Talking Politics

Tisei, Gay, By The Way

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:22:00 GMT

Is this the most casual self-outing by a gay Republican in the history of politics or what?

It will be interesting to see how the GOP base in the state reacts. If Charlie Baker does pick Tisei as his LG, it's possible that someone could run against him on an anti-gay platform -- and potentially beat Tisei in the GOP primary. That would be a disaster for Baker, and the state party generally.

Good News, For A Change

David S. Bernstein — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:07:00 GMT

Hey, here's some news to crack a few smiles in the governor's office: the Massachusetts unemployment rate dropped from 9.3% to 8.7% in October -- the first monthly decline in 28 months.

Total net job losses for the month were under 1000. Construction jobs eked positive for the first time since February -- perhaps a sign of federal stimulus money at work.

The overall numbers were helped by the federal government hiring of 1000 Census workers -- but that happened throughout the country, and the national employment rate jumped in October anyway.

So here's the big question: will the combination of positive jobs news, stabilizing home values, and stock-market gains reflected in people's quarterly 401(k) statements put people in a more confident mood as they start their Christmas spending?

New In The Phoenix -- Senate Positioning

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:42:00 GMT

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I write about some of the ways the Democratic candidates for US Senate are trying to get attention and position.

I start with a look at how Congressman Michael Capuano is trying to use prominent female endorsers to signal to women that they needn't feel obligated to vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Which makes me wonder: when Alan Khazei announced the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg, was it a signal that obscenely rich people needn't feel obligated to vote for Steve Pagliuca?

In any event, I go on to look at how the candidates are trying to respond to issues that come up in the news cycle, like health care and Afghanistan. This leads me to suggest that Pagliuca's wealth is allowing him to try to set the campaign agenda -- by flooding the airwaves with ads about his prefered issues, like job creation, in hopes that people will then focus on that rather than, say, foreign policy, which is not his strength.

Anyway, all this and more can be found in the article, at this link:

Ladies' Man: In his race for US Senate, Michael Capuano is using well-known women to battle the race's female front-runner.

Deval Stymied

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:52:00 GMT

The state legislature calls it quits for the year today, and here are the recent developments, according to reports from the State House News Service:

--Speaker Bob DeLeo is indicating that he will not try to rush through the education bill that the Senate passed Tuesday, which is a major priority of the Patrick administration.

--DeLeo also said not to expect House action on another Patrick priority, an anti-crime bill including CORI reform, that the Senate may pass today.

--The legislature will pass a "mini-budget", but will apparently reject much of Patrick's big budget-cutting requests, made a month ago. Most notably, they will not give him authority to make $75 million in cuts to constitutional offices, courts, and other areas; and they will not reduce funding for the Quinn bill. (SHNS notes that the mini-budget bill "has not had the benefit of a public hearing and expediting its passage before Wednesday ensure the legislation will receive minimal review."

So, we can see how groovy relations are between the governor and the legislature, as we head to the holidays and then into the big state elections year.

Presumably the legislature will pass ed reform after they resume in January -- before the big 1/19 deadline for federal grant applications, but close enough that Patrick won't be able to veto and push for changes, so he will have to take whatever version they pass.

Bear in mind that the State of the Commonwealth address is in mid-January, and it's a crucial one for the governor to define the political terms of his re-election campaign. He could use it to emphasize "all we've been able to do together": pension and ethics reform, transportation reorg, ed reform, criminal-justice reform, significant downsizing of government spending, etc. Or, he could use it to launch a "blame the legislature" theme, taking them to task for not doing enough of the tough things he's asked them to do.

Anyway, we'll see what actually happens today (or more likely, late tonight).

Valence Advantage, Pt. 2: Mitt Romney

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:00 GMT

In the previous post, I told you about my exchange with an academic at UCLA who studied candidate attractiveness. Well, it turns out that when you mention Massachusetts to people who study candidate attractiveness, their minds turn to one thing: the beautiful man with the perfect hair, Mitt Romney himself.

Although the study did not include gubernatorial candidates, Romney was entered into the database by virtue of his 1994 campaign for Senate. And -- duh! -- he turns out to be "among the highest rated politicians in facial quality."

