Jake Auchincloss has no chance to take out Markey.
As for Tim Walz, he should consider a presidential run. But whatever consultant muted him needs to be kept far away from the campaign. The Tim Walz who wasn't afraid to call a dipshit a dipshit, that guy stands a chance.
Jake Auchincloss has no chance to take out Markey.
As for Tim Walz, he should consider a presidential run. But whatever consultant muted him needs to be kept far away from the campaign. The Tim Walz who wasn't afraid to call a dipshit a dipshit, that guy stands a chance.
First, I sincerely hope Governor Tim Walz steps up as a loud anti-Trumpian voice. We need him and it would further raise his profile. Right now Democrats have far too many soft or silent voices, and few that speak to rural America.
As for Markey’s age and long service as a senator (approaching half a century), he’s in far better shape than the longer-serving Chuck Grassley – especially from the neck up and in terms of integrity.
Big mistake that Joe Kennedy the 3rd chose to challenge Markey, a fighter and one of our best senators. (And very wrong of Pelosi to endorse Kennedy against the incumbent Markey.) I hope someone dissuades Auchincloss, although I wouldn’t mind seeing him lose to Markey and for Kennedy to regain his House seat!
Deeply involved in the Project SAM nonsense. He could have run against Charlie Baker but instead decided to primary a senator and ran an empty nepotism based campaign against Markey. Happy to see him retired and irrelevant we don't need to go to the nepotism well to get politicians under 70 in office.
Baker was probably too popular to be defeated. Kennedy could have gone for governor in 2022 when it was open, but Healey probably had too much of a head start.
Avedee, Kennedy made a mistake running against Markey, no doubt about that. I share your animosity about that. However, that does not make Kennedy politically irrelevant for all time, nor that his political career is dead and buried.
We can and should do better than an anti-marjiuana crusader nepo baby who challenged one of the most progressive senators in the country on a platform of elect me i'm a Kennedy.
I'm not as opposed to JPK3 as Avedee, but at the same time: what does he bring us? He's not ideologically special. While I wouldn't call him weak in any categories of policy expertise or communication, he also possesses no special strength in those categories. While he would be younger than most congressmembers, he's not uniquely young as a potential statewide candidate in MA. Pressley is 50 vs his 44. Auchincloss is 36. Trahan is 51. Moulton is 46. (Although I'd certainly prefer him over Moulton...)
The only thing special about him is his last name. Which in a tough election (e.g. if he had challenged Baker) would have value. There are no expected difficult elections in the state in the near future for him to put that to use. It also would have no real value for a presidential ticket, as democrats in particular are shying away from anything that they can call dynasties. Plus, his uncle is doing his best job to run the family name into the mud.
Kennedy as a potential senator doesn't give us anything special.
Pressley is by far the person we should want to replace Markey or Warren, whoever leaves first. And I'm on board for both of them making their current term their last, considering their ages.
"Plus, his uncle is doing his best job to run the family name into the mud."
That would seem to be an argument in favour of a Kennedy run, to restore some more lustre to the family name and legacy.
But even in Massachusetts, a Kennedy restoration only goes so far. Younger voters might not be hostile to the prospect, but they don't automatically gravitate to it and building a campaign mostly around nostalgia often doesn't work out well.
One of the problems is the MA congressional delegation has a lot of weak-sauce "moderates" in it. Auchincloss is one of them, but there are worse, like Neal or Lynch or DINO Moulton (my rep, unfortunately). The only people in the delegation who could hold Markey's jock are Clark and Pressley. Clark is in the house leadership as the minority whip, and I don't think she'd give that up to be junior senator. And I don't think Pressley would beat Markey.
Clark has positioned herself well to be Jeffries' successor. She'll have a real shot at being speaker sometime in a decade or so unless Jeffries sticks around for as long as Pelosi did. If so she'd also likely be the second woman to be speaker. Like you I expect her to stick to the house and not run for senate.
Healey has her eyes set elsewhere right now, but I could see her running in 2030 if the seat is open. Pressley and Clark are the only ones I'd prefer over her in that scenario. She's not amazing but she's easily preferable to Auchincloss or Moulton.
I don't know of anything especially egregious in his voting record.
