I adore Barney Frank...

[RudynJack]

but if he's not going to run for the seat, I hope he doesn't get appointed. It's going to be a tough election, and if Ed Markey is the chosen candidate, I think it's best to appoint him in the interim. Incumbency has a lot of advantages.

I think they'd both be great Senators, but the interim appointment should go to someone who plans to run to fill the term.

[gateley]

1. Agree and agree.

[SharonAnn]

9. The Senate has a lot of work to do in the next 5 months and it hard to campaign

even if you're the appointed incumbent. There will be little time for campaigning.

It may make sense for Markey to stay in the House, where he has experience and staff to run his office there, while he runs for the Senate.

Barney Frank would be a great interim Senator and would do all he could to get Markey elected.

[gateley]

43. You have a point, but I still lean toward getting him into the seat and then it

would just make it that much easier for him to stay there. I think he'd have to do less campaigning, too. If the people like what he does while he's there, they'll want to keep him. If it goes how I want it to, of course.

[dsc]

2. Markey won't get appointed

first I am not sure he can, I think it may have to be a place holder. Second, Markey won't resign from the House without winning the Senate as he has mad seniority there.

[RudynJack]

3. Can you explain

why you're not sure he can be appointed?

As to your second point, you have to weigh the pros and cons. If he's not the incumbent, he stands less of a chance of winning. If he lost, he could always run for the House again. If he won his House seat back, he'd lose one term of seniority, still leaving him very senior.

[dsc]

4. I think the law specifies that the appointee can't run

but I could be wrong on that.

[RudynJack]

5. I don't think so...

otherwise Frank wouldn't have to specify that he wouldn't run in the Spring.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Technically he can, but he won't

The election is held 5 months after the appointment is made. In Governor Patrick's assessment (and I agree) it is impossible for somebody to both do the job of a United States Senator and run a statewide campaign in just 5 months. That's why he appointed a placeholder last time and why he will do so this time.

Fact of the matter is that having incumbency for a mere 5 months isn't really much of an advantage. You don't have sufficient time to use the office to make yourself more familiar to voters, and any fundraising advantage you gain is more than drowned out by the fact that you will spend time doing the job of a Senator rather than spending time dialing for dollars.

[allrevvedup]

39. How did last time work out?

Didn't Coakley lose? Incumbency is a huge advantage and incumbents do their job while running for election and reelection all the time. If Markey is going to run he should get the interim appointment and all the free publicity that comes with it. Likewise if Frank isn't going to run I can't figure out why he would made this announcement in the first place. I don't see how it can accomplish anything except to give himself a nice income and some camera time for a few months. But Markey needs the camera time more than Frank.

[RudynJack]

44. You get it.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Incumbents do their job while running for re-election over a period of years, not months

Whoever runs against Scott Brown is going to have to raise $5 million at minimum to win and likely more than that. That's not something you can do in a period of 5 months while serving as a US Senator. Yes incumbency gives you a fundraising advantage over a longer period of time. But 5 months is not going to do the trick. People are less inclined to give to someone who may not be around in a couple of months. The free media you get from being appointed is negligible. Again, if you had 2 years to leverage the office, you would get more free media and that would help, but 5 months isn't 2 years.

Martha Coakley lost the election because she went on vacation during the campaign and made comments indicating that she'd never watched a Red Sox game in her life. Incumbency would not have fixed those problems. If anything they would've exacerbated them, given the anti-incumbent sentiment of 2010.

[allrevvedup]

89. If Governor Patrick throws away this appointment, that's his choice.

if Markey then loses it will be a shame, but it won't be Kerry's fault. If MA Dems are serious about keeping this seat they'll get serious. If they're not, they'll have no one to blame but themselves if they lose it again.

[RudynJack]

91. The question boils down to...

does incumbency hurt or does it help?

I believe it helps.

[NPolitics1979]

7. Markey's problem is making sure he wins the Special Election 6 months after he gets appointed.

If Markey is appointed to the US Senate next month, he'd have to give up being the 8th most senior member of the US House to be freshman US Senator. He'd have to face a primary and general election campaign within a 6 month time frame. It took a 15 month campaign for Warren to defeat Brown. If Markey loses in the special election as the appointed incumbent, his political career is over. It is highly unlikely he'd run for his old US House Seat- This will result in Democratic infighting preventing some rising star Democratic state legislator from succeeding. IF he loses the special election as the current member of the US House, he remains as a member of the US House- chairs a powerful committee when Democrats take control of the US House.
Had Markey ran for the US Senate in the 2010 Special, his Seniority will be after Franken(MN) and before Manchin(WV)
Had Markey ran for the US Senate in 2012, his seniority will be after Scott(SC) and before Baldwin(WI)
Had Kerry won the 2004 Presidential Election and Markey won the 2005 Special Election for his seat, Markey would be after Vitter(LA) and before Menendez(NJ)

[RudynJack]

8. That's a lot hedge-betting.

I think he'd win handily if ran for re-election to the Senate. Being the incumbent gives him advantages.