In fact, gushed lead author Matthew Atkinson in his email to me, "of the hundreds of candidates in our analysis," only one scored higher than Romney.

And wouldn't you know it, that one is a likely competitor for the Mittster's 2012 GOP Presidential nomination: John Thune of South Dakota.

I have to think that Romney's going to be steamed that there's a better-looking candidate than him. An empirically, quantifiably better-looking candidate. Ouch!

Valence Advantage, Pt. 1: Scott Brown

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:00 GMT

I recently came upon an academic paper in which three UCLA poli-sci researchers concluded that more competitive election contests produce better-looking candidates than less competitive ones. For example, if the 'out' party has a good chance of beating the incumbent and taking the seat, somehow they come up with a good-looking candidate; if they have little chance of winning, they come up with someone more homely.

The authors do not use those exact words, naturally. They use fancy-pants terms like "facial competence" and "valence advantage," and they have some whole scheme for determining facial quality. But that's the gist.

But they have little to say in their paper about open seats -- and how likely it is that the 'out' party would end up nominating... well, Scott Brown.

So I emailed to ask. Lead author Matthew Atkinson responded:

I cannot claim that we would have predicted that the Republicans would nominate a candidate you describe as a "pretty-boy former model Republican." But given the circumstances -- a coveted office and an out-party that can only win statewide office with candidates possessing some sort of valence advantage -- perhaps it's not surprising that the Republicans have put forth a former model.

But wait! Atkinson had more to say -- which I will put in a follow-up post.

GOP 2012 Pres. Rankings, Updated 11/13

David S. Bernstein — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:51:00 GMT

I'm two weeks late in producing my every-two-months rankings of the likely 2012 Republican nominees for President. (I would offer as my excuse all the local political races I've had to cover, but most of you already know it's the cyber-slacking!)

Anyway, no new #1, as Tim Pawlenty keeps doing all the right things -- including, next month, the first major New Hampshire visit by a serious '12 contender. (Also Iowa, and early next year Alabama, which may be a key early Southern state, espectially if Jim DeMint runs and negates the South Carolina prominence.)

Most interesting, though, was Pawlenty's decision to step into the NY-23 fiasco, with a late endorsement of conservative spoiler Doug Hoffman. Shows how important kowtowing to the movement conservatives will be, even for a mainstreamy guy like Pawlenty.

The key thing to remember about the GOP, as it currently stands, is that the money and infrastructure is primarily controlled by a set of business and party-infrastructure elites, while the votes are largely controlled by a bunch of movement-conservative ideologues. You need a fair share of both to win. One thing that's happening now is that the elites and insiders are looking for candidates who are acceptable to them, and who they think can win over the conservatives. 2010 will be, to a large extent, about that pageant. And Pawlenty is thus far playing it beautifully.

Anyway, let's get to the rankings! (Previous ranking is given in parentheses.)

1) Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota. Launched his Leadership PAC -- "Freedom First" -- with lots of inside-the-beltway support, along with blatant nods to the Tea Party set (guest speakers Jon Voight and Cliff from Cheers!). All systems go. (1)

2) Mike Pence, US Representative from Indiana. If someone's going to win the nomination without help from the elites and insiders, it's likely to be Pence. He's a huge favorite among the talk-radio and blogosphere crowd, and has been steadily upping his profile. He has as good a chance as anyone to win nearby Iowa (better than Southerners like DeMint), create a two-person race with the "establishment" candidate (Pawlenty, Thune, Romney, or whoever), and then let his allies on the right loudly destroy that opponent. (3)

3) John Thune, US Senator from South Dakota. Thune is getting a lot of Presidential buzz, from outside of conservative circles. That's exactly what he needs: he has lots of conservative bona fides, so he needs the David Brooks crowd to be touting him. (4)

4) Jim DeMint, US Senator from South Carolina. I'm dropping DeMint, because I just don't see him doing anything to convince the elites and insiders. His cred among the movement conservatives is already beyond reproach -- and he adds to it almost every day, by endorsing every right-winger challenging a relative moderate Republican. But I'm not seeing him build a path to the nomination. (2)

