Massachusetts Primary Results-- Progressive Movement Won The Big Prize, But...

Markey won his race handily tonight. Kennedy conceded. I bet Pelosi didn't call AOC and concede to her though. Every progressive group that endorsed Markey (other than Blue America) is trying to claim the credit but it really was a team effort that centered totally around Markey. Proof of that pudding. The other progressives picks (albeit not Blue America's)-- Alex Morse in the first congressional district and Ihssane Leckey in the 4th (the seat Kennedy gave up)-- lost.

A quick word about them. Both were perfect on policy and would have voted right all the time. That isn't all that Congress Members do though and although I thought Morse would make an infinitely better member than Richie Neal and that Leckey would have been better than Jesse Mermell, Jack Auchincloss, Becky Grossman or Natalia Linos-- each of whom appears to have out-polled her-- I didn't think I should ask Blue America contributors to give their money to either. Why? I got a feeling that neither had some intangible traits needed-- like "people skills"-- to succeed in Congress. I would have voted, without hesitation, for each of them, but that is different from contributing to them or urging other people to, especially when there are so many prospects in dire need of those contributions in a progressive universe that doesn't have infinite resources.

As for Kennedy, I expect he'll wind up in Biden's cabinet or be given some other stepping-stone job for his inevitable run for the presidency. Although... isn't he the first Kennedy to ever lose an election in Massachusetts?

Pelosi's endorsement of Kennedy turned out to be a kiss of death for him, starting with a big jump in contributions for Markey as soon as Pelosi interfered. Kennedy was never able to articulate a reason for voters to abandon Markey-- and neither could Pelosi (nor could Mark Pocan, another Kennedy endorser who fell flat on his face while splitting the Congressional Progressive Caucus from its grassroots supporters). 

The partial results available now show Markey beating Kennedy 55.52% to 44.86%. Establishment Pelosi ally Richard Neal is up over Alex Morse 59.02% to 40.98%. With all 14 precincts reporting Morse lost his own town, Holyoke, where he is mayor, to Neal, 4,366 (52.56%) to 3,940 (47.44).

With 80% of precincts counted, MA-04 is too close to call between Jesse Mermell (22.37%) and Jake Auchincloss (22.29%). Leckey came in 5th with around 11%.

All the results should be in tomorrow when I'll be a guest on Brad Friedman's radio show too discuss tonight's results.

What Will Joe Kennedy Do After His Congressional Career Ends Tomorrow? A Biden Sub-Cabinet Position?

Tomorrow is primary day in Massachusetts and the more progressive of the two candidates, incumbent Ed Markey, is ahead of Joe Kennedy III in the Senate race. Every public poll this summer has shown Markey ahead and the latest-- an Emerson poll released yesterday-- has him beating Kennedy 56-44%, The RealClearPolitics polling average has Markey ahead 52.0% to 40.8%, an 11.2% gap. That's some turn-around since the first poll taken a year ago that showed Kennedy beating Markey 42-25% (a since evaporated 17 point lead for Kennedy).

Much of the national coverage of the election has been about endorsements. One way of looking at it is that the entire progressive grassroots movement-- from MoveOn (92% of whose Massachusetts members opted for Markey), Daily Kos, NARAL, Sierra Club, HRC, Peace Action and the Working Families Party to DFA, Indivisible, Our Revolution, Sunrise, Justice Dems, PCCC, PDA and Blue America-- has come out for Markey. But the media is also looking at this as a battle between Pelosi-- who hypocritically endorsed Kennedy, probably doing him more harm than good-- and AOC, who validated Markey as the progressive choice. Kennedy was probably further harmed when the only sitting U.S. senator to endorse him was the most right-wing Democrat in Congress, Arizona crackpot Kyrsten Sinema. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is backing Markey. All the massachusetts members of Congress who have weighed in, have weighed in for Markey. And another major progressive validator, Ro Khanna endorsed Markey. Two other widely mistrusted members of Pelosi's leadership team-- Hoyer and Hakeem Jeffries-- have also come out for Kennedy.

Kennedy's congressional endorsement roster is a good signal to not support him. Some of Congress' most loathsome Wall Street-owned New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- are on Team Kennedy, from Filemon Vela, Conor Lamb and coke-freak Pete Aguilar to worthless conservative Dems like Gil Cisneros, Juan Vargas, Elissa Slotkin, Xochitl Torres Small, Sharice Davids, Sean Patrick Maloney, Derek Kilmer, Blue Dog chair Stephanie Murphy and David Trone the crooked Maryland businessman who spent a horrific $31,327,397 of his own cash over 2 cycles to buy a seat. Many are hoping to build relationships with the Kennedy Machine-- and it isn't only conservative Dems in ye ole tit-for-tat, transactional camp. Establishment progressive Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who imagines himself running for Senate in 2022, has led a number of progressives into the Kennedy tent, putting them in opposition to their own grassroots supporters-- terrible mistake for a movement Pocan has never given a shit about.

Meanwhile, Gabe Debenedetti reported for New York Magazine that Bernie"has not endorsed Markey-- who backed Elizabeth Warren for president-- and shows no signs of planning to do so, despite pleas from Markey and plenty of his advocates... Markey and Sanders served together in the House for 16 years, and in the Senate-- where Warren also serves-- for six.)"

National coverage of the race has tended to focus on two big issues: Markey’s position in the progressive firmament and persistent questions about why, exactly, Kennedy is running if he has few substantive complaints about the senator. “I have been a fan of Ed Markey’s since he led the fight to reform the state’s judiciary when I was governor and that was a long time ago,” 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis told me this week. “I am also a fan of Joe Kennedy’s, my congressman, but I can’t for the life of me understand why he is putting us all through this to defeat a fine U.S. Senator. He should be in Iowa digging up votes for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.” Together, these arguments appear to have made Markey a slight favorite.

