Issue #79

ed mahkey

Los Angeles County DA

The second biggest name in California politics, Governor Gavin Newsom, has gotten behind George Gascón in the all-Democratic November runoff. Newsom never held elected office in San Francisco at the same time as Gascón, but Newsom served as San Francisco Mayor just before Gascón became its DA and in fact appointed Gascón as its police chief, so they likely have a good working relationship, in addition to any potential regional component to this endorsement. Newsom’s endorsement might serve as a signal to Democratic voters for who to get behind, but it might also do the same for Republicans. Luckily, incumbent Jackie Lacey already won most of the Republican vote in the primary, so there’s probably not much more consolidation that can be done.

MA-Sen

We have three more polls, some endorsements, and, um, a cyberbullying scandal involving a foul-mouthed cartoon dinosaur? Look, man, who knows. Let’s dive in.

First, the polls: they’re good. The most recent, conducted by Data For Progress on August 24 and 25, shows Sen. Ed Markey leading Rep. Joe Kennedy III 50% to 43%. Another poll, conducted by Suffolk University from August 23-25, shows Markey up 51-41. The third poll, from UMass Lowell, was conducted from August 13-21 but released today; it shows Markey leading Kennedy 52% to 40%. Both the UMass Lowell poll and the DFP poll show Markey doing the best with voters under 45 and voters with college degrees, while Kennedy only really does well with voters without a college degree--he fights Markey to a draw with older voters and non-white voters, but only among voters without a college degree does he hold a significant lead in both polls. (There are no crosstabs available for the Suffolk poll.) Markey’s apparent lead is a massive turnaround from the start of the race; both camps agreed it was Kennedy’s race to lose. And while the difference between the UMass Lowell poll and the more recent DFP poll indicates there may be some tightening, Kennedy does appear to be losing, despite an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi (to which Markey responded with an endorsement from Al Gore.) Why?

Well, winning campaigns normally do not pick fights with random accounts on Twitter. We don’t mean sending testy replies to criticism, either; we mean crying indignantly about screenshots of accounts lightly criticizing Kennedy’s staff hires, saying “Fuck off, Joe Kennedy,” or posting images of a cartoon dinosaur saying “fuck Joe Kennedy.” The Kennedy campaign sent a lengthy email to the Markey campaign and the press demanding Markey, um, denounce all criticism of Kennedy? Also included in the email are some tweets making light of the Kennedy family’s tragic history, which yes, are in poor taste, but they were also made by small accounts who weren’t tagging the Kennedys into these tweets at all. You can even see in the screenshots they sent that they must have typed “Kennedy Oswald” in the search bar specifically to find stuff like a teenager from California with a meme account tweeting “@LeeHarveyOswald we could use you right about now” and getting 0 likes. It’s all reminiscent of this xkcd panel. Besides, Markey has already denounced those, as well as threats against the Kennedy family, and did so again yesterday for good measure. 

This is some of the silliest shit we’ve seen in a while--and, ironically, it completely validates the highlighted tweet mocking the Kennedy campaign’s staffing, which said, “How can you be a Kennedy and still manage to make some of the worst staff hires of any campaign this cycle?” No self-respecting campaign staffer would complain to the media about, uh, Twitter user @cursingdinosaur’s indecorous conduct unless their boss forced them to. (Honestly, that seems about right.) I mean, really, come on. You’re calling the mods on a US Senator! And you’re a fucking Kennedy! It’s objectively ridiculous--and it’s practically begging the political world to mock your campaign until the end of time. (Which we encourage, because it’s deserved.)

And, if we may editorialize quickly, one of the tweets they included was in reply to the Dropkick Murphys announcing a tour with JKIII, where the replier said “this is real punk” and posted a Misfits album cover depicting the JFK assasination - an album cover and song that are over 40 years old. That’s also about when the band literally named Dead Kennedys started touring. To pretend that it’s all Markey’s fault that suddenly people are making light of the JFK assasination ignores the 40 year history of just that, which their own compilation shows. It’s just shameful and desperate.

By the way, @cursingdinosaur has since been suspended from Twitter, for...who knows why. To the best of our knowledge, profanity is not prohibited on Twitter, even when directed at a Kennedy. (If it is, we have a lot of tweets to delete.) In its memory, we are attaching the account’s greatest work of art.

MA-01

The Ways and Means Chair might be the most valued position in the House outside of Speaker. The gavel comes with it the ability to shape just about every spending bill, give and strip out earmarks, and direct billions, if not trillions, of dollars of spending. So it’s not shocking that Richard Neal had a lot of money on hand, and has done his best to spend it trying to drown out Alex Morse. Here’s the scale of it all. As of two weeks ago, Neal had spent $4 million on this race, with $2.75 million left for the home stretch. Since then he’s received another $91,500 in PAC money, and more from individuals.

But to really understand the depth of the cavalry coming in for Neal, we need to look at the outside spending. The American Working Families Super PAC, which was about half funded by labor, spent $376,000 backing Neal up to the reporting deadline, when it had only $50,000 left. Then, immediately after the reporting deadline, the behavior of this PAC changed. Every donor from after the reporting deadline won’t be revealed until after the election, and there have been extensive post-deadline donations: the PAC has spent almost a million dollars since then, almost all of which must have been from new donations. Only $13,000 of it has been used to support Neal, while the rest has gone towards attacking Morse. 