5) Mitt Romney, former Governor from Massachusetts. Romney appears to be pursuing -- wisely, in my opinion -- a "blue state" strategy. That is, give up on winning southern and midwestern Republican primaries, and instead capture the nomination by winning primaries in the northeast, the industrial north, the west coast, the southwest, and maybe Florida. Hence helping Christie win New Jersey was a big deal to him -- as was not pissing off New York Republican committee members like the Scozzafava-bashing Pawlentys and DeMints. But is it possible to win the Republican nomination without winning any delegates South of the Mason-Dixon line? (5)

6) Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi. Imagine, it could have been Republican Governors Association chairman Mark Sanford taking credit for the NJ and VA victories, boosting his status among the GOP insiders and elites as their potential conservative-movement-friendly 2012 horse. Alas, it was not to be; Barbour inherited the job and finds himself on everybody's list of 2012 possibilities. (7)

7) Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Polls continue to show him in good shape to beat back the Kay Bailey Hutchison intraparty re-election challenge. Nobody (other than me) seems to be speculating that Perry's likely to jump into the Presidential scrum immediately after winning a new term (if he does) -- but of course he's not going to be spreading those rumors in the middle of a re-election campaign. I can't imagine why he wouldn't run. (6)

8) Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. Unlike Perry, Daniels gets himself mentioned in every single article written anywhere about potential 2012 GOP candidates. Funny, because he said he's not going to run.... (9)

9) Jon Kyl, US Senator from Arizona. After US News & World Report put him on a list of conservatives looking to run, Kyl emphatically insisted that he would absolutely, positively not. It's good to get that first denial under your belt. (11)

10) Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana. When does he schedule his national relaunch? I'm still skeptical that he'll run in '12, but there's certainly room for him. (8)

11) Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Hung himself on the cross of Scozzafava, and was instantly unfriended by the conservative blogosphere. But it may have helped him among the GOP insiders. (10)

12) Eric Cantor, US Representative from Virginia. Maybe if the GOP makes big gains in the House in 2010 he hangs around hoping to be Speaker some day; if not, he jumps in for 2012. (13)

13) Bob Corker, US Senator from Tennessee. His no vote on the "Franken Amendment" doesn't necessarily mean that he's pro-rape... I tell you, this guy is crazy enough to run.(14)

14) Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida. Still tiptoing into the political field, with nobody going berzerk about the horrible possibility of another Bush Presidency; he sent his sons out to fundraise for Marco Rubio without incident. Steadily creeping up my list... (16)

15) Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. On the patented Gore Scale, his waistline is registering a "not a candidate" -- but he is now openly talking about losing weight, so we may be seeing the tide turning toward "possibly a candidate." (19)

16) Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska. I understand that in the book she has some negative things to say about the news media's coverage of her. (18)

17) Rick Santorum, former US Senator from Pennsylvania. Has essentially declared himself a prospective candidate, and everyone's going along with the idea for now. Not sure either the elites or the voters want him anymore. (--)

18) Paul Ryan, US Representative from Wisconsin. He's bobbed on and off this list, hitting #19 in April. He's got an awfully good fundraising operation. (--)

19) Dirk Kempthorne, former Interior Secretary. Still quiet, but still rumored. (20)

20) Chuck Grassley, US Senator from Iowa. Or, maybe crazy Steve King from Iowa. Let'sl stick with Chuck for now. (22)

21) Kay Bailey Hutchison, US Senator from Texas. The more unlikely it looks that she'll win the gubernatorial primary, the better she'll look as a national candidate when she wins! Right? (15)

22) Michelle Bachmann, US Representative from Minnesota. Definitely crazy enough to run -- whether or not she gets voted out of office in 2010. I'm not sure where she'll raise the money, but I suppose God will provide. Remember, there's a whole new Joe Wilson 'You lie!' Rule of fundraising in effect. (--)

23) Lindsey Graham, US Senator from South Carolina. He may very well get in to fight for the soul of the Republican Party -- and it's possible that the movement conservatives will bolt for a third party rather than vote in the GOP primaries, leaving him a clear path to victory. Could happen. (17)

24) Marco Rubio, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. He made my list back in June, then dropped off last time, and now he's back and better than ever! He's practically the Obama of the right already. (--)

25) Joe Scarborough, former Congressman from Florida. Well, I had Hannity at #25 last time, so when I saw that Mark McKinnon has Scarborough in his Top Ten for 2012, I figured I'd swap out the talk-show hosts. I bet Hannity's next book sells better, though. (--)

Dropping off the list: Jim Douglass, Jon Huntsman, Sean Hannity

EXCLUSIVE -- Pelosi To Endorse Capuano

David S. Bernstein — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:01:00 GMT

The Michael Capuano campaign confirms for me that US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will formally endorse Michael Capuano for US Senate, while she is in town Friday for a talk at Harvard.

