MA Special Election Watch Thread

[Benj]

I'm surprised by the age gap. Lynch DOMINATES Markey with people under 45 (maybe because of how long Markey has been in congress), which I feel is weird for a Pro-Life candidate. But then again, the pro-life crowd in Masschussets among younger folks is HUGE according to this poll, so it may not be too surprising.

That shows either the subsample is unreliable or Markey has a lot of room to grow by telling young voters that Lynch is a proud social conservative. Actually, the subsample is definitely unreliable because while there may be lots of pro-life young Dems in Mass., there's no way this state has an atypically large pro-life youth population.

The problem is that Lynch is not, in fact, a 'proud social conservative'. He's not even moderate or center-right on any issue other than abortion. He's anemic on LGBT issues and generic D on almost everything else.

... You just named the only two social issues that matter in a Democratic primary. What else is Lynch going to be a social conservative on?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm surprised by the age gap. Lynch DOMINATES Markey with people under 45 (maybe because of how long Markey has been in congress), which I feel is weird for a Pro-Life candidate. But then again, the pro-life crowd in Masschussets among younger folks is HUGE according to this poll, so it may not be too surprising.

That shows either the subsample is unreliable or Markey has a lot of room to grow by telling young voters that Lynch is a proud social conservative. Actually, the subsample is definitely unreliable because while there may be lots of pro-life young Dems in Mass., there's no way this state has an atypically large pro-life youth population.

The problem is that Lynch is not, in fact, a 'proud social conservative'. He's not even moderate or center-right on any issue other than abortion. He's anemic on LGBT issues and generic D on almost everything else.

... You just named the only two social issues that matter in a Democratic primary. What else is Lynch going to be a social conservative on?

First of all, while I said Lynch is anemic on LGBT issues, he's far from conservative on them. He's voted a consistently pro-LGBT rights line in Congress going back to at least the mid-2000s; he just doesn't advertise it. I was actually until recently (read: Ten minutes ago) under the impression that he was further right on that set of concerns than he in fact votes. Lynch is either comparable or to the left of 'generic D' on LGBT issues, crime, the environment, parental leave, homeland security, immigration, education, and guns. He's to the right of 'generic D' on abortion, drugs (of which I was previously unaware), and not much else of any current relevance.

[Brittain33]

First of all, while I said Lynch is anemic on LGBT issues, he's far from conservative on them. He's voted a consistently pro-LGBT rights line in Congress going back to at least the mid-2000s; he just doesn't advertise it. I was actually until recently (read: Ten minutes ago) under the impression that he was further right on that set of concerns than he in fact votes. Lynch is either comparable or to the left of 'generic D' on LGBT issues, crime, the environment, parental leave, homeland security, immigration, education, and guns. He's to the right of 'generic D' on abortion, drugs (of which I was previously unaware), and not much else of any current relevance.

Nathan, this seems to be the article that summarizes it:

http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/10/a_decade_later_gay_marriage_advocates_praise_lynch/?page=2

Lynch attacked an opponent in his first primary for legislature on the issue of the St. Patrick's Day Parade and opposed gay rights bills while a legislator. It sounds as if since he went to Washington, and started to look statewide, he's stopped opposing gay rights. He's certainly not Tom Coburn, but he renounced his pro-life views a month ago, which seems to be the worst choice one could make.

[Maxwell]

I'm surprised by the age gap. Lynch DOMINATES Markey with people under 45 (maybe because of how long Markey has been in congress), which I feel is weird for a Pro-Life candidate. But then again, the pro-life crowd in Masschussets among younger folks is HUGE according to this poll, so it may not be too surprising.

That shows either the subsample is unreliable or Markey has a lot of room to grow by telling young voters that Lynch is a proud social conservative. Actually, the subsample is definitely unreliable because while there may be lots of pro-life young Dems in Mass., there's no way this state has an atypically large pro-life youth population.

Pro-Life doesn't always mean "Pro-life". Some people don't like abortion but still think it should be legal. Maybe that's the case in Massachusetts, where a huge section of the youth population is against abortion but would not overturn Roe V. Wade.

[Obamanation]

This is the liberal state of Massachusetts, we deserve a real liberal senator from there. Lynch wouldn't be that senator.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This is the liberal state of Massachusetts, we deserve a real liberal senator from there. Lunch wouldn't be that senator.

There are a lot of Democrats in Massachusetts who would disagree with the first part of that assessment.

Lynch is, admittedly, not the sort of senator these Democrats would need or probably would want in an ideal world. Warren is actually a much better senator of the type under consideration than Lynch would be.