The issue with Moulton is his statements and other actions. He tries to position himself in the "democrats suck" lane. He's in a house seat that he could probably hold down for another 40 years with little risk if he wished — he doesn't need that bullshit to keep enough voters on his side. All he's doing is hurting the party. He also made a pointless attempt to depose Pelosi.
The basic summary I'd make is that Moulton is not a team player and that when we absolutely 100% need someone to be there, we cannot count on him. He will probably be there, but not reliably enough. Especially not reliably enough for a potential senator from one of the bluest states in the country.
Moulton is in it for himself and I have no confidence that we can truly count on him for anything important, especially if he's made it to statewide office. If he's a senator and does something awful when reelection is >2 years away, the electorate will have moved on by election day.
Either way, Moulton represents a D+11 district. We wouldn't exactly be in danger of losing it if say for the sake of the argument another Democratic challenger more liberal than him primaries him out of office.
All true. Also, Moulton was one of the loudest voices in favor of a ballot question a few years back that would have increased charter schools in MA. As a public school teacher, that pissed me off (it mercifully failed).
He also tried to derail Pelosi from becoming speaker in 2018...from the right! His whole thing was Pelosi was too liberal. If you think Nancy "Definition of Centrist" Pelosi is too liberal, just put the R after your name and be done with it.
If Walz really wants to be president--and I don't know of there being much indication of that before his turn as VP nominee--then he'd probably be better off not running for reelection in 2026. (Same for Harris regarding a possible CA-Gov run)
They could run more effective campaigns without having to constantly return to their states and concentrate on state business, and "elect me and I'll run for president" is generally not a great vote getting message. Not that all Dems considering a national run will, or should, step down; for example, I don't see Shapiro voluntarily stopping with one term.
We've had the following VP candidates (never elected) who never ran for POTUS after the presidential ticket they were on lost in a prior presidential election:
Tim Kaine - Didn't run in the Democratic primary in 2020.
Paul Ryan - Didn't run in the Republican primaries in 2016 and 2020.
Sarah Palin - Didn't run in the Republican primaries in 2012 and 2016.
Lloyd Bentsen - Didn't run in 1992 and ended up serving as the first Treasury Secretary under President Clinton's administration from 1993-1994.
Jack Kemp - Ran for POTUS in the Republican primary in 1988 but dropped out of the race in March 1988. Did get selected by Bob Dole as his running mate but after this ticket lost, he never ran for POTUS again.
Joe Lieberman and John Edwards ran in 2004 and again in 2008 (Edwards) but their stock as presidential candidates dropped as presidential candidates after being running mates in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
I happen to work in the consulting field (management consulting-related) and think the concept of the Democratic Party using consultants to help them win elections makes no sense to me.
Agreed. So much analysis about why Dems lost gets really, really deep. It’s really as simple as running a stiff boring politician doesn’t work anymore. Not in this day and age. Voters want relatable people. Is Trump relatable? He is when you think about how people swear and say bad things sometimes.
I went to elementary school a few blocks from Harris' childhood home. My elementary school in West Berkeley, Columbus Elementary School (now Rosa Parks Elementary School), had plenty of students from this neighborhood. I have several friends from here as well.
I can tell you that Harris' personality and attitude most definitely is West Berkeley attitude. She grew up as a kid with a street smart attitude, which includes saying things directly to a person's face if you mean it.
She should’ve talked like that. Her/our biggest mistake for her debate was thinking letting Trump speak and make an ass of himself helps us win. It was a talking point but did she point how fucking stupid he sounds? Nope. She never sealed the deal on that one. People would probably find it refreshing to hear a politician say in a debate, “You sound so dumb right now.” Eating pets?!? Call that out.
Jake Auchincloss has no chance to take out Markey.
As for Tim Walz, he should consider a presidential run. But whatever consultant muted him needs to be kept far away from the campaign. The Tim Walz who wasn't afraid to call a dipshit a dipshit, that guy stands a chance.
First, I sincerely hope Governor Tim Walz steps up as a loud anti-Trumpian voice. We need him and it would further raise his profile. Right now Democrats have far too many soft or silent voices, and few that speak to rural America.
