Short answer: Very probably not.
Longer answer: Almost certainly not if the candidate is Mitt Romney. Romney served one term as governor of Massachusetts and was not popular at the time he left office. A Survey USA poll conducted in mid-November 2006 put the outgoing governor's approval rating at just 34 percent, against 65 percent disapproval. This poll does not particularly seem to have been an outlier. A Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire poll in late October, 2006 also had Romney's approval numbers in the red -- 34 percent of likely voters had a favorable impression of him and 54 percent an unfavorable one -- and polling conducted throughout 2005 (before Romney announced in December of that year that he would not seek a second term) showed him as many as 16 points behind his prospective Democratic rivals. Voters had evidently had enough of the guy.
But wait -- it gets worse. Voters not infrequently cross party lines to vote for governor -- 18 of the 50 states (36%) currently have a different party representing them in the governor's mansion than the one they cast their vote for toward the Presidency last November. But that's true for just 22 of 100 Senators. Voters recognize that Senate is a national office and governor is a local one: they're less likely to vote for a Senate candidate from the "wrong" party since they know that, once he gets to Washington, he'll be under enormous pressure to toe the party line, in a way that a governor who is not part of a larger constituent body might not be. Yes, quite a few people have made the cross-over before, including some in unfriendly territory (Ben Nelson of Nebraska is one case in point). But these instances are becoming rarer as the partisan divide in the country grows more extreme. And that would seem particularly to be the case for a candidate whose only reason to run for the Senate would be to help him defeat a Democrat for the Presidency in 2012 or 2016.
Plus, there's the question of how Romney would position himself. Is he going to revert back to being pro-choice, and pro-civil unions again? He probably can't win the Senate seat unless he does. But he probably can't win the Republican Presidential primary unless he doesn't -- particularly on the abortion issue. While I think it would behoove Romney to run slightly further to his left than he did in 2008 -- a lot of conservatives aren't going to vote for him anyway between his religious affiliation and the likely presence of Sarah Palin in the Republican primaries -- that would be taking things to extremes.
Speculation aside, Mitt Romney is probably smart enough to know this (whatever else you might say about him, Romney's not lacking for brainpower). Romney has a pretty good brand and probably 75 percent-plus name recognition among likely voters. And last I checked, you don't have to be popular in Massachusetts to become elected President. Running for the Senate seat is virtually a pure downside play for him.
As for other Republicans in Massachusetts, their prospects don't figure to be much better. This is mostly because there aren't very many of them. Something like 40 percent of U.S. Senators had been U.S. Representatives at the time of their election -- but all 10 of Massachusetts' U.S. Reps are Democrats. Statewide office holders like Lieutenant Governors and Attorney Generals have also had their share of success when running for Senate -- but Massachusetts' A.G., Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State and State Auditor are all Democrats. State Treasurer Timothy Cahill is a Democrat-turned-independent, but he's expected to run for governor instead. This, incidentally, is another layer of protection that the Democrats have -- any Republican worth his salt should be trying to knock off the unpopular Deval Patrick, rather than trying to win Ted Kennedy's old seat. Unless William Weld is interested -- and Weld endorsed Barack Obama and might vote with the President anyway on issues like health care and cap-and-trade -- this one is probably a pipe dream for Republicans.
8.27.2009
Could a Republican Win Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?
@ 1:11 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments
I can't speak to any of the potential contenders in Mass but I would think there would be a residual incumbency to overcome in a senate runoff for anyone who proclaimed to continue the work of Ted Kennedy
Maybe Patrick could appoint Weld as the place-holder if the MA legislature decides to go that route next week...
now THAT would be a kick in the pants to both parties in DC
I think you've got the Senator/Governor thing wrong. I think... the percentage of state minority party representation in the senate has to do with the ease with which you can tie anyone to unpopular national politicians/agendas. Red state democrats work tirelessly to be everything the national party is not specifically for that reason. It's much easier to hold up an independent track record when you're the peerless chief executive of a state.
(cont'd) The idea that "they're less likely to vote for a Senate candidate from the "wrong" party since they know that, once he gets to Washington, he'll be under enormous pressure to toe the party line" gives voters waay too much credit for understanding how government works. Look at stats about American civic knowledge.
With respect to Romney, the reason that he's particularly unpopular is that he spent the last 2 years of his single term in office insulting his state and the people who elected him. Particularly when he was giving speeches to out of state Republican audiences.
