Who would you like to see get the MA dem senate nom. WHEN Kerry wins

Who would you like to see recieve the democratic nomination for US senate from Massachusetts when Kerry beats Bush. In alphabetical order. These people have all been talked about running for office or higher office at some point.

the governor (R) gets to APPOINT Kerry's replacement. That appointee serves the rest of Kerry's term.

The legislature is pushing through an elected-replacement plan, which will probably pass despite Romney's expected veto because the Reform and Machine Dems will stick together just because everyone gets an opportunity to move up a rung.

Did you leave off the touts' favorite, Marty Meehan, on purpose?

i like both guys, but would prefer barney frank.

when I made the poll. Who are the "touts"?

in horse racing parlance is a handicapper who tries to sell his picks, i.e., like the political pundits who try to sell their "insights."

n/t

He's brilliant and it's about time that we had an openly gay man in the Senate.

He deserves the support of Mass Dems....he's been a solid Dem in the House.

besides having the talent knowledge a good debator good on issues etc, it would be good to have some diversity with the first openly gay person in the senate.

Pretty much any dem who wins is going to be about as liberal as Frank, but many would have an easier time getting elected. Sorry, it's just the reality. Massachusetts is not as socially liberal a state as most people think.

... i heard him before and he's a good debator... BUT MA is (it seems) likely to introduce legislation to ban gay marriage and support civil union... i really doubt that MA will vote for an openly gay senator... the GOP would love it!... i see a wedge issue ahead!

Nevermind the fact they already voted him in to office at least once.

Possibly second to Cambridge in liberalness. A senator has to be elected from the population of the whole state, and the further one gets from the city, the less liberal people are. Western Mass. resents Boston because they feel that the city gets all the money and attention; it is almost like a different state. I love Barney Frank, but I think it would be tough for an openly gay man to win a senate seat in Mass.

liberal than eastern MA. You've got that whole Amhearst area that takes up a big percentage of the population of the western half. The most republican places in the state are in the richer suburbs like Newton and Duxbury.

Frank if I'm not mistaken represents what many suburban people I know would call the "ghetto" ish areas of Massachusetts. I beleive New Bedford and it's surroundings are part of his district

They're both liberal towns, with large Jewish populations. I didn't realize that New Bedford et al were part of his district; they sure do draw the lines for districts in a strange way.

in repub states. Well, maybe not as bad as Delay. But bad.

it really brings home the ridiculousness of it. Same with my district: I've always been part of the historic Eighth Congressional District, once led by Tip O'Neal, later Joe Kennedy. Then they redistricted a few years ago and now I'm in Markey's district. I have no problem with Markey, but he's based a heck of a lot further away than the rep I had (and would still have) if they hadn't drawn ridiculous lines to create new districts. I find it weird to have another district's rep closer to me geographically than my own rep. I'm not even certain what their 'reasoning' was this time.

threatened to dissolve his district. Finneran is bad news for Dems in this state.

It's more like 8 towns thrown together...

and two school districts, one wicked liberal, the other moderate

there are Reagan Democratic areas tho

elected many times over in a less liberal district.

Boston Rob is the poor man's Tony Soprano. We've already seen his tough and conniving side. And last night's tearfest over Amber sure to win over the soccer moms. (If only Tony could be so in touch with his fem side, he'd still be sleeping with Carmella.)

.... so that the GOP Gov wont be able to appoint a GOP Sn... in that case Robert Reich is the best choice IMHO... sectary labor under Clinton, resigned on a point of principle (Clinton's rightward drift) would be an effective and thoughtful senator and would improve the depth of debate on many issues in the seante... So Reich, he's the best choice hands down IMHO

Absent a Meehan option, I chose Markey.

He's a fair-trading union guy. Great combo in my opinion

"Congressman Lynch graduated from South Boston High School in 1973. He then joined his father as a member of Boston’s Ironworkers Local 7. He worked as a structural ironworker for 18 years and was eventually elected to serve as president of Local 7, the youngest president in the history of the 2,000-member union."

He's a good guy, I think, my rep, but pro-life and a moderate on gay issues.

Because that's who Shit Romney will appoint, if Kerry wins.

The DLC should have thought of that before they made Kerry their Golden Boy. But then, why would the DLC be bothered by Republicans gaining Senate seats. It didn't bother them in 2002 or 1994.

He could do a Cheney and pick himself. Ma. would never send him to Washington so he might as well send himself. Plus he wont be re-elected so whats he got to lose.

that he will appoint a n unknown, someone with no interest in running in 2006, to hold the seat so he can run then.

It is likely, though, that the dem legislature will change the rule so a special election will be held by next April.

... yes the moderate wing of the party is really out to support the GOP... believe what you like... we've always been a hell of a lot more reliable come election day than the left... you are a dean supporter well i hope he has inspired you to the same kind of party loyalty that the right of the party has always expected not entreatied...

...and 1994 was largely because Clinton had raised taxes and the GOP came in on a promise to cut taxes...