As for Markey’s age and long service as a senator (approaching half a century), he’s in far better shape than the longer-serving Chuck Grassley – especially from the neck up and in terms of integrity.
Big mistake that Joe Kennedy the 3rd chose to challenge Markey, a fighter and one of our best senators. (And very wrong of Pelosi to endorse Kennedy against the incumbent Markey.) I hope someone dissuades Auchincloss, although I wouldn’t mind seeing him lose to Markey and for Kennedy to regain his House seat!
I was going to say . . enough time has passed that Kennedy should make a move for something; he's still a talented pol.
I'm happy to leave his political career dead and buried.
Any reason you don't like him?
Deeply involved in the Project SAM nonsense. He could have run against Charlie Baker but instead decided to primary a senator and ran an empty nepotism based campaign against Markey. Happy to see him retired and irrelevant we don't need to go to the nepotism well to get politicians under 70 in office.
Baker was probably too popular to be defeated. Kennedy could have gone for governor in 2022 when it was open, but Healey probably had too much of a head start.
Avedee, Kennedy made a mistake running against Markey, no doubt about that. I share your animosity about that. However, that does not make Kennedy politically irrelevant for all time, nor that his political career is dead and buried.
We can and should do better than an anti-marjiuana crusader nepo baby who challenged one of the most progressive senators in the country on a platform of elect me i'm a Kennedy.
I'm not as opposed to JPK3 as Avedee, but at the same time: what does he bring us? He's not ideologically special. While I wouldn't call him weak in any categories of policy expertise or communication, he also possesses no special strength in those categories. While he would be younger than most congressmembers, he's not uniquely young as a potential statewide candidate in MA. Pressley is 50 vs his 44. Auchincloss is 36. Trahan is 51. Moulton is 46. (Although I'd certainly prefer him over Moulton...)
The only thing special about him is his last name. Which in a tough election (e.g. if he had challenged Baker) would have value. There are no expected difficult elections in the state in the near future for him to put that to use. It also would have no real value for a presidential ticket, as democrats in particular are shying away from anything that they can call dynasties. Plus, his uncle is doing his best job to run the family name into the mud.
Kennedy as a potential senator doesn't give us anything special.
Pressley is by far the person we should want to replace Markey or Warren, whoever leaves first. And I'm on board for both of them making their current term their last, considering their ages.
"Plus, his uncle is doing his best job to run the family name into the mud."
That would seem to be an argument in favour of a Kennedy run, to restore some more lustre to the family name and legacy.
But even in Massachusetts, a Kennedy restoration only goes so far. Younger voters might not be hostile to the prospect, but they don't automatically gravitate to it and building a campaign mostly around nostalgia often doesn't work out well.
Who woulda thunk that RFK Jr could make Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana (unrelated) look like the more reasonable Kennedy?
Speaking only for myself, I have no interest in *any* Kennedy running for *any* office. I consider their "mystique" fundamentally un-American.
I’m sure they’re a bunch of candidates who would be better than Auschinscloss
One of the problems is the MA congressional delegation has a lot of weak-sauce "moderates" in it. Auchincloss is one of them, but there are worse, like Neal or Lynch or DINO Moulton (my rep, unfortunately). The only people in the delegation who could hold Markey's jock are Clark and Pressley. Clark is in the house leadership as the minority whip, and I don't think she'd give that up to be junior senator. And I don't think Pressley would beat Markey.
Clark has positioned herself well to be Jeffries' successor. She'll have a real shot at being speaker sometime in a decade or so unless Jeffries sticks around for as long as Pelosi did. If so she'd also likely be the second woman to be speaker. Like you I expect her to stick to the house and not run for senate.
Healey has her eyes set elsewhere right now, but I could see her running in 2030 if the seat is open. Pressley and Clark are the only ones I'd prefer over her in that scenario. She's not amazing but she's easily preferable to Auchincloss or Moulton.
I'm not that familiar with his voting record. What besides his transgender comment makes Moulton a DINO?
I don't know of anything especially egregious in his voting record.
The issue with Moulton is his statements and other actions. He tries to position himself in the "democrats suck" lane. He's in a house seat that he could probably hold down for another 40 years with little risk if he wished — he doesn't need that bullshit to keep enough voters on his side. All he's doing is hurting the party. He also made a pointless attempt to depose Pelosi.
