Special election 2013 has produced about what you might expect for candidates: two congressmen, a former state representative/DA/U.S. Attorney, an ambitious state representative/former judge/gubernatorial aide/party activist, and a rich guy. The field is similar to what you might find in most open seat elections, including the 2010 special election. So why no Elizabeth Warren in 2013?
As an academic Warren became most well-known for her work on bankruptcy law. She was the force behind the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but she had proven so threatening to the nation’s financial interests (major funders of Republicans and Democrats) that the arm of Wall Street known as the Senate Republican Caucus blocked President Obama from even nominating her as head of CFPB. Oh, and Warren is a woman, and Massachusetts had never elected a woman to such high office.
She had a cause though, and the credibility to be recognized as a force on it: the rapaciousness of Wall Street, its devastating impact on the middle class, and the subservient posture of the political establishment.
Republicans don’t beat Democrats for the U.S. senate in this state but in 2010 Scott Brown did just that. He became an instant political star, his campaign coffers bulging and his personal popularity unmatched in the state. He had to defend the seat again in 2012, sure, but no Democrat of any consequence would risk a race against him. Not Capuano, Markey, Lynch, no one. My colleague Professor Duquette has a lot of faith in fundamentals that would suggest a Democratic win in most circumstances, but a Brown-Khazei race likely would have kept Democrats from exercising their full array of advantages.
Then the Senate Republicans sent Warren home, a high-profile martyr.
Warren had also earned the reputation of eviscerating Democrats whom she considered to be Wall Street apologists, including in different circumstances Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. She’s kept it up too, ripping into government regulators who have massaged the wrists of Wall Street bankers (slapping their wrists would be far too violent, especially if it was the wrist on the check-writing hand).
Now just head over to opensecrets.org and see how much money the finance sector has given to the Democratic Party. (But remember, correlation does not mean causation!). In most election years Elizabeth Warren might be a skunk at a garden party. But 2012 wasn’t most election years.
So all political experts who foresaw Scott Brown winning in 2010 and then a woman Harvard law professor wresting the seat from him in 2012, please step to the front. Talk about your unknown-unknowns.
There just aren’t a lot of Elizabeth Warrens around. Or maybe we’ve just regressed to the mean. In any case 2013 field is politics as usual.
Pingback: Headlines for Monday, March 4, 2013 » MASSterList
“Brown-Khazei race likely would have kept Democrats from exercising their full array of advantages.” In 2012′ the Dems didn’t need their full array of advantages. As advantages go, the Dems in 2012 had an embarrassment of riches.
Answer this question that has not been discussed here it. Why is Governor Patrick having so much difficulty getting public support for his budget proposal from the state legislature and members of his own parties. Patrick proposal is clearly a “progressive” one that in theory is aligned with the ideals and goals of national Democratic Party. Yet closer to home on Beacon Hill many of his own fellow Democrats seems to be almost enjoying saying no to him.
Jerold,
So rich they could have elected Khazei? Marissa DiFranco? bob Massie? Herb Robinson? I feel like that old song about “the limbo” — how low can you go?
Tim,
It is a really good question, so good that I hope Peter or Jerold answers it. But now you have me thinking about it.
The Massachusetts state legislature is Democratic, not progressive.
@ Tim: Your question assumes a a binary position to the Democratic position. (I.e., you’re either Democrat or Republican.) In a largely one party state like Massachusetts, the dominant party will most likely fill the voids of the right, center, and left positions, and in fact, individual legislators will lie somewhere along a spectrum in viewing their positions and preferences. And given the largely anti-tax mood of the electorate, you can assume most legislators will want to avoid large scale tax increases that the Governor is seeking. And thus far, he’s not doing a very convincing sales pitch with the legislature I don’t think.
No one really wants to support citizens with expertise who are not corrupt, especially women citizens with expertise who are not corrupt, in an effort to contain risk, prosecute offenders and reform the system. People think they want this but no real efforts are made to protect whistle-blowers or responsible insiders; law enforcement certainly doesn’t shirk from silencing dissent. Value lies in influence-mongering where people like Albie Sherman, a “fixer”, who is “a good friend” to lawmakers (“He visited me when I was sick!”), gets a building dedication to honor his extraordinary malfeasance.