Capuano is considered a top Pelosi lieutenant -- he headed her transition team when the Democrats took the majority in 2006 and made her Speaker.

Nevertheless, it was unknown whether Pelosi would publicly endorse Capuano, against a woman opponent. Pelosi has been a strong advocate of increasing the number of women in elected office; Martha Coakley would be only the 18th woman in the current US Senate if elected.

According to the campaign, Pelosi will hold a press conference at 11:30 Friday morning, at the Omni Parker House in Boston, to announce the endorsement. Pelosi will be in town to speak at a forum at the Harvard Kennedy School later that day.

Dobbs Out, Different Grey-Haired White Guy In

David S. Bernstein — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:45:00 GMT

So Lou Dobbs has departed CNN, where his increasingly insane rantings have positioned him for bigger and better things in the "movement conservative marketplace" I'm always talking about. I had predicted early on that he would run a third-party campaign for President in 2008, and he ended up considering it but not taking the plunge. He'll certainly encourage talk of a 2012 run, whether that's his plan or not, because the idea of it is a big marketing plus for him.

Anyway, CNN has reportedly already decided to give John King that 7:00 slot, which is a shame because they had a real opportunity to increase the diversity of CNN's prime-time line-up -- by adding a dark-haired middle-aged man to replace grey-haired Dobbs.

CNN remains dominated with the grey-hairs: Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, John Roberts in the morning... hell, Larry King has the darkest hair of the bunch. MSNBC and FOXNews have been way more progressive. As Olbermann and Matthews are rapidly greying, MSNBC has brought in brown-topped talents Ed Schultz and Joe Scarborough, while FOXNews balances Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck with dark-domed men like Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and Bret Baier. FOXNews also dares go dark with Chris Wallace for its Sunday interview show (as does ABC, with George Stephanopoulas), whereas CNN (John King), NBC (David Gregory, replayed on MSNBC), and CBS (Bob Schieffer) stick with grey.

Hey, diversity in hair color was as much as one could hope for, right?

I mean, CNN, like the other two cable networks, had already added its token female prime-time host (after the Hillary Clinton campaign rudely pointed out the total and complete lack of them): they have Campbell Brown, MSNBC has Rachel Maddow, and FOXNews has Greta Van Susteren.

And don't tell me you thought maybe they'd put a racial minority in prime time? (Although I did think they would at least go through the motions of pretending to consider Soledad O'Brien, Rick Sanchez, Tony Harris, etc.)

That's crazy talk! Next you'll probably want one of the three cable news networks to put a black or Hispanic on in the morning! Like America is ready to wake up to that on their television! (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's anyone 'of color' hosting or co-hosting on any of the three cable news networks between 5 and 11 am.)

Ah well. That's cable news. FOXNews, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have a single minority among its 17 weekday hosts/anchors/co-anchors (they have Geraldo on the weekend -- but does that really count?). The closest they come to having dark skin behind a desk is "breaking news anchor" Harris Faulkner. (Her family must be so proud.)

MSNBC is no different, and you would think they might actually care. Their snow-white weekday line-up is Dan Kloeffler, Willie Geist, Joe Scarborough (w/ Mika B.), Dylan Ratigan, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, Andrea Mitchell, and then Schultz-Matthews-Olbermann-Maddow. They had Carlos Watson at 11:00am for a couple of months, but he's gone now. I think Tamron Hall has a regular anchor slot during the early-afternoon live desk, but they sure don't make it easy to find that out on their web site.

At least CNN has Harris anchoring the live desk at midday, and Sanchez in the afternoon. That's something, I guess.

