- Jeff Gulati on Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page
- Maurice T. Cunningham on Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page
- JeroldDuquette on Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page
- Jerold Duquette on What’s worse than Tea Party economic policy? Tea Party foreign policy.
- Tour de Website: Martha Coakley’s Home Page | on The Myth of Martha Coakley’s Mistakes
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
Tag Archives: Elizabeth Warren
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?
This should be an interesting day here in Massachusetts. Governor Deval Patrick will appoint an interim senator to serve in Secretary of State John Kerry’s seat until a special election is held in late June.
As I’ve written before I think it would be most interesting for the governor to appoint a new and fresh figure who at least cracks the mold somewhat. The appointee would get a political boost and perhaps bypass our sclerotic sort-of democracy in the commonwealth. Perhaps another woman, Hispanic or African-American candidate, someone associated with an important issue like gun control, or someone who has achieved at the highest levels in business or academia or the non-profit world. An ideas person. Someone like Elizabeth Warren, perhaps?
Recently I’ve enjoyed writing about known-knowns and unknown-unknowns as they might influence the coming special senate election for John Kerry’s seat. Today I’m thinking about known-unknowns – the things we know we don’t know. I don’t guarantee any of these speculations will actually happen either; I’m a political scientist, not Jean Dixon.
On Tuesday in Senate Special: Do We Know the Known-Knowns? I recounted how the Democrats had no candidate against the unbeatable Senator Scott Brown until the Republicans obliged by refusing to confirm Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board. I called that act of political charity a “random act of kindness.” I purposely chose the word random.
Since all things being equal a Democrat should always beat a Republican in Massachusetts, each of the MassPoliticsProfs had varying levels of bemusement at the Democrats’ inability to field a decent candidate against Senator Scott Brown until his Republican senatorial colleagues gift-wrapped Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats. Talk about your random acts of kindness!
The things we know we know should favor the Democrats in the upcoming special senate election — right? And the known-unknowns may but need not favor a Democrat, and the unknown-unkowns – like 2010’s Black Swan event – may upset all expectations. I’ve gotten very interested in the things we don’t see coming.
Professor Ubertaccio joined Fox25 this morning to talk about the two newest members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation.
As Senator-elect Elizabeth (“Ol’ Blood ‘n’ Teeth”) Warren prepares to accept her seat on the Banking Committee it is well to remember that she is not joining some version of the FDR 100 Days Democratic Party. I recalled this recently while reading a short New Yorker piece which recounted a Priorities USA Action ad called Stage.
The ad featured an Indiana paper plant worker who told of how one day he and some co-workers were told to build a stage. When it was built he and the workers from all three shifts were shuffled in front of the stage, where it was announced that Bain Capital had bought the paper mill and they were all fired. According to the ad, Mitt Romney made more than a million dollars on that deal.
But that isn’t the interesting part. Jane Mayer of The New Yorker characterizes the reaction: They “fielded bitter complaints from Democrats who were cozy with the private-equity industry.” Bill Burton of Priorities USA Action said: “When we first went up, there was a lot of pressure on us from people like Steve Rattner, Cory Booker, Harold Ford, and even President Clinton. The leaders of our own party were telling us to quit.”
I’ve decided to create a “can’t help but wonder” file and my first entry has to do with the decision by Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate re-election campaign to refer to his opponent as “Professor” Warren, rather than Ms or Mrs Warren. Everyone understands the thought process on this. Professors (especially Ivy League profs) are elitists, right?
As we endure the idle weeks until the next election with speculation about who would succeed Senator John Kerry should he move to a Cabinet post, the prospects of once and perhaps future Senator Scott Brown is a subject of conjecture. Robert Kuttner fears a Brown return; yesterday my colleague Professor Ubertaccio set forth reasons for Kuttner to remove his finger from the panic button. I largely agree with Professor Ubertaccio but want to set out some arguments for Senator Brown’s continuing political vitality.
When I posted Your Next Senator Will Be … last week I was having some fun with the larger point that supposed experts and insiders may enjoy forecasting political events but are often wrong because of the “unknown unknowns” that attend our lives. Two days ago in Algebra of “Your Next Senator Will Be …” I provided a formula evaluating the outcomes of the 2006 gubernatorial, 2010 senate special, and 2012 senate elections. Simple as that equation was I can simplify it further and this time I have the work of a Nobel Prize winner behind me.