Largely inspired by the endorsements and ongoing involvement of Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement (a group of young environmental organizers), national progressives have joined Markey’s cause. In a year where the presidential race has offered few clear opportunities for the left flank of the Democratic party to push back against the center-left, this race has seen more vicious intra-party brawling than it might have in a different political context. “Kennedy is a really good release valve when you know you can’t go after Biden,” said one national progressive leader backing Markey.

“What the progressive movement is saying-- particularly the young progressive movement-- is they’re trying to make clear that what happened in 2018 is not just a bunch of women of color knocking off a bunch of old white guys,” Markey’s campaign manager John Walsh told me, explicitly comparing his candidate to Charles Booker, who fell short in Kentucky’s Senate primary in March, and Cori Bush, who defeated longtime congressman William Lacy Clay earlier this month. “When a 74-year-old almost-50-year veteran defeats-- if it happens-- the Mt. Rushmore legacy of Massachusetts politics, maybe national politics, it’s not about how old you are. It’s not about the color of your skin. It’s actually about the policy.”

Everything Kennedy does-- every breath he takes, every move he makes, every bond he breaks, every step he takes, every word he says, every game he plays-- is all about the presidency. It's revolting because it's based on absolutely nothing but his bloodline. He hasn't accomplished a single thing and hasn't distinguished himself in any way other thinly a disgusting display of naked ambition. He's going to lose tomorrow because he never managed to explain why he's running against Markey. In the age of Trump, Massachusetts doesn't have enough low-info Democrats for JK-III to win.

Yesterday Politico reported that "Kennedy’s campaign believes Markey has an advantage among voters who have already cast ballots by mail-- namely white, well-educated voters in the suburbs-- but that high turnout on voting day would lend itself to Kennedy... Pelosi also provided a financial bump for the congressman. Kennedy raised $100,000 within a day of Pelosi's endorsement, according to his campaign. But Markey, who’s assembled a potent small-dollar fundraising operation, says he raised four times that amount-- $400,000-- in the 24 hours after Pelosi weighed in, much of it from progressives frustrated with Pelosi’s decision to intervene."

Civil War Breaking Out Among Both Congressional Parties

Pelosi made a very big mistake a couple weeks ago. She endorsed Joe Kennedy III in his bid to unseat and replace Massachusetts progressive Ed Markey. Pelosi's endorsement immediately turned the race around. Kennedy had been substantially ahead and Pelosi's kiss of death, brought a tidal wave of momentum into the race-- for Markey. Since Pelosi's endorsement there have been two public polls. Suffolk University's Massachusetts Senate poll shows Markey beating Kennedy by an astounding 10 points and the Data for Progress poll a few days ago has Markey up 7 points. This is quite the turn-around from the 17 point lead Kennedy began the race with!

Incumbents usually try to stay out of primaries, especially primaries that involve incumbents. But as all DWT readers are well aware, the only accountability for incumbents in deep blue (or deep red for that matter) districts comes through primaries. Pelosi wasn't attempting to give Ed Markey an accountability moment-- although she opposes the Green New Deal legislation he and AOC wrote-- but was instead trying to cultivate the Kennedy Clan for one reason or another. Same with 2022 Wisconsin Senate hopeful, Mark Pocan, who also endorsed Kennedy against the much more progressive Markey, even though Pocan is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yesterday Melanie Zenona and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico wrote that the congressional primary taboo is breaking down. They speculated that "lawmakers, aides and strategists in both parties say the pattern will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It’s a shift that reflects the ideological-- and anti-establishment-- churn taking place in the Donald Trump era, and it’s sparking concern among the old guard about rising intraparty warfare."

"More and more members of Congress are going to look and say 'rules are rules' but if in fact there’s a district that’s suffering… we’re going to see a lot more members of Congress supporting challengers,” said Marie Newman, who knocked off longtime Illinois Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski earlier this year with the backing of several prominent Democrats.

Even as leaders in both parties have tried to paint any decision to wield influence in primaries as a “special” case, younger firebrands are interpreting their leadership’s involvement as a green light to show support and spend money on the challengers they prefer.

“If the establishment is going to start shooting at the outsiders and the pro-Trump elements of our caucus, then the bullets aren’t only going to be flying in one direction,” said Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who backed the successful GOP challenger to Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL) after a member of GOP leadership targeted one of his other colleagues.

Playing in primaries has long been looked down upon in both the Republican and Democratic Party, where leaders deploy multi-million-dollar campaign arms to shield incumbents and squash any potential challengers. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took it a step further this cycle-- enforcing a “blacklist” of vendors who work for candidates seeking to oust sitting lawmakers, a move that outraged progressives and motivated them to get even more involved in primary campaigns this cycle.

“These places operate on members’ dues,” said Brendan Buck, a GOP strategist, referring to the parties’ campaign arms. “To be able to get members to contribute, they need to convince them it’s an incumbent protection operation.” Otherwise, he added, “that trust is eroded” and “the money stops coming in.”

Plus, it’s dangerous to take a shot and miss. Leadership used to even shy away from open primaries amid fears of picking the wrong candidate and alienating a future colleague.

“It’s a risky play, no doubt,” said Buck, who served as a top aide to former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). “You better be damn sure it’s gonna work if you’re gonna do it. People have long memories.”

But now, insurgent lawmakers angry with the establishment and tired of abiding by the kind of decorum that once governed Washington are looking to flex their muscles in primaries — and put leadership on notice.

