MA-SEN Megathread: Senator Markey wins

[Heebie Jeebie]

He's officially in.

I hope he wins.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Any chance this news might nudge Lisa Madigan toward challenging Dick Durbin?

[Heebie Jeebie]

#AnyoneButKennedy

The fact someone calls themselves a “Democrat” and thinks this way, blows my mind

What does Kennedy offer besides his name?

Youth?  A Senator who's not a slave to outdated, regressive proceduralism?  
https://thehill.com/campaign-issues/460171-joe-kennedy-iii-calls-for-changing-or-eliminating-filibuster-electoral-college

Here's Markey back in February:

During Thursday’s press conference unveiling the Green New Deal, Sen. Ed Markey was asked by the New Yorker’s Osita Nwanevu if, should the situation arise, the Democrats should eliminate the filibuster in order to get the bill through the Senate. Markey’s response was that he expects the bill to pass with 60 votes and Republican support.

Markey later backtracked a bit and said that other legislative options, including budget reconciliation, were on the table. But his initial hesitancy to suggest getting rid of the most archaic and anti-democratic tool in the most archaic and anti-democratic legislative body in America says a lot about how institutionally conservative the Senate makes those who serve in it.

https://splinternews.com/kill-the-filibuster-before-it-kills-us-1832468668

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1174457786262048768

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder to what extent Markey’s decision not to run for Senate in 2010 changed the course of American history. He had millions in the bank, wouldn’t have committed Coakley’s epic gaffes, Senate Ds might have had 60 votes for much, much longer...  And of course, Markey's signature bill, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, was left for dead after Scott Brown's victory, never to be heard from again.  Markey has bad political instincts and we'd all be better off if he'd retire.

[Heebie Jeebie]

If I were Kennedy, I wouldn’t do this. I think it’s a mistake. If he fails he’s basically finished — he’d never be able to live down the humiliation of being the Kennedy who lost a Senate race in Massachusetts, and in a Democratic primary at that. It’s not worth it. It only would be if Markey was unpopular or scandal-ridden, which he’s not — that means he has the best chance anyone in the state ever could to beat a Kennedy, even if he is the favorite for now.

What I would do instead is wait to see if Warren wins the White House — if she does, there will be a special election to fill her seat. He could run then. If she doesn’t, Charlie Baker will be term-limited in 2022 — run for the Governor’s Mansion, which is likely to flip to the Dems that year anyway, especially with a Kennedy running. Then, in 2026, Markey will be 80 years old and probably much more willing to retire. THEN you can run for his open seat if you still want to, or just run for governor again if not.

Plus if he did all that, in 2032, Kennedy would have 10 years of House experience, 4 years of gubernatorial experience, and 6 years of Senate experience. Impressive resume for a presidential candidate — if an eligible Democratic incumbent is not President that year (likely if a Democrat wins in 2020 or 2024 and is a two-termer), he would likely be a strong candidate to run and still only be 50.

I thought Massachusetts had no gubernatorial term limits.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kennedy is right to do this.  Markey is too old, too wed to the Congressional traditions that prevent progress, and is little more than an ineffective showboat.  He's been in Congress since 1976 and what's he got to show for it?  Kennedy, on the other hand, is young, ambitious, and a powerful orator to boot.  Massachusetts deserves a dynamic Senator like Kennedy.  And even if he loses this race, he'll still have plenty of opportunities down the road.

[Heebie Jeebie]

...and is an absurd argument considering Kennedy is no less “progressive” in any meaningful way than Markey.

Kennedy is a shill for fossil fuel companies while Markey is a GND advocate - I think that’s a pretty clear difference in how progressive each of them are.

Give me a break. The so-called Green New Deal is nothing more than a counterproductive excuse for smug posturing. Markey defends the filibuster, which means he's not at all serious about actually passing legislation to deal with climate change. Kennedy, on the other hand, has vociferously rejected that excuse for inaction-he wants to actually get things done.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The so-called Green New Deal is nothing more than a counterproductive excuse for smug posturing.

Found the Republican!

I'm not a Republican. Unlike Markey, I just take the threat of climate change seriously. His "Green New Deal" has a timeline of ten years for everything, which is not even in the ballpark of realistic.  There's no set of goals for specific kinds of power generation like wind and solar.  There's no mention of funding for science efforts to develop new methods of clean power.  There's nothing about carbon taxes or cap-and-trade.  It's a meaningless document that everyone can cosponsor in order to feel good about themselves, but without really making any real commitment to doing anything.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Everybody in Massachusetts (or, at least, my corner of Massachusetts) knows that Kennedy is only running because he thinks being named Kennedy entitles him to it. The problem is that a significant sector of the Massachusetts electorate agrees with him that being named Kennedy entitles him to it.

Come on, you have to admit that the Kennedy name would be a genuine asset for Massachusetts in the Senate. Being a Kennedy means that he'll command the national spotlight in a way Markey never could. Is it fair?  Not really.  But if I were a Massachusetts voter I'd want to be represented by a Senator with maximum influence. I'd want to be represented by a Kennedy.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Everybody in Massachusetts (or, at least, my corner of Massachusetts) knows that Kennedy is only running because he thinks being named Kennedy entitles him to it. The problem is that a significant sector of the Massachusetts electorate agrees with him that being named Kennedy entitles him to it.

