take. Dave Wasserman from the Cook Political Report speculated that the old Kennedy coalition of working class Catholics and people of color is harder to pull off these days since the Republicans have peeled off so many of the former. It’s also a warning sign for down the road campaigns to elect a Democratic Governor or keep the Warren seat if these voters feel connected. I do believe Kennedy sincerely felt connected to these communities and it was one of the few punches against Markey that landed for me.
Yes – this is a continuing, stubborn problem with the soi-disant “progressive” movement: That it’s more at home in the Professional-Managerial Class suburbs than in blue-collar or urban environments — alienated from both white-working-class and people of color. We (progressives) haven’t done good work yet on understanding that, much less figuring out new patterns of behavior and coalition-building.
IOW there was a “Kennedy coalition”, and it deserves care and attention.
It is indeed fascinating. I’m reminded of the surprising — to its early promoters — history of Marxism. As originally promulgated, it was expected to originate in industrialized societies as exploited factory workers revolted against capitalized factory owners. It was first actually tried in pre-industrial Russia, with peasants revolting against a Tsarist ruling class.
The 19th century industrial centers of Europe never did embrace Marxism. It was Russia and China who at least attempted the feat (although neither did much more than lip-service to the actual words of Karl Marx).
I suspect that the hard work and long timeframe of reconciling actual working-class experience with progressive dogma is inconsistent with the attention span of either the progressive movement itself or the media who cover it. The hard-hats who were eager to bust the heads of “hippies” in the 1960s strike me as not very different from the MAGA-hat wearing Trumpists of Kenosha and Portland. Perhaps it’s time to admit that, at least in the timeframe of actual here-and-now politics, large parts of the “working class” no longer embrace the values and priorities of progressive Democrats.
The bastions of Trumpism in Massachusetts are neither Dover, Wellesley, and Carlisle nor Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River, and Springfield. We progressives have left behind places like Peabody, Saugus, and Salisbury.
I invite you to compare a detailed map of Massachusetts presidential election results in 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html#7.95/42.25/-72.35) with a map of the Senate primary results (https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/09/01/markey-kennedy-senate-primary-results).
I think a genuine progressive won yesterday’s Senate primary. I’m not sure that more than one actually competed.
Those maps show me Kennedy was able to effectively combine Trump 16’ communities with communities of color. This is exactly the kind of coalition building we need to do more of if we want to win sustainable majorities. The progressive managerial class is a real thing, and it’s economic priorities are very different from those voters.
Also interesting to think of workers who work in climate destroying industries being pitted against communities of color on the receiving end of that destruction while most wealthy liberal suburbs don’t have to worry about either problem. Job displacement or pollution. So again, I think there are long term opportunity costs to running campaigns always centered around base mobilization and the priorities of college educated voters. I know we disagree about that, but it can win you a senate seat in Massachusetts it cannot win you a Senate majority.
In other words, JKIII was able to attract voters who:
I think JKIII was reaching out to exactly those voters who represent the worst aspects of our current culture. That campaign failed, and I’m glad it did.
I’m weary of “college educated” joining “liberal” as an attack phrase. I’m also weary of white men with college degrees bemoaning “the priorities of college educated voters”.
A priority of this “college educated voter” is that America owes a college education to every American who is able to benefit from it.
I disagree with your racist and classist assumptions that working class voters of color and white voters without college education are any of those things.
Don’t like assertive women
Don’t like immigrants
Don’t want to think too hard
Don’t like hearing things they disagree with
Value “action” — no matter how misguided — over nuance (see the third bullet)
Also JFK won over immigrant communities and outperformed
Markey in communities of color.
You can support Markey as Charley and I do and acknowledge the blind spot. Inflammatory Rhetoric like yours is entirely counter productive.
Not saying you are racist or classist, but you’re assumption “all voters who disagree with me think x” assume they hold viewpoints that in my experience campaigning in places like Revere and Chelsea they don’t. Markey did not make those assumptions and won over Revere by winning white working class voters in West Revere and immigrants on Shirley Ave and in Beachmont. Is there a racist element in West Revere? Absolutely. They voted in the Republican primary.
It isn’t “all voters who disagree with me”.
Donald Trump has successfully turned a segment of deplorable Americans into his “base”. That’s who I’m talking about.
I reject the suggestion that any Democrat needs to or should court those same deplorable voters.
A few weeks ago you acknowledged that significant numbers of voters supported Barack Obama in 2012, Donald Trump in 2016, and Joe Biden today.
You have to do mental hand-springs to avoid the conclusion that these were sexist voters who opposed Ms. Clinton because of her gender.
The other bullets are similar.