“No one gets to complain about primary challenges again,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kennedy. The freshman lawmaker, who has won the ire of some colleagues for her openness to supporting primary challenges, also called on the DCCC to get rid of its vendor blacklist. “It seems like less a policy and more a cherry-picking activity,” she wrote.

This is hardly the first time rank-and-file lawmakers have engaged in primaries-- although many more are openly doing so this year-- but it’s now easier than it was a decade ago to actually wield influence through the use of grassroots fundraising and social media.

“The old ways of Washington empower leadership through money. But we’re starting to see that the message and movement may be more important than money,” said Gaetz, who swore off PAC funding. “In today’s world of social media, digital communication and wall-to-wall cable television, the leadership no longer has a stranglehold on the brand or the messengers.”

The 2022 cycle may offer further opportunity for insurgents, as incumbents may be facing entirely new constituencies after the latest round of redistricting.

Allies of Pelosi have defended her decision to back Kennedy, arguing the speaker did not undermine her policy of fiercely protecting House incumbents since she was weighing in on a Senate race. Progressive lawmakers and strategists have dismissed that explanation.

“What we’re seeing right now is the Democratic establishment really being honest in public about what they’re doing. What’s not a change is them taking sides in primaries-- they have long done it for years and years and years, they’ve just been more private about it,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to be interviewed for this story, shot to prominence after toppling one of the most powerful Democrats in the House: Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus chair who was often mentioned as a potential future speaker. A fellow member of her liberal “squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), took down longtime Rep. Mike Capuano in 2018 and has since backed other primary challengers.

Progressive challengers have already unseated several long-entrenched Democratic incumbents this year, including Lipinski, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel in New York, and Rep. Lacy Clay in Missouri.

If Neal is defeated by Holyoke mayor Alex Morse, it would be a huge victory for Ocasio-Cortez and a disappointment for Pelosi. The speaker spent several minutes praising Neal’s progressive bona fides at a news conference Thursday and said his district would suffer “a tremendous loss” if he’s ousted.

...But both Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez have serious sway on the right and left, respectively, so if they do decide to get more involved next cycle, things could get messy. Several other Gaetz-backed candidates sailed to victory in open Florida GOP primaries last week, including far-right activist Laura Loomer who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook for racist comments and attacks on Islam but who has little shot at winning in November.

“One of the jobs of leadership is to keep the peace amongst your team. A real quick way to have your team fall apart is if there is suspicion that certain members are trying to unseat other ones,” Buck said. “Politics is a team sport. And if your team devolves into this type of fighting, it’s really hard to put that back together.”

As I pointed out yesterday, the increasingly dominant and uber-corrupt corporate-backed New Dem caucus has been given the keys to the DCCC. Their endorsement list is basically the Red-to-Blue program this cycle. Two of their most recent endorsements are in jungle primary states-- California and Washington-- where November elections can pit two members of the same party. Vile corporate conservative Sara Jacobs is running against progressive Georgette Gomez in San Diego and another corporate conservative, Marilyn Strickland is trying to defeat state Rep Beth Doglio for the congressional seat in Thurston (Olympia) and Pierce (Tacoma area) counties that Denny Heck is giving up. Jacobs and Strickland are both being backed by the New Dem PAC, while Gomez and Doglio are being backed by the Progressive Caucus. I'm guessing that unless the House Dems dump Pelosi as leader-- and pronto-- this kind of intra-party fighting will accelerate into all-out civil war. (NOTE: You can contribute to both Gomez and Doglio here.)

Kiss Of Death Endorsements: Trump And Pelosi

I know I don't have to interpret that Twitter poll for you, although if you don't know who Shahid Buttar is, he's the progressive Democrat who, along with Nancy Pelosi, came out of the March jungle primary and will face her one-on-one in November. (You can contribute to Shahid's campaign here, as you can see, the only candidate endorsed by this blog.)

After Pelosi exhibited startling, even breath-taking hypocrisy by endorsing Joe Kennedy III who is challenging incumbent Democratic Senator Ed Markey for his Massachusetts seat, just 6.8% of respondents said her endorsement will influence them to favor Kennedy or favor him more. On the other hand... well you can see.

Most Republican senators aren't asking for Trump's endorsement. Like Pelosi's, an endorsement by Trump is just toxic-- especially among independents. Sure, in states or districts that are so heavily Republican, an endorsement from Trump or Pence or Mitch McConnell would be a net plus... and in deep red House districts it makes sense to ask for an endorsement. Senate seats are different. Trump is still popular in Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma and the Dakotas but don't expect to see Trump endorsements being ballyhooed by incumbent senators where independent voters determine winners. I don't know what John Cornyn (R-TX) is going to do but I would bet that Susan Collins (ME), Cory Gardner (CO), Thom Tillis (NC), and Joni Ernst (IA) aren't going to be advertising-- at least not to a general audience on TV or radio-- that Trump is backing them.

On the other hand, in Alaska, where nearly half the voters are independents, there is a lot of ballyhooing of Trump's endorsement of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan-- all of it from Independent Al Gross who is running on the Democratic Party line. I spoke with Gross' campaign manager yesterday and he was almost gleeful to have seen Trump endorse Sullivan. "I hope President Trump comes up here to campaign for Dan," he said. "A majority of the state doesn't approve of him, and with his help, we can make that 60%!" He sent me this:

Yesterday, Collins announced that part-time Maine resident George W. Bush-- remember, relative to Trump and for many people, the stink has worn off now-- has endorsed her-- his first endorsement of 2020. "The nod from the former president, whose politics appear centrist by Trump-era standards, may nudge some traditional Republicans into Collins’ corner," wrote David Sharp for the Associated Press. "Trump has not endorsed the Maine senator, whose race is among a handful critical to Republicans’ hopes of keeping control of the Senate, where they have a 53-47 advantage. Collins, meanwhile, has not said whether she intends to vote for Trump." Fellow New England Republican, Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) made an announcement yesterday that leaves no doubt he doesn't want and would not accept Trump's endorsement: "I won't be voting for President Trump... I have not decided, at this point, whether to cast a vote for former Vice President Biden... something I would consider."