Just A Bill

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:26:00 GMT

In my article in this week's Boston Phoenix, I make note that during the 2008 Presidential election cycle, I heard repeatedly -- from Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- about how frustrated and fed-up they were with the US Congress. In their view, Washington had become impotent to address the country's big, serious problems, because the Congress was completely frozen up by (take your pick) hyperpartisanship, corruption, special-interest groups, corporate lobbyists, inertia, and/or weak-kneed pandering pols.

There's a connection between that, and the back-and-forth we've seen in our Massachusetts US Senate race, over whether one should vote for or against the health-care reform bill, under what circumstances, and at what point in the process.

The connection is that people want the legislative process to work like we were taught by Schoolhouse Rock. The one where we meet Bill, on the steps to the Capitol Building, haggard and run-down by the difficult process of becoming a law. Our friend Bill explains that he started out as an idea -- to require school buses to stop at railroad crossings -- and then had to go through a House Committee, a House vote, a Senate Committee, a Senate vote, and then get signed by the President to become law.

Bill, however, is not telling the whole story. It would depress us too much.

If we knew the whole story, we would understand that Bill is bleary-eyed from drinking whiskey on the Capitol Hill steps.

You see, first of all Bill went to five different committees, which put out five different bills. Each committee had members who threatened to kill him. Deals had to be struck. One committee was chaired by a congressman in the pocket of the bus-drivers unions. Another committee's swing vote demanded the inclusion of a provision that all the new Stop signs be made of 25% zinc, which is mined in his home district. This bartering and posturing went on for months -- even though none of it ultimately mattered, because none of these would be "the real Bill" anyway. After the committees finally approved their versions of Bill, it all got whisked into deep, secret chambers until the leadership decided to come forward with new versions of the Bill.

Meanwhile, poor Bill was under attack. Talk radio hosts called him a liberty-killing Communist. Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin claimed that Bill would create a "school bus czar" empowered to indoctrinate children into the Black Panthers. At townhall meetings, congressmen were confronted by angry citizens holding signs of Bill with a Hitler mustache, and the words "The Third Reich made the trains run on time too!" Vicious ads appeared, paid for by "Citizens for Sensible School Transport," which was secretly financed by the locomotive industry.

Finally, the Speaker emerged from the secret chamber with poor, mangled Bill -- now disfigured beyond recognition in hopes of getting enough votes for passage. The requirement to stop had been replaced by a caution, with an (unfunded) mandate that states install a series of signs and signals, made from equal parts zinc, copper, lithium, and Georgia peaches; $1.7 billion in subsidies were added for school-bus driver retraining.

But at the last minute a group of holdouts, worried about their NRA endorsements, offered an amendment to allow children to carry concealed firearms on school buses, in case the driver failed to stop; and to allow train passengers to carry grenade launchers, for the same purpose. Although most of Bill's supporters opposed the amendment, it was added on by the votes of 176 congressmen who were going to vote against Bill with or without the change.

That very nearly drove Bill to give it all up and throw himself into a shredder -- but then he was reassured that all of that nonsense didn't matter either, because that wasn't a vote on "the real Bill." In fact, a large number of Congressmen who had just voted for Bill immediately declared that they would vote against him if he dared to come back around in the exact same condition.

Then the Senate went through the whole charade too -- where it was even worse, because even though a majority of Senators liked Bill, it only takes 40% to kill him. Which meant that every vote was critical, which meant that every Tom, Dick and Lieberman got to pretend they would vote no unless they got something they wanted. So, out came the NRA language, but in came a complex formula for rural-school-district exemptions, and a ten-year phase-in period that grandfathers in states beginning with the letters C, M, or N.

But who cares? That wasn't the "real Bill" either. It was off to another secret chamber for Bill, where the two not-really-Bills got "reconciled" into the honest-to-goodness "real Bill." Our poor friend Bill, now a bloated, incomprehensible behemoth, was attacked from the right for his expense and overreach, and from the left for containing nothing that would actually reduce the risk of trains plowing into school buses full of children.

Nevertheless, Bill had to press on to the finish line at that point. If he got passed, his obvious flaws can be fixed in the future -- whereas going back to square one is a nightmare that Bill would rather set himself ablaze than endure.