My contempt is not directed at voters who disagree with me. It is instead directed at voters who, in 2020, STILL support Donald Trump — and other politicians who pander to them.
Again we are talking about Democratic primary voters in communities of color opting for Kennedy over Markey, as well as Democratic primary voters in blue collar white majority communities that went for Trump in 2015 opting for Kennedy over Markey in the Democratic primary. We are not necessarily talking about Trump voters. I think Kennedy, whom I ultimately did not vote for, had a valuable skillset bringing together those disparate groups and it is unlikely appealing to the college educated alone can win an election. It did not work for Romney in 2012 (remember you didn’t build that and condemning the 47% in assistance?) and it would not work for us today.
The JKIII voters seem to be in pretty much the same category as those Biden voters down in South Carolina. I didn’t like the blind worship of those voters, and the stigma attached to those who still didn’t like Biden. I like even less Tom’s contempt for those communities who voted for JKIII.
Neither stance is justified, and to put forth both opinions in the same campaign cycle doesn’t seem very logical.
Yes, the alienation of the blue collar, the working class regardless of color is a stubborn problem
I’ve been thinking about this for a very long time and now that I’ve been working alongside so many blue collar Trump supporters for the past five years, I’m getting some insight.
These people are angry, frustrated, and looking back at the days when their parents had it better than they do now. How did this happen and who is to blame?
Ask Democrats in power and they will tell you it’s all about the Global Economy and college education.
Ask the Republicans and they will tell you it’s your tax dollars going to welfare cheats, Mexicans taking your jobs, and pointed headed wealthy liberals who won’t allow us to build a new factory because it will pose a threat to the breeding grounds of an endangered species of slug.
Both answers are deflections from the truth, but to the ordinary working class voter, the Republican answer is easier to accept.
Unless more Democrats are willing to tell the truth, the party will continue see the deflection of voters to the Republican Party.
Were these people for or against Ronald Reagan? Did these people support or block the attempts of Democrats to increase economic opportunities for everybody for the past thirty years?
What did these blue-collar Trump supporters do to improve their lot or that of the people around them?
A comforting lie is ALWAYS easier to accept than the honest truth, at least if the person speaking has even a passing ability to lie.
“Democrats” in your neck of the woods have been telling voters that property taxes are too high, that income taxes are too high, that Massachusetts can slash government, slash education, slash just about all government spending, and everything will be fine.
They lied.
Anybody who thinks that an 18 year old can live a comfortable life in 21st century America without a college degree is deluding themselves. Most college graduates struggle mightily — those without college degrees have an even harder time.
Repeating Republican lies is not “the truth”.
Working class voters liked the message of a Sanders. It’s about how you frame the issue, not the issues themselves. Most of these voters weren’t alive or old enough to vote in 1980, it’s a very different electorate now.
My brother only has an technical associates and outearns me by about a hundred thousand a year. I have a few friends who own a small business in Cambridge doing the same. A few others on the force or in firehouses that are crushing those details. I have students who will be joining the T, joining the trades, or joining the military who will all ultimately have living wages and good benefits. Some of whom may take on college later on in life. I know my brother would like to finish and he’s had to delay that ambition many times. A friend I worked with as a paralegal did go to school but for just $800 crushed his realtors license and is now making hundreds of thousands a year.
My own parents did not finish more than a few courses at community college and were able to own a home, raise me and my siblings, and we had vacations. Their cars were always used, some of my clothes were second hand, and while friends went to France we went to Falmouth, when they went to New York we went to York Beach. But I don’t see how they don’t deserve the same level of success the college educated are presumed to have.
Andrew Yang and David Autor have identified thousands of college degree requiring professions that will be eliminated over the next few decades. The trades and entry level health care roles will have staffing gaps. I’m all for attaining more education and skills, I just disagree a four year liberal arts degree is the best or most affordable ROI for every young adult.
We should make community college and state schools free and really get kids thinking about which profession in the limited pool of future jobs they want to take on, and then let them pick their degree program accordingly. The days of following your passion and majoring in Japanese Art are over. We need to really streamline higher education to meet the needs of future employment.
Judging just from my own life, I wish I had a guidance counselor who had a real talk with me about my ambitions and steered me toward teaching. Our own Joel Patterson and many other Rindge teachers did so, but the guidance counselors pushed me toward the elite colleges. I don’t regret UChicago, I met my wife and our tight knit group of quirky friends who have been a lifeline in this pandemic.
Had I known then that I could be making almost 20-30k more now if I had started five years earlier in this profession, I would have made smarter decisions. I want to empower our students to make the best decisions for them. Just sending everyone off to a four year college is not the solution. Especially since many of them will be shutting down over the next few years as Covid and online learning disrupt the industry. And make no mistake, it is an industry preying on the middle class aspirations of the poor and catering to the credentialing needs of the wealthy. All at massive public subsidy.
