MA-SEN Megathread: Senator Markey wins

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I hope Kennedy crashes and burns.

We already have 1 Ben Cardin in the Senate. Markey isnt that popular like Ben Cardin, their time have passed

Markey, unlike Ben Cardin and mostly unlike Joe Kennedy III, has beliefs and principles that are worth representing in Congress.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What even is the point of Kennedy running? I feel like he just wants to be senator for the sake of being a senator, not beause Markey is worth of replacement. This is the kind of stuff people dislike about politics.

The Kennedy name is strong drink for Massachusetts Boomers, and has been for an absurdly long time. It really is that simple. You might as well ask--and people did!--what the point was of Ted running in 1962 (although it obviously wasn't Boomers voting for him yet then).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don’t know if that was supposed to be a list of Markey’s achievements, but it’s not. Fact is, after 44 years in Congress it shouldn’t be that hard to find a reason to vote *for* him, rather than against Kennedy. Which is probably part of why Kennedy is leading, since evidently the people Markey has represented don’t feel he’s done that good a job - or else they wouldn’t be considering replacing him with a relative rookie.

I don’t really care who wins, but if the fact two of his great uncles represented the seat is enough for Kennedy to replace Markey, it does suggest Markey isn’t that good or respected. Ie that this is a problem with Markey’s weakness rather than simply Kennedy’s name.

I mean, does anyone actually think Kennedy could have beaten Warren?

Yes. Almost definitely, if he's doing this well against Markey.

Markey has vastly better approvals in Massachusetts than Warren does (+25 net approval for Markey, +9 for Warren; +/-0 popularity relative to the state's lean for Markey, -20 for Warren). Warren is not considered an unusually strong incumbent and underperformed the state's Republican governor by six points in their respective reelection races in 2018 (Warren's challenger being small-time Trumpbot Geoff Diehl). Markey got almost exactly the same result in 2014 that Warren got in 2018 despite 2018 being 14 points more Democratic nationwide! The Kennedy name really is just that strong a drug for a certain kind of Massachusetts Democrat. All you need to do to see that is look up-thread.

It's fine to support Kennedy if you genuinely think he'd be a better Senator--if you think the GND is moonbat material or if you're concerned by the fact that Markey has endorsements from creepy "population bomb" groups, or if you seriously believe that the other 99 Senators will have more innate respect for someone who happens to be named "Kennedy" than they have for someone they've been working with in various capacities for decades, or even if you just think Massachusetts should play the long game and elect a Millennial Senator who can be chairman of one of the pork committees in the 2040s. But the quality of the arguments that are actually being made for Senator Joe Kennedy is absolutely abysmal, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the argument you're making is pretty bad too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don’t know if that was supposed to be a list of Markey’s achievements, but it’s not. Fact is, after 44 years in Congress it shouldn’t be that hard to find a reason to vote *for* him, rather than against Kennedy. Which is probably part of why Kennedy is leading, since evidently the people Markey has represented don’t feel he’s done that good a job - or else they wouldn’t be considering replacing him with a relative rookie.

I don’t really care who wins, but if the fact two of his great uncles represented the seat is enough for Kennedy to replace Markey, it does suggest Markey isn’t that good or respected. Ie that this is a problem with Markey’s weakness rather than simply Kennedy’s name.

I mean, does anyone actually think Kennedy could have beaten Warren?

Yes. Almost definitely, if he's doing this well against Markey.

Markey has vastly better approvals in Massachusetts than Warren does (+25 net approval for Markey, +9 for Warren; +/-0 popularity relative to the state's lean for Markey, -20 for Warren). Warren is not considered an unusually strong incumbent and underperformed the state's Republican governor by six points in their respective reelection races in 2018 (Warren's challenger being small-time Trumpbot Geoff Diehl). Markey got almost exactly the same result in 2014 that Warren got in 2018 despite 2018 being 14 points more Democratic nationwide! The Kennedy name really is just that strong a drug for a certain kind of Massachusetts Democrat. All you need to do to see that is look up-thread.

It's fine to support Kennedy if you genuinely think he'd be a better Senator--if you think the GND is moonbat material or if you're concerned by the fact that Markey has endorsements from creepy "population bomb" groups, or if you seriously believe that the other 99 Senators will have more innate respect for someone who happens to be named "Kennedy" than they have for someone they've been working with in various capacities for decades, or even if you just think Massachusetts should play the long game and elect a Millennial Senator who can be chairman of one of the pork committees in the 2040s. But the quality of the arguments that are actually being made for Senator Joe Kennedy is absolutely abysmal, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the argument you're making is pretty bad too.