Not to be a technical prat but aren't you doing a bit of an apples to oranges comparison here when you say only 22 senators come from a different party than the way the state voted in 2009 for president? Since 12 states have senators from opposing parties I figure 17 states are willing to elect a senator from the "wrong" party (which is awfully close to 18).
From this data I just don't think you can say that voters are more willing to vote for a governor from the "wrong" party. You may be able to say a candidate from the "wrong" party is more likely to get elected to governor than senate, but that could just be an artifact of how a vote gets expressed as a result. That is to say under the hypothesis that every voter votes for the same party for governor and senate you could produce results very close to these.
But beyond that you have the election date issue. About a 5th of the states changed parties for president between 2004 and 2008. And who knows where they were in between. So many of those senators and governors voted in from the "wrong" party may have been from the "right" party at the time.
The rest of your analysis looks sound to me but I think paragraph two is just bad science.
Besides, wasn't there talk of Weld running for governor - of New York?
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/15551/
Didn't Weld already run for Governor of New York? Albeit only in the GOP primary.
I don't see Romney wanting to spend the next 6 months running for the Senate and giving up time from his setting up a Presidential run.
Is there a chance that someone like Cahill might hedge his bets and run for the Senate and then the Governorship if he doesn't get into the Senate?
Any of the Kennedy clan likely to throw there hat into the ring? What chance would they have? I would suppose that perhaps Joe Kennedy might be the most likely?
And finally, what chance would a GOPer who came out against health care have?
Talk about a blog "jumping the shark".
Now because you have nothing interesting to say, you have to chime in the day after Kennedy's death to remind us that a Republican is a longshot at replacing him.
Thanks for the insight!
Joe Kennedy has the whole Hugo Chavez association in his nonprofit work. It would seem that even in a liberal state like Massachusetts that would be toxic.
Being pro-civil unions and anti-marriage is actually a pretty conservative opinion in Massachusetts these days. I think it will be a long time before it's at all easy for a Republican to jump from statewide office in MA to the presidential nomination.
Let's not live out the fact that Mitten spent a grand total of 212 days in state his last 2 years in office. And then you wonder why we in MA don't elect Republicans anymore. Deval is an absolute disaster (not that I think it's as much his fault as he is being blamed for) and he is still running neck and neck with a very socially liberal Republican in Charlie Baker. For any Republicans who want to know who put the final nail in the coffin here, it was your boy Mittens. I still think a kennedy takes this seat, it's just a gut feeling.
Ben: Grow Up.
The day after Kennedy's death, Kennedy is still dead. Unless you knew and interacted with Kennedy personally for years, the person you mourn (or 'respect' or whatever) is a fictional construct much like the "Campaign Obama" I voted for.
It is bad enough losing people you know, mourning over the loss of people you don't know and then the loss of fictional characters on top of that shows a bit of an addiction to mourning. About 10,000 people a day die in the USA, Ted Kennedy is just one more celebrity death to be noted before we move on with our lives.
Nate has done us a service, I don't keep up with the reputation or popularity of state-level politics in Massachusetts, for all I know some state-level senator or representative or mayor or local hero or legacy candidate is popular there and in the mix for them. Apparently there is nobody on the radar, but it could happen.
Missy, yeah, Obama is above 50%, people can't stand him. Seriosuly, are you mentally slow? If so, i will give you a pass and not insult you. Please respond so i can actually say what I think of your post if you don't have a mental handicap.
As a Massachusetts resident, I would be absolutely shocked if a Republican won a Senate seat here, or if the election were even close. S/he would have to be wildly charismatic and way more socially progressive than any current Republican Congressperson. Even then, it's the longshot of longshots. Do the Republicans even have a bench in MA? It would seem a waste of bodies.
Yes Missy, according to your own link and metric, he may only narrowly evade the decline of such disastrous presidents as Ronald Reagan, though to his credit, he is doing far better than Bill Clinton... whose single term in office is widely considered the nadir of American history.
And to think, when Obama took office, the economy was in such fantastic shape. What could have possibly gone so wrong?!
You're right, we should have gone with one of the candidates with executive experience. Since that disqualifies Clinton, McCain, and Edwards... BILL RICHARDSON, WHY DID WE FORSAKE THEE?!
I agree that Romney won't waste his limited political capital on a Senate run in MA. Aside from the expense, if he loses he's absolutely dead nationally.
I'm not sure how much political capital Romney has nationally in any case. Where's his natural constituency? (a) UT, NV and other centers of Mormonism, (b) MI, his "home" state.
