Kennedy Special Election Omnibus Thread

[Dan the Roman]

Am I the only one here who expects Joseph Patrick Kennedy II to win the seat?

Well no, he might as well. But you would both be drunk.

[Dan the Roman]

Joe Kennedy is not some 800lb gorilla despite what the Kennedy-loving press wants to believe. There is no way he would clear the field when he failed to clear a much weaker field in 1998 for Governor, and is a much weaker and more controversial candidate now. The candidates who are considering dropping out are candidates without independent bases of support who need to win with 20%. Coakley is not going to be scared by Kennedy, nor is Lynch likely to be.

[Dan the Roman]

Joe Kennedy is not some 800lb gorilla despite what the Kennedy-loving press wants to believe. There is no way he would clear the field when he failed to clear a much weaker field in 1998 for Governor, and is a much weaker and more controversial candidate now. The candidates who are considering dropping out are candidates without independent bases of support who need to win with 20%. Coakley is not going to be scared by Kennedy, nor is Lynch likely to be.

Presumably, though, his stock has rebounded considerably since 1998 (grief nets a lot of sympathy votes), and a quick election process works in his favor.  A lot of people will over look his faults simply because he's a Kennedy.

Perhaps. More likely he is betting that the sympathy will make his opponents unlikely to go negative against a Kennedy, the attack ads being in bad taste. That said, I think Suffolk polled him v. Coakley earlier this year and she led 41-40.

The more interesting thing in that story however is not Kennedy but who is pushing him. Notice it is Dan Payne. Dan Payne was the man who began spreading rumors of Patrick running in 2005, and there is no way he would be doing this without the Governor's support. What this means is that Deval Patrick has found his anti-Coakley stalking horse, and there is a good chance that Joe is in line for the appointment, especially if it can be maneuvered so that he can run. Ironically therefore, the greatest impact is likely to be that the appointment bull is going to run into trouble. Therese Murray is not going to look kindly on a potential Kennedy appointment, and this is likely to hurt if not kill the bill if he can't be blocked from running.

[Dan the Roman]

On the topic of Joe Kennedy(who seems to actually be running)

Give it another go, Joe!

SAY it’s a go, Joe.

We need you in this race.

Today I speak not as a citizen or a voter, but as the self-appointed president of Pundits Relishing A Newsworthy Knucklehead. We here at PRANK are fairly salivating in anticipation of another season of Joseph P. Kennedy II follies.

It’s more than we had any right to expect. After all, Kennedy’s previous public career has already provided us with the political equivalent of a Three Stooges film fest, with Joe starring as Moe, Larry, and Curly.

Now, I know what you JPK II detractors are saying: If Joe Kennedy is the answer, it’s a pretty strange question the state has before it. And I’m aware you think Joe himself has conclusively demonstrated that his, ah, skills are better suited to the private sector, where a fellow can pay himself almost a half million a year from his for-profit corporation, even while his nonprofit runs self-reverential TV ads highlighting his philanthropic work, all without raising a skeptical eyebrow.

Word from knowledgeable sources is that Joe is currently of two minds about running. And one can certainly understand that sentiment in the emotional crosscurrents of the week following his uncle’s passing.

read the rest
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/02/give_it_another_go_joe/?s_campaign=8315

By the way, this is not a Republican.

[Dan the Roman]

True, and the Democratic primary base is pretty large there.

I just think for Lynch to have a chance he'll need to come out in favor of a liberal health care plan that the Unions will approve of.  I mean, having another friend like Tom Harkin in the Senate is tempting for the Unions, but having another vote for economic legislation they favor is more important...

Anyway, my point was that Lynch was snubbed yesterday and needs to get his act together if he wants to pull off an underdog victory here.  He'd obviously benefit the most from not having a negative campaign as he'd rather have it be  battle of personalities than policy positions...

What he really needs is a five or six-way race, since I tend to think his cap is closer to 22-23% than to 30%. And you are right that this public option thing is a huge risk, but Lynch also voted against the bailouts and with no Republican running, or at least no viable one, he seems to be hoping for a large cross-over vote. All the other Democrats are pro-health care and supported the bailout(with the exception of Coakley) and Lynch seems to be hoping that there are enough energized t-baggers around to give him a foothold in the primary as the anti-Obama candidate.