And besides, the President and all these Congressmen and Senators promised they would pass a school-bus-railroad-crossing-reform bill. They wouldn't want to give the impression that they can't get important things done in Washington.

Perhaps if Schoolhouse Rock had given us this true, unvarnished version of Bill's saga, we would all be more patient with the seemingly impotent Congress, and we would be more understanding of the nuances of Capuano and Coakley's positions.

Or, perhaps, we would all go charging at the Capitol Building with pitchforks and torches. But if you do, please don't trample poor Bill, passed out drunk on the steps.

New In The Phoenix -- Has Obama Peaked?

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:16:00 GMT

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- my estimable colleague Steven Stark and I go toe-to-toe on the future prospects for our President's popularity. Stark argues that Obama has peaked, and it's all downhill from here. I counter that his glory days lie ahead.

Read both, and render your own verdict:

Stark: Has Obama Peaked? Yes, He Has

Bernstein: Has Obama Peaked? No, He Hasn't

Also, perhaps more importantly, you'll want to check out the new Phoenix editorial, or at least the illustration of a semi-naked Senate candidate....

New England Guvs -- Historical Sweep?

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:56:00 GMT

With the recent announcement that Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, will not run for re-election, there is a realistic, if slim, possibility that Democrats could hold all six New England governorships come January 2011. According to my extensive research -- OK, scrolling through Wikipedia, mostly -- I believe this would be the first time that has happened ever, in the 200+ years of the party (including when it was called the Democratic-Republican Party). I welcome anyone to confirm or refute this conclusion for me.

[Pop Quiz! Who was the governor of Massachusetts the last time all six New England Governors were Republicans? Answer below!]

Currently there are three Democrats and three Republicans. All six are up for election next November. Democrats John Lynch of New Hampshire and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts are running for re-election; Democrat John Baldacci of Maine and Republican Don Carcieri of Rhode Island are term-liimited out; and Republicans Rell and Jim Douglas of Vermont have chosen not to run.

Is a Democratic sweep possible? Let's look at them one-by-one.

New Hampshire Lynch is pretty much a sure thing for re-election. He's not as overwhelmingly popular as he once was -- what governor is these days? -- but he's still popular, and the Republicans don't have a serious candidate to put up against him.

Massachusetts Patrick is about as unpopular as a governor can get without being indicted or getting caught "hiking the Adirondacks." Nevertheless, he has to be considered the favorite to win a three-way race, with independent Tim Cahill and likely Republican nominee Charlie Baker spilitting the vote.

Maine I am hopeless at discerning the actions of the Maine electorate. I know the seat is now held by a Democrat; I know the Republicans are optimistic of a good 2010 cycle up there; I know that both parties have a fairly solid group of candidates, though no obvious world-beaters; I know most of the national punditry has this as "likely" or "lean" Democratic, and I know early polling suggests a close race. Perhaps my Portland colleagues can weigh in?

Vermont It's a super-duper liberal state, but they've elected Republican Douglas repeatedly and may treat his LG Brian Dubie as a stand-in despite his silly name. Most of the national pundits have this as a toss-up.

Connecticut With Rell having just declared herself out, everyone's rating this a toss-up until the GOP field takes shape -- there's speculation that Rob Simmons could drop his run for Senate against Chris Dodd to do it, but he doesn't sound disposed toward that idea. The Democrats have at least one good candidate (SoS Susan Bysiewicz) and Lieberman-slayer Ned Lamont apparently gearing up to run. The state has been trending heavily blue of late, but a good Republican candidate will make this an even fight.

Rhode Island Barring something bizarre, the Republicans are clearly not going to win this one -- but that doesn't mean the Democrats will. They have two legit candidates -- treasurer Frank Caprio and AG Patrick Lynch -- but the whole Democratic six-state sweep could be undone by former Senator -- and former Republican -- Lincoln Chafee, who is running as an independent. He looks good in early polls, but is reportedly having a tough time raising money. Again, I will defer to my wiser Providence colleagues if they wish to chime in.

