MA-SEN Megathread: Senator Markey wins

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Markey is gonna get the bulk of senior voters, and Kennedy will get the younger voters, just like Scarane v Coons and Hickenlooper v Romanoff. Scarane, Kennedy and Romanoff appeal to younger voters.

We dont know what to expect now that it has moved to a VBM election.  Both sides have equal chance to win

Markey isnt the prohibited favorite over Kennedy and the election is in September anyways

Markey is a slight underdog, he is losing by 2 to 6 pts

You have it all backwards.

Markey is getting the vote of the Bernie Bro young left
Kennedy is getting the older vote because they remember the greatness of the Kennedy name.

Its pathetic this is as close as it is to be honest. Not really sure why it is

Why are you trying to argue with OC?

And if it's the only reason JKIII's getting elected, then the greatness of the Kennedy name is a problem.

For me, it’s not. That’s why this is such a no brainer election for me.

JKIII gets the benefit of the doubt from me because yes he is a Kennedy and they’ve consistently represented this state and the nation so well and fought on the right side of practically every issue.

And then there’s the simple fact that Markey is a bit of a typical hack. “the swamp” if you will. He’s a good guy but he’s never in Massachusetts unless there is an election and for instance in a debate a few months ago instead of arguing the issues he just repeated AOC’s name a dozen times... weak.

I’ll be appauled at my state if Markey wins this. Unfortunately it seems as if that may happen.

Mary Jo Kopechne would like a word, or rather, she probably would if Ted Kennedy hadn't deliberately left her to die a horrible death by drowning in a car at the bottom of a pond and then relied on the family political machine to make sure he stayed in the Senate instead of getting sent to prison where he belonged.  

It’s quite sad that the only thing anyone seems to have in Markey’s defence after his decades of service is “dynasty bad”. Personally I really don’t understand why anyone is getting het up about this race. The differences between them are narrow and both would make/continue to be great Senators.

Markey has a long track record of fighting to implement progressive legislation.  Kennedy is an empty suit heir force hack who will definitely move the Senate Democratic Caucus' overton window to the right on environmental issues.  Markey was the Senate's leading advocate for the Green New Deal and was an excellent congressman.  It'd be like saying "let's replace Chris Murphy with Matt Lieberman because something something new blood."

I had no idea voting for the 1994 Crime Bill, NAFTA, and the Iraq War were pieces of progressive legislation.

I had no idea there were people delusional enough to think Kennedy wouldn't have been an enthusiastic supporter of all of those things were he in office then.  Also, you should try doing some research instead of just word-vomiting a few bad votes from a 44 year congressional career.  You might learn a thing or two.

Also, if we're going by the 1994 crime bill then I guess Bernie Sanders is a right-winger who needs to be primaried by an establishment legacy candidate ASAP because he also voted for it.  See, I can cherry pick in bad-faith just like you

You may be right that Kennedy would have supported all of these bills, but I do think that he would've at least opposed the Iraq War.  Second, it's not just a bad vote.  These are votes that had a direct negative impact on the lives of ordinary people in the United States and across the world.  Third, I don't like Sanders and I believe that he was wrong to vote for it. 

Voting for the crime bill != writing the crime bill. The bill itself was a mix of good and bad reforms, but may have skewed positive given VAWA and is assigned with too much of the blame for the growth of the prison-industrial complex (which grew thanks to many other pieces of legislation and acts of government). If I'm not mistaken, Biden got called out on the crime bill because he'd bragged about the creation of some of its worst provisions in the past, not because he'd voted for the final package.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If you told me five years ago that this was the cycle in which the boomers would lose control of the presidency, "...and they'll be replaced by someone from the Silent Generation" would not have been on my bingo cards.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Boomers refuse to step aside and go quietly into their golden years because they are addicted to power. It has made the Senate and Presidency more geriatric than any point in history.

You're going to see young leaders primarying Dinosaurs more and more because it's the only way to attain higher office anymore.