[Dan the Roman]

I assume Coakley can easily clear 25% though, as the the only statewide elected official and the only woman in the race [unless Vikki change her mind].

Right.  This is going to look much more like the Tsongas (Meehan) special election primary than the Lynch (Moakley) special election primary.

And the Lynch strategy did not work well for Micelli or Finegold there. Nor did it work for Paul Casey in Jehlen special election in 2005, and the demographics there should have been more conductive to that approach.

[Dan the Roman]

What is Meehan ever going to do with his money?

when he's done with it he'll probably give it to the DCCC or something, at least that's what El Tinklenberg did with like his $500k left over after Bachmann

Depends on how long Kerry lasts. The real problem for Meehan this year is not that he doesn't want to run, but that he is about a year away from his UMass pension kicking in. If he remains in his current position through August of 2010 he gets 70% of 342,000 for the rest of his life. That is a big thing to give up for a race that you are not a favorite in. And Meehan is one of the few politicians who realize how unlike they are. If this was September of 2010, or 2011 there is little doubt that his decision would be different however.

[Dan the Roman]

Mihos is now in for the GOP. Scott Brown had all but announced earlier today, but there is a good chance he will drop out now, especially because Mihos is promising to spend 10 million. The general could be marginally interesting if it is a hack like Markey or Capuano, or a Conservative like Lynch.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/20801786/detail.html

Mihos does have a profile statewide, though some(including yours truly) sees it as being something of a flake. If one is to trust Rassmussen's most recent Massachusetts poll Mihos has reasonably  good numbers.

6% Very Favorable
44% Favorable
19% Somewhat unfavorable
11% Very unfavorable

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_state_toplines/massachusetts/toplines_election_2010_massachusettes_governor_august_10_2009

[Dan the Roman]

I don't particularly trust Rasmussen to poll a state like this during a special election, due to their GOP-friendly tight likely voter screen....Senator Coakley it is as far as I can tell unless the dynamics switch up a bit

Most likely that will be the case. My problem with Rasmussen is that party id is very hard to measure in a state like MA where there are next to no registered Republicans. As such, both Independents and Democrats tend to be very diverse. Democrats range from Rick Santorum range to Bernie Sanders, and Independents occupy positions even further left and right. As such, getting a representative sample of "Democrats" for your weighting is next to impossible.

Its why there is no Rassmussen Republican tilt in Massachusetts. On the contrary, he is usually about 10 points kinder to Democrats. His numbers for Patrick are substantially above anyone else. Now its possible that likely voters in MA are the only likely voters in the country who are more liberal than the adult population, or it could be that his screen is screwing up his sample.

The thing that has really turned me off him though is his numbers showing Mihos doing better than Charlie Baker, numbers that defy both other pollsters and common sense itself.

[Dan the Roman]

What exactly is a "selectman"? Is it like a city councilor?

Unpaid city councilor in a town of like 20,000.

[Dan the Roman]

The Democrats have only themselves to blame for now being in the position that the Senate vacancy is to be filled by a special election, which is to be held on January 19, 2010, which is about five months after the death of Senator Kennedy.

In 2004, The Massachusetts Legislature enacted the legislation providing for a special election to fill a Senate vacancy, in order to prevent then Republican Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to the Senate in the event that John Kerry were to win the Presidency, an extremely short sighted, self serving and partisan action.  At that time, Senator Kennedy himself made personal appeals to Massachusetts Democratic legislative leaders to pass the bill, which had been stalled prior to his request. 

So this autocratic and self serving legislation really came about to prevent the Republican Governor, who was Mitt Romney at the time, from making an appointment to the Senate, should John Kerry have been elected President.  In most states the Governor appoints a Senator to fill a vanancy.

Seven days before his death, it was this same Senator Ted Kennedy who sent a letter to the Governor and legislative leaders expressing his desire to change this very law, a law he himself urged the legislature to pass in 2004, this time in order to allow the Governor, now Democrat Deval Patrick, to appoint a Senator to fill the vacancy until the special election.