He has largely stayed out of the recent national debate on healthcare but may jump in when he knows which way the wind is blowing later this year. My guess: he'll defend and champion the public option (and Massachusetts) if things swing in favor.
No way a Republican would come close, espec. Mittwit, for reasons already stated here (don't badmouth the people paying your salary!)...sentimentally, I'd love to see Joe Kennedy, though he is doing important work now with Citizens' Energy (I think that's what his non-profit is called-I think of it as "Call Joe-4-oil", which is the ad campaign). More likely, it'll be Martha Coakley (our Attn. Gen.), Mike Capuano-US Rep. who holds JFK's old congressional seat (my Rep.), or Marty Meehan, also a US Rep.
It is a worrysome prospect to me-all my life I could count on Sen. Kennedy voting in my best interest. The future already seems different with him no longer here.
Thanks, Senator.
Bill Richardson was just absolved from any political wrongdoing so we could see him in the arena again someday
Nate: How's the Lobstah?
If Romney were to run for the senate, it would signal that he has no interest in running for president in 2012. Senators find it hard to schedule week-long trips to Iowa the way Governors (or the unemployed but loaded, like Romney) can.
While I agree that Massachusetts is extremely unlikley to send a GOP Senator to Washington, it's not because of the makeup of the Massachusetts electorate, so much as the ideological dogmatism of the national GOP.
Were the GOP to nominate a moderate to liberal candidate they would have a shot. However, that isn't likely to happen given the DNC and NRSC's unwillingness to get their butts up to the Bay State to knock on the doors of a few potential candidates who are too liberal nationally, but acceptable to MA. Then stick around to campaign. Airdrop in Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chris Shays and Lincoln Chaffee to campaign for the candidate. If any of those five think the candidate is too conservative, don't even bother. (Schwarzenegger might refuse due to family ties, but would be potent if he did campaign.)
That candidate would need to position themselves on top tier issues likely to arise during the short campaign. They would have to be a supporter of healthcare reform, at least the public option, possibly single payer, to remove that issue from the Democrats. Probably liberal on immigration and the wars, too, since those are on the horizon. A Republican who was a critic of Bush would be helpful.
Who might have a shot? Well, three that I see, if they'll do some repositioning.
Openly gay Patrick Guerriero, a former head of the Log Cabin Republicans, was also a Massachusetts state rep. As a gay liberal Democrat, I can tell you I would have a tough time voting against what would be the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. Expect the right wingers on radio and Fox to pop a blood vessel or two, but Meghan McCain might come to campaign on college campuses.
Former Gov. Jane Swift has a somewhat tarnished image with Mass voters, but in a short campaign she may be able to dodge criticisms and parlay being a strong supporter of education into some votes. Should do well among suburban women. Her chances really go up if she faces an old guy of the white, cranky variety.
William Weld might be able to make hay out of his earlier prosecutions of bankers and other white collar criminals. His endorsement of Obama over McCain after Romney dropped out, and his moderate to liberal social stances would certainly help. He likely opposes healthcare reform, but could change on that emphasizing cost savings and choice. Lack of funding from the national GOP wouldn't be an issue, since he's from an old money family and personally rich.
Prediction: if any of these three run promising to vote with Bernie Sanders on every healthcare vote, but otherwise be a libertarian Republican, that senate seat will be filled by a Republican for the first time since Henry Cabot Lodge in 1953.
I just don't see how the candidate endorsed by the Kennedy family fails to win this seat. MA is one pole of the nation's political axis and anything the Republican bench can produce, be it in terms of personal qualities or issue positioning, the Democrats can match and surpass.
the clear point of the "Missy" blog is that the President is showing his lack of executive and legislative experience. The examples cited in the rebuttal to her post both had served as successful governors. The president's major problem with passing his agenda is that he appears to just not be able to work the legislative politics needed to get his agenda enacted.
Mitt also isn't a resident of MA any more- the closest is a house in NH, he sold his house in Belmont (for a while it was rumored to Jason Varitek.)
I suppose Jack Welsh is too old. I wondered about Jane Swift as well. The GOP does have a very weak bench in MA, but that is the only reason they couldn't win this state. Why? Because the Democratic party in MA is almost unspeakably corrupt. You people know this, right? I know that only Republicans are corrupt stooges around here, but open you eyes. The most important figure in the state is the Speaker of the House. THREE in succession have been arrested and charged with serious corruption. Patrick had been caught crafting well paid jobs for his political cronies while slashing the state's budget. The Big Dig, the Pike Authority, the Bribe taking agencies, on and on. It's an utter mess, and should be a scandal to the Democratic party.
