The Last Two Open Seats

In advance of the impending special election for Marty Meehan's Congressional seat in the 5th district and prompted by Susan M's prediction that only four candidates will survive until election day, I thought I'd take a closer look at the two most recent elections to open Congressional seats in Massachusetts. The most recent, as the press keeps reminding us, was in 2001 -- on 9/11, actually -- with a special election to replace the late Congressman Joe Moakley. Then state Senator Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) was the winner of that election with a total of 39% of the vote. That year was a battle of sitting state Senators, with Lynch besting a field that consisted of then-Senator Cheryl Ann Jaques and current Senators Brian Joyce (D-Milton) and Mark Pacheco (D-Taunton) and a few other minor candidates for a total of seven candidates on the primary ballot. Here are the final results of that primary:

Candidate	Votes	Percent	Hometown
Stephen Lynch	44,905	39.44%	Boston
Cheryl Ann Jacques	32,933	28.93%	Needham
Brian Joyce	16,818	14.77%	Milton
Mark Pacheco	15,009	13.18%	Taunton
William Sinnott	3,110	2.73%	Boston
John Taylor	767	0.67%	Boston
William Ferguson	253	0.22%	Milton
All Others	54	0.05%

The community that was the largest part of this district was, obviously, Boston, and Lynch won the election mainly because he won Boston convincingly, with 55% of the Boston vote. His closest competitor in the Hub was Jacques, who only mustered 30% of Boston. Of course, there were other factors to Lynch's win, but in this case, the crowded field was an advantage for the candidate from the largest community.

The 1998 election to fill Joe Kennedy's seat in the then 8th district was slightly different as it was a regularly scheduled election, and not a special election. As such, no sitting member of the legislature was willing to risk their seat to run. Even so, the 2001 special primary garnered more votes than the 1998 primary, which I did not expect. This election featured two former Reps, two Boston City Councilors, a former state Senator, a sitting and a former mayor, and three other candidates for a total of ten. Here are the results of that election:

Candidate	Votes	Percent	Hometown
Michael Capuano	19,446	22.88%	Somerville
Ray Flynn	14,839	17.46%	Boston
George Bachrach	12,157	14.30%	Watertown
John O'Connor	11,092	13.05%	Cambridge
Marjorie Clapprood	10,446	12.29%	Watertown
Chris Gabrieli	5,740	6.75%	Boston
Charles Yancey	4,437	5.22%	Boston
Susan Tracy	2,858	3.36%	Boston
Thomas Keane	2,150	2.53%	Boston
Alex Rodriguez	1,802	2.12%	Boston
All Others	21	0.02%

Note that Current Congressman Mike Capuano won this election with less than 23% of the vote. That low bar should be encouraging to aspiring candidates in this year's election. In any case, in the 1998 election, the largest communities were split -- former Mayor Ray Flynn won Boston with only 24% of the Boston vote and former state Senator George Bachrach won Cambridge with only 23% of that city's vote. Contrast that with Capuano, who destroyed the competition in Somerville, winning it with 55% of the vote there.

What I had been wondering was whether it was a foregone conclusion that one of the candidates from Lowell, the fifth district's largest community would win the election. From the results of the past two open seat elections, that does not necessarily have to be the case. In 2001, the vote from the largest community in the district did not split, and the candidate from that community won the election. In 1998, the opposite happened, and the votes from the two largest communities split among several candidates, and the candidate who dominated one of the smaller communities won. My feeling is that this year's race to replace Marty Meehan will be more similar to the 1998 election than the 2001 special election. This year there promises to be two candidates from Lowell who have the potential to split that city's vote, former Mayor and current city councilor Eileen Donoghue and the widow of former Senator Paul Tsongas, Niki Tsongas.

This suggests to me a slight advantage to Representative Barry Finegold (D-Andover), who represents part of Lawrence, the second largest community in the district. If (and this is a big if) Finegold can win Lawrence convincingly and the Lowell vote is split between two or more candidates, he might be able to clear the low threshold needed to win such a crowded race. Given that Finegold only represents four precincts in Lawrence, however, it seems unlikely that he'd be able to win that city by the margins necessary.

Monday Morning Catch-Up

Sorry for the absence this past week, but I felt like I needed a little blog vacation to go with my real-world vacation. I have recovered from the numerous needle-stick injuries I received in New York, and just wanted to quickly point out some things that I didn't get a chance to last week.