[Quiz answer: Leverett Saltonstall. It was January 1939-January 1941. The others (assuming I'm correct) were Raymond Baldwin, Conn.; Lewis Barrows, Maine; Francis Murphy, New Hampshire; William Henry Vanderbilt III, Rhode Island; and George Aiken, Vermont.]

[PS: I sprung this quiz on my boss Peter Kadzis, and he guessed right with Saltonstall. All bow down to Kadzis the wise!]

Coakley's Stand -- A Union Problem?

David S. Bernstein — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:55:00 GMT

From a strictly dispassionate political calculus, Martha Coakley's declaration that she would have voted against the House health-care bill looks like a dumb move. A frontrunner never wants to open up new differences with her opponents, which this obviously did -- since Michael Capuano actually did vote yes. And this is not just any old issue, this is the Big Vote, the Ted Kennedy Legacy, and all that.

It's a tricky issue, of course, both in fact and for campaign rhetoric. A last-minute deal forced a vote on the pro-life "Stupak Amendment," which added odious restrictions to the bill, from the perspective of Coakley, who is solidly pro-choice. Most, if not all, pro-choice Democrats in Congress -- including Capuano -- voted against the amendment (which passed anyway), but then voted for the final bill... and then called for the Stupak provisions to be stripped out of the bill at a later time, which they presumably will be.

All of that makes perfect sense from inside the Capitol Hill sausage factory, but doesn't exactly lend itself to a clean narrative on the campaign trail. But neither does saying you would vote against the health care bill. So the smart thing to do, presumably, would be to keep one's mouth shut -- after all, it was a House vote, and Coakley isn't even running for the House.

But now she has taken a stand, quite firmly it seems, to vote against any health care bill if it contains Stupak Amendment language. And, given the way things are progressing, it's very possible that our next Senator could be faced with exactly that situation in January -- and if Coakley's threat includes a no vote on closure (her spokeswoman would not answer that hypothetical), that could potentially kill the whole thing. Or, perhaps, kill the Stupak piece -- but force a different compromise, perhaps on the public option.

So, in essence, it comes down to juggling priorities, and legislative strategies to accomplish those priorities; different voters will come down differently on Coakley's approach.

But one subset of the electorate is pretty one-sided about it: the trade unions. You may recall that those trade unions kind of kicked Steve Lynch to the curb at the start of this Senate race, because Lynchie wasn't strong enough on health care reform. Many have endorsed Capuano, and a bunch have endorsed Coakley, and others have remained neutral. Now, Coakley says she would have voted no -- while Lynch voted yes.

"Lynchie did the right thing at the end of the day," says Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.

Buyer's remorse, anyone? Did Coakley choose her social-issue friends over her workers-issues friends when push came to shove?

Haynes won't go that far. His powerful group will not reconsider its decision not to endorse in the primary. (It's member locals were too divided between Coakley and Capuano.) And he is unwilling to prejudge what Coakley might do in a hypothetical Senate vote. But the AFL-CIO advocated hard for a yes vote on the bill, even with the Stupak language, and publicly thanked the Massachusetts delegation for voting that way.

And Haynes is clear that his organization will be pushing for a yes vote in the Senate, regardless of the abortion language. "I'm as curious as anyone else to see what happens" if Coakley is put in that position, Haynes says. "If you are the 60th vote for closure, do you want your first major vote in the Senate to be on the wrong side on such a historic issue?

Coakley spokesperson Alex Zaroulis calls this a false choice. "This is about making sure that we are getting health care reform for everybody, with no exclusions," she says, "and making sure you are not doing it on the backs of poor women."

Some area trade-union leaders I spoke with -- particularly those with predominantly female membership -- seem to agree, even though their organizations called for a yes vote on the House bill even with the Stupak amendment. Their feeling is that Coakley's opposition, motivated by a legitimate progressive concern, is OK -- whereas Lynch's concerns about health-care reform were based on more labor-unfriendly principles (or as they would put it, parroting of insurance industry lies).

That's the reaction of SEIU local 1199 -- which represents health-care workers, and has endorsed Coakley. "In this instance, we have sympathy for the important concerns behind Attorney General Coakley's response on this hypothetical question and we share her frustration with the Stupak amendment," executive vice president Mike Fadel said in an emailed statement. He added that the local has full confidence that in the Senate, Coakley could work effectively for both comprehensive health care and abortion rights.