I’m not making an argument beyond hating someone for their last name is stupid, and if his last name is enough to beat Markey after he has served in Congress for almost as long as Ted Kennedy -  then Markey can’t be that good. Sorry if that somehow upsets you, but it’s true, Markey can’t be that good if the people of Massachusetts are even entertaining not re-electing him.

1. I don't hate Joe Kennedy. I don't know the man and it seems like he's a good enough Congressman for the kind of Congressman that he is. He was my Congressman for about two years when I was living in the Boston area and I was happy to vote for him then. Earlier in this cycle I actually contemplated voting for him due to being, as I said in my previous post, creeped out by some of the specific environmental groups whose backing Markey has. I just fundamentally don't understand the point of his candidacy if it's not primarily a means to carrying on a family legacy, a motivation to which I'm personally sympathetic but which I'm frustrated and baffled apparently makes him such an unbeatable titan in the eyes of people like MillennialMAModerate. The idea that that constitutes "hating him for his last name" is ridiculous and insulting.
2. I've provided you hard evidence, from not only polling but actual electoral results, that Markey is not a weak incumbent in any but the most abstract "he's too lowkey" or "he's not a good fundraiser" or "he's getting up there in years" kind of sense. His approval ratings are robust and his actual electoral track record is about as good as Warren's if you don't factor in the nationwide environment or significantly better than Warren's if you do. If you want to argue that the electorate might find him low-energy or might find him too old (the latter being an argument that I actually provided for you in my last post by bringing seniority into it), then fine, but again, that's not what you actually are arguing.
3. You don't live here and I do, which of course doesn't inherently disqualify you from having an opinion but does mean you should perhaps be a little humbler when I, or MillennialMAModerate for that matter, attempt to explain that yes, the last name genuinely is that huge a deal here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Kennedy derangement is ridiculous.

See point 1. in my previous post.

Anyway, another thing that has to be accounted for is that Markey, for some reason--maybe age, maybe low-energy-ness, maybe, yes, entitlement on his own part--just is not running an energetic or even competent campaign this time around. He got caught napping on getting enough signatures to even get on the ballot because he falsely presupposed that the state party's cadres would back him rather than Kennedy, and I don't think I've seen a single piece of hard evidence that he's even campaigning other than an interview with him on local TV and a few thinkpieces written on his behalf. It's not that he isn't well-liked or is an inherently uninspiring incumbent, it's that for whatever reason he just isn't putting up that much of a fight.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Kennedy's loss, as noted above, means he is the first member of that family to ever lose an election in Massachusetts. And another thing-once his House term ends on January 3, 2021, it will be the first time in 74 years that no direct descendant of Joseph Kennedy Sr. will hold elected office anywhere in the United States. This doesn't count Amy Kennedy, Van Drew's opponent in New Jersey, who married into the family. Hopefully, the Kennedy dynasty will now find its way into the history books, like the Roosevelts and Tafts have.

We have George P Bush carrying on the terrible legacy of the Bushes. John Donley Adams tried running for office in 2017, but lost.

One of the Adams family tried to get into politics?

Honestly I wouldn't mind that.

The Adamses actually had a ton of staying power back in the day. Charles Francis Adams was US Minister to the UK during the Civil War, his grandson Charles Francis Adams III was Hoover's Secretary of the Navy, and Thomas Boylston Adams ran in the Democratic US Senate primary in Massachusetts in 1966 as an anti-Vietnam War candidate. So John Adams and his direct descendants participated in American politics for almost two hundred years. The Kennedys need to step up their game!

As to the thread topic, I'm obviously relieved that Markey won (and by a fairly convincing margin, too!), but I don't necessarily love that he cleaned up in MetroWest and behind the Tofu Curtain while losing Springfield, New Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Lawrence, etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Kennedy's loss, as noted above, means he is the first member of that family to ever lose an election in Massachusetts. And another thing-once his House term ends on January 3, 2021, it will be the first time in 74 years that no direct descendant of Joseph Kennedy Sr. will hold elected office anywhere in the United States. This doesn't count Amy Kennedy, Van Drew's opponent in New Jersey, who married into the family. Hopefully, the Kennedy dynasty will now find its way into the history books, like the Roosevelts and Tafts have.