• Monitor Profiles Mihos' Ad Man: The Christian Science Monitor had a profile of Bill Hillsman last week. Hillsman is doing ads not only for independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos, but also is working for underdog candidates like Kinky Friedman in Texas and Ned Lamont in Connecticut. He's won awards for the work he did on successful campaigns in Minnesota, particularly the election of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and wrestler-turned-Governor Jesse Ventura.


• Mihos Comes to town: Speaking of Christy Mihos, he was in Watertown recently, just a short walk from the .08 Acre homestead, working the Greek festival for votes. The Globe notes that reaction to Mihos here in Tom Reilly's hometown was mixed.


• Dunklebarger vs. Lynch: Last weeks Phoenix had the first in-depth story I've seen on Phil Dunklebarger's primary challenge to Steve Lynch in the Ninth Congressional district. The article notes that Dunklebarger blames lack of media coverage of the race for the fact that few people know about his candidacy. These days, though, it's never been easier for candidates to make their own media coverage. If the TV stations won't cover your stump speech, record it yourself, slap it up on the Internet (Youtube will do it for free, even!) and email it to your supporters, bloggers and reporters. Post it to sites like Universal Hub and Blue Mass. Group. An Internet buzz might not reach everyone in the ninth, but it may cause more traditional media outlets to start paying attention.


• Question of the Day: Can Kerry Healey point to a single instance where she influenced Mitt Romney's decision to veto or not veto anything? The Herald's Wayne Woodlief noted last week that the Lieutenant Governor has yet to demonstrate her political independence from Mitt. What struck me about that column, though, was how Healey refused to comment on whether or not she 'counseled' the governor to refrain from vetoing money in the budget for a work-force training program. Healey said she wouldn't have vetoed it, but when reporter Janet Wu asked her if she gave her opinion to the governor, Healey declined to answer. (via Kerry Healey -- Out of Touch)


• Play Nice or Else!: The Mass Dems have created a watchdog panel to monitor their candidates for negative campaign ads as the primary season heats up. Candidates Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli are withholding their judgment, but a spokesman for Attorney General Tom Reilly noted that this was something he'd expect from a "good government group" and not a state party. Personally, I'd like the Democratic party to stand for good government, but that's another issue. The problem, of course, is figuring out exactly what constitutes a negative ad, which is why this effort could devolve into typical intraparty bickering. I'm hopeful, though, that candidates will eschew negative advertising. While it does often work, it does so by driving down turnout. The Democrats cannot afford to have more people sitting at home during this year's election, and if we can get people out in September, we're more likely to keep them in November.


• State GOP Losing Dough: The Herald reports today that the Mass GOP spent $50,648.84 more than it took in this past quarter. During the same period, the state Democrats netted $397,438.90. Of course, this won't matter for the gubernatorial race, which will be funded on the Republican side by AMG, but it shows how little support Republican legislative candidates can expect from their state party.

Friday Sampler

Another Friday, another list of things that I didn't get a chance to point out over the past week.

• Perfectly Legal: The Globe reports today that Independent Gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos used a perfectly legal scheme to avoid sales and excise taxes on his 36-foot yacht. Mihos had his lawyer create a corporation in Rhode Island, where there is no sales tax on yachts, which bought the vessel. If you've read Perfectly Legal by David Kay Johnston, you know that this sort of thing goes on all the time and the super rich have ways of avoiding taxes that are not accessible to your average person.


• Star Profiles Sullivan: Speaking of Mihos, the Winchester Star this week profiles local boy John Sullivan, Mihos' hand-picked running mate and Winchester Town Moderator. If you know nothing about this guy, which is probably everyone other than Dan Kennedy, it's a decent enough introduction.


• Lynch on North-South Rail Link: Congressman Stephen Lynch along with Massachusetts Sierra Club Director James McCaffery wrote an Op-Ed in Wednesday's Globe in support of linking North Station and South Station by rail. The project, they estimate will cost $5.7 billion, but that figure, I understand includes enhancements not related to digging the mile long tunnel -- electrification of existing track, for example. The idea is a good one, and would finally create an uninterrupted transit line from Maine down to Florida, and being a regional project, the state would have help with funding. That said, I think area residents just will not have an appetite for large-scale transit projects any more, no matter how much sense they make. We're going to need a few years to forget about the Big Dig before anyone has the stomach for another tunnel under the city.