...2002 was just an awful disjointed campaign facing an excellent and (for the first time) white house lead GOP midterms effort... and despite that we looked to set to hold the Senate at the opening and right up toward the end of the campaign...

...but none of that fits into your story book analysis of the Democratic Party... nice left/liberal, evil, wicked witch DLC (Al From)... does it?

isn't its position on the issues - its that its declared war on the mainstream Democratic Party. I'm not sure why its done this, and its a fairly recent phenomenon, but I'm not the only one who's noticed this - Al Gore, for example, has been saying the same things. The PPI's mission seems to have changed from electing centrist Democrats to attacking "Big Government solutions" to problems. That's resulted in a switch of focus away from seeing Republicans as the enemy to seeing the Howard Dean wing of the Party as the enemy. And that's just lunacy. I think the recent revolt against the DLC is a sign that this strategy has managed to piss a lot of people off. But it shouldn't be taken as a rejection of centrist third-way politics, just a rejection of divisive infighting.

there was some concern here that christian coalition people were trying to secure democratic delegate positions at the conventions. There was a similar concern in regards to Larouche people.

I believe the extreme right has finished assimilating the repub party, and now they are coming for us. I expect the party to go far more right as a result of this, unfortunately.

of the democratic party. There are more people who work promote and help and beleive in democrats allied with the DLC than are the progressive caucus. 0 of 48 dem senators and less than a quarter of house democrats are progressive caucus. But despite the clear numbers you insist that not only is the DLC not mainstream or less mainstream than the left wing of the party but it in fact has declared war on the party. This is an idiotic mantra spread by knee-jerk leftist echo-chamber demagogues and radicals.

The DLC is very broad from the likes of Breaux and Phil Bredesen to moderate liberals such as Daschle, Dodd and Kerry…

…and your right the progressive caucus is very much in the minority the irrational hatred of the DLC is just stupid… I’m sorry but it is… ideals are largely the same as other dems methods and ambition (to the DLC realism to the Left conservatism) are all that is usually different…

…and the DLC has been far more consistent in supporting the Dem Party at all levels and up holding its values than has the left and far left, who are by far the most likely (as a group) to shut themselves out from the Dem party and then say that it has been taken over by conservatives who don’t listen to the “vast liberal grassroots”…

Governor in the first place?? As a former Bostonian, I am completely baffled by this. I could understand it if he was Catholic or something, but a right-wing Mormon?? How did this happen?

First of all, the dem party is so powerful, and really bordering on autocratic from Finneran down, and is ripe with reputation(somewhat deserved but inflated) of cronyism and nepotism and corruption. The argument for a "check/balance" to that power is pretty appealing to the people.

Also, Romney presented himself as a centrist. And finally, Shannon O'Brien wasn't a great candidate to take him on. She was very much a Beacon Hill insider. The first campaign I ever was given any real responsibity and authority in working on was her primary opponent Robert Reich. Both he and Warren Tolman would have been stonger candidates and could have beaten Romney, but they split the non-establishment candidate vote, coming in second and third places.

O'Brien won her first debate, tied her second and lost her third(thanks in a big way to moderator Tim Russert, who beat up on her about things like parental notices for abortions.)

would be to get better Dem candidates in the first place. It seems like a lot of important races these days becomes a choice between two non-choices.

I guess it's kind of like Bloomberg becoming mayor of NYC - people want change so they go with the unknown quantity.

I agree w/ you about the cronyism in the Dem party in MA - I worked on some campaigns and was pretty familiar w/ the scene when I lived there. I actually dated the son of a long term prominent politican, so I am pretty familiar w/ what a racket it is. Talk about corruption!

I'm not sure that Affleck fits in the list, but I really like Frank, Markey, McGovern(not on the list) and Reich. However, my favorite is Meehan.

Although it's near impossible to take on the Finneran southie establishment from the outside in any statewide demoratic race, he could add alot to the primary process

n/t

I just got back from a Kerry fundraiser where I met Cam Kerry (John's brother) and Jim McGovern ...

The list of choices in the poll should have included him ... he's probably the most progressive member of the Mass delegation (well, maybe equal to Barney Frank) ...

McGovern is great ... i told him I have always believed that there is no alternative to civil war in Iraq ... Saddam's tyranny has done nothing but delay the inevitable ... McGovern was in total agreement ...

I told McGovern he should run to replace Kerry ... he indicated he was probably too liberal even for Massachusetts ... I told him that's just what Massachusetts needed ...

anyway, I voted "other" ... I'd be very surprised if Barney ran for Senate although I think it's still a possibility ... Delahunt isn't bad either ... his weekly "Iraq Watch" on Tuesday nights on C-Span has been some of the most engaging political discussion I've ever seen ... if you haven't seen it, you should ...

the rest of the choices you proposed were pretty thin ... so, I'd support Barney Frank or Delahunt, but Jim McGovern would be great ... I think the guy's a DU'er at heart ...