Jump to content
270soft Forum

Joseph P. Kennedy III is going to lose.


Recommended Posts

JPK has trailed in every poll within the last month. He had been leading. New poll has him down 12 pts.

I'd say that's the end of his political career, but he has four options if he still hopes to be president some day (I think he does):

  • Warren or Markey are appointed to the cabinet. Kennedy does well enough in the race that he gets appointed. 
  • He runs for governor. 
  • He joins the cabinet, although I can't see him being useful anywhere.
  • He ends up running for president anyway. Lincoln was a one-term US Rep who had lost a US Senate bid. However, JPK is no Lincoln. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I mean, good.

Yup. Ambition is good, but only when contained. Democrats want to see Republicans lose, not fellow Democrats.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I mean, good.

It doesn't really matter one way or they other. They're going to vote the same 98% of the time. Rhetorically, Markey is more in line with my Warren-to-Sanders views. Kennedy is more in line with a Biden-to-Pelosi, and will be rhetorically more conventional. However, they'll vote the same, whoever wins. 

The only advantage to Kennedy is that he's younger. He was a good rising star until he covered his entire face with lip balm to give his State of the Union rebuttal address. Challenging Markey was bold and anti-party, but I actually approve of inter-party challenges. No election should be comfortable for an incumbent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

It doesn't really matter one way or they other. They're going to vote the same 98% of the time. Rhetorically, Markey is more in line with my Warren-to-Sanders views. Kennedy is more in line with a Biden-to-Pelosi, and will be rhetorically more conventional. However, they'll vote the same, whoever wins. 

The only advantage to Kennedy is that he's younger. He was a good rising star until he covered his entire face with lip balm to give his State of the Union rebuttal address. Challenging Markey was bold and anti-party, but I actually approve of inter-party challenges. No election should be comfortable for an incumbent. 

I just find him an insufferable bore that feels entitled to office because of his last name. Markey may be one of my least favorite members of the Senate politically, but at least I get charming grandpa vibes from him.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Challenging Markey was bold and anti-party, but I actually approve of inter-party challenges. No election should be comfortable for an incumbent. 

No, but there are other ways to vent criticism - and it seemed like he genuinely had no criticism for Markey. That's different than an AOC-style challenge, or Marie Newman. He didn't have many policy disagreements with Markey whatsoever. As you know, I fiercely dislike "climbing the ladder". If you're becoming a Senator only to run for President later, are you really serving your state that well? I personally doubt it. That's why swing state Senators are often really well liked is because they don't have their eyes on national office (e.g. Baldwin in Wisconsin, Stabenow in Michigan)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I just find him an insufferable bore that feels entitled to office because of his last name.

This. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

No, but there are other ways to vent criticism - and it seemed like he genuinely had no criticism for Markey. That's different than an AOC-style challenge, or Marie Newman. He didn't have many policy disagreements with Markey whatsoever. As you know, I fiercely dislike "climbing the ladder". If you're becoming a Senator only to run for President later, are you really serving your state that well? I personally doubt it. That's why swing state Senators are often really well liked is because they don't have their eyes on national office (e.g. Baldwin in Wisconsin, Stabenow in Michigan)

I feel like Toomey and Portman (Pennsylvania and Ohio respectively) are also good Republican examples of this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I feel like Toomey and Portman (Pennsylvania and Ohio respectively) are also good Republican examples of this.

Yup. I don't know Republicans as well, admittedly. Especially Portman from what I know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I just find him an insufferable bore that feels entitled to office because of his last name. Markey may be one of my least favorite members of the Senate politically, but at least I get charming grandpa vibes from him.

I don't find him boring. He's an okay speaker from the speeches I've hear him give. The entitled part does bother me though. I prefer Markey ideologically too. I'm just okay if JPK wins, and I think he still has potential. Seems like everyone here and on Twitter has strong opinions in this MA battle, which I find kind of interesting. 

If I had to rate them on how much I like them, using a 0 to 10 scale

Robert La Follette if he were alive today 9.5

Dennis Kucinich 9.35

Bernie Sanders 9.25

Elizabeth Warren 9.2

Barack Obama 8.8

Ed Markey 8.6

Joe Biden 8.4

Pete Buttigieg 8.2

Joseph P Kennedy 8.15

Kamala Harris 8.15  **90% of Democrats would probably be between 7.5 and 8.5 for me**

Nancy Pelosi 7.05

Hillary Clinton 7.00  *My endorsement threshold*

Jon Huntsman 6.5

John McCain would have been 6.0

John Kasich 5.5

Mitt Romney 5.5

Marco Rubio 5.0 *My lowest level of tolerance*

Rand Paul 3.5  **90% of Republicans would be between 3.5 and 4.5 for me**

George W Bush 2.5

Ted Cruz 0.750

Donald Trump 0.5

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

No, but there are other ways to vent criticism - and it seemed like he genuinely had no criticism for Markey. That's different than an AOC-style challenge, or Marie Newman. He didn't have many policy disagreements with Markey whatsoever. As you know, I fiercely dislike "climbing the ladder". If you're becoming a Senator only to run for President later, are you really serving your state that well? I personally doubt it. That's why swing state Senators are often really well liked is because they don't have their eyes on national office (e.g. Baldwin in Wisconsin, Stabenow in Michigan)

Fun fact. In Canada, while a significant number have been leaders of major-vote-getting Federally in elections (Old Conservative, Progressive Conservative, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Social Credit, CCF, New Democratic, Reform/Canadian Alliance, and Bloc Quebecois), and many other mulled and speculated, only two Provincial Premiers had actually also later held the office of Canadian Prime Minister (Charles Tupper, who VERY BRIEFLY served as PM after the death of John A. MacDonald, before losing in a profound electoral defeat to Wilfred Laurier in 1896, and Robert Borden, the World War ONE Prime Minister, both of whom had been Premiers of Nova Scotia).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're right, but I'm not so confident. I'm trying to treat this race like anything's possible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly hope he does. I don't think any incumbent should ever sit easy, so in states that are essentially one party in certain races, I always encourage a challenge from within. But Kennedy is running for all the wrong reasons. He doesn't seem to have any genuine qualms with Markey and if I had to guess, his only reason for running is "Cause I'm a Kennedy!" Which I guess is fine, it's a free country, he is perfectly within his rights to run for whatever reason he wants to, even one as lame as that. I'm also in my rights to hope he loses. But I'm glad he ran since it gave me another race to enjoy speculating about, plus if he loses this'll be the first time a Kennedy has lost a race in Massachusetts, so that'll be pretty neat.

All that being said, I could see him running for the senate again in 2024, either against Warren (who he probably should have challenged in the first place) or if its an open race. I don't think this potential loss will end his career, but it will put an end to Kennedy's being unstoppable in Massachusetts, and I am a-okay with that. It's long past the time for that dynasty to go the way of the Adamses and the Lodges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no single reason why Kennedy ran. It feels like he's being spoilt. Pelosi saying that shes endorsing him cause the entire Democrat party is now sullying the "Kennedy legacy" is hilarious too. I really hope Markey trounces him. Kennedy could have ran in 4 years or so, when Markey retires (Markey is literally 74) but Kennedy felt the need to jump the que. Now he's going to be further set back, probably ended his own political career and any ties he had, even now with the future of the Dems looking more and more away from his politics.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...