There is a definite disconnect here.  I guess it depends if the Governor is a member of your own party whether or not the Governor should have the power to appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy.

Senator Kennedy had known for at least a year that he was dying, yet never resigned from the Senate.  By resigning from the Senate six months earlier, for example, the Senate vacancy would have been filled in plenty of time for the health care debate, even with the special election legislation.           

It is time now for Massachusetts to look to a future beyond the Kennedys and to elect a non Kennedy to represent them in the United States Senate.  Although represented by Kennedys for some sixty years, this Senate seat never was, is not now, and never will be a Kennedy seat.  No family and no individual has veto power over democracy.  This Senate seat existed long before the ascent of the Kennedys and it will exist long after the decline of the Kennedys.   

All true, but the temporary appointment bill will be passed by the end of the week, and Patrick will make the appointment on October 21st, the day after the filing deadline. Its just as much of a done deal as the law was in August of 2004.

Had Romney maintained better relations with the legislature he might have been able to weasel a temporary appointment out of them in 2004. But by August he had no allies left who were willing to stand with him. My state senator was the only Democrat to vote against the law change.

[Dan the Roman]

We have a Republican candidate.  It's not especially exciting, because that candidate is almost guaranteed to lose, but allow me to build up suspense anyway.  It's quiet on the Democratic side today.

First, it's not going to be self-funding millionaire Christie Mihos. We confirmed that yesterday.

State Senator Scott Brown, assumed by most to be the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, will not run.

So who is running?  Why, it's a familiar face—former MA State Represenative, 1982 Gubernatorial candidate, Secretary of Transportation, and George W. Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card.

(Okay, he's not officially announced.  But he's running.  Scott Brown endorsed him last night.)

Fly high, lead balloon!  Fly high!

Wow. This is the nicest thing anyone has ever done for Deval Patrick.

[Dan the Roman]

The Democrats have only themselves to blame for now being in the position that the Senate vacancy is to be filled by a special election, which is to be held on January 19, 2010, which is about five months after the death of Senator Kennedy.

In 2004, The Massachusetts Legislature enacted the legislation providing for a special election to fill a Senate vacancy, in order to prevent then Republican Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to the Senate in the event that John Kerry were to win the Presidency, an extremely short sighted, self serving and partisan action.  At that time, Senator Kennedy himself made personal appeals to Massachusetts Democratic legislative leaders to pass the bill, which had been stalled prior to his request. 

So this autocratic and self serving legislation really came about to prevent the Republican Governor, who was Mitt Romney at the time, from making an appointment to the Senate, should John Kerry have been elected President.  In most states the Governor appoints a Senator to fill a vanancy.

Seven days before his death, it was this same Senator Ted Kennedy who sent a letter to the Governor and legislative leaders expressing his desire to change this very law, a law he himself urged the legislature to pass in 2004, this time in order to allow the Governor, now Democrat Deval Patrick, to appoint a Senator to fill the vacancy until the special election.

There is a definite disconnect here.  I guess it depends if the Governor is a member of your own party whether or not the Governor should have the power to appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy.

Senator Kennedy had known for at least a year that he was dying, yet never resigned from the Senate.  By resigning from the Senate six months earlier, for example, the Senate vacancy would have been filled in plenty of time for the health care debate, even with the special election legislation.           

It is time now for Massachusetts to look to a future beyond the Kennedys and to elect a non Kennedy to represent them in the United States Senate.  Although represented by Kennedys for some sixty years, this Senate seat never was, is not now, and never will be a Kennedy seat.  No family and no individual has veto power over democracy.  This Senate seat existed long before the ascent of the Kennedys and it will exist long after the decline of the Kennedys.   

All true, but the temporary appointment bill will be passed by the end of the week, and Patrick will make the appointment on October 21st, the day after the filing deadline. Its just as much of a done deal as the law was in August of 2004.

Had Romney maintained better relations with the legislature he might have been able to weasel a temporary appointment out of them in 2004. But by August he had no allies left who were willing to stand with him. My state senator was the only Democrat to vote against the law change.

