Since Senators have been directly elected in 1913, most reelection attempts are successful in Massachusetts. That's true around the country as well. A full 90% of Senators seeking reelection were successful this past November.
Here at home, only one Democrat, Senator David I. Walsh has been defeated in a reelection attempt, though on two separate occasions. I’ve been thinking of Walsh while ruminating over a data point in the recent poll that finds only 44 % of voters think Senator Elizabeth Warren “deserves reelection.”
Curt Schilling’s decision to run against Elizabeth Warren is akin to her demanding the ball in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. No experience and better options were on the mound.
Elizabeth Warren's speech wasn’t long. And she wasn't speaking as Hillary Clinton's running mate. But Senator Warren made this much clear: Trump University cheats, Trump actively roots against the American middle class, aligns with Wall Street, deplores Mexicans, hates “others” and undermines/underpays small business workers … A man who must never be President of the United States.
Speculation about when or if Senator Elizabeth Warren would endorse one of the candidates battling for her party’s nomination has been hot and heavy. Sanders’ backers, in particular, have been confidently speculating that Warren would eventually side with Bernie. The truth is that Warren will not endorse until the nomination is a fait accompli. She will not put her foot on the scale to help the now faltering protest candidacy of Bernie Sanders primarily because she believes in the Democratic Party. She believes that a strong united Democratic Party is the key to electoral victory and policy accomplishment.
The most popular question after all of this has been: will Elizabeth Warren run for President? For me, the more telling question is: will she influence the political parties? And there the answer turns on these broad theories of democracy. To the degree that elite theory remains inevitable, her influence will always be checked by the fact she is a rarity among Democrats and Republicans who are nearly equal in indebtedness to elite economic interests. Remember: the bill passed with ease even as both sides said they did not like the provision – a provision they added and could just as equally strip. Alternatively, if pluralism stands a chance, grassroots organizing that calls out the culpability of Democratic and Republican elected officials in these actions is necessary to help Warren permanently alter the parties.
We talk about bipartisanship a lot in government. On economic matters we have it – it just isn’t in the interest of regular folks. The divide worth naming is economic elites and their elected lackeys vs the rest of us. Who are, incidentally, the majority.
A Boston columnist recently mocked Massachusetts and the presidential pretensions of its politicians. But come to think of it the nation could do much worse than Elizabeth Warren against Mitt Romney, and probably will.