MA-SEN Megathread: Senator Markey wins

[Alben Barkley]

I just can't stand this sense of entitlement from him and seemingly most Kennedy's. I remember Caroline Kennedy thinking she was owed the Senate seat in NY just because who she was despite having never won anything.

Didn’t she drop out of the running for that? Anyway, probably would have ended up better than Gillibrand.

Also I don’t understand the hand wringing about “dynasties” and never will. Refusing to vote for someone based on their last name is just as irrational as only voting for them based on their last name. The idea that if we vote for another Kennedy/Bush/Clinton/Adams/whatever, that means we’re suddenly a Monarchy or something, is stupid. As long as people have the choice to reject them — and all four of those supposed  “dynasties” have lost at least one presidential election — I don’t see the problem. Yes, obviously these families use political connections and advantages to get ahead. But would you prefer other wealthy/famous people use their connections and advantages to get ahead? You know, like Reagan and Trump?

If these families produce smart, competent people with good political ideas and skills that people want to vote for, what’s wrong with that? And what’s wrong even if they want to vote for them in large part because of their connection to a popular former politician? If you liked that other politician, makes some sense you’d want to vote for a family member, as that may be about as close as it gets to another term of them, as you know they have directly influenced (and maybe continue to influence) their family.

Again, it’s dumb to vote for BAD candidates ONLY because of their name or connections. But if they’re good candidates, it’s equally dumb to reject them for the same reasons. Hillary Clinton was certainly one of the most qualified candidates to ever run. The entire criticism that voting for her would be to create a “dynasty” was then and remains extremely dumb in my eyes. Hillary was a middle class girl from the Midwest who worked hard alongside her husband to get where she did. Not a f—king Princess born into immense wealth and privilege who was handed everything on a silver platter.

[Alben Barkley]

For the record, I don’t have anything against Markey and can’t say whether or not Kennedy would be a better Senator than him. I just think the kneejerk reaction against him because “dynasty” is dumb. I also find it kind of funny how a lot of the same people who complain about that also talk about how we need young blood in politics — Kennedy is 38, Markey is 73.

It is probably a better idea, like some have said, for Kennedy to wait and see if Warren wins. Not saying that’s particularly likely or not, but if she does he’ll be ideally positioned to run in a special election. I understand why he’s not keen on the idea of waiting probably several more years in the event she doesn’t win, but at the same time if he does try to primary Markey and fails, that would really hurt his future prospects, I would think. And again, he IS young so it’s not like he can’t wait it out.

[Alben Barkley]

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.

[Alben Barkley]

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.

Playing the odds for Kennedy, this doesn't seem like a bad move.

Losing would suck, but that's always a possibility.

Right now, he's running against someone who is old but lacking in Senate seniority/ name recognition. Older Democratic voters in Massachusetts probably love the Kennedys, so there isn't a demographic who would be too pissed at him.

Odds are decent Markey might decide the hell with it and retire. Given that he's leading in the polls, Kennedy's chances of getting the seat are probably better than even.

What are his alternatives?

As mentioned, he could hope Elizabeth Warren wins the White House, but are the odds of that more than thirty percent? And if she wins, he'll still be able to run for the seat should he lose a primary to Markey.

He could be the first Kennedy Governor, although he might prefer Washington.

I do also think he could be a presidential frontrunner if Trump is reelected over an older Democrat. The party will look to younger leadership, and if he could be a Senator under 45 in the big state next to New Hampshire, that'll be a great launching pad. But he won't get that chance if he waits to run for Governor.

And if he waits too long, the party will develop a stronger bench of younger talent who might be able to win primaries, or damage his reputation in a tough fight. He would probably beat Ayanna Pressley, but does he want to piss off women, minority groups and progressive groups by running against a woman of color from the center?

You make some good points, but I still think this isn't his best bet. If Trump wins again in 2020, he'd have an even better shot at Governor in 2022 -- and then he would still have a launching pad to run for President in 2024, with 10 years of Congressional experience and a couple years of gubernatorial experience under his belt. If Trump loses to Elizabeth Warren, we've already been over that. And if he loses to anyone but Elizabeth Warren, I still think he's got a good shot at the Governor's Mansion in 2022, PLUS the issue of Democrats potentially wanting to turn to a younger candidate next time around might not come up (especially if it's Biden who wins). Also, I don't consider 50-ish to be remotely "old" for a presidential candidate -- the guy's still so young, and in a state that favors his party and family name so much, that there are almost limitless paths ahead of him -- he doesn't have to try to force it like this.