So I reject the extremes of college for everybody and college is a waste of time. Bang for a buck community colleges and technical schools offer students of all levels our best ROI followed by state schools and large public research universities. They should admit everyone and give online only options to lower the cost and increase the pool of graduates. I highly recommend Professor Galloways take on higher ed reform, and his list of colleges that will go under including a few local ones.
I mostly agree with you. Two of my children got BFAs. They knew when they made that choice that they were doing so for their passion for art rather than their desire to earn money. I admire your passion for education. I admire your willingness to sacrifice your earning potential in order to live out that passion.
I certainly include community colleges, technical schools (so long as they are legitimate) and similar alternatives to classical 4-year liberal arts programs my over-broad generalization.
I reject the assertion of another BMG participant that the relentless focus of the Democratic Party on making college affordable for all who want it is harmful.
I think that a literate and well-educated electorate is an absolute necessity for a representative democracy facing the choices of the 21st century. I think that’s why Donald Trump and his ilk oppose it.
I think what he is saying is that the party forgot how to speak with voters without that level of education and should advocate that all wage earners receive a living wage regardless of their education level. I think both are different asks than saying college accessibility is not a worthy goal.
Certainly the fight for $15 is a worthy goal and not mutually exclusive to increasing affordability and access to education. Many of those immigrant workers are too old or have too many family commitments to go back. When we have CEO’s profiting off the crisis it’s only fair to ask them to pay their essential employees a living wage.
I’m both/and. Make post-secondary education more affordable and accessible. I prefer that term to “college” since it includes all those alternatives we agree should also be encouraged and funded. And advocate for every present worker to have a wage and benefits that provide them with dignity. I’m confident our nominee and leaders will continue to push this.
Put another way, when my super is laying off the janitors and bus drivers, do I say to them “you should’ve gone to college” or do I say “brother and sister, we have your back!”. I choose the latter. The former sounds more Republican like to my union member ears.
Of course I’m not suggesting that anybody tell a laid-off janitor “you should’ve gone to college”.
When that same janitor tells me about his daughter’s fight to get into a good school where she can pursue her lifelong dream to be a geneticist, I say “here’s somebody who might be able to help you” and pass along the name and number of a staffer in Senator Warren’s office.
There is NEVER going to be any help coming from any GOP elected official that I know of.
It doesn’t matter whether it was Representative Ed Markey thirty years ago, Barney Frank in Brookline fifteen years ago, Mike Capuano in Somerville, Ted Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren, Senator Ed Markey today — I know that that janitor will find a sympathetic ear in the office of a Democrat.
I want it to stay that way.
I don’t think John ever argued the GOP authentically helped anyone. I think he’s talking about Democrats having a messaging problem with low college or no college voters, and I think that can be simultaneously true with the reality that our policies are better. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that our policies aren’t good or preferable to the GOP’s, it’s the campaign messaging.
Charley, Bob, and John are right to point out Kennedy won places where Democrats struggle to connect. I think it’s important to ask the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions that help future candidates appeal to both groups. No one is begrudging our appeal to the college educated. The demographic inversion between the two party coalitions helps us in the long run and already paid dividends in 2018. I just want to be sure we win a majority, and unfortunately there is not a progressive majority right now in this state or across the country. So progressives need to appeal to non-progressibe voters to win outside of places already inclined to back them.
A couple thoughts:
Pelosi tried to play some 3-D chess on the Green new deal and covered it up with Kennedy nostalgia. Which is kind of a microcosm of Kennedy’s campaign. She’s the smartest person in Washington. This was a signal to the Senate not to move faster than the House if Biden wins.
I’ve grown to really respect and admire her, I was in a similar position myself where I had to rally the troops against our administration to force them back to the negotiating table and then whip the same troops into voting for our compromise with administration. That’s how politics is supposed to be played, and she plays the game very well.
I also don’t think voters really cares about that scandal. Morse lost his hometown which will surely re-elect him. Maybe these hard hit post industrial cities and farm towns like having the Ways and Means Chair as their congressmen. It also shows you that while college kids combined with other blocks of voters can defend a senate seat statewide, by themselves, they can’t flip a moderate district.
If the point of the politics is to maintain her power, then sure, she’s great.
If the point is to deliver good policies for the American public that will improve peoples lives, then she’s awful.
Please explain how she has done a great job responding to Covid.