• Half-Time Governor: The year is about half over and Governor Mitt Romney has spent half of it out-of-state. Channel 5 crunched the numbers and found that in the first five months of 2006, "Romney has been on the road part or all of the day for 75 of the 151 days" -- just shy of 50%.


• Second Suffolk Write-In Primary: Be sure to check out last Sunday's Globe article on the Second Suffolk senate race where incumbent Senator Diane Wilkerson failed to get enough signatures to appear on the primary ballot and is now fighting off challenges from activist Sonia Chang-Diaz and Republican candidate Samiyah Diaz who are all trying to win the Democratic primary as write-ins. I wouldn't count out Wilkerson, but when no one's name appears on the ballot, anything can happen.


• 100 Grand for Watertown Square: The folks over at the Globe's blog suggested we look through the $700 million supplemental spending bill (PDF). Our share of it: $100,000 for the repairs and renovation of the Charles river landing at Watertown square. Does anyone know any more details about the renovation?

What's on your mind?

Most Congressional Seats Unopposed

It appears that our Congressional delegation here in Massachusetts is going mostly unopposed this year. CQPolitics from Congressional Quarterly has the story here:

Republicans are fielding candidates in just three of the 10 districts: the 6th, where businessman Rick Barton is taking on five-term Democratic Rep. John F. Tierney; the 9th, where Jack E. Robinson III, a landslide loser to Kennedy in the 2000 Senate race, will oppose two-term Rep. Stephen F. Lynch; and the 10th, where businessman Jeff Beatty is taking on five-term Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt.

Lynch is the only incumbent who is facing a primary challenger. He is expected to easily defeat Phil Dunkelbarger, who owns a seafood trading and export company.

I knew about challenges to Tierney and Delahuntt this year, but I had no idea that they were bringing Jack E. Robinson back out of the woodwork. Robinson was last seen losing to Secretary of State Bill Galvin in 2002. He is perhaps best known in Massachusetts for crashing his car during a live radio interview during his loss in 2000 to Senator Kennedy. The state party eventually withdrew their support from Robinson and he ended up barely even beating Libertarian candidate Carla Howell with 13% of the vote to her 12%.

Early Congressional Challenger Roundup

It looks like some of Massachusetts' Congressmen are going to be challenged for reelection next year. The Globe reported today that former Beverly City Councillor, Phil Dunklebarger, now of Westwood, plans on challenging Congressman Stephen Lynch in the Democratic primary. Dunklebarger was a Dean supporter in 2003, and according to the Globe, has criticized Congressman Lynch for supporting the Iraq war.

On the Republican side, two challengers have emerged to take on Senator Ted Kennedy, former Wakefield Selectman Kevin Scott and Belmont Republican Kenneth Chase. Chase ran an baffling campaign against Ed Markey for the House last year where he practically accused the Congressman of singlehandedly causing the September 11th terrorist attacks. Ultimately, he got clobbered by a margin of more than three to one in a three-way race with Markey and Independent Jim Hall. Markey did, however, spend some money during that campaign, but not necessarily to beat Chase. He was more interested in the Senate seat that would have opened up had John Kerry been elected President.

Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix has his take on Kennedy's potential challengers in his blog.

Lynch and Capuano Talk About Hearings

Massachusetts Congressmen Mike Capuano and Stephen Lynch were both on Greater Boston with Emily Rooney tonight talking about the Iraq war. In case WGBH doesn't archive the conversation on the web, or you can't catch the rebroadcast, here's a portion of the interview that I think underscores the need to take back the House in 2006 if we ever hope to get to the bottom of how the administration got the pre-war intelligence so wrong. I've bolded the portions I think are important.

Congressman Stephen Lynch: Now we're finding out that maybe the president, or maybe someone in the administration actually did cook the evidence, and if Cheney has a problem with people doubting whether that was the case, they should have hearings. We've had five requests, the Government Reform Committee, to have a full investigation and open hearings on whether the intelligence was cooked, whether it was falsified and delivered to Congress. They've refused to allow us to have those hearings on five separate occasions. This is the same Republican leadership that spent 140 hours in hearings and testimony and interrogatories and taking evidence on whether President Clinton violated his Christmas Card privileges.