The Dems probably will keep their slimy grip on this seat - and its an utter shame.
@GbThrone
Yes, who can forget President Clinton's successful health reform initiative! And Reagan, he was so successful that he had to resort to the reconciliation procedure to get his tax cuts passed (of course, if Obama ends up using the same procedure for his agenda, I'm sure you and Missy will be the first to huff in indignation).
The relevant point is that Missy offered a metric of measuring long-term success that is easily refuted. Moreover, to date, Obama has had much more success in enacting his agenda than either Reagan or Clinton. Comprehensive health care reform, which remains likely in some form or another, represents the only significant resistance he's met to date, and he's still taken it much, much further than Clinton did in 93 (he has also taken it further than Johnson and Kennedy, both of whom resorted to pursuing marginal measures as a compromise to comprehensive reform).
Now, you can continue to insist that saying "It's different because he was a Senator" means something concrete, but it's an incredibly flimsy point. History shows that the metric raised by Missy is dubious, and there is no (as in zero) evidence that being a Senator will make that metric any more concrete. As far as I can tell, it's baseless speculated generated more out of bitter desperation than a level-headed examination of history.
On the whole, I'd recommend finding a different line of attack. This one's just sad.
@Missy
Yes, clearly, all approval ratings invariably follow the same trend. The Dole and Mondale administrations are a testament to that indisputable fact.
Any other nuggets of wisdom you'd like to share?
The easiest route to a GOP victory would be for them to nominate a moderate, and for the Dems to get stuck with Rep. Lynch. He's staunchly socially conservative, and would drive the suburban set into GOP arms. But he does have a big working class constituency in the Dem party, and a big war chest.
Those are three interesting predictions, Missy. However, you have yet to show me a single fact. You do know there's a difference between the past and future? Fact and imagination?
With that said, Obama has already succeeded in passing a number of controversial measures whose analogues were shot down during the Clinton administration and have no real basis of comparison in any other admin. The stimulus bill, his budget, etc.
Now, of course, you could make the argument that Obama will not end up getting every he wants. That much is true. However, the same is true of every president in American history, including those with much larger majorities. Despite a truly enormous majority, Johnson passed only a modified fraction of his agenda, and he's largely considered one of the most successful presidents (in terms of passing his agenda) in history.
So, with that said, you can argue that every president in American history is a failure... which is probably true to some extent but, obviously, it doesn't offer the emotional vindication that I'm guessing you're after. Now, you can continue to type "failure" as an expression of your frustration and unbridled hatred of our commander-in-chief, or you can field a cogent argument based in a rational examination of fact and history.
I'll be happy to engage the latter. I'll be even happier to chuckle at the former. :)
Missy, you are way too dumb, please just shut up. Seriously, stop making yourself look so idiotic.
Toyota has a large presence in the United States with five major assembly plants in Huntsville, Alabama; Georgetown, Kentucky; Princeton, Indiana; San Antonio, Texas; Buffalo, West Virginia. A new plant slated to be built in Blue Springs, Mississippi has been put on hold owing to the financial crisis that erupted in late 2008. Toyota also has a joint-venture operation with General Motors at New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI), in Fremont, California, which began in 1984, and with Subaru at Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (SIA), in Lafayette, Indiana, which started in 2006. Production on a new manufacturing plant in Tupelo, Mississippi is scheduled for completion in 2010.
Honda only has 3 plants in the U.S., Alabama, Indiana and Ohio.
It's like you people just don't have brains. let's also talk about the fact that over a 6 year period, we can expect to save 2.25 billion in Gasoline costs to consumers (less consumption lowers demand, usually lowering pricing, lessening our dependance on foreign entities), let's also not mention the net benefit to the enviroment. Let's also look at the back door local stimulus this provides (IE higher excise taxes for municipalities, state sales taxes, federal profit taxes on the sold vehicles). Please take your 400 dollar tax cut we got this year and buy a brain from the wizard, OK dumb dumb
"Obama, despite his super majorities and a fawning, expectant press, cannot get stuff done. "
What hasn't he gotten done yet?
Health care?
House and Senate still haven't came out with 1 bill each to vote on. How is that even Obama's fault?
So far in banking we did get some consumer protections in place which will be enacted shortly regarding credit cards. The rest is on its way.
Or would you rather have him shove everything down your throat?