JK3, AOC, and Eric Swallwell have all had to run against senior citizens to get their seats and they won't be the only ones. The electorate is ready for some fresh faces. I don't feel bad for the Boomers. Go play some golf or hang out with your grandkids. You had your time.

Then why does the electorate keep electing Boomers (& even members of the Silent Generation!) to the Senate & Presidency? Maybe because a majority of the electorate (barring the occasional House district here & there) doesn't actually give a crap?

Hot take: it's not that they don't just not care - it's the other way around. As the electorate ages, ageism holding back a minority of older politicians who are still healthy enough to do the job recedes and we should expect to see more elected officials running at <90 as a result.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Also I'm sure the DCCC is blacklisting all the consultants and firms supporting challenger to an incumbent Joe Kennedy III like they said they're gonna do for all primary challengers 🙄

Hoyer has been to Kennedy fundraisers himself on the technicality that it's all well and good to challenge the DSCC, just not the DCCC.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Any chance Morse knocks off Neal in MA-01?

Likely bordering on safe Neal in the absence of further information. Morse should have a stronger candidacy than the average challenger as a sitting mayor so there's reason to believe the incumbent isn't safe, but hasn't released any polls indicating he's within striking distance. Neal also hasn't released any polls and we know he's been commissioning them as he's leaked info about his numbers on the Kennedy vs Markey race, just not his own contest.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

And even disregarding all of that, contrary to you, I just think it's beyond the pale that we as a society are continuing to lift up people just because of their last names. Massachusetts is a state of ~7 million people that contains world class universities & educational systems, & you should be able to field a much deeper bench than just continuing to elect the same family. Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Ted Kennedy. He was a really interesting & inspiring person. But to do what you're doing, giving the family another leg up simply because they're legacies, is rather unfortunate

I agree the state is loaded up with top end talent, I’d argue Mass is probably the best equipped state in the nation to produce top end leadership. However the thing about the Kennedy’s is we don’t elect them just because it’s something we’re familiar with. It’s because every time we’ve voted for a Kennedy we’ve loved the results. This state elected JFK to the Senate over another political dynasty in a Republican wave year in a state that was Tilt GOP at the time. Gave him 70% margins in the Senate, then 60% for POTUS and then elected Ted and loved everything we got from him as well.

So it’s more a matter of if it’s not broke don’t fix it

You only think this because you remember the most prominent of them. There are plenty of Kennedys/Kennedy-adjacent politicians who've been far less notable than the brothers and JKIII has had time to prove himself in the House of Representatives. He's not bad, but he's worse than Markey.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

What about Seth Moulton? I always felt he was eyeing this Senate too.

Moulton got burnt thanks to his failed revolt against Pelosi being followed up all too quickly by a flop of a presidential bid. He could make a comeback in time, but winning a statewide primary in the near future would seem to be a very uphill battle for a moderate who isn't exactly famed for his charisma or connections in the House. Perhaps his best shot at the Senate (without being prepared to jump from Congress to another statewide office first) is as the Totally Electable Guy^TM in the event of a Charlie Baker upset.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

So far, only Hoyer had openly participated in this primary.
https://twitter.com/greggiroux/status/1294693774782877696

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Is it just me, or is Kennedy pulling fewer punches than ever before?

https://twitter.com/joekennedy/status/1295393770285010945
I actually have no problem with opportunism fuelling a primary challenge so long as said challenger can make a strong case independent of that opportunism. Kennedy has avoided some of the most major mistakes by committing to policies like M4A (the extent to which he is overtly primarying "from the right" is overstated - his backers in Congress might lean that way, but his campaign and voter base is another matter). However, as has been alluded to here, he's failed to muster up much of an argument for a referendum on the incumbent and the pivot to racial justice issues seems late.

Perhaps it will save him, but if this is the case Team Kennedy wants to commit to, it's a bad sign they're only boosting it just now.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Kennedy is doing a virtual event with Jayapal about how to achieve M4A, which I suppose is a chance to lay out his theory of change and offer some distinctions from Markey's. He actually has Pocan's endorsement and I think he should have been using connections like these more.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Employing anti-primary messages against Kennedy that you would deride in other races is pretty asinine.