Wait a minute.

Why does Governor Patrick get to make an appointment when this authority was expressly denied to Governor Romney?  This reeks of corruption.

Ted Kennedy did not want the Governor in 2004 to have the authority to make an appointment, yet, in 2009, he wanted the Governor to have this authority.  The Massachusetts legislature did not want the Governor in 2004 to have the authority to make an appointment, yet, in 2009, they want the Governor to have this authority.

What are they going to do, change the legislation every time there is a change in the party affiliation of the Governor?

Ted Kennedy's wishes should have nothing to do with this legislation.  He was not a member of the Massachusetts legislature.

This absolutely reeks.

This is America.  The law should apply equally to everybody, not simply changing the law when it suits you.

This is sickening.

Shame, shame, shame!

I don't disagree with your concerns, and in fact, I would be willing to venture that Therese Murray wants Patrick to make the appointment only marginally more than she would have wanted Romney to. But Obama and Reid are involved, and Democrats want to sock it to the national GOP, especially in light of Wilson's comments. As such, the combination of a desire for federal favor and the current national environment is likely to assure the passage of bill, albeit in a form that prevents the interim senator from filing.

Not that it matters. Coakley has all but one this race, and the delay in the appointment served its purpose in scaring off Kennedy.

Anyway, fair in politics was nonsense. Was the way Delay went about the Texas redistricting in 2003 fair? No. Was the behavior of either the Bush 41 or 43 Justice Departments in redistricting or elections generally fair? Of course not. Many Democrats have gotten tired of being battered, at least in their perspective. Not a large majority, hence they are only vindictive in Massachusetts or other states where they dominate. But the point stands.

[Dan the Roman]

This campaign is a pseudo-proxy battle between Clinton and Obama figures in Massachusetts. Last year, Coakley, Cahill, and Murray went toe-to-toe with Patrick, Kennedy, and Kerry, and the outcome was a landslide Clinton win. Coakley never voted for Obama, not even after Clinton released her delegates at the convention, and her support, though uneccisary, was quite tepid until late in the year.

Since the primaries, the Clinton figures within the Massachusetts Democratic party have been on the offensive against the Obama supporters, with Murray waging open war on the Administration, failing to endorse him for reelection, and toying with allowing the senate appointment law to fail in the Senate. Coakley's coronation to the Senate would be another victory for them.

As such, it was more or less obvious that there would have to be an anti-Coakley candidate, not because she was bad, but to allow her to waltz into office would be to admit the defeat of the Patrick administration, and be seen as a sign of weakness for Obama. Joe Kennedy seemed like the obvious pick, and its worth noting that virtually everyone who floated his name with quotes saying "he would clear the field" were close Patrick staff or former advisers. The Kennedy's have been viewed since 2008 as close Patrick and Obama allies, and this has earned them a surprising degree of scorn even among those who long admired Ted.  This helped convince Joe to drop out when Coakley allies made it clear exactly what sort of scorched earth campaign they were prepared to run against him.

Capuano was the next pick, but he suffers from an urban base, one that is massively split by strong enclaves of Coakley support in Somerville itself, as well as by Lynch's withdrawel, which seemed to give his South Boston base to the AG. Enter Khazei and  Pagliuca. the latter was intended to reduce Coakley's support on the Right by giving those voters another option, and this is reason there are so many Obama people around him. Khazei is an effort to sneak in exactly the person who would most piss-off the anti-Patrick forces. An outsider loyal to the left-wing activists with an Arab name.

Right now he has yet to make an impact. But the best sign of that changing will be if Coakley, or more likely her surrogates lay in to Patrick, and try and tie Khazei to him. So far she has attempted to play the front-runner, running as a unity candidate, but that could change. That said, for the moment at least they are skeptical that actual voters will vote for him. The suburbs are Coakley's domain, and he has zero appeal to ethnics.

[Dan the Roman]

Coakley sweeping. Boring.

[Dan the Roman]

The real question is +/- 50% for Coakley. Most of Capuano's stuff has come in. Most of whats out is hers.

[Dan the Roman]

Who did you vote for Dan?

