 |
| Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) |
I'm getting a little older, so the number of people I can claim this about is getting thinner each year, but Ed Markey has been in Congress longer than I've been alive (he first went to the House in 1976). And during that time, while I know things about him (and his political positions), he's been the definition of a backbench congressional member. The sort of politician you see frequently on C-Span, but never making the national conversation for presidential races, and up until his move to the Senate in 2013, even eschewing statewide races. So it has been one of the wilder things I've seen in politics that Markey got rebranded during this campaign as some liberal maverick. His endorsement from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (thanks to his work with her on the Green New Deal) sparked this conversation (she even cut a commercial for him), and made Markey a cause celebre for progressives. It worked-Markey was the decided underdog at the beginning of this campaign as many seemed open to a new generation of leader, but he made the case, and won another term in the Senate. As a Democratic primary is tantamount to reelection in Massachusetts, he will thus continue a nearly fifty year winning streak in Bay State politics with this victory. Considering his age (he'll be 80 when he's up again next), he'll likely end his career with that undefeated streak intact.
 |
| Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) |
Markey's win was Rep. Joe Kennedy III's loss, and the end of an era in Massachusetts. The 4-term congressman became the first Kennedy ever to lose an election in Massachusetts; his great uncles John & Ted, as well as his father Joe Kennedy II, held offices throughout the past seven decades in the state, but despite occasional close calls, never actually missed a bid for higher office. Kennedy's decision at the time he announced made sense-public polling (and I suspect private polling before he entered) indicated that he'd beat Markey, and at the age of 39, potentially jump-start a national career, perhaps another Kennedy who could make a play for the White House. His run ended up being too shallow once Markey proved that he wanted the seat; he was clearly not prepared to run beyond "change" and a golden name, & Markey's campaign called his bluff. Particularly in a year where Democrats are trying to stave off someone as feared/loathed by the base as Donald Trump, running a $23 million primary felt like a gigantic waste of cash, and Kennedy was criticized for being the cause of such a money pit. While some people instantly name-checked Kennedy as someone who might run for an open seat should Elizabeth Warren get appointed to the Biden administration, I find that unlikely. Warren's seat is too vulnerable in a 50/50 or 51/49 Senate (which is what seems most probable for the Democrats come January), and other less valuable figures can lead the Treasury department. What's more likely is that Kennedy, at the age of 39, will get a low-level ambassadorship in the Biden administration, and then fade into obscurity. The bench in Massachusetts is too rich to give second chances to Democrats that lose in such high-profile ways.
 |
| Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse (D-MA) |
Markey/Kennedy wasn't the only major race on the ballot last night. One of the other signature contests was a primary challenge to Rep. Richard Neal, a Democrat who was criticized for not being aggressive enough against the Trump administration, and thus was contested by Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse. The race took an ugly turn when there were allegations against Morse that accused the mayor of sending inappropriate messages to college students (Morse is a college professor). In August, though, it turned out that this was a smear campaign, one that had so little credence that several of the outlets it'd been shopped to (specifically Business Insider) had declined to publish as it seemed to have too many holes-in-the-story, and it turns out ia college student supporting Neal had orchestrated the false story about Morse.
At that point, though, the damage was done, and Neal's supporters continued to attack Morse for behaving inappropriately, ignoring the fact that there were no actual complaints against Morse, and at best the 31-year-old Morse had dated younger (adult) men. The attacks against Morse to me reeked of homophobia, trying to portray a gay man's behavior as predatory when it wasn't, and it was uncomfortable to watch otherwise "progressive" figures start to utilize hard-right stereotypes about gay men in order to score points in the primary. There seemed to be a lot of false justifying from Neal supporters in going after Morse for having an active adult sex life with other, consenting adult men as anything other than prejudicial, but it was hard not to see flimsy justifications for gut-check bigotry in these excuses. The ugly reality is that what happened to Morse by fellow Democrats is going to make other openly gay men reconsider ever running for political office, and that's on Democrats, not Republicans, hurting the LGBT cause.
 |
| Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) |
The race to replace Joe Kennedy is still technically undecided as of this morning, with Jesse Mermell and Jake Auchincloss being the two candidates in a wide-field who have a shot at winning, but based on elections analysts I find reliable, it would take an upset for Mermell to be able to win, and thus Auchincloss is probably headed to the next Congress. Auchincloss winning this seat adds extra insult to Kennedy's defeat, and makes his vanity run look all the more selfish considering the (likely) next MA-4 congressman is to Kennedy's right, and a recent former Republican. Auchincloss in fact worked for the Charlie Baker campaign in 2014 (and unlike 2018, the Baker campaign in 2014 was not a slam-dunk for the Republican, and the Democrats tried aggressively to get Attorney General Martha Coakley to win, so this would be the equivalent of a solid blue seat going to a Romney staffer). It's entirely possible that Kennedy not only ruined his career, but gave his seat to a potential party-switcher, or at least a vote far less reliable to Nancy Pelosi.
Auchincloss's past was not unknown heading into this year's election, and most of the progressives in the district seemed disinclined to vote for him, but without Ranked Choice Voting, he appears to have won a seat in Congress thanks to split support for progressives. This won't be a strategy he'll be able to use in the future, though, if the RCV ballot initiative passes in MA this fall. I have to imagine proponents of the RCV ballot initiative just found their catalyst for the final days of the campaign, as Auchincloss would be Exhibit A in how RCV would prevent plurality wins.
 |
| Cori Bush (D-MO), one of eight challengers to defeat House incumbents in primaries this year |
Last night Markey, Neal, and Rep. Stephen Lynch staved off publicized & funded challengers, which has been the overall norm this primary season, but not the norm in the way it usually is. Unless something bizarre happens in the remaining three states with primaries, we will end the year with eight incumbent members of Congress having lost in a primary, the most since Watergate. While some of these were due to scandals (Ross Spano, Steve Watkins), by-and-large they were about taking out incumbents who vote the party line but were considered out-of-touch with their constituents or not strong enough firebrands.
It's hard to tell what to make of this. In most cases it's easy to see what went wrong. Dan Lipinski, for example, was a blue-district incumbent who didn't support abortion rights and gay marriage (an easy campaign issue to go against), while Denver Riggleman's officiating of a gay wedding in a hard-red seat put him at risk. But others, like Rep. Lacy Clay & Scott Tipton seemed to not commit any major sins (both vote the party line), but weren't visible enough, making them vulnerable to young women in their party further to the left and right (respectively). The hard thing to tell to read future tea leaves here is that Clay & Tipton are like a lot of members of Congress-most of them are unknown, party-line votes, and lots of their peers in similar situations (like Markey, Neal, & Lynch) won just fine. In 2022 & beyond, without further evidence, it's difficult to tell if these are just random blips or a sign that aging incumbents in safe seats need to worry about even the most-unlikely of primary challengers.
No comments:
Post a Comment