Of course Markey isn't someone even remotely like Lipinski, but neither is this hurting fundraising in other races, nor is it going to cost us a Senate seat or irreparably divide the party. Kennedy was free to mount a campaign against Markey, and did so in part because Markey didn't seem to have a strong foundation of support compared to other incumbents. If this is also, in part, only possible thanks to his last name, then so be it; it's not exactly something Kennedy can help, and any politician is going to use their advantages whatever they may be.

But all the same, you better come prepared if you're going to try and take on an incumbent, especially one who isn't otherwise damaged or plagued with scandal. And if you're going to be challenging an incumbent, especially one you yourself previously spoke favorably towards, you need a reason for why you're better than them. This isn't an open seat where talking about that your vision is enough, you need a clear and believable message for why they should ditch the other guy.

Markey, smartly, hasn't rolled over and given him one. And neither was he just going to ignore Kennedy's single biggest advantage, his name.

I think this generally sums up my view on primaries; you've got every right to mount one, they should be encouraged against long-time serving Senators but you need to find a good compelling reason to beat them & you can't just blame the voters if you lose (in the same way that Crowley & Co can't)

You absolutely can, although it won't do much for your political future. In the words of a losing California Senate candidate on election night, 1966: "The people have spoken, the bastards."

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/vgmac/status/1296484779215532034

Remember, folks: the establishment hates socialists more than it hates fascists.

No offense, but I literally have no idea what you're talking about.  Ed Markey is not a socialist and Joe Kennedy III isn't a fascist.

Both are progressive, but Markey is tougher on corporate excesses and - more importantly - more willing to stick his neck out further than the party's moderate leadership might like. Said leadership is so relaxed about the fight against Donald Trump that they allow the Committee to make obvious mistakes like booking Warren for the Native American caucus, but - as we've seen with Neal v.s. Morse - can be very invested in ensuring that they retain the Democratic spots available.

This is the iron law of institutions at work: people in an organisation sometimes care more about their own place in said organisation than the wider interest of the organisation (in this case, the Democratic Party).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/vgmac/status/1296484779215532034

This is a bit of a surprise.

Not particularly. If someone challenges an incumbent from the left who votes with Trump 70% of the time, they're an upstart and anyone who works with them needs to be cast out of the party. Squash them like the bug that they are!

If someone challenges a noncontroversial incumbent from the right, they're a "courageous leader" and a "rising star".

Let's all be real about this.

You're right, it is pretty hypocritical when #RoseTwitter pretends Ayanna Pressely is a "courageous leader" and a "rising star" for primarying a non-controversial incumbent from the right.

There were some dogwhistles in that primary and Capuano was pretty progressive, but he was not exactly primaried "from the right" (the ideological battle was mostly fought on non-economic lines). Pressley took a harder stance on the border wall, defunding ICE and being pro-Palestinian; Capuano was more of a pacifist but a bit more protectionist about law enforcement. It is fair to say that he had a much longer record of supporting Medicare for All, but that's not a policy Pressley has gone back on since winning her seat, so it's not as if her shift wasn't genuine. The one issue where she did seem to be unambiguously to the right of him was public-private partnerships and that is hardly an animating issue of the times (despite being quite important, actually).

https://twitter.com/vgmac/status/1296484779215532034

Remember, folks: the establishment hates socialists more than it hates fascists.

No offense, but I literally have no idea what you're talking about.  Ed Markey is not a socialist and Joe Kennedy III isn't a fascist.

Both are progressive, but Markey is tougher on corporate excesses and - more importantly - more willing to stick his neck out further than the party's moderate leadership might like. Said leadership is so relaxed about the fight against Donald Trump that they allow the Committee to make obvious mistakes like booking Warren for the Native American caucus, but - as we've seen with Neal v.s. Morse - can be very invested in ensuring that they retain the Democratic spots available.