After Pelosi's endorsement of Joe Kennedy III infuriated progressives-- not as much because of the pick as because of Pelosi's disgusting hyocrisy-- AOC sent her followers a fundraising letter from her own campaign but for for Markey, a staffer explaining the double standard:

Last year, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instituted a new blacklist-- targeting staffers and companies who worked for primary challengers. Unsurprisingly, that overwhelmingly targeted people who worked with progressives.

Now, it’s clear: That blacklist was never just meant to "protect incumbents." It was meant to block progressive leaders from being elected, like Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, or even Alexandria in 2018.

...Markey is not taking the safe route. He’s causing good trouble in Washington, fighting for international peace, a Green New Deal, and dismantling ICE. These are hard fights to win. Many look at them and back down. But not Ed Markey.

Markey is listening to the next generation of leaders-- the young folks on the ground working day in and day out to change the world-- and does everything in his power to amplify their voices on Capitol Hill. If Washington had more leaders like Ed Markey, we’d be a lot better off.

Scary that Pelosi is no longer self-aware enough to understand that her endorsement really is a kiss of death in most places in the country-- even in as blue a state as Massachusetts. Isn't she supposed to be retiring now and passing along her seat to her daughter? You know, the dynasty thing-- like the Kennedys.

Markey vs Kennedy-- If You're A Progressive Voter, There Should Be No Hesitation

JFK, 1960 on Kings Highway in front of Dubrow's

Progressive Power Hour? Was there one for AOC or Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar when their reelections were challenged by big money reactionaries in the last couple of months? There may have been... but I never heard about them. But I did hear about tomorrow's Power Hour on behalf of Joe Kennedy's campaign to displace the far more progressive-- and effective-- Ed Markey in the Senate. This came as an e-mail over the weekend:

We're excited to share the updated panel for Wednesday's progressive power hour! This Wednesday, progressive leaders Mark Pocan, Raúl Grijalva, and Linda Sánchez will co-host a progressive power hour with Joe!

They’ll be talking about what’s at stake in this primary election, and what makes Joe the right leader to usher in the change Massachusetts needs. The discussion will also include ways you can get involved in these critical final weeks, and how to cast your ballot, whether it’s by mail or in person.

...Join us Wednesday night to hear from these progressive powerhouses about the change Joe will bring to the Senate, and about how you can get involved!

The national and the Massachusetts progressive grassroots has come out very strongly for Ed Markey-- and not just Blue America-- Our Revolution, Sunrise Movement, Peace Action, Progressive Massachusetts, MoveOn, PDA, Indivisible, the Working Families Party... So has Massachusetts' other senator, Elizabeth Warren, as well as AOC, Zephyr Teachout, Ady Barkan, and Cory Booker. Younger, issue oriented Democrats overwhelmingly want to see Markey, who is far more progressive than Kennedy, reelected. Older, fuzzily romantic Democrats seem excited about JKIII, although few seem to be able to explain why. Maybe Pocan, Grijalva and Sánchez will be able to tomorrow at their Power Hour. Alienating the progressive movement's grassroots does need to be explained, especially if Pocan is really serious about making a U.S. Senate run in 2022, something Chuck Schumer has already been making jokes about behind closed doors. He's going to be looking for allies-- allies who are very likely going to remember him stabbing Ed Markey in the back this year.





Meanwhile, some of the absolute worst Democrats in Congress are being touted by Kennedy as his supporters, Kyrsten Sinema, the closest thing to a right-wing Republican (and psychopath) among Senate Dems, coke freak New Dem, Pete Aguilar-- as well as plenty of other corrupt corporate New Dems, Blue Dogs and bought-and-paid for conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like Juan Vargas (CA), Filomen Vela (TX), Gil Cisneros (CA), Derek Kilmer (WA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Annie Kuster (NH), Conor Lamb (PA), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Colin Allred (TX), Ellisa Slotkin (MI), Angie Craig (MN)... odd there's no one from Massachusetts on the list. They're all either staying neutral or backing Markey. Oh, wait! He does have a high-profile Massachusetts endorsement: Republican former Governor Bill Weld.

The first big name politician I ever met was JFK-- two decades before Joe Kennedy III was born. I was 12 and my mom took me to see the charismatic somewhat conservative senator campaigning in Brooklyn, to show the Democratic establishment that he was popular in liberal bases. He was. But a police horse stepped on my foot in the tumult and I was brought inside Dubrow's where only local party big wigs were allowed. The soon-to-be-president came over and rubbed my foot and wished me well. That was nice. By the time he was assassinated I was no longer a fan. But when his brother, Robert Kennedy-- Robert Kennedy III's grandfather who was assassinated before he was born-- ran for New York senator I got a job at his campaign headquarters as an elevator operator. I wasn't a big fan of his either, although he seemed to gradually move away from his McCarthyite past and embrace progressive positions. The other brother, Teddy, was the most progressive of the trio. Never met the guy. And I never was a big fan of political dynasties.

Over the weekend, Politico published a piece by Stephanie Murray-- Markey throws shade at Kennedy family in Senate primary brawl-- that is still probably somewhat shocking for a Massachusetts Democrat to contemplate. "In an ever more contentious battle between a septuagenarian senator and the scion of one of the nation’s best-known dynasties," wrote Murray, "Markey is calling out specific Kennedy family members by name, needling the wealth and privilege that attaches to the family name, and even drawing from the Kennedy myth in his bid to fend off his youthful challenger. At one time, that approach might have been a career-killer in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Yet Markey has employed it successfully to help narrow a double-digit polling gap with the primary just over two weeks away."