If he rams things through, you complain. If he lets the legislative process run its course he can't get things done.
Seriously Missy, you're a mess. Get a grip.
Here in Massachusetts, politics are so lopsided that the Democrats are guaranteed a veto-proof majority in both houses of the state legislature before the polls even open on election day. As a result, the Speaker of the House is the most powerful position in the commonwealth, followed by the Senate President.
As a result, we're mostly interested in electing a governor who will served as a speed bump against the legislature. Don't get me wrong, we'd certainly prefer to elect a Democrat, but since there is no possibility whatsoever that a Republican governor can advance a conservative agenda, we don't worry too much about the governor's political party.
The most important things Massachusetts voters look for in a gubernatorial candidate is that he or she is both strong enough, and sufficiently independent from the Beacon Hill Democratic machine, to be trusted to stand up effectively against to the legislative leadership.
Before Devall Patrick, the Democrats were either too close to the machine - Shannon O'Brien - or not tough enough - Scott Harshbarger.
But none of this thinking applies to senatorial races.
The Lion…Err Dog of the Senate.
“Teddy Kennedy was the weak kitten in the litter, never able to measure up to his brothers.
The accident at Chappaquiddick displayed his chronic immaturity. One problem Teddy has always had was keeping it in his pants – even when other people are around.”
- Cleo O’Donnell – wife of former Kennedy campaign aide.
Check out my take, and stick around for more good content.
http://libertarianhumor.com/2009/08/26/the-lion-err-dog-of-the-senate/
"Toyota Motor Corp. led the industry with 19.4 percent of new sales, followed by General Motors Co. with 17.6 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 14.4 percent."
Nosimple,
Funny you mention Pat, great guy, was the mayor of my city growing up as well as my rep and was always helpful. But he's the ultimate longshot, they wouldn't even run him for LT. Gov back in the early part of this century after some early blowback from the national party.
@Missy
Toyota manufactures its vehicles in the United States and buys parts from American-based manufacturers. This will put Americans back to work... which is the entire point. The American companies still benefited substantially from the program, to say nothing of local auto dealers.
"Is he going to revert back to being pro-choice, and pro-civil unions again?"
revert back . . . again!?!
why stop at being redundant once when you can do it again and again!
John, yes I am indeed a bit slow on the uptake.
Thanks so much for your solicitous regard for what is an obvious condition.
You must be a glorious and resplendent creature of virtue as you repose atop your chair, your moon-pie face glowing radiant and expectant from your laptop screen.
LOL just a tip for you missy, throwing big words everywhere does not make you look intelligent so much as someone who desperately wants to be perceived as such.
@John
You are completely correct that he is a super longshot for the nomination. Which is sort of my point.
The basic problem with the GOP today is their primary nominating process produces candidates who have a very difficult time getting elected in a liberal state.
The GOP has a weak bench in Massachusetts, better than the Democrats in, say, Utah or Idaho.
But it doesn't help them because today, if you are not a handmaiden to Limbaugh and Beck, and if you don't want to see abortion doctors strung up on the public square, you can't win a GOP primary (with a few rare exceptions, of course.)
The plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General.
Hugely important question:
How is this election run?
There are three possibilities:
1) Open race - to control costs, one election, anyone can run, whoever gets the most votes win.
Thus the winning candidate might have 30% of the vote, a Republican could win.
2) Open race - if someone gets 50%, then wins, otherwise, a runoff between top two, or between top two from each party
3) Primaries, then the election.
My impression is that it is the first one. And since it would not be held at the same time as normal elections, every Dem member of the House could run, dividing the field.
Isn't this the first question that needs to be addressed before anything else?
sfergus
I believe I am right in saying that the Ma state law says that a primary has to be held 6 weeks before the election, so its option 3!
@ missy:
Good to know you are taking up the conservative cause in the absence of your buddy PeteKent.
It would help things greatly if your party would cooperate in the debates of these issues instead of standing united in opposition, hoping 2010 will be a redux of 1994. You might get the GOP out of the slump it is in now, or help craft smarter final legislation...but no, that's not gonna happen.
Too bad for you and the rest of us.
"Teddycare" = Public Option.
No question about it. Ted Kennedy wouldn't want his name associated with any health bill that didn't include a public option.
So I vote for changing the name of bill to the Ted Kennedy Memorial Bill - but only IF it contains a public option in it's final form!
Just to note that Marty Meehan is no longer a US rep. He's chancellor of U Mass Lowell.