The buck stops with the President and Mitch McConnell. They are the ones holding back the $2T in aid her house has already voted on to help states, cities, and towns with the virus. Also the $600/week unemployment extension, the bigger stimulus check, the 2017 debt ceiling negotiations, the rescue package in 2020 and 2009, the ACA in 2010 which she gave up her majority for, and stopping Bush on social security privatization. Oh and a successful impeachment of Trump with only two defections.
Where’s she’s been weakest is rolling back war powers, the Green New Deal, and forcing immigration reform to the forefront. I’ll agree those criticisms are valid. She isn’t perfect, but she leads a caucus who’s median member is a lot more conservative than she is. That is changing as safe blue centrists and conservatives lose challenges. We have yet to see a progressive challenger beat a moderate incumbent in a purple seat and go on to win. We have yet to see a progressive win a primary and proceed to defeat a conservative republican in a red district. Until those two things happen, she’s right to be worried about backlash to her majority makers.
Have you paid any attention? The story every day is how she and her House want more aid to people impacted by the coronavirus while Republicans just say no.
Can jconway explain about the 10-D chess thing from Pelosi? I do not get it.
I also have a great deal of respect, but do not understand. She broke her own rules when she jumped into this race.
Q: Whatever her objective, did she achieve it, or weaken it?
Her rules are for her house, not Senate races. There’s no inconsistency there. I disagree with her decision and her rule to begin with, but it makes sense from her perspective if your goal is majority preservation. You want to reward people who worked for their majority like JK3 and not have the Senate move too far to the left.
Again I feel like I’m one of the last reality based folks here. I’m trying to understand things form her perspective, I am not defending her policy decisions or endorsements.
I am to the left of the speaker and both Senate candidates, but she acted rationally in her own self interest and what she perceives to be the self interest of her caucus.
My own view is that it was a mistake for her to get involved. Markey has serious political capital now and he has to use it to advance the Green New Deal or risk betraying the people that saved his senate seat. I think Biden’s climate plan is far more ambitious than hers and closer to Markey’s.
So some big ticket climate legislation will have pass and my guess is she feels it could be as devastating to her swing seat as the ACA was in 2010.. Right now it looks very popular and if we frame it as a jobs package and post-pandemic infrastructure package, it should be remain popular. Biden and Markey will need to sell it to the voters AOC can’t reach.
Not accusing you of anything, JC. Just asking a question.
But if I understand you, you are accusing Pelosi of something far worse that putting party over country.
Not sure if I follow that logic? Also you’re question was friendly and sincere. I just think it’s becoming harder and harder to rationally and honestly discuss politics on this site and elsewhere without emotionally investing ourselves in particular candidates. There are no angels in government, only people doing their best to split the difference between idealism and reality.
If Pelosi is against the Green New Deal because it will cost her her majority, she is putting party before planet. (And I hope she loses that one.)
I think we win her over by convincing her it’s popular outside of blue state Senate primaries and actually an asset to candidates in suburban swing districts. Data for Progress has done great work on the GND and how popular it is. Even in places you wouldn’t expect. I also think we are entering a red country/blue city/purple to blue suburb dichotomy. So Schumer was right he was just off a few cycles. Sean Kasten won Henry Hyde’s old district in the Chicago suburbs as a climate hawk. Also as Biden keeps pointing out Climate action=jobs.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/gnd-support
Is she against GND? I would not conclude that on endorsement of Kennedy alone. I think you are overthinking this. Politics is relational, and Pelosi simply endorsed her colleague; nothing else to see here.
JKIII is at the beginning of his political career. Ed Markey is at the end of his. I think Ms. Pelosi knew that Mr. Markey was going to win this race whatever she did.
I think she tossed JKIII a bone. I think she gave Ed Markey a heads-up that it was going to happen, and I suspect he said “no problem, I understand.”
I think Ed Markey is fine with this, and I encourage the rest of us to follow his example.
Agreed. I think JK3 will make a comeback too. Yes it’s true no Kennedy has lost an election in Massachusetts before, but no Kennedy has successfully primaried a Democratic incumbent before either. It held true for Ted, and held true for his great nephew.
Maybe on reflection he will ditch the centrist consultants he hired this time and hire John Walsh 😂
I for one won’t complain one iota if the investigation just disappeared. The mountain/molehill ratio was pretty extreme on that one IMO.
Yeah, why inconvenience the hacks at the state committee who orchestrated this very successful smear when you can get the kids at UMass to take the fall? Way to fight cynicism, Christopher.
There was no state party smear, but thanks for playing. The cynicism is from those demanding an investigation over nothing.
Certainly there was a state party smear
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/14/alex-morse-richie-neal-state-party/
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/17/alex-morse-massachusetts-college-democrats-destroy-records/
And if you think demanding an investigation is cynical, Christopher, you should tell Fred. He’s the one who posted the demand for an investigation.