Others I spoke with, in the more male-dominated trades, were a little less understanding. Their national leaders have been working very hard to maneuver this legislation to the goal line -- and they see Coakley as essentially calling an audible from the sidelines. Why, they wonder, could the adamantly pro-choice members of Congress understand the need to swallow the Stupak pill, but Coakley can't? The answer may simply be: only she has an election coming up in four weeks.

GOP Women Update -- & 1st Gay Dad In Congress?

David S. Bernstein — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:35:00 GMT

In the week or so since I posted at length about the meager outlook for women Republicans in elected office, I have some updates that seem to show the problem only worsening.

First of all, as you probably know, DeDe Scozzafava was chased out of the race and, one assumes, out of the party altogether. Meanwhile, the GOP added two male governors, meaning that they now have 3 women out of 24 governors, dropping the percentage to 12.5%.

Today, we learn that, as suspected, Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell will not run for re-election. Oh, and Heather Wilson has opted not to run for governor in New Mexico.

On the Senate side, the best shot for a new female GOP Senator -- Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- is in increasing danger of falling victim from the right herself. Club for Growth is reportedly planning to side with Ovide Lamontagne (who just officially announced) in that primary. And if that doesn't provide enough ammunition against her, wealthy businessman Bill Binnie has jumped into the Republican primary too, planning to spend "an undetermined amount of his own money." Oh, and of course this comes just as the NRSC, running scared of the tea party crowd, just pulled primary funding for its favored candidates like... Kelly Ayotte.

Movement conservatives are also going after newly-officially-announced Senate candidate Carly Fiorina in California. Senator Jim DeMint has now endorsed her conservative opponent, Chuck Devore, who is quickly becoming a national cause for the far right. And, in Colorado, NRSC favorite Jane Norton is also increasingly likely to be the target of Club for Growth attack, in preference for a male candidate to be the GOP's challenger to Michael Bennet.

I had mentioned that of the 17 women Republicans in the US House of Representatives, one -- Mary Fallon -- is leaving to run for governor, and at least two others were vulnerable: Bachmann of Minnesota, and Schmidt of Ohio.

As you may have heard, Bachmann was out leading a wingnutty anti-health-care-reform rally on Capitol Hill today -- which Fallon spoke at.

While Bachmann and Fallon work to make themselves too wacky for the general election, at least one relative moderate seeking re-election is under increased challenge in her primary. Down in Florida, Ginny Brown-Waite has a (male) primary challenger from the right -- who, according to Swing State Project, is attacking Brown-Waite for endorsing and campaigning for, you guessed it, Scozzafava.

And finally, there's a congressional race out in California that some of you might want to take a look at. It's the 45th District, where Mary Bono-Mack has long held the seat that she took over when her famous husband died. Steve Pougnet, the Democratic Mayor of Palm Springs (Sonny's launching pad to the congressional seat) is running against her.

Although it's often considered part of the ultra-conservative California interior, the district has become increasingly Democratic. The district went for Obama, and Pougnet's campaign manager tells me that Republicans' registration edge is very slim now. He also tells me that they've already raised $400,000 for the campaign, a year out; the DCCC is high on this race.

And yes, here's the twist: if elected, Pougnet is a gay man, and he and his partner have two young children. He would be the first (openly) gay dad in Congress.

So, if that interests you, go check him out.

New In The Phoenix -- Deval Out Of The Spotlight

David S. Bernstein — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:00 GMT

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I take a look at Governor Deval Patrick, who has found himself, for once, left out of the spotlight and off the front pages. In theory, the distraction of the local elections and US Senate race is providing a perfect respite for Patrick and his team to regroup, re-staff,strategize, prepare, and be ready to emerge with some political victories heading into his re-election year.

His defenders say that's exactly what's happening; his detractors say they see no signs at all. Instead, they see a stream of top talent toward the exits, and legislation stalled on Beacon Hill.

The article is here: The Quiet Storm: In this desperate downtime, is Deval Patrick regrouping, or cluelessly steering a sinking ship?

You may also want to check out this week's editorial on the election results.