If his House seniority is so important to him and Massachusetts, he shouldn't run at all.

I think appointing him now would give him an important leg-up.

[NPolitics1979]

10. Governor Patrick is the one who makes the decision who gets appointed to the seat.

Markey-D would probally accept the appointment if Patrick-D decides to appoint Markey-D.
The people who will not be happy will be the Capuano's and the Lynch's-both Boston Area US House Members that are aiming for higher office.

[RudynJack]

11. I'm aware of who makes the decision.

[Tx4obama]

12. I believe that Gov Patrick said he will NOT appoint anyone that intends to run for the seat...

besides whoever runs for the seat will need all the time that they can find in order to campaign.

Barney Frank would be the most perfect temporary seat holder.

[RudynJack]

13. And Rep. Markey won't

be busy serving in Congress? Then appoint a nobody, and let Frank run for the job.

[Tx4obama]

14. Barney Frank does NOT want to run for the seat, he is volunteering only...

to be a seat holder until the special election is held.

Frank will be the perfect person to hold the seat for the few months that is needed since he will be able to work with the democratic senators on the spending cuts - financial stuff is right up his alley.

Now do you understand?

[RudynJack]

15. I understand what you're saying

but I disagree.

If Markey's seniority in the house is so important to him and to Massachusetts, then he shouldn't run at all.

The incumbent will have an advantage in the special election. If Markey wants the seat, he should be appointed now and take his chances. If he doesn't, then Frank should be convinced to run in the special after being appointed in the interim. I thought I made my points very clear. But I don't understand the argument that the appointee shouldn't run because he'd be too busy to run in the special. Markey has a busy job right now. That argument just makes no sense.

Do you understand?

[Tx4obama]

17. Gov Patrick does not want to appoint anyone that is going to run...

it is NOT a given that Markley will win the primary - he might NOT end up being the Democratic candidate in the special general election against the Republican.

It is not Gov Patrick's place to pick a favorite - that is for the Democrats of Massachusetts to do when they vote in the primary.

Frank will NOT run in the special election, he does not want to permanently have the seat.

I can also see why Markley would not want to give up his House seat before he knows if he will win the primary to be the candidate first.

Anyway, it is Governor Patrick's decision.


Edited to add...

The dem primary will not be until AFTER Kerry resigns - someone will be temporarily appointed BEFORE the primary.
So, Markley would be nuts to give up his House seat to take the temporary appointment.

[RudynJack]

20. You didn't provide anything

I wasn't already aware of.

My point, which you assiduously ignore, is that incumbency is an advantage. This will be a very difficult race, and we should give a good Democrat every advantage we possibly can.

Yes, there's risk. Running for any office is risky. But Markey, as an incumbent, would most assuredly win the primary, and he would have a leg-up in the special election.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[Tx4obama]

21. Markey would be stupid to give up his House seat before winning the primary. n/t

[RudynJack]

22. And he's less likely to

win the primary without the appointment. FAR less likely. Catch-22, huh?

I think we both agree on the goal - having a Democrat in that seat. We're arguing about the best strategy to make sure that happens.

[Tx4obama]

24. We will have to agree to disagree.

Whoever is appointed as the interim seat holder needs to have time to focus on the job for those few months - not be out campaigning all the time.

Actually if Markey were appointed to the seat and then not be able to give 100% to the job could be a liability instead of an asset.



p.s. Our discussion is moot anyway because Governor Patrick will not appoint anyone that is going to run in the primary and special election

[Little Star]

101. That's where I'm at.

[allrevvedup]

40. Exactly.

Maybe if Coakley had been appointed interim Senator instead of Paul Kirk she would have won her race against Brown. Repeating that not-so-brilliant strategy does not strike me as a good idea.

[RudynJack]

45. But Coakley was not appointed...

she ran. And she sucked as a candidate.

Dems should appoint someone who can win a race.

