For the past two years, I have been working from the shadow of Washington—keeping a close eye on the scene in Massachusetts, as I have for more than two decades, but now from the remove of 400 miles and the context of national politics.
I was thinking about that new vantage point, as I closely followed returns from this past Thursday’s state primary. It seemed, from turnout numbers, that few voters in the Commonwealth shared my interest. Washington’s political class cared even less.
It’s not hard to identify at least one contributing factor to the disinterest: lack of competition in elections. Thursday’s anemic ballots underscored the point: Incumbents at all levels are coasting to re-election, most unchallenged in either the primaries or general election.
Notable winners were: Matias in Lawrence; Connolly in Somerville; Williams in Springfield; and Tyler in Roxbury
But I wondered, as I watched the returns, whether we might be seeing the beginnings of a change, hidden in little pockets within the mostly free-pass non-contests.
To be sure, they were small glimmers, confined to relatively meaningless state representative seats. In Lawrence, Juana Matias challenged and defeated three-term incumbent Marcos Devers. Mike Connolly did the same to Somerville political institution Tim Toomey. In Springfield, retiring Rep. Benjamin Swan’s attempt to bequeath his seat to his son was upended by City Councilor Bud Williams.
And, in Roxbury, where Rep. Gloria Fox finally stepped down after 30 years as a representative, little-known Chynah Tyler out-hustled Monica Cannon, who had the powerhouse backing of City Councilor Tito Jackson and Sheriff Steve Tompkins, as well as Fox’s own staffer Marydith Tuitt.
There was even a hint of something stirring in the Suffolk County register of deeds contest. Yes, Stephen Murphy, having been voted off the City Council, successfully took the well-worn route from there to an obscure elected county position—following the path of Richard Iannella, Maura Hennigan, and the man whose retirement prompted this election to fill the remainder of his term, Francis “Mickey” Roache. But Murphy’s presence in the race didn’t deter several serious contenders from running. And in a real change from the norm, impressive second-place finisher Katie Forde immediately signaled her intention to run against Murphy in 2018 for a full six-year term.
Though tentative, these signs of factioning within the state Democratic Party are coming from several directions—demonstrating that there is plenty of ideological and demographic diversity to fuel competition within a single party, if there is only the will to do it. Liberal state Sen. Jamie Eldridge has openly urged challenges from the left to what he deemed conservative Democrats—a call that brought horrified rebukes from party leaders. Charter school advocates, led by Democrats For Education Reform (DFER), have begun providing financial support for challengers, brushing aside criticism from within the party. And younger generations—especially minorities—are increasingly unwilling to quietly wait their turn in deference to older incumbents or party-backed candidates.
All of this comes in the shadow of the precedent-shattering 2014 election to Congress of Rep. Seth Moulton. He—and anyone brash enough to work for that campaign—drew the ire of Democratic insiders for daring to run in the primary against incumbent John Tierney. It was the first time an incumbent member of Congress had lost a primary in the Commonwealth since Marty Meehan ousted Chet Atkins in 1992.
Moulton’s success has quickly turned him from party pariah to shining star; perhaps his example is sparking a newfound willingness to challenge from within the party—and to support those who do. If so, that might be a very positive development for a political system that often feels stagnant under one-party dominance.
Observers down here, far from the scene, tend to take that Democratic dominance in Massachusetts for granted, and assume that it reflects a liberal streak running solidly from Provincetown to the Berkshires. And why wouldn’t they? Aside from the brief, fluky, and quickly revoked appearance of Scott Brown, Washington hasn’t seen a Republican representing Massachusetts, in either the U.S. House or Senate, for 20 years.
That’s not normal. No other state with more than five House members has a one-party delegation, and the only ones with similar one-party dominance over two decades are tiny Hawaii and Wyoming.
People in Washington also see a state legislature where Democrats continually hold two-thirds or more of both chambers, and—chalking up wins by Brown, and Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, to the singular self-destructive superpower of Martha Coakley—naturally conclude that there are barely any pockets of resistance to the Bay State’s overwhelming liberal agreement.
But when you spend time covering it from inside the state, as I have, you know that those surface facts don’t match with the actual people in the Commonwealth.
In truth, it’s liberals who exist in pockets, albeit sizable ones, surrounded by fiscal conservatives with mixed views on social issues. Just watch how Massachusetts voters respond to ballot questions on taxes—just last year, they repealed the indexed gas tax—and how reluctant the legislature is to raise taxes or reform the criminal justice system.
The dominance of the Democrats has less to do with ideological liberalism, and more to do with other historical factors—from the legacy of machine politics to the incompetence of state Republicans. Over time, everyone with political ambitions learned to seek a path within the Democratic Party; corporate citizens looking to curry favor knew to write checks to Democratic candidates. The self-reinforcing system turned a blue tilt into a massive party advantage.
That helps explain why Republicans are so hapless at challenging Democrats—and why Democrats have held onto every U.S. House seat for two decades, even though most of the districts have relatively modest Democratic leanings even with all the party’s structural advantages. Of the nine districts, only Rep. Michael Capuano’s is among the 80 most Democratic-leaning in the country, according to Cook Political Report’s calculations. Yet Republicans are only fielding candidates in four of the nine—all of varying degrees of haplessness and shoestring funding.
But there are faint signs that the Massachusetts GOP might also be adding some competition to the state’s political mix.
The party has, after all, held onto most of its surprising state house of representative gains in the Tea Party-fueled 2010 elections, and won a couple of impressive state senate special elections. Though thin in candidates this year—understandable given Democratic turnout advantage in a presidential election—Republicans have good candidates in several winnable races, and an unusually robust statewide field operation to support them. Baker, whose popularity is further evidence of the Commonwealth’s openness to Republicans, has personally been active around the state on behalf of GOP candidates.
It will be interesting to watch how that translates into challenges to Democrats in the 2018 elections, when Baker’s presumed re-election campaign could offer a chance for broader gains.
Though, it should be noted, from down in Washington, the safety of Massachusetts Democratic incumbents can look like a distinct advantage for the state’s residents.
Members of the House and Senate who have no concern about re-election hold distinct advantages in Washington. They build up seniority, relationships, and institutional knowledge. They can spend their time—and their chits—on better things than constant fundraising. They don’t need to worry about softening or hiding their views. They can play a long game on strategic goals. People want to curry favor with them now, knowing that they are likely to be around, and growing more powerful, for years to come.
That safety surely has played a role in the fast rise of Rep. Katherine Clark, who has already become a senior whip in the House Democratic leadership. It’s helped Sen. Elizabeth Warren wield the level of influence that she does.
And, down in D.C., Richard Neal and Jim McGovern are viewed with far more reverence than they typically are back home, where few think about their potential power on Ways & Means and Rules Committees, respectively.
Similar things could be said about incumbents at lower levels of government. Sometimes those advantages are worth the trade-off of less competition; other times, not so much.
But at least competition might draw more voters out to actually take part in that decision.