We have George P Bush carrying on the terrible legacy of the Bushes. John Donley Adams tried running for office in 2017, but lost.

One of the Adams family tried to get into politics?

Honestly I wouldn't mind that.

The Adamses actually had a ton of staying power back in the day. Charles Francis Adams was US Minister to the UK during the Civil War, his grandson Charles Francis Adams III was Hoover's Secretary of the Navy, and Thomas Boylston Adams ran in the Democratic US Senate primary in Massachusetts in 1966 as an anti-Vietnam War candidate. So John Adams and his direct descendants participated in American politics for almost two hundred years. The Kennedys need to step up their game!

As to the thread topic, I'm obviously relieved that Markey won (and by a fairly convincing margin, too!), but I don't necessarily love that he cleaned up in MetroWest and behind the Tofu Curtain while losing Springfield, New Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Lawrence, etc.

The general pattern seems to be that Markey won the wealthier, college-educated, upper class and middle class areas, while Kennedy dominated the poorer, minority heavy, working class and lower class areas. Why did this result happen? Does it provide evidence that upper-class Democratic voters are more "woke" and more deeply invested in progressive ideas, while working-class Democratic voters are less "woke" and more moderate? Or something else entirely? Given Markey's working class origins and Kennedy's status as the member of one of this country's most historically important political dynasties, it does seem to be an ironic result.

Kennedy stitched up a lot of union endorsements, using pragmatism arguments for the most part--see also the heavy union support for Biden in the presidential primaries. Downscale voters are also of course generally more anti-incumbent.

If you look at the 2013 Senate primary, Markey and Lynch split these types of communities between them (of the ones I listed, Markey won Springfield, New Bedford, and Lawrence while Lynch won Fall River and Lowell). So they're not ideologically hostile to Markey as such, but they're not especially ideologically friendly to him either.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Kennedy did better in low-income areas generally; however once you correct for this he did very poorly in Western Massachusetts outside of Hampden County. Probably the Kennedy name just not meaning as much out here.

Based Berkshires!

I swear that hotel randomly on the top of Mt Greylock is both spooky and #populist

The summit of Greylock is in Adams, though, which Kennedy carried. The North Berkshires are great, but (? or "because") they don't have the hip-'n'-groovy Green Dream vibe of the area around Stockbridge and Great Barrington.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even though I'm a big Kennedy family guy, I really didn't understand why Kennedy made this unnecessary push to oust a solid incumbent. He's so young he could have risen in the ranks in the House before taking the next step with no opposition. Instead now he's just a guy who will be out of office. What's next? Governor against another popular incumbent in what probably will be a Republican year? Waiting for the next vacancy in the Senate? Maybe he gets an administration position, but I doubt it will be a really sexy one. He really must have just been operating to position himself for a presidential run in 2024 or 2028. Should have been patient man...

Because he's scared of Ayanna Pressley.

Why lol? He has a easier chance beating her

He wouldn't, though.

He saw how Pressley had very quickly become very prominent & very popular compared to himself - her star has been rising hot & fast, & many in Massachusetts seem to love her (& not to mention, a bastion of white privilege opposing a Black woman who's a rising star in Massachusetts Democratic politics probably wouldn't play all that well either) - & he also thought Markey was vulnerable based off of those polls from a year ago where he was polling wayyyy behind Kennedy, & because he (presumably) thought he'd have an easier time of knocking off Markey now rather than having to compete against Pressley in a few years' time, he decided to get out ahead of Pressley by taking a calculated risk: instead of waiting for a Senate seat to open up & being forced to go head-to-head with her, he'd try to primary Markey now by playing the young vs. old card. That obviously backfired, but he took the shot that he felt he needed to take.

MA democrats aren't as progressive as people think

This is true.

and a black liberal female tied to radicalism would most likely lose against a Kennedy.

This is not, necessarily.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pressley should beat Kennedy but given the negative/racist trope about Boston, I could see a Bradley Effect happen.

The "negative/racist trope about Boston" is that it's a racist community, not that it's full of Spooky Black People or whatever. Carrying Boston proper is also not necessary to a Massachusetts statewide victory even in a Democratic primary, and the areas immediately around Boston are ultra-woke these days.

Plus I don't put it behind MA Dems to nominate Pressley only to vote for Baker in the general election

In a Senate election?! I don't think so.