Emily Rooney: Do you think this might be the end result, though, of [the Fitzgerald investigation?] Might that go to the next level?

SL: We think so.

Congressman Michael Capuano: I hope he's right. I think not. Not until the House changes, because to have House hearings it has to come from leadership. If it's going to be hearings from the outside, that's a different story.

SL: Well, you can also go into executive session, where the press is not included. But members of Congress who are charged with this oversight can have those answers directly from the individuals involved. They're blocking us at every turn.

MC: That has to be approved by the majority, by the leadership. And the leadership right now is run by the Republicans. I don't know, but I don't think they're ever going to let the President be investigated on this issue as long as they run the House.

ER: Why is this so partisan? Why can't everybody look at this the same way and say if we had bad data -- no one's saying, well some people are, that it's intentional, that this evidence was gathered intentionally to drag us into a war. No one really believes that we wanted to go over there and do this.

MC: Don't say no one. <laughs>

ER: Well, that's conspiratorial to think that you would just want to do that without good evidence, so why not do an investigation?

MC: I happen to believe that there are two ways to lie. There is a lie of commission, where you overtly lie. There is another lie of omission, by not telling you the full truth. I happen to believe -- now again, I would love to get more evidence, but as I stand here today without having the full evidence, I suspect that we had a lie of omission. So I think it's pretty serious stuff. I would love to have hearings on this. And for the sake of America, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. But we're not going to get those hearings. I don't think we're going to get those hearings either in executive session or in public. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that next week we go back or two weeks from now and all of a sudden the Republican leadership says "You know what, we're going have those hearings and we're going to open this up and we're going to do this right." If that happens, then I'll let the chips fall where they may.

SL: I think there's a benefit in just making clear to the American people that we have not had these hearings. We haven't asked these questions, so that if they want to continue to obstruct that -- and I think the American people are owed an answer on this -- if we just keep pushing on this... I think it's a disgrace that it hasn't happened already, but I think that just because they're going to say no it doesn't stand that we shouldn't ask those hard questions.

On that note, last week, I saw Al Franken speak in Cambridge, and he suggested that the Democrats' 2006 motto should be "Subpoena Power". I think there's something to that, particularly in terms of getting out the Democratic base, and convincing Independents that it's the Republicans who are obstructing investigations, preferring to protect the President and their buddies rather than trying to find out the facts about our intelligence failures. Even Rumsfeld has admitted that the pre-war intelligence was wrong, and if Democrats can convince the public that it's worthwhile to try to figure out why, they may get a chance at taking back the House or the Senate next year.

Mass Congressmen Vote to Repeal 1st Amendment

The Herald had a story today listing the Massachusetts Congressmen who voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment that would ban flag desecration. I'm sure that Congressmen Lynch, Delahunt, Neal and McGovern did this because they thought it was the right thing to do -- to protect an important symbol of our freedom. To my mind, though, they voted for nothing less than a partial repeal of the First Amendment.

Here's the thing, burning the flag is an offensive, counterproductive, insulting thing to do. The people who engage in this kind of protest are too short-sighted (or small-minded) to realize that this completely turns people off to whatever message they're trying to send and for good reason. That said, is there really such an epidemic of flag desecration that we need to change the fundamental document from which all of our rights and freedoms are derived? I don't think the potential consequences are worth it, and frankly I think that job number one for anyone who cares about limiting the scope of government should be to not mess with the Constitution.

Now, I'm certainly not a Constitutional lawyer, but I worry about the implications of an amendment that abridges First Amendment rights -- no matter how narrow. Once the door is open to outlawing a certain type of speech -- obviously political speech, no less -- then the Constitutional protection on all other forms of speech has been weakened. The powers that be are already trying to equate dissent with treason; do we really want the right to free political speech to be open for reinterpretation?

A similar point could be made about privacy rights. Generally, the courts have determined that we have the right to privacy because there is nothing in the Constitution that governs intrapersonal relationships. If we, however, end up putting an amendment that defines marriage in our Constitution, that will no longer be true, and our right to privacy could be in jeopardy.

The Constitution has been amended only 18 times since the Bill of Rights was adopted. We should make sure that we take it as seriously as it deserves.