Come on, you have to admit that the Kennedy name would be a genuine asset for Massachusetts in the Senate. Being a Kennedy means that he'll command the national spotlight in a way Markey never could. Is it fair?  Not really.  But if I were a Massachusetts voter I'd want to be represented by a Senator with maximum influence. I'd want to be represented by a Kennedy.

Bingo

The Senate doesn't operate according to the national spotlight, though. It operates on seniority. That's the reason why, prior to his resignation, Thad Cochran was one of the most influential Senators in the Senate, yet nobody outside Mississippi knew who he was unless they were a political junkie: seniority, seniority, seniority. If Markey gets re-elected, he stars off his next term with 8 years of seniority under his belt; if Kennedy wins, he starts off with nothing (or, near nothing, depending on how many non-Representatives become freshmen Senator next year). So if I'm a Massachusetts voter & I want my Senator to carry maximum influence in the Senate, where their influence matters most, then I go for the guy who's already accumulated nearly a decade of seniority over the guy without it.

Let's be serious. Markey, despite his "decade of seniority," isn't the ranking member on a single Senate committee. He came to the Senate too late, and whether he's out next year or in 2026 he won't have the time to accrue real influence. Kennedy, however, in becoming a Senator at such a young age, will in time be one of the most powerful men in Washington. If you're focused solely on the very short term, I guess you could make a case for Markey (though, honestly, Kennedy is likely to have more sway even in the short term).  But if you're at all conscious of the future, Kennedy is obviously the man you want to back. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

We all know the sole reason for this run is a launchpad for President.

Sure, every politician dreams of being president one day. But, assuming a Democrat wins next year and doesn't choose a running mate in his seventies, there won't be a real opening for Kennedy for another 16 years at least. I seriously doubt a potential presidential bid is factoring into his decision at this point.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Everybody in Massachusetts (or, at least, my corner of Massachusetts) knows that Kennedy is only running because he thinks being named Kennedy entitles him to it. The problem is that a significant sector of the Massachusetts electorate agrees with him that being named Kennedy entitles him to it.

Come on, you have to admit that the Kennedy name would be a genuine asset for Massachusetts in the Senate. Being a Kennedy means that he'll command the national spotlight in a way Markey never could. Is it fair?  Not really.  But if I were a Massachusetts voter I'd want to be represented by a Senator with maximum influence. I'd want to be represented by a Kennedy.

Bingo

The Senate doesn't operate according to the national spotlight, though. It operates on seniority. That's the reason why, prior to his resignation, Thad Cochran was one of the most influential Senators in the Senate, yet nobody outside Mississippi knew who he was unless they were a political junkie: seniority, seniority, seniority. If Markey gets re-elected, he stars off his next term with 8 years of seniority under his belt; if Kennedy wins, he starts off with nothing (or, near nothing, depending on how many non-Representatives become freshmen Senator next year). So if I'm a Massachusetts voter & I want my Senator to carry maximum influence in the Senate, where their influence matters most, then I go for the guy who's already accumulated nearly a decade of seniority over the guy without it.

Let's be serious. Markey, despite his "decade of seniority," isn't the ranking member on a single Senate committee. He came to the Senate too late, and whether he's out next year or in 2026 he won't have the time to accrue real influence. Kennedy, however, in becoming a Senator at such a young age, will in time be one of the most powerful men in Washington. If you're focused solely on the very short term, I guess you could make a case for Markey (though, honestly, Kennedy is likely to have more sway even in the short term).  But if you're at all conscious of the future, Kennedy is obviously the man you want to back. 

I was being perfectly serious, & you're not correct. Markey is the ranking member on both East Asian & Pacific Affairs as well as Environment & Public Works Oversight, & it's that latter committee that's particularly key in regards to his influence, considering Markey has been Capitol Hill's premier environmental activist since 1982.

As for Kennedy accruing real influence, I can't square him being able to do that with his obvious ambitions. We now see that his House seat was nothing more than a springboard to him, & his haste here now suggests that he feels like he needs a Senate seat sooner rather than later, so who's to say the intent here isn't to just attempt to use the Senate seat as another springboard, too, meaning he won't even wanna be in the Senate long enough to gain any real influence in the first place.

And again, no, Kennedy is not "likely to have more sway even in the short term" because, again, that's not how the Senate operates.

Well, if we're going to focus on how the Senate operates, I think we should be clear that being the ranking member on a couple of subcommittees (which Markey is) doesn't carry nearly the same influence as being the ranking member on a committee (which he isn't).  Oversight subcommittee < Environment & Public Works committee.

Anyway, I think it's silly to have such a strictly proceduralist understanding of how the Senate works. Obviously seniority matters, but so does the ability to work the media and shape the narrative.

[Heebie Jeebie]

This really is quite a classic senate primary; effective & quiet progressive legislator up against a big name congressman who doesn't actually have anything of substance to say.

I'm sorry, how has Markey been an effective legislator again?

[Heebie Jeebie]

This really is quite a classic senate primary; effective & quiet progressive legislator up against a big name congressman who doesn't actually have anything of substance to say.

I'm sorry, how has Markey been an effective legislator again?

Is there any point in me responding? You’ve already posted saying you don’t rate Markey and you don’t rate the Green New Deal so I’m not going to change your mind am I?

Maybe!  I haven't pored through his record, so there could be some important legislation he's helped pass that I'm unaware of.  I just think it's telling that nothing big springs to mind.

You're right, though, that I'm not impressed by his "Green New Deal"--I'll always see that as a prime example of counter-productive posturing for the rubes of the far left.