When a Boston Globe columnist drove by Markey's modest house in June to see if he was there or out of state, the Malden Democrat happened to be standing in the driveway.

"Welcome to the compound!" he quipped, a sly reference to the famous Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port.

Markey often invokes his own father, who was a milk truck driver, to draw a contrast between his own working class roots and his opponent's upbringing. The senator recently posted a black-and-white childhood photo with his parents and two brothers.

"I'm the son of a milkman and a hardworking mother. I was a commuter student who paid my way through college selling ice cream. Where I come from, no one expects to become a U.S. senator," Markey captioned the photo on Instagram.

Markey has made subtle references to the Kennedy family throughout the summer, but has ramped up his messaging in recent days. The most pointed hit came at the end of a campaign video unveiled Thursday, where he drew on a famous line from the inauguration speech of his challenger’s great uncle, President John F. Kennedy.





..."He's taking the elephant in the room and just going right at it. He's using the most identifiable characteristic of Joe Kennedy, which is his name, and trying to use it against him. It's an interesting campaign tactic and one I wouldn't have anticipated," said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC polling group. "It puts Kennedy more on the spot to explain why he's running, and that's something he's struggled with throughout the campaign."

Markey is betting that much of the Kennedy mystique has worn off, 11 years after Ted Kennedy-- who held the state’s other Senate seat for nearly a half-century-- passed away. So far, the strategy appears to be working, particularly among younger voters who have responded to his support for the Green New Deal and his endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Koczela pointed to a MassINC poll from October 2019, which showed 70 percent of voters under age 30 had no opinion or had never heard of Markey. But a UMass Amherst poll released last week found Markey now leading that group over Kennedy with 71 percent of support.

...In their most recent debate, Markey took some of his toughest shots against Kennedy, seeking to use Kennedy's powerful family against him. Kennedy's father, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, may put his $2.8 million in leftover campaign funds into a pro-Kennedy super PAC as a last minute boost for his son's Senate bid, and Markey sought to shame him for it.

"I'm sure your father's watching right now. Tell your father right now that you don't want money to go into a super PAC that runs negative ads," Markey said in the debate. "Just tell your twin brother and tell your father you don't want any money."

In a matter of minutes, the senator's campaign turned the debate spat into a viral video. "Free advice for Joe Kennedy. Don't rely on the old man's money," Markey captioned the video, which begins with a shot of Kennedy standing on a yacht and is set to the Hall and Oates song "Rich Girl."

The Boston Globe Is Right-- Send Ed Markey Back To The Senate

As I've said many times, Joe Kennedy III doesn't take a sip of water or tie a shoelace before considering how it will impact his eventual run for the presidency. Largely on the romanticism of his name, he was elected to an open House seat in 2012, where he hasn't been an especially impressive member. He's certainly no AOC-- not on any level. A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he's barely a progressive. His lifetime ProgressivePunch score is B+ (that high once he decided to challenge Markey and start voting more progressively to run the score up).

Senator Ed Markey, on the other hand, has the best ProgressivePunch voting record of anyone in the Senate; someone's got to be #1; it's Markey. You might be interested in knowing he's been endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Zephyr Teachout and AOC-- as well as the Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution, PDA and NARAL. Bad incumbents should be relentlessly primaried. Good ones, on the other hand, should be supported. That's why Blue America has endorsed Ed Markey for reelection and for the September 1 primary. Please consider clicking on our ActBlue 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and showing him some love; he's earned it. Yesterday, the editors of the Boston Globe gave him a full-throttle endorsement, noting that he's often ahead of the curve in championing progressive causes, something no one will ever accuse Joe Kennedy of. In the House and, more recently in the Senate, Markey has been a leader-- which is different from a follower-- in "cracking down on insider trading, ensuring consumer access to wireless spectrum technologies, or helping create a broad movement to put a freeze on nuclear arms."

Decades before CNN hosted its first town hall for presidential candidates devoted to climate change, and decades before Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage activist, was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year,” Markey worked to make the air we breathe cleaner and to stave off the catastrophic heat waves, droughts, and rising seas poised to displace millions of people around the world.

In the 1980s, he co-authored legislation, signed by President Reagan, to make household appliances more energy-efficient, which has saved Americans billions on electric bills and spared communities and the planet the toxic, heat-trapping emissions from hundreds of coal-fired power plants. He co-led the bipartisan effort to raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that resulted in the 2007 law that brought forth new, innovative low-emissions and electric vehicles to the marketplace and reduced Americans’ consumption of oil. And in 2009, he and Representative Henry Waxman of California successfully moved a historic cap-and-trade bill through the US House of Representatives that would have put a price on carbon emissions and made a significant impact on planetary warming, had it not faltered in the Senate amid lackluster support from an Obama White House that prioritized health care reform.

If the senator from Malden spends a lot of time in Washington, one reason might be that he’s been busy getting legislative proposals passed to improve people’s lives. With the pandemic ravaging the American economy, Markey has pushed for policies to aid vulnerable families, especially for the millions who have lost jobs, businesses, and health insurance during the crisis. He has advocated business relief targeted at enterprises owned by women and people of color, temporary assistance for gig workers, and greater oversight of corporate bailout funding.

What distinguishes Markey’s leadership from many other Democrats, however, is that he’s pushed the country to think bigger about its response to the pandemic, whether it’s a call to fight the disease with a new kind of Manhattan Project, pushing for larger-scale stimulus, or articulating that this political moment is akin to the conditions that made possible FDR’s New Deal. In this moment, the country and the Commonwealth need leaders who won’t settle for incremental progress, who recognize the profound underlying conditions of inequality and racial injustice that exacerbate our problems, and who notice that the table is set for transformational change and can help carry it out with legislative proposals.