Other pols hate him as a publicity hound. Joe Moakley turned purple at the mention of his name. I don't think he's even acceptable as a five-month appointment, if that becomes an option.
Yes, there will be party primaries before the election to fill Kennedy's seat. No run offs, plurality wins in both the primary and the election.
Real Democrats will take most Republicans over Lynch, but I've yet to see a Republican name that isn't laughable.
War chests aside -- and I haven't seen a number for Lynch -- he lacks state-wide name recognition compared to Martha Coakley. I think it's hers to lose.
Romney announced he's not running. Patrick will appoint Dukakis as the temp Teddy and the election will be easily won by whichever Dem has the most money in the state currently.
-Jeff
Speaking as a Massachusetts native and an independent, I would *like* to see Weld win, but I don't think he can. The last time he ran for Senate, Weld narrowly lost to Kerry, partially owing to some rather sleazy moves on Kerry's part, but that was in 1996. Outside of always-iconoclastic Maine, New England is no longer competitive for Republicans.
Weld is socially liberal, which is necessary for election in Massachusetts, but not sufficient. I would vote for him over pretty much any Democrat (except Chris Gabrielli), as would a number of other independents I know. However this inclination towards fiscal conservatism seems to be a male thing, and most women I know who aren't registered Republicans tend to be economically "progressive." Because Democrats make up almost half the population, and many independents are inclined towards the Democrats, I think that a Republican would have to take some un-Republican stances on economics to get over the top. And that would pretty much guarantee a primary defeat.
There's also the fact that a lot of people want somebody who runs on a platform of optimism (see Patrick and Obama), rather than a technocrat. An excellent illustration of this was the 2006 gubernatorial primary. Most independents I know voted for the technocratic and pragmatic Gabrielli, but almost every Democrat voted for the effervescent Patrick. While the economy has certainly dampened this preference for optimism, I think that it also makes people less likely to vote for a fiscally conservative (or even pragmatic) Republican generally.
The last Republican senator from Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, a black liberal. He was defeated for a third term in 1974 by Paul Tsongas precisely because Republicans abandoned him over social issues -- particularly his support for abortion and his public divorce, which apparently was triggered by his affair with Barbara Walters. With the current state of the Republican party, there's no way that the national party will 1) find a candidate liberal enough to win in Massachusetts and 2) line up behind him with the money he would need. Besides which, with pretty much every member of Congress from the state likely to grab at their one and only chance to graduate to the Senate, there's going to be no reason for Democrats to swith over to vote in the Republican primary, meaning the few people who show up are going to be the hardcore Republican base, who are going to vote for one of their own.
You're absolutely right, of course, that there's no good play for Romney in this one other than to stay out.
Nosimplehiway wrote:
"Airdrop in Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chris Shays and Lincoln Chaffee to campaign for the candidate."
Chafee left the Republican Party to become an Independent, and will likely run as one for governor of Rhode Island. I don't think he'd life a hand to help the Republican Party if he found it lying bleeding on the side of the road at this point.
But otherwise, your scenario could work, but won't actually happen for precisely the reasons you say.
I also have to agree with Nosimplehiway. The GOP has nominated nutcases for Senate for as long as I've been able to vote, but they haven't had anybody who could really be a prospect even running. And neither the state nor the national GOP has shown any inclination to fixing this, because it would divest resources from running more ideologically pure (read: socially conservative) candidates in more competitive parts of the country. Yes, nobody to the right of Snowe has a chance here, and yes, this indeed makes it not worth their while.
This may never happen, but the one individual who could run as a Republican with a possibility of being elected from Mass. is Curt Schilling. Apparently, he still lives in Medford, MA. It's not like sports celebrities have never done this before (Jim Bunning, J.C. Watts, Heath Shuler, Steve Largent, just to name a few). Schilling has been mentioned as a possible candidate. He may not win, but it would at least be an interesting campaign.
Curt Schilling, the Rep field would have to be pretty weak, which it is all over the U.S. to be sure, for Schilling to be their sacrificial lamb.
Schilling makes me think of John Elway in CO btw, my first thought was only a die hard Rep would come up w/a name like Schilling. Richard, you did say you were an Independent if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway, Kennedy's replacement will be a Dem and the election won't be close. Although I'm sure Schilling still gets a lot of free meals in Boston and throughout the state.
Remember when John Glenn ie a celebrity/war hero/American hero first ran in OH. One would think a slam dunk! but, but, but ...