This is the iron law of institutions at work: people in an organisation sometimes care more about their own place in said organisation than the wider interest of the organisation (in this case, the Democratic Party).

Obviously, I've been opposed to Kennedy's candidacy since before he even got in the race because Markey has been such a strong and effective progressive voice in the Senate.  But with all due respect to Sawx, it seems pretty absurd to call this is a race between socialism and fascism

I think he was referring to them being more concerned about unseating Markey than Trump. However, I'm not sure it's that overtly ideological and the iron law can still apply even if it isn't.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Just remember:

We are watching you.

We will remember you.

And come January, when you ask for our help to keep your gavel, we will replace you.

There are too few for that. Pelosi will get another term. I could see the caucus getting too hostile for Hoyer by 2022, in which case that's one more reason for him to curse the boss who denied him the Speakership for so long.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Just remember:

We are watching you.

We will remember you.

And come January, when you ask for our help to keep your gavel, we will replace you.

There are too few for that. Pelosi will get another term. I could see the caucus getting too hostile for Hoyer by 2022, in which case that's one more reason for him to curse the boss who denied him the Speakership for so long.

If it isn't Hoyer or Pelosi, then it will be Clyburn or Jeffries

Jeffries is an inept hack more ideologically suited to the current caucus than Hoyer but probably unable to unite them (if he did get the Speakership, I don't think he'd hold it for long).

Clyburn is a realistic bet as he is somewhat more progressive than Hoyer and I expect he'd get some serious support from a hypothetical President Biden. I do wonder whether Biden would hesitate to go all in on backing Clyburn if Hoyer was also running or whether Clyburn would want to run against Hoyer to begin with, but he'd have a better chance of earning a more progressive caucus' support.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1296503308685848580
So essentially leaning into the Bernie Bro narrative.

The apology box is back open, folks.

Apologize for what?  Also, I'm genuinely not sure how you make the leap from this to the Bernie Bro narrative.

It's the use of patronising tone policing to disingenuously avoid engaging with an argument or revealing one's real/ideological motive. Don't want to argue against universal healthcare? "I'm progressive, but they have mean followers online, so I have a free pass to do a 180 on everything I say I believe in." Don't feel your case for Kennedy - presumably favouritism for sitting House members - will stand up in public? "I'm concerned by the tone of his ads."

If it was completely apolitical, it'd get recognised as concern trolling pretty quickly, but often feels like gaslighting to people who aren't used to the fakery because they're usually trying to be sensitive about offending people thanks to their own experiences and socially liberal values. That makes too many accept this at face value.

It's often mixed up with the worst forms of identity politics and beneath much of it lurks a contempt for people who are justifiably angry about the status quo. At its worst, it equates rude behaviour with the societal mistreatment of the downtrodden, which is usually far more serious.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Markey has decided to take a diplomatic approach:

https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1296513596441141248

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/elizacollins1/status/1296536959385575429

🐍🐍🐍

Yeah, it's disappointing he's essentially stayed out of every Senate primary. He's endorsed in House races, but seems reluctant to endorse against someone who might end up in the same chamber as him.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/elizacollins1/status/1296536959385575429

If Warren can endorse Markey even though she was literally Kennedy's professor/mentor, then Bernie has no excuse.

Markey is also pretty close with Warren so she is probably the best qualified Senator to judge this race.

The absence of a Sanders endorsement isn't great (dishonourable mentions: Merkley, Baldwin, Hirono) but they're holding off anyway for whatever reason. The most likely is that they think their endorsements probably won't matter enough to shift the race and don't want to risk alienating Kennedy before he's in the chamber with them. I could imagine that being the case given that the AOC + Warren endorsements probably covers most of what another progressive endorsement might do, but the absence of an endorsement might also have an impact now that we've got to the stage where reporters are asking out-of-state Senators what they think of the race.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/elizacollins1/status/1296536959385575429

If Warren can endorse Markey even though she was literally Kennedy's professor/mentor, then Bernie has no excuse.

Markey is also pretty close with Warren so she is probably the best qualified Senator to judge this race.