No problem makes that need more apparent than the climate crisis. Global carbon emissions hit a record annual high before the pandemic, temperatures are rising, and the Paris agreement is in the lurch after President Trump’s avowed withdrawal. Climate disasters cost the United States more than $525 billion over the past five years. Summer heat waves kill the old and young, Siberia burns, and seas rise in coastal cities including Boston. Leading climate scientists recently have warned us that the window to act to prevent catastrophic warming is closing.

Yet political will to address climate change is growing in the American public, and the need for significant federal stimulus to address the fallout of the pandemic presents the opportunity to remake the economy to be more energy efficient and less carbon intensive. If Democrats win back the White House and the Senate, Congress may at last pass legislation to spare society the worst humanitarian and economic costs of climate disasters. Markey is poised-- and arguably more prepared than any other politician in the US government-- to fill in the conceptual aspirations of the Green New Deal resolution that he cosponsored with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with practical policies and to get them passed in Congress.

As countless observers have pointed out, the Sept. 1 Senate primary is not a contest between candidates with competing values. Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III also cares about progressive causes, and his commitment to voting and health care access and to protecting immigrants and LGBTQ rights is laudable. A call to Joe is bound to yield insights about what’s happening on the ground in communities in the Commonwealth-- the congressman has his finger on the pulse of his constituents in the Fourth District and of Massachusetts politics. He uses his name and that trademark Kennedy charisma to help Democrats around the country win, a noble cause in an era when the GOP has made Donald Trump its flag bearer. It is clear that Kennedy has a passion for public service and the drive to have a real impact. This board looks forward to seeing what he will accomplish, whatever his next role is.

But Kennedy has not made a persuasive case for removing Markey from the Senate seat he has occupied with dignity and tenacity while achieving real results. With the window for action on the climate crisis closing, Kennedy’s candidacy looks less compelling; while he’s committed to the cause, he lacks the chops and track record that Markey would bring to a legislative effort to renew the economy with cleaner sources of energy and make communities more resilient.

Contrary to what some skeptics of Kennedy’s bid think, primary races are not inherently a waste. They can serve to usefully challenge thinking within the party and to unseat incumbents who fail to deliver for their constituents or who have become hopelessly out of touch with the needs of the nation. But Markey is not past his time; rather, his time may finally have arrived.

The crux of Kennedy’s campaign against Markey seems to come down to the question of whether a generational torch-passing is needed in the delegation this year. And here, the senator’s own words to The Globe editorial board are his best defense: “It’s not your age. It’s the age of your ideas that’s important.”

Markey’s priorities are focused not on nostalgia for America’s past but on securing a better future, whether it’s advocating access to broadband in classrooms, research on gun violence, or curbing the pollution that will change the planet for coming generations. In the protests for racial justice sweeping the country, Markey sees echoes of past social movements, a chance to listen and have the politics of the streets shape the politics on Capitol Hill.

That’s not out of touch; it’s tuned in to what the next generation is demanding. And to do right by them, it’s urgent to keep Ed Markey in the game.

During last Sunday debate, Kennedy was asked why he joined the notoriously racist join a famously racist Kappa Alpha fraternity, which worships Robert E. Lee (who they explicitly acknowledge as their "Spiritual Founder") and why it took him until last month-- 2 decades after the fact-- to disassociate himself from it. He admitted he wishes he hadn't joined but that doesn't answer the question. He always claims that the Stanford chapter had nothing to do with the national organization, which just isn't true. The frat's literature, rituals and traditions are filled with reverence for the Confederacy and the Old South and for racism. The chapters-- albeit before Joe K III joined-- used to call themselves Klans, although we're not talking ancient history here. When the first black students to integrate the University of Georgia (1961) arrived on campus, the Alpha Kappa Klan flew the Confederate flag at half mast. It wasn't until 2001 that the Alpha Kappas stopped flying the Confederate flag.

This week, Kennedy's campaign accused Markey of not including the towns of Stoughton, Blackstone, Dana, Dudley, Enfield, and Prescott on a campaign map and insisting "they do not exist in Markey's Massachusetts. Well, Dana, Enfield and Prescot actually don't exist in anyone's Massachusetts. They were flooded to make way for the Quabbin Reservoir in the 1930s. I guess if he doesn't remember the racism of his college frat, who could expect him to know not to schedule any rallies in Dana, Enfield and Prescot.

Massachusetts Got Bluer Yesterday As Democrats Flipped Two Of The Last State Senate Seats (In Trump Districts)

Man In The Middle by Nancy Ohanian

People think of Massachusetts as an all blue state. It isn't. There's a Republican governor. And although Hillary won in a landslide in 2016, Trump still got over a million votes (33.5%). And in 2018, Republican Geoff Diehl won 36.2% of the vote statewide against Elizabeth Warren in the U.S. Senate contest and beat her by a point in Plymouth County (where Trump had done relatively well too). Republican Governor Charlie Baker was reelected 1,781,982 (66.8%) to 886,281 (33.2%) against Democrat Jay Gonzalez, winning every county in the state in his massive landslide. And the state elects Republicans to the state legislature too. There are 31 Republicans in the 160-member state House and after the 2018 election the 40-member state Senate had 6 Republicans. As of yesterday, though, there are just 4 Republicans in the state Senate.

