MA-SEN Megathread: Senator Markey wins

[Mister Mets]

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?

[Sestak]

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.

[MillennialModerate]

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.

[We Live in Black and White]

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.

[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.

[Pericles]

There's no good reason to throw out Senator Markey, who is a great Senator, and yes, the Kennedy surname is not a good reason.

[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.

[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.

[MillennialModerate]

There's no good reason to throw out Senator Markey, who is a great Senator, and yes, the Kennedy surname is not a good reason.

“no reason to throw him out?”

How in (small D) Democratic is it to tell people to “wait their turn?” - Let the people decide. If roles were reversed all you hippies would be saying “Kennedy feels entitled to that seat, he thinks he’s too good for anyone to challenge him. He doesn’t own that seat, the people do! OMG HEART HEART MARKEY”. But now Kennedy is the challenger and you’re all on him about him being too “pushy”. Please. Save it.

[Pericles]

There's no good reason to throw out Senator Markey, who is a great Senator, and yes, the Kennedy surname is not a good reason.

“no reason to throw him out?”

How in (small D) Democratic is it to tell people to “wait their turn?” - Let the people decide. If roles were reversed all you hippies would be saying “Kennedy feels entitled to that seat, he thinks he’s too good for anyone to challenge him. He doesn’t own that seat, the people do! OMG HEART HEART MARKEY”. But now Kennedy is the challenger and you’re all on him about him being too “pushy”. Please. Save it.

That does nothing to show why Markey shouldn't be re-elected. This is just dynastic politics at work, hopefully Massachusetts rejects it.

[MillennialModerate]

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.

Agreed on all accounts. He’ll be a Senator at some point.

Losing this race would likely end any future Presidential ambitions though.

Also, if he does lose this race then it’ll tell the country Massachusetts isn’t what it once was.

[Brittain33]

I’m guessing Kennedy’s polls show his risk of losing is quite low.

[YE]

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 probably is which granted isn’t saying much in this day and age.

[Skye]

https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1174752790549270531

You can't say that with a straight face. I mean, come on.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Key Presidential Candidate endorsement for Kennedy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-gop-gov-weld-backs-joe-kennedy-in-his-bid-to-unseat-sen-markey/2019/09/19/d10bccfe-daff-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1J1AK7rjH8OjNWGmn1A61WTG-VQNisVlbPh4QoCN3PZt-FnARFOpCsgRg

[MillennialModerate]

https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1174752790549270531

You can't say that with a straight face. I mean, come on.

HAHAHAHAAH.

[Brittain33]

https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1174752790549270531

You can't say that with a straight face. I mean, come on.

HAHAHAHAAH.

Again, this is a perspective driven by Markey's leadership on climate change. Yes, it's ironic because he's in his 70s. She's making the point through irony.

[Meatball Ron]

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.

Correct - we have no gubernatorial term-limits; this is an ill-informed post. Furthermore, assuming Baker does retire in 2018, the popular state Attorney General Maura Healey is essentially governor-in-waiting, has been for a while. Kennedy's options if he loses to Markey are Senate special in 2022 if Warren becomes POTUS, or Markey's seat in 2026 assuming Markey retires.

[Woody]

Weld backs Kennedy over Markey.

Source: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/09/19/bill-weld-backs-joe-kennedy-in-his-bid-to-unseat-ed-markey

“I’m for Kennedy,” said Weld, who held a wide-ranging conversation with Washington Post reporters. “I’ve known him since the day he was born.” “He doesn’t want my endorsement,” Weld added quickly.

He also praised Markey.

“I’ve known Ed for a long time and he’s a hero in a lot of areas,” Weld said, listing Telecom and the environment as two key issues where he said Markey has provided leadership.

Emily Kaufman, a spokeswoman for Kennedy, said, “Joe appreciates the kind words. He’ll be making a a campaign announcement this Saturday and looks forward to speaking with folks then.

[Sestak]

...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.

[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.

[Skye]

https://twitter.com/ActorAaronBooth/status/1175108450017316864

Yikes. They're going all in.

[President Johnson]

After watching this unfolding for the past few weeks, I'd support Markey despite the fact Kennedy is closer to my ideology. There is no real reason to run against Markey, he's been a fair senator. Kennedy is only running for his ego and because he thinks to be entitled to the seat. Therefore, I hope he loses. Go Ed!

Instead of raising these absurd sums to primary Markey, Kennedy should invest these dollars to defeat Donald Trump and Moscow Mitch.

[We Live in Black and White]

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

Found the Republican!