The basic summary I'd make is that Moulton is not a team player and that when we absolutely 100% need someone to be there, we cannot count on him. He will probably be there, but not reliably enough. Especially not reliably enough for a potential senator from one of the bluest states in the country.
Moulton is in it for himself and I have no confidence that we can truly count on him for anything important, especially if he's made it to statewide office. If he's a senator and does something awful when reelection is >2 years away, the electorate will have moved on by election day.
Either way, Moulton represents a D+11 district. We wouldn't exactly be in danger of losing it if say for the sake of the argument another Democratic challenger more liberal than him primaries him out of office.
All true. Also, Moulton was one of the loudest voices in favor of a ballot question a few years back that would have increased charter schools in MA. As a public school teacher, that pissed me off (it mercifully failed).
He also tried to derail Pelosi from becoming speaker in 2018...from the right! His whole thing was Pelosi was too liberal. If you think Nancy "Definition of Centrist" Pelosi is too liberal, just put the R after your name and be done with it.
First, we have the midterms coming up. If Walz wants to start putting where his energy should be, it’s helping Democrats get elected in 2026.
After that, the presidency could be considered.
Well, fair enough, except if he decides to run for re-election in 26. I'd expect him to concentrate on that, if so.
Yes, agreed. I had forgotten Minnesota doesn't have term limit requirements like California so Walz may decide to give a third term a go.
If Walz really wants to be president--and I don't know of there being much indication of that before his turn as VP nominee--then he'd probably be better off not running for reelection in 2026. (Same for Harris regarding a possible CA-Gov run)
They could run more effective campaigns without having to constantly return to their states and concentrate on state business, and "elect me and I'll run for president" is generally not a great vote getting message. Not that all Dems considering a national run will, or should, step down; for example, I don't see Shapiro voluntarily stopping with one term.
We've had the following VP candidates (never elected) who never ran for POTUS after the presidential ticket they were on lost in a prior presidential election:
Tim Kaine - Didn't run in the Democratic primary in 2020.
Paul Ryan - Didn't run in the Republican primaries in 2016 and 2020.
Sarah Palin - Didn't run in the Republican primaries in 2012 and 2016.
Lloyd Bentsen - Didn't run in 1992 and ended up serving as the first Treasury Secretary under President Clinton's administration from 1993-1994.
Jack Kemp - Ran for POTUS in the Republican primary in 1988 but dropped out of the race in March 1988. Did get selected by Bob Dole as his running mate but after this ticket lost, he never ran for POTUS again.
Joe Lieberman and John Edwards ran in 2004 and again in 2008 (Edwards) but their stock as presidential candidates dropped as presidential candidates after being running mates in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
National Democrats would do a lot better without consultants.
I really wish National Democrats felt the same way. They seem to be obsessed with the consultant class.
I happen to work in the consulting field (management consulting-related) and think the concept of the Democratic Party using consultants to help them win elections makes no sense to me.
Agreed. So much analysis about why Dems lost gets really, really deep. It’s really as simple as running a stiff boring politician doesn’t work anymore. Not in this day and age. Voters want relatable people. Is Trump relatable? He is when you think about how people swear and say bad things sometimes.
I went to elementary school a few blocks from Harris' childhood home. My elementary school in West Berkeley, Columbus Elementary School (now Rosa Parks Elementary School), had plenty of students from this neighborhood. I have several friends from here as well.
I can tell you that Harris' personality and attitude most definitely is West Berkeley attitude. She grew up as a kid with a street smart attitude, which includes saying things directly to a person's face if you mean it.
She should’ve talked like that. Her/our biggest mistake for her debate was thinking letting Trump speak and make an ass of himself helps us win. It was a talking point but did she point how fucking stupid he sounds? Nope. She never sealed the deal on that one. People would probably find it refreshing to hear a politician say in a debate, “You sound so dumb right now.” Eating pets?!? Call that out.
Exactly. Biden telling Trump, "Will you shut up, man?" in a debate became a meme.
Why I think exhaustion with Trump was a real factor and will likely be one again by 26/28.
This is why I'm hoping Ben Wikler wins the DNC Chair. He's said his first order of business is going over every consultant contract.