That article that was just linked is a good capsule of my own problem with Lynch. That problem doesn't have anything to do with how 'socially conservative' he is or isn't. It isn't that he would vote notably different from any other Democrat; it's that he is or at least seems disingenuous about it in a way that, say, Kirsten Gillibrand--who similarly veered left as she came to represent a greater portion (i.e. the entirety) of a left-leaning state--for whatever reason doesn't.

[Maxwell]

This is the liberal state of Massachusetts, we deserve a real liberal senator from there. Lunch wouldn't be that senator.

Would Dinner be that senator then?  How about Breakfast?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is the liberal state of Massachusetts, we deserve a real liberal senator from there. Lunch wouldn't be that senator.

Would Dinner be that senator then?  How about Breakfast?

Possibly.  Those meals often have more liberal portions.

[Obamanation]

This is the liberal state of Massachusetts, we deserve a real liberal senator from there. Lunch wouldn't be that senator.

Would Dinner be that senator then?  How about Breakfast?

I think Supper would actually fit the state quite nicely.

[Roemerista]

MA is more a Democratic state, than a Liberal state. Its only been the last couple of years that the Lynch brand of the democratic party has been not as successful as it used to be. Check out the latest cross tabs of the DEM primary--a lot of the "big" issues Lynch is "conservative" on are not a deal killer. As for pro-life issues, he seems to be more an enemy of planned parenthood and state funding, than the right to abortion.

[smoltchanov]

With signature submitting deadline (Feb 27th) is less then a week away -  fewer candidates remain in Republican primary. Bielat is out, Bennett - possibly too. IMHO - that leaves Gomez (who seems to be the choice of party generally conservative "insurgents" as a "fresh face" with unusual biography (Colombian former Navy SEAL and former Obama and Khazei supporter who, then, went bitterly against Obama)), Sullivan (who seems to be a choice of "establishment conservatives" and some "rebels", who can't live with Gomez past support of liberal Democrats) ad Winslow (generally - a choice of moderates and many libertarians). At least - it seems so from  Internet info. My question is to those, who live in Massachusetts now - how correct is this my assessment and what really happens "in place"?))))

[Dan the Roman]

With signature submitting deadline (Feb 27th) is less then a week away -  fewer candidates remain in Republican primary. Bielat is out, Bennett - possibly too. IMHO - that leaves Gomez (who seems to be the choice of party generally conservative "insurgents" as a "fresh face" with unusual biography (Colombian former Navy SEAL and former Obama and Khazei supporter who, then, went bitterly against Obama)), Sullivan (who seems to be a choice of "establishment conservatives" and some "rebels", who can't live with Gomez past support of liberal Democrats) ad Winslow (generally - a choice of moderates and many libertarians). At least - it seems so from  Internet info. My question is to those, who live in Massachusetts now - how correct is this my assessment and what really happens "in place"?))))

Gomez is not the candidate of the grassroots, but rather the Romney establishment that fed for six years on the hope of federal patronage. People like Kaufman and Healey care far less about winning elections since they themselves cannot be elected than they do about ensuring that they are the power-brokers Rubio and Christie come to in 2015, and therefore control Massachusetts patronage in a new Republican Administration. Gomez is less about winning than about ensuring that Baker is the nominee in 2014 if Brown dosen't run.

Winslow backed the insurgent candidate for MA GOP chair and has been on the outs with Romneyworld since 2004-2005. The greatest threat for them is him winning 45-46%, then using that as a base for running for Governor. Brown might feel the election was in safe hands(which he wouldn't with Baker) and Winslow has shown a willingness to purge Romney operatives that would lock them out. A Winslow governorship would be the end of Ron Kaufman and Kerry Healey's influence in politics.

Sullivan is the candidate of the Andy Card, Massachusetts Bush people and is largely irrelevant to local feuds which may or may not be an asset.

[Benj]

Does it look like all three Republican candidates will get the requisite signatures? As I recall there was some question of that back when the snowstorm hit.

[smoltchanov]

With signature submitting deadline (Feb 27th) is less then a week away -  fewer candidates remain in Republican primary. Bielat is out, Bennett - possibly too. IMHO - that leaves Gomez (who seems to be the choice of party generally conservative "insurgents" as a "fresh face" with unusual biography (Colombian former Navy SEAL and former Obama and Khazei supporter who, then, went bitterly against Obama)), Sullivan (who seems to be a choice of "establishment conservatives" and some "rebels", who can't live with Gomez past support of liberal Democrats) ad Winslow (generally - a choice of moderates and many libertarians). At least - it seems so from  Internet info. My question is to those, who live in Massachusetts now - how correct is this my assessment and what really happens "in place"?))))