The American Hospital Association PAC, presumably grateful that Neal kept surprise medical billing alive for them, spent almost half a million supporting him. The American College of Radiology Association PAC, which probably had similar motivations, put $44,000 behind Neal. The Progress United PAC, which also has unknown donors, has spent $52,000 against Morse. The Democratic Majority for Israel, an AIPAC-affiliated, partially Republican-funded PAC you may know from the time they threw millions at Jamaal Bowman in an attempt to stop him, spent $104,000 attacking Morse, and did so in concert with the American Working Families PAC. Finally, $63,000 from the National Association of Realtors rounds it out. 

Alex Morse has raised just over $1.3 million and his outside support has mostly come from three groups: Justice Democrats, who’ve put together a $450,000 ad buy for him; Fight Corporate Monopolies, who’ve spent $325,000; and Indivisible, who’s in for about $330,000. Massachusetts Nurses PAC has put in about $33,000. It’s a financial imbalance greater than Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, or Marie Newman ever faced. Richard Neal obviously thinks the Justice Democrats ads have been effective, because his campaign is trying to get one of them taken down, specifically this one, over the dumbest of technicalities.

Legally, TV stations must sell air time to candidates and must air whatever the candidate wants. PACs, however, are treated like a normal customer. They must pay the normal ad rate, and TV stations can decline to air their ads. This means campaigns occasionally try to get PAC ads taken down over factual inaccuracies by threatening to sue the stations running them. Neal’s lawyers are trying to argue just that. In this case, the Justice Democrats ad points out twice that Richard Neal has taken more corporate PAC money than anyone else in Congress twice. Both times the onscreen text says PACs, but one time the narrator says “from corporations” instead of “from corporate PACs”. Neal’s lawyers insist this is an accusation that he has committed a felony, and is such “false, defamatory and should be removed from broadcast.” No word yet on whether the stations intend to take it down.

The main news about Morse’s backers this week isn’t about any ads being run, it’s about all the endorsements he’s piled up. First, on Thursday, were endorsements from 5 Pittsfield City Councilors. Pittsfield (pop. 42,000) is a revitalized, vibrant city, and the only major urban area in the Berkshires, the largely rural western end of the state which is mostly neutral ground in this race, since it was historically part of a different Congressional district until 2012 and has voted against Neal out of parochial concerns before. On Tuesday, he received the endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, through her Courage to Change PAC. This is big news considering AOC’s relative caution this cycle in endorsing against incumbents (she stayed silent in the Bush-Clay race). Also on Tuesday, Morse was endorsed by Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. This district has a substantial Puerto Rican population, particularly in Holyoke and Springfield.

Some last minute anti-Morse opposition research has bubbled up, in the form of an op-ed in the Boston Globe about Morse’s inaction after an incident in 2014 where Holyoke police beat up a 12 year old Latino boy. It’s pretty weak as far as these things go, since it’s not clear what Morse could have actually done to punish the officers involved without direct authority over them, besides publicly calling for resignations. And hey, that’s a fair criticism in the abstract, but considering his opponent is Richard Neal who had a much worse wrongful imprisonment scandal while mayor, it’s a pretty blatantly bad-faith attack. Unsurprisingly, Neal immediately bought digital ads to promote the article. It’s especially shameless coming from Neal, who supported tough-on-crime measures like no-knock warrants and a variety of drug war bullshit. A further op-ed about Morse’s commitment to policing reform probably defused any legs the original had.

MA-04

And then there were seven. We were skeptical that businessman Christopher Zannetos was going to have much of a chance in this race, and it seems like the self-funder agrees with us, as he’s dropped out today to endorse Jesse Mermell. Zannetos, who was self-funding his campaign, was on the air with a TV ad attacking Mermell (and other candidates) for supporting Medicare for All just last week, and at the time we said it was a good thing because it might siphon votes from Newton councilor Jake Auchincloss, who is pretty much a Republican running as a Democrat. Last week, when speechwriter Dave Cavell dropped out and endorsed Mermell, it made sense—Cavell, like Mermell, wasn’t hostile to the establishment, but his platform was largely progressive, like Mermell’s. Zannetos, who we previously called a “a bloodless business-world centrist” doing the same thing, even as Auchincloss and moderate Newton councilor Becky Grossman remain in the race, is a bit surprising. But hey, we’ll take it if it can help keep Auchincloss out of Congress. Zannetos didn’t have much chance of winning, so we just have to hope his voters follow his lead and go to Mermell (or fellow progressives Ihssane Leckey and Natalia Linos) rather than a more ideologically similar choice. Polling indicates this is a wide-open race, with Mermell, Auchincloss, Grossman, Leckey, and Linos all clearly in contention, and centrist self-funder Alan Khazei not far behind.