1970 Glenn ran against Metzenbaum and lost in the primary because the Dem party machine was behind Metzenbaum. Glenn won the bitter rematch in 1974. Anyway, both Glenn and Metzenbaum became senators as Glenn won the general in '74 and Metzenbaum won in '76 beating Taft, having previously been appointed by Gilligan in '73 to replace William Saxbe who became U.S. Attorney General when John Mitchell resigned in disgrace!
And bringing this post full circle Ted Williams was John Glenn's wingman in the Korean War.
I digress.
Shiloh,
I was just reading a news article that listed Schilling as a possible candidate and thought I'd throw his name out there since Nate didn't mention him as a possible candidate. Apparently, they tried to recruit him to run against Sen. Kerry, but he decided not to be a candidate because "he wanted to pitch in 2008." Now that he's retired, he may decide to throw his name in.
Do I think he can win? Probably not in Mass., but his "celebrity factor" might make it a close race, especially since it appears that most sports celebrities seem to win (See this article chronicaling some celebrity politicians http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-notes/the-fixs-grab-bag-of-celebrity.html).
I would compare Schilling to Jack Kemp who, like Schilling, did not grow up in the area that elected him (Kemp was San Diego; Schilling lived all over--Alaska, Arizona, Pittsburgh), but played for the hometown team (Kemp for the Bills, Schilling for the Red Sox). Also, Kemp won as a Republican in a traditionally democratic region. So, there is some precedent that would give Schilling a fighting chance. Personally, Schilling is too socially conservative for me, plus I'm an Orioles fan.
The self-loathing gay Rep I've mentioned a few times is from CO and he mentioned Elway many times as the one who could lead the Reps out of the CO wilderness and into the promised land ;) which is why I questioned your party affiliation or lack thereof as you just mentioned Ehrlich in another recent post maybe bringing Maryland back to the promised land.
That said, interesting you also mentioned Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ie a "celebrity" candidate of sorts who indeed ran a god awful campaign. Again, actual candidates have to run against each other by staging a campaign lol which is why running a celebrity is not always a good idea as many will say, politics is also a contact sport and everyone has a plan until they get hit!
Suspect most celebrity candidates run in totally safe Rep or Dem districts or states w/their party machine totally behind them ie Schwarzenegger, CA loves celebrities, but, but, but maybe not so much anymore lol.
Glenn lost because he didn't have the party machine behind him.
Schilling and Mass. ain't a great fit politically speaking, especially after recent current events and political atmosphere in Mass. Governor would be better fit for Schilling in Mass. but what has he ever run as athletes are spoon-fed and pampered from an early age.
Totally ironic Reagan, a former Dem and former head of SAG, that evil liberal union was his indoctrination in running an organization which was his training in becoming a conservative governor of CA ie he put in the legwork required for most politicians, it wasn't just handed to him on a silver platter.
Kathleen Kennedy Towsend was Lt. Governor in MD, prior to her running and she wasn't much of a celebrity since she was clearly uncomfortable whe she had to appear before the media.
I'm not sure the party machine was behind Schwarzenegger all that much, but, even so, why wouldn't the Rebublican party machine in Mass. get behind someone like Schilling? Who else do they have to offer?
I do agree with you that even celebrity politicians usually have to work their way up the ladder, so that is one drawback against Schilling. But, like Glenn, it might be worth it for Schilling to get out there and see if he has a chance. If he doesn't win the Senate race, but does reasonably well, he could then go after a Congressional district that may share his point of view.
Finally, it is unfortunate, but elections are closer to "beauty contests" where the better looking or more likable candidate usually wins, rather than they are to actual job interviews where the best qualified candidate wins.
Richard said...
Kathleen Kennedy Towsend was Lt. Governor in MD, prior to her running and she wasn't much of a celebrity since she was clearly uncomfortable whe she had to appear before the media.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly, you prove my point, Lt. Gov is a seat warmer position one doesn't have to run for, just do no harm:
In 1994, Parris Glendening was running for Governor in a highly contested primary against Lt. Governor Melvin A. Steinberg. Glendening's selection of Townsend to serve as his running mate was widely credited for giving his campaign national support, and Kennedy money, ultimately for winning the Democratic primary. In the General election, Glendening and Townsend beat Republican candidate Ellen Sauerbrey in one of Maryland's closest and most controversial gubernatorial elections.
In the Maryland gubernatorial election of 2002, Lt. Gov. Townsend ran as a Democrat, facing off against Republican Robert Ehrlich and Libertarian Spear Lancaster.