Gomez is not the candidate of the grassroots, but rather the Romney establishment that fed for six years on the hope of federal patronage. People like Kaufman and Healey care far less about winning elections since they themselves cannot be elected than they do about ensuring that they are the power-brokers Rubio and Christie come to in 2015, and therefore control Massachusetts patronage in a new Republican Administration. Gomez is less about winning than about ensuring that Baker is the nominee in 2014 if Brown dosen't run.

Winslow backed the insurgent candidate for MA GOP chair and has been on the outs with Romneyworld since 2004-2005. The greatest threat for them is him winning 45-46%, then using that as a base for running for Governor. Brown might feel the election was in safe hands(which he wouldn't with Baker) and Winslow has shown a willingness to purge Romney operatives that would lock them out. A Winslow governorship would be the end of Ron Kaufman and Kerry Healey's influence in politics.

Sullivan is the candidate of the Andy Card, Massachusetts Bush people and is largely irrelevant to local feuds which may or may not be an asset.

Thanks a lot! Well, with Bush and his like as popular in Massachusetts as dead wood, i would consider Sullivan the least electable candidate, while Winslow - the most. Though i understand that Democratic candidate is heavily favored in any case - it's unlikely that Democrats made no lessons from disastrous Coakley campaign of 2010

P.S. I am aware that Winslow supported an insurgent candidate for MA GOP chair, but, probably, must explain why i considered Gomez a candidate of grassroots: rather strong support for him in RMG poll. Most of the RMG authors and contributors tend to reflect grassroot's views, at least - to some extent.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Winslow is probably eminently electable for Governor or any other non-federal office, and comes closest of the current crop of Republican Senatorial hopefuls, but Markey will probably defeat him with relative ease, if comparatively anemic numbers. Massachusetts Democrats are terrified of the prospect of a 2010 repeat.

[smoltchanov]

Winslow is probably eminently electable for Governor or any other non-federal office, and comes closest of the current crop of Republican Senatorial hopefuls, but Markey will probably defeat him with relative ease, if comparatively anemic numbers. Massachusetts Democrats are terrified of the prospect of a 2010 repeat.

Fully agree. As i said earlier - i see the only hope for Republicans in the fact that Markey may completely forgot how to campaign after 30+ years of easy reelections in his safe district. And (to small extent) - in possible extremely low turnout in June, especially - in big cities.

[justfollowingtheelections]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/26/5218366/mna-endorses-stephen-lynch-for.html

The Massachusetts Nurses Association endorses Lynch.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

All 3 Republican candidates -- Sullivan, Winslow, and Gomez -- will be on the primary ballot. Supposedly, Gomez paid $8-14 per signature to grind his way to the 10,000 hurdle.

[smoltchanov]

All 3 Republican candidates -- Sullivan, Winslow, and Gomez -- will be on the primary ballot. Supposedly, Gomez paid $8-14 per signature to grind his way to the 10,000 hurdle.

Will Republicans opt for "electability" (Winslow), "ideological purity" (Sullivan, who has -100% chances to win, but ideally reflects republican "base" with his ultraconservative (especially - for THIS state) positions) or "resume and political correctness" (Gomez)?

[Maxwell]

I would be shocked if Winslow loses. He seems to have the most name recognition and was the first one to be really active about running. I don't see how he loses, unless the Republican electorate in Massachusetts decides to screw this up. I'm not saying Winslow will win, no way, but Winslow is certainly their best shot, and he seems like my kind of Republican.

[smoltchanov]

I would be shocked if Winslow loses. He seems to have the most name recognition and was the first one to be really active about running. I don't see how he loses, unless the Republican electorate in Massachusetts decides to screw this up. I'm not saying Winslow will win, no way, but Winslow is certainly their best shot, and he seems like my kind of Republican.

My - too, and fully agree. But few people come for special primaries, and of those, who come - most are of  activist-purist type (my most hated type in BOTH parties). They may decide differently and "proudly go down" with  Sullivan, whose views were barely acceptable (politically) for Massachusetts even 20 years ago, and absolutely unaccteptable for present-day statewide race. If he would run for State representative - another matter: there are still some conservative state legislative districts even in this state. But statewide -

[morgieb]

Gut feel says it's Gomez as he has the most establishment support.

[smoltchanov]

Gut feel says it's Gomez as he has the most establishment support.

Possibly, but not very likely. Good resume, but very politicaly checkered (and mostly Democratic) past as i understand..

[Brittain33]

Lynch was the sole congressman from Mass to decline to sign the anti-DOMA brief for the Supreme Court.

This is not going to pass without notice.

[Brittain33]

AFL-CIO declined to endorse Lynch in the primary, which undermines his ambition to be the unions' candidate.