Mermell seems to be the more progressive end of the establishment’s choices to stop Auchincloss. She also received endorsements from Attorney General Maura Healey, state senator Paul Feeney, state representative Jim Hawkins, and Congressman elect Ritchie Torres (another product of a very split race where the outcome was better than the conservative in the race, but wasn’t a friend to the left), which comes on the heels of a local official endorsement rush from last week for her. As far as candidates who the establishment could rush to, Mermell could be far worse. She’s not keeping leftist company, and has been squishy on supporting Palestinian rights, but she does support Medicare for All, free public college, and the Green New Deal; the only candidate who was running as a leftist, Ihssane Leckey, self-funded a million dollars, faced accusations of staff mistreatment, fueded with the Boston DSA, and is polling out of the top tier, so the stakes are lower between then then between either of them and even Becky Grossman.

Grossman received some bad news today, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected her lawsuit, which MA-08 candidate Robbie Goldstein had signed onto, to count absentee ballots postmarked by, but received after, the September 1 primary.

(Correction: the initial version of this issue incorrectly stated Jesse Mermell does not support free public college. She does. We regret the error, and apologize to the Mermell campaign.)

MA-08

Rep. Stephen Lynch, a conservative Democrat with a long, long record of opposition to abortion, LGBT rights, healthcare expansion, and other baseline Democratic policies, has always been a deserving target for a primary; after a slow start to the cycle, it looks like he’s getting one. Despite all the signs pointing to a real race between Lynch and challenger Robbie Goldstein, the incumbent is doing little to save himself. He’s allowing himself to get outspent on TV, belatedly making his first TV buy of the cycle--for just $25,000--days after Goldstein went up with a $52,000 cable buy; Lynch has over a million dollars in his campaign bank account. He’s advertising a modest amount on Facebook, but he just started doing that, while Goldstein has been advertising on the website for months. The most recent poll (and the only public one we’re aware of) is a Goldstein internal, conducted in early August, showing Lynch leading Goldstein just 39% to 32%; while it’s an internal, it was also conducted before any TV ads aired. Goldstein’s ads and mailers are free of fluff, and get straight to the point: Lynch is a Trump-curious, anti-abortion Democrat who voted against Obamacare, doesn’t care much about climate change, and is awash in corporate money. Lynch is also getting hit by a super PAC, the Committee for Access to Affordable Healthcare; Politico’s Stephanie Murray says the PAC plans to spend more than $60,000 on digital ads boosting Goldstein and attacking Lynch. It’s already spent $56,000 of that total. The anti-Trump activist network Indivisible, which has endorsed Goldstein, has also spent just under $3,000 on text-banking in this race.

Not taking your opponent seriously can be a career-ending mistake; allowing himself to get out-advertised was likely crucial to Rep. Lacy Clay’s narrow loss to Cori Bush earlier this month. Of course, Bush and Clay each had much, much more ad money behind them; the spending in this race has been relatively low on both sides. But this is clearly a race to watch on Tuesday night. Why might Lynch be almost totally bushing off this challenge? This, from a Boston Herald article, may clear that up.

Lynch wouldn’t elaborate on the details of his internal polling, other than to say that Goldstein’s poll “doesn’t jive with anything we’re seeing” and “I like my chances.”

Lynch said Goldstein, like his other progressive challengers over the years, “didn’t prepare himself” for this run.

So, his internal polling looks good, and he’s easily put away his previous challengers, so he should be safe. But according to FEC records, unless Lynch commissioned one in the week before that article went up, his last poll was taken in late June, before Goldstein began advertising. As for him doing well against previous challengers, the only race Lynch has had in the last decade was against Brianna Wu, who simply didn’t run a good campaign - she raised very little money, was open about district-shopping, and made more news for a weird statement about moon rocks than for her actual campaign. Goldstein is running on a contrast that’s pretty damn reminiscent of Newman vs. Lipinski. It reeks of overconfidence not to bother defending yourself against stuff like this.

MA-downballot

Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the country, but it has a popular Republican governor, Charlie Baker,, and a nearly totally Democratic legislature which is just as happy working with Republicans as Democrats. In 2017 and 2018, Boston politics was shaken up by progressives victories on municipal, state, and federal levels, most famously Ayanna Pressley beating incumbent Mike Capuano in MA-07. This cycle, progressives across the state are challenging moderate or even conservative incumbents, and Baker, worried that Democrats in the state may be governing as Democrats is enough of the old guard goes down, formed a PAC to back up Democratic incumbents he’s friendly with. This week, late filings show us which Democrats are running with the Republican stamp of approval.

In the Senate: Nick Collins of Boston and Walter Timilty of Milton

In the House: Paul Donato of Medford, John Lawn of Watertown, Joseph McGonagle of Everett, Frank Moran of Lawrence, Jerald Parisella of Beverly, David Rogers of Cambridge, Kevin Hoban of Boston, Daniel Ryan of Boston, and John Rogers of Norwood.

In the Governor’s Council: Terrence W. Kennedy of District 6 and Padraic Rafferty of District 7.

(Correction: the initial version of this issue misstated which candidate Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s PAC is backing in the Governor’s Council’s District 7. He is not backing Helina Fontes; Fontes, a progressive, is running in District 6, against Baker-backed incumbent Terrence Kennedy. Baker is backing Padraic Rafferty in District 7.)