During the election, Townsend was criticized for her choice of running mate; she picked retired Admiral Charles R. Larson, a novice politician who had switched parties only a few weeks before. Larson was also a white male, unlikely to help minority turnout.
ie she was politically clueless! and her Kennedy name probably worked against her in MD, ie a carpetbagger.
The Rep party machine would definitely be behind Schilling and never said it wouldn't.
Beauty contests indeed which is why one shouldn't bet against Jeb Bush being the Rep nominee for president in 2012. One big problem as this would force Bush43 to appear at the convention ;) oh the humanity!
p.s. the election of Franken, a celebrity, in MN pretty much sums up the current total discombobulation of the party of No! and speaking of Maryland, what a total embarrassment Steele has become for the Rep party. He has now become a cartoon character as he acquiesces to Limbaugh, etc. on a daily basis and contradicts himself 24/7.
Again, how did the Dems get sooo damn lucky!
I guess it is just semantics, but I don't consider people from politically famous families, such as Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Jeb Bush, celebrity politicians. For me, a celebrity is someone who became well known in some other field, especially the entertainment or sports fields, and then decided to run for political office. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Jeb Bush never did anything outside of run for political office.
As some here have said, it would be politically easier for a Republican to run against Patrick for Governor, than to run for the open Senate seat in Mass., but if you are someone like Schilling, without any experience running anything at all, would you want to take the more demanding Governor position or the Senate position where the most demanding reponsibility is simply voting? I would think that, if anything, Schilling would be more likely to run for the vacant Senate seat than the Governorship.
Finally, shiloh, you may be the first person ever to link Jeb Bush and "beauty contest" in the same sentence. lol
Yea imo, Taft was a celebrity political name in OH until our last governor buried his family's name forever, Bush was a celebrity name in politics until cheney/bush buried it forever, so yea, I was being half facetious and half truthful talking about Jeb, who normally would be persona non grata re: running for president after the incompetence and corruption of his brother, but, but, but look at his Rep competition er lack thereof in 2012.
So who would the Rep party machine get behind right now re: the Rep presidential nomination. It's a no brainer as mittens, huckabee, palin are a frickin' joke as to the only ones w/name recognition. They are all unelectable as is gingrich. imo Jeb is unelectable also, but the Reps are in the Dems position in 1984. It is what it is.
If Jeb doesn't run, it's palin's to lose which is hilarious as the campaign ads against her write themselves after she quit her job. Such is the current state of the Rep party as palin would literally and figuratively be the winner in a Rep primary beauty contest. The conservatives are in love w/sarah!
They have not yet been able to grasp the concept after the 2008 election there is no longer enough racists/yahoos out there for Reps to win the presidency using their former winning formula: fear, torched earth ad hominem attacks, hate issues on state ballots, negativity. After (8) years of cheney/bush they can no longer argue competence and the current C-in-C is a Dem.
They need a new meme lol and yes Virginia, it's too much fun talking about the current condition of the party of No!
My how the mighty have fallen.
When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to pause an reflect! ~ Mark Twain
And just the thought of Schilling running for anything tells one how far the party of No! has fallen, they are politically bankrupt!
p.s. Kennedy is still a celebrity name in Mass. perhaps now more than ever. Maryland, not so much. ;)
放鬆心情自由自在的來一趟花蓮旅遊，可以感受花蓮民宿各種不同的風味，所以來花蓮一定要住花蓮民宿哦！因為可從花蓮民宿主人那裡分享到不一樣的花蓮旅遊的經驗以及品嚐花蓮美食道地的花蓮小吃，所以來花蓮旅遊不一定就要享受花蓮高級餐廳的花蓮美食也可以多試試道地古早味的花蓮美味哦！來花蓮民宿可以放鬆整個心情，來花蓮電腦住宿也可以放空自已，來花蓮也可以了解在地的文化哦！住民宿其實是很輕鬆的，住花蓮民宿其實是很容易，還有就是現在是高油價的時代，還自行開車來花蓮嗎？來花蓮租車會比較輕鬆哦！來花蓮房屋租車會比較省錢哦！或是可以請花蓮計程車帶您包車旅遊喔!!歡迎來住住美麗的花蓮民宿囉!!一定要讓您來花蓮旅遊並且讓您愛上花蓮民宿，還有團購美食好吃的蜂蜜蛋糕、養顏美容的蜂王乳以及花蓮美食喔!!
Post a Comment