Yesterday saw two special elections to replace Republicans who retired. As we explained a couple of months ago, Republicans Donald Humason (who didn't even have an opponent in 2018!) and Vinny deMacedo resigned from their seats, respectively in Hampden and Hampshire and in Plymouth and Barnstable. In the primaries, there were clear signals that these two red districts-- both of which had voted for Trump in 2018-- were going to go blue. In the Hampden and Hampshire district, 20,848 people voted for the Democrat and just 5,586 came out to vote for the Republican. That's quite a disparity. There was also one in the other district, where 32,858 Democrats voted in the primary but just 14,755 Republicans.

Yesterday, the two seats flipped, auguring very badly for Republicans in 2020. The chairman of the state Democratic Party, Gus Bickford, said the big defeats reflected a rejection of Señor Trumpanzee's politics. John Velis, a conservative Democrat, beat John Cain in Humason's district (which hadn't elected a Democrat in 25 years) in a landslide-- 64-36%. And Democrat Susan Moran beat Republican Trumpist James McMahon 10,780 (55%) to 8,927 (45%).

Both special elections had been scheduled for March 31 but were postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were carried out with both traditional in-person voting and the use of mail-in voting, an option that lawmakers are weighing for the Sept. 1 primary and Nov. 3 general election.

"Two areas that were strong for Donald Trump a few years ago came back home and voted blue tonight," Democratic Party Chair Gus Bickford said in a statement Tuesday night. "Democrats and independents are united now more than ever, and we will continue to work together through the fall. These two flipped seats are a sign of things to come in a few months."

..."Not only is this a great day for Senator-elect Moran, it's a great day for her new constituents and their fellow Bay Staters," said Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. "Her victory flipped a seat that had been previously held by a staunch anti-choice politician and prevented it from falling into the hands of another."

On June 2, voters are scheduled to settle two House special elections to fill seats held until recently by Jennifer Benson of Lunenburg and Shaunna O'Connell of Taunton. Benson left the House to work as president of the Alliance for Business Leadership and O'Connell resigned after being elected as mayor of her hometown last November.

Democrat Carol Doherty and Republican Kelly Dooner, both of Taunton, are competing in the Third Bristol House district. In the 37th Middlesex district, Democrat Danillo Sena of Acton faces Republican Catherine Clark of Lunenburg.

Blue America concentrates on congressional seats and the only times we get involved in state legislative races is when we sense a candidate is so extraordinary that they are destined for Congress or for statewide office. This cycle we are looking at several candidates around the country and so far we have endorsed just three. You can find them by clicking on the 2020 Blue America state legislative races thermometer above. Remember, some of the best and most effective members of Congress, like Red Lieu (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) honed their skills in their states' legislatures. Two of our top congressional candidates-- Jon Hoadley (D-MI) and Tom Winter (D-MT)-- are currently-serving members of their state legislatures.

Trump and his enablers are getting blamed for the incompetent and dysfunctional U.S. response to the pandemic, If that keeps building, especially if Wave II is as strong as I expect it to be, the November anti-red electoral wave is going to be mighty strong.

Will Democrats Keep 3 Massachusetts Special Election Seats In 9 Days-- Or Will The State Shut Down Voting? Anyone Ever Hear Of Absentee Voting?

In the 2018 election, Democrats increased their majorities in the Massachusetts state legislature, picking up 3 seats in the state Senate and 10 in the state House. There are 4 special elections on March 31, a week from Tuesday. Tomorrow the state legislature will decide whether or not to postpone the elections. My bet is that they will. These are the vacant seats being contested:

• Hampden and Hampshire state Senate District. Republican Donald Humason, who had no opponent in 2018, resigned after being elected mayor of Westfield. Democratic state Rep. John Velis, a self-described "fiscal conservative," will face off against Republican businessman John Cain. Neither had a primary opponent. 20,848 Democrats voted, as did just 5,586 Republicans.
• Plymouth and Barnstable state Senate District (Bourne, Falmouth, Kingston, Plymouth, Pembroke and Sandwich). Republican Vinny deMacedo resigned to take a non-governmental job. Democratic selectwoman Susan Moran will face Republican James McMahon III, the losing GOP candidate for Attorney General in 2018. 32,858 Democrats voted in the primary but just 14,755 Republicans.
• Bristol House District 3. Republican Shaunna O'Connell after being elected mayor of Taunton. Democrat Carol Doherty won her primary and will face Kelly Dooner, who was unopposed in the GOP primary. 4,994 Democrats voted in the primary, as did 1,614 Republicans.
• Middlesex House Distict 37. Democrat Jennifer Benson resigned to take a job outside of government. Democrat Danillo Sena won her primary and will face Catherine Clark, who won the Republican primary. 9,544 Democrats and 2,451 Republicans voted in the primaries.

Why did so many more Democrats vote in the primaries in these districts, three of which are red? Primaries were held on the same day as the Massachusetts presidential primary which attracted far more Democrats than Republicans.

The DLCC wrote that "Flipping even one seat like these would be a huge victory for Democrats everywhere. They all [the 3 who elected Republican legislators] lean Republican at the local level-- one has been in GOP hands for more than a quarter-century!-- but revulsion against Trump has finally given Democrats an opening to flip them blue."

States have been postponing elections. "Postponing" is absurd in the early stages of a deadly pandemic expected to rage for the rest of the year or possibly close to 2 years. Organizations and governments that say anything other "until further notice" are either stupid or lying. It's time to start mail-only voting as a way for preparing for November. Polling places are death traps, especially for polling workers but for long lines of voters included. Governors cancelling primaries and special elections are doing the right thing. But legislatures must immediately-- as in before they are told to stay home the way Georgia's state legislature has-- pass laws allowing for mail-in voting. Republicans oppose this since he makes it easier for people to vote, something conservatives oppose with all their might and ugliness.

Vote-by-mail is favored by a majority of Americans-- 55% to 25% who oppose the idea, mostly Republicans naturally.