Yes, losing would always suck and theoretically could happen at any time -- but let's be honest, if it's going to happen to a Kennedy in Massachusetts, this would be about the only race it could happen in. Which is why I think it's an unnecessary risk for him, given all his other potential options, no matter how the 2020 race plays out. Yes, he's probably the odds-on favorite if he challenges Markey -- but again, those odds are still lower than they would be in most likely any other race he could run in the near future. And if he does lose, the narrative would be all about the "end of the Kennedy dynasty," and he would probably have to give up his House seat to do it and might not be able to get it back, let alone a Senate seat in the future. It's just not worth it.

[Alben Barkley]

So Massachusetts may well throw out a top 10 Senator for a legacy whose entire political career has consisted of coasting off of his last name...

So much for “progressive state” MA.

Wait wait. You think Markey is a Top 10 Senator?!?!?

You’re joking right.

He's certainly got a better record than the nepotistic, do-nothing ginger dips**t running against him.

LOL, did you seriously just insult him for being ginger? And moreover call him “do-nothing?” How is he any more “do-nothing” than the average Congressman? Seriously, I don’t know if he is or not. Do you? I doubt it. And as for “nepotism,” no doubt his family name helped him out, but it ain’t like he ascended to the throne by royal decree of his long-dead grandfather or great-uncle. The people of his district voted him in fairly. And if the people of Massachusetts do the same, so be it. Certainly will say nothing about the state’s “progressive” status, which has nothing to do with “dynasties” and is an absurd argument considering Kennedy is no less “progressive” in any meaningful way than Markey.

Reminder also that two of the most “progressive” presidents in history — Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt — were part of the same wealthy political “dynasty.” I don’t hear much criticism of that from “progressives” today. As I said before, voting against someone solely because of their family name is at least as dumb as voting for them solely because of their family name.

God damn it, for once you people had a legitimate grievance and yet you still managed to respond in the dumbest way possible, forcing me to argue against you. As I said above, I don’t think Kennedy should run in this race because I don’t think it’s a wise move to attempt to unseat a decent incumbent just because you can. But that doesn’t mean I think he and everyone else in his family should stay out of politics forever because “muh dynasties,” either.

[Alben Barkley]

Why is Kennedy doing so well in minority areas? Is it perhaps nostalgia for his grandfather, who was beloved by black voters? Or his recent appeals to those voters on racial justice issues?

Maybe because Markey opposed desegregation of Boston schools? Just a thought

Cry more and then vote Markey this November )

I just find it funny. Markey is an old career politician who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill, the Iraq War, and has been accused of not adequately supporting desegregation back in the day.

“Progressives” made Joe Biden out to be horrible for all of these things, yet passionately defend Markey. Who is being challenged by someone with just as progressive ideas but is much younger.

There is no ideological consistency here. It just goes to show how much of the “progressive” vs. “establishment” divide is style and how little of it is substance.

[Alben Barkley]

Why is Kennedy doing so well in minority areas? Is it perhaps nostalgia for his grandfather, who was beloved by black voters? Or his recent appeals to those voters on racial justice issues?

Maybe because Markey opposed desegregation of Boston schools? Just a thought

The Kennedys implicitly supported segregated schools by virtue of sending their children to expensive private schools that only white people could afford to attend.

Talk about bad faith. Not sending their own kids to public schools doesn’t mean they support segregation in them.

Moreover, this comment is actually kind of racist. You suggesting that no minorities can afford to send their kids to private schools? I know for a fact this is BS.

[Alben Barkley]

Why is Kennedy doing so well in minority areas? Is it perhaps nostalgia for his grandfather, who was beloved by black voters? Or his recent appeals to those voters on racial justice issues?

Maybe because Markey opposed desegregation of Boston schools? Just a thought

Cry more and then vote Markey this November )

I just find it funny. Markey is an old career politician who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill, the Iraq War, and has been accused of not adequately supporting desegregation back in the day.

“Progressives” made Joe Biden out to be horrible for all of these things, yet passionately defend Markey. Who is being challenged by someone with just as progressive ideas as he has but is much younger.

There is no ideological consistency here. It just goes to show how much of the “progressive” vs. “establishment” divide is style and how little of it is substance.

That's an argument against Markey supporters, not Ed Markey

I’m not saying otherwise. Personally I don’t really care who wins this primary, and thought from the start Kennedy might have been making a mistake in running. I just find this tribalism to be bizarre, inconsistent, petty, and hypocritical. I also hope Kennedy’s career isn’t ruined over this. That would be a shame.