The absence of a Sanders endorsement isn't great (dishonourable mentions: Merkley, Baldwin, Hirono) but they're holding off anyway for whatever reason. The most likely is that they think their endorsements probably won't matter enough to shift the race and don't want to risk alienating Kennedy before he's in the chamber with them. I could imagine that being the case given that the AOC + Warren endorsements probably covers most of what another progressive endorsement might do, but the absence of an endorsement might also have an impact now that we've got to the stage where reporters are asking out-of-state Senators what they think of the race.

Yeah, I feel like Markey will still win but instead of a healthy margin, it'll be a bit more close, with the saving grace being - as you allude to - the other progressives that have boosted him in AOC & Warren, as well as that "with all due respect" ad. But tbh, I honestly don't even know anymore. All I know is that this whole primary has just hit such a high level of ridiculous.

(Another thing I've noticed, though, is that Bernie's list of congressional endorsements is literally just a carbon copy of candidates that endorsed him for President. He didn't endorse progessives like Grijalva, Porter, or Haaland, all of whom had endorsed Warren instead of him. If there's a connection there, then that'd really be some petty, personal bullsh*t).

It's not. He endorsed Pressley.

Edit: I'm pretty certain there were others, too. Bonnie Watson Coleman endorsed Biden and got Sanders' endorsement in NJ.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Say what you want about Warren but she'd be busting her ass working for Markey.

Tbf she doesn't seem to have been campaigning for him and I don't blame her. She knew Kennedy well and endorsing against him was probably hard enough.

The Hickenlooper endorsement was worse, but I'm glad she took a stand here.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Hopefully Pelosi's endorsement backfires as it did with Engel.

Her endorsement there didn't backfire, it just failed. She is considerably less controversial than HRC among Democrats.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Hot take- Sanders not endorsing Markey is a positive. If we make this primary "Bernie vs moderates" we will lose

I had considered this, but it doesn't line up perfectly with him endorsing candidates for other races. I suppose there is a middle ground where his endorsement of a much lower-profile candidate massively boosts their fundraising to an extent that offsets any disadvantage of a Sanders endorsement, but deciding Markey's on the wrong side of that line seems like a risky gamble to me.

The other half of this is that your point could lose strength now that he's been prompted for his opinion and refused to endorse Markey. I don't think the following is especially likely, but Kennedy outriders might now try to talk about how progressive they are and how even Sanders wouldn't move against him.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The DCCC will still blacklist you if you dare to challenge one of their sh**tty incumbents while the Speaker just endorsed against a Senate incumbent. It's so obvious that they want anyone remotely progressive gone. Markey isn't some progressive dream, but he's a hell of a lot better than Kennedy.

Call me naive, but I'm not sure this is directly a result of Markey's progressivism. It wouldn't be happening if Kennedy were clearly more progressive than him so that is a requirement but I suspect Pelosi and co.'s principal reasons for backing this challenge are because Kennedy's name has power in Democratic leadership circles and to support her caucus with the expectation of loyalty in return.

We often mistake old-fashioned cronyism for ideological conflict, but the caucus' leadership has been prepared (although, admittedly, much less so) to crush moderate rising stars who could threaten their place in the hierarchy. I strongly suspect the lack of an obvious heir to the Speakership after Hoyer and Clyburn is considered a feature, not a bug, because it precludes the possibility of said heir deciding to accelerate the succession.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Remember when Kennedy pretended to be running on anything other than his last name?
https://twitter.com/hjessy_/status/1296571562607489026

I can't even remember when he didn't. I have faith that the voters of Massachusetts will cast him aside next month, and retain Ed Markey as their Senator.

The difference between these more blatant ads is that they're supposedly justified (and potentially giving Kennedy momentum!) because Markey repurposed a JFK line to support his (but not exclusively his) own approach to governance.

If the previous polls showing some sort of Markey lead were right and Kennedy wins because of late momentum, will this be the first instance of a candidate winning by suggesting voters should be triggered on behalf of their family?