Do you want some good news? Here's a Snopes page the checked out that viral list of good things from around the world that's been circulating widely online. Most of it is true or partially true. Here in California, Governor Newsom issued an executive order on Friday to permit vote-by-mail n all upcoming election. And the same day, the Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit aimed at increasing access to vote by mail.

The plaintiffs are “demanding a declaratory judgment that allows all eligible voters, who believe their health is in danger under the threat of COVID-19, the ability to cast their ballot by mail if they so choose," according to a press release.

The lawsuit was filed in Travis County District Court against the Texas secretary of state and Travis County Elections.

Texas has one of the most restrictive vote-by-mail programs in the country. Voters must be older than 65, disabled, out of the county or in jail to vote by mail in the state.

“We must do everything we can to guarantee access to the ballot box for individuals who are practicing social distancing and self-quarantining,” Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement. “Current law says you can vote-by-mail if you are disabled and we believe COVID-19 puts the health of all of us at risk. This lawsuit will.”

Mike Siegel, who was the City Attorney of Austin before he decided to run for Congress, has been super-concerned about Texas voting restrictions for long before COVID-19. "This crisis," he told us this morning, "shows how important representative government is, and we must condemn any policy that weakens our democracy. In Texas, vote by mail is restricted to the elderly, to travelers, and to persons with a disability. Disability is defined as having a 'physical condition' such that going to the polls represents a risk of injury. Of course, in this coronavirus pandemic, every person is at risk by going to the polls, not to mention poll workers themselves. Universal access to vote by mail is thus essential to protect both democracy and public health. Unfortunately, the Texas Republican Party fears opening the door to 'no excuse' vote by mail, because once open it will be hard to close. More participation means a faster decline for a GOP that clings to an anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-choice and anti-justice agenda. The public sees that vote by mail is the obvious choice. Hopefully we can continue to build pressure to force progress to occur."

Last week, in a Washington Post OpEd Amy Klobuchar and Ron Wyden advocated for a bill they introduced to allow every American to vote by mail. "The best way to ensure that this virus doesn’t keep people from the ballot box is to bring the ballot box to them," they wrote. "We must allow every American the ability to vote by mail." And then they added something that seems oxymoronic (although ACLU voting Rights Project director, Dale Ho, explains it in the video below): "And we must expand early voting so that voters who are not able to vote by mail are not exposed to the elevated infection risks of long lines and crowded polling locations."

Elizabeth Warren Apparently Isn't Interested In Becoming Bernie's Vice President

Elizabeth Warren has let her dogs loose on Bernie. In the last week, the PCCC-- which has been respectful of Bernie while they valiantly supported their candidate... even as her campaign started sinking and laying off staff-- has gone into opposition mode against Bernie as though they were dealing with Bloomberg or Trump. I guess the results from the WBUR and UMass Amherst polls of Massachusetts primary voters, aren't going to calm them down at all. Both show Bernie leading in Warren's home state with her placing second, Bernie even beating Warren among women. That, along with expected losses everywhere else on Tuesday, would effectively end her campaign for president. She would have made such a great vice president, especially if she was VP and Secretary of something where she could kick bankster ass day in and day out.

WBUR:

UMass:

Bernie is also seen by the most voters as the most likely candidate to be able to beat Trump:

Bernie- 27%
Bloomberg- 19%
Status Quo Joe- 14%
Elizabeth- 12%
Mayo- 5%
Klobuchar- 4%
Steyer- 2%
Tulsi- 1%

In the one-on-one match-ups, they found Bernie with the most support against Trump as well. Obviously nearly all the Democrats would be eager to vote Trump out, although Republican oligarch Michael Bloomberg can't seem to garner the kind of support the actual Democrats do:

Bernie- 82%
Elizabeth- 81%
Status Quo Joe- 80%
Klobuchar- 80%
Mayo- 80%
Bloomberg- 73%

The also asked respondents to describe each candidate with one word. I guess socialism isn't scaring off Massachusetts Democrats!

Bernie:

Elizabeth:

Mayo:

Bloomberg:

Status Quo Joe:

Klobuchar:

Most Important 2020 Issue:

WBUR reported that "The new poll is evidence of a big challenge for the Warren campaign, following disappointing results in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. It appears that now the senator faces a tough fight at home. "The Warren campaign is working hard in Massachusetts, understanding full well that a loss at home would be devastating to a presidential bid trying to regain its footing. Earlier this week, volunteers launched a canvassing effort in Cambridge, led by Congressman Joe Kennedy III, a Warren backer, who says he is not worried about Warren's fight for Massachusetts."

The latest UMass polling shows incumbent Democrat Ed Markey beating Kennedy in the Senate race.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth got some more bad news from CNN polling in California and Texas as well. Bernie is way ahead of her-- and everyone else-- in the two states with the biggest share of delegates up for grabs Tuesday.

In Texas, Sanders holds 29% support among likely primary voters, former Vice President Joe Biden has 20%, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stands at 18% and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is at 15%. No other candidate reaches double-digits. Sanders (+14) and Bloomberg (+13) have posted the largest gains since a December CNN poll, while Biden has slipped 15 points. Warren has held roughly even.

The California results suggest the same four contenders hold the most support, though Sanders stands well ahead of the three contending for second place. Sanders holds 35% support, Warren is at 14%, Biden is at 13% and Bloomberg is at 12%. Sanders' support in the state has climbed 15 points since December, while Biden's has slid eight points. Bloomberg has gained seven.

Decisive wins for a single candidate in California and Texas-- states which will award more than 600 of the 1,991 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination-- could change the tenor of a race that has at times seemed headed for a protracted fight.

TEXAS

CALIFORNIA