I was split between Coakley and Khazei. I liked Coakley, but she pandered way too much in this race and that pissed me off. Khazei, despite being the "Progressive" candidate, set himself up as the most right-leaning one, defending the need for a big tent on abortion during the Stupak pander-fest, and arguing that Democrats can't blame Bush for everything at the last debate.

Overall, it came down to the fact I did not want Capuano to win, and his surge the last few weeks led me to vote for Coakley. I may cast a protest vote for Brown in the general though.

[Dan the Roman]

Reasonable enough. I think Coakley is by far the strongest candidate for this seat. While she was largely viewed as the "establishment" candidate, I think Capuano's support from the Patrick-wing is much worse than Coakley's coalition and Coakley would do far better in the general.

Both true. It was the militant support from the Patrick people that made me determined to see Capuano lose. Coakley also is harder to tie to Obama in the general, which while not a winning strategy, might have been a path to 40%+ for Brown in a general.

[Dan the Roman]

Both true. It was the militant support from the Patrick people that made me determined to see Capuano lose. Coakley also is harder to tie to Obama in the general, which while not a winning strategy, might have been a path to 40%+ for Brown in a general.

How do you think turnout will be in the general election? Based on how miserable it was today, I have a hard time seeing that the universe of people who would vote for Capuano but not Coakley or vice versa is going to be voting at all in January.

Shoot, I have to get an absentee ballot.

Capuano but not Coakley will be non-existent. On the other hand, there are a number of Clinton primary voters who probably cast ballots for Coakley, but don't like Patrick. That is a constituency that might very well either sit out the general or cast a protest vote for a Republican who can't actually win.

As it is, Brown is in a difficult position. If he were a vanity candidate, running as a grassroots conservative tea partier would get him a decent turnout to the extent those people exist, but since he is really running for Attorney General, he needs to be careful how he appears. This means any effort to try and rally national support from gullible GOP types who want to strike a blow against health-care caries massive risks, especially since it won't let him win. That said, Ogenowski managed it to a degree without being a right-wing nut.

[Dan the Roman]

By mobilizing anti-Patrick forces, showing the true weakness of the Patrick wing, and giving momentum to the other side.

Who is the Democratic candidate for governor who is going to take advantage of this and defeat Patrick in a primary?

I think it's really overstating the case to count votes for Coakley as votes against Patrick. Remember that Coakley started out as the commanding front-runner and Capuano was always making an uphill run. My partner and I voted for Coakley and we even live in Somerville, and we're not anti-Patrick. I had two coworkers ask me about Coakley vs. Capuano with genuine indecision and they're not against Patrick, either. Lots of women surely voted for Coakley without any animus toward Patrick. Dan has been talking about the inner circle politics at play but the mass electorate may not be aware of any of this.

The inner circle politics didn't matter here because Capuano was too weak a horse for Patrick or the Obama people to bet on. Had Joe Kennedy run it would have been a different story. But yeah, Patrick has faded into the background largely.

[Dan the Roman]

Look at the differential turnout in Amherst.

GOP: 120(yes 120 vots)
Dem: 3126

[Dan the Roman]

Total Turnout looks to be around 640,000 for the Democrats, 160,000 for the Republicans. To be fair though, the last seriously contested GOP race, the 1998 Governor's primary had a turnout of around 200,000.

[Dan the Roman]

No, because of statewide incompetence. I don't even support Massachusetts Republicans anymore, I'd honestly prefer Coakley to any of the GOP candidates. This is coming from someone who has endorsed Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist.

When the bench is bare, there's not much you can do until you rebuild the bench.  You can run a self-funding multi-millionaire candidate - that's about it for your chances to come close to winning.   

The real thing you have to do is start rebuilding the bench.  We made steps in that direction in local New York state (and even a few Connecticut) races this year.  Massachusetts isn't quite there yet.

Brown is not horrible, and had he not stepped up, we would have had a joke like Robinson. That said, the party was poorly served by the decision of Andy Card not to run. And perhaps Pagliucca would have done better running as a Republican in the general. Then again, perhaps not after tonight.