[allrevvedup]

47. Right, and if she'd run as an incumbent

i.e. if she had been appointed interim senator before she ran, her chances of winning would have been much better. Whether she still would have lost I can't say, but an appointee has the advantages of incumbency without the disadvantages of a substantial record so it's a very good deal.

It seems the Kirk appointment was Teddy's request and Duval felt bound to honor it. He doesn't have that problem this time, or didn't, but Frank putting himself up for the job so publicly creates a similar problem as he's still popular in MA and Duval won't want to disappoint them.

[NPolitics1979]

92. The MA US Senate vacancy law originally changed in 2004 to prevent Romney-R from appointing

Kerry's replacement.(120,000 more Anti Bush voters in OH showed up to the polls). MA state legislature did not trust Romney because unlike the previous Republican Governors- Weld,Cellucci,and Swift, Romney was a right winger who was trying to turn MA into MO. The MA legislature took away Romney's power to appoint and call for an early special election. When Deval became Governor in 2007 and Teddy's illness in 2008, The state legislature give the governor the power to appoint-Democrats needed the Kirk-D 60th vote to pass Obaromney care.

If Deval decided to appoint Kennedy's replacement in 2009 that was not a caretaker ie Kirk but someone who had an incumbency advantage and could serve in the US Senate for a next 3 decades- he probally would have selected his LT Governor Tim Murray.

[allrevvedup]

95. Okay thanks. Here's what I googled up as current Mass election law:

The key section is 140 (f), at the end, which I've bolded:

General Laws, PART I, TITLE VIII, CHAPTER 54, Section 140: Senators and representatives in congress; vacancies

Section 140. (a) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office, the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district, directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative. The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.

(b) If a vacancy under this section is created after February 1 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall not issue the precepts required by subsection (a), except as subsection (c) provides for a vacancy for senator.

(c) If a vacancy is created for senator in congress after April 10 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall issue precepts under this section, unless section 152 requires that office to appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If this section prevents issuance of precepts for senator, the office shall appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If a vacancy for senator is created after April 10 of an even-numbered year, but on or before the seventieth day preceding the regular state primary, the precepts shall appoint the day of the regular state primary and the biennial state election for holding the special primary and special election required by this section.

(d) If at the time a senator or representative in congress is elected at the biennial state election, there exists a vacancy in that office, the senator or representative shall also be deemed to have been elected to serve out that vacancy.

(e) A senator elected to fill a vacancy under this section shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term.

(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).

link: http://www.malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titleviii/chapter54/section140

I think you're saying that the interim appointee can't also be the elected replacement, no? But as I read this statute, there's no specific language prohibiting that. That would mean there's no particular reason Deval can't appoint Markey at the same time Markey runs in the special election, if I'm reading this correctly. But it's a little obscure so maybe I'm missing something.

[NPolitics1979]

97. I was mentioning the Deval's selection for the Kennedy seat.

He appointed Kirk instead of (Vicky Kennedy- Vicky could win the special election had she choosed to be the candidate).
Regarding the Kerry seat, is Deval going do the same thing he did to fill the Kennedy vacancy-appoint a caretaker or will he appoint Markey-D

[allrevvedup]

99. Based on that appointment, the Dem special election candidate seems the better choice,

whoever it is, since it appears he can. Splitting it up didn't turn out so well.

[NPolitics1979]

100. I have another perfect solution.

Kerry's senate term does not expire until 11/2014, Whoever gets appointed next month will have to face a special election in 7/2013. and the run for a full 6 year term in 11/2014.
The states other US Senator Elizabeth Warren-D and Ed Markey-D are in their mid to late 60's. Both of these candidates will be serving in the US Senate for no less than 2 terms and no more than 3 terms.
Kennedy-D had a 47 year senate service. Kerry-D will be giving up 28 years senate service.
Deval -D and the MADP could appoint a candidate that could serve in the US Senate for at least 5 terms. (Benjamin Downing-D). Young is 31 year old progressive state senator from Western MA. It would be great if someone from the Western part of the state is a member of the US Senate, Downing could serve in the US Senate for 5 terms, then run for President of the United States or remain in the Senate to be President Pro Tempore. He was a legislative aid/advisor to 3 MA US House Members Olver,Neal,and Delahunt. - for 2 years he was Olvers senior advisor on budget,tax,homeland security and Foriegn affairs.
Barney Frank and Ed Markey are only applying for the US Senate job just to put another title on their résumé. Ed Markey has a 36 year service in the US House. His seniority is right after Dingell-MI,Conyers-MI,Rangel-NY,Young-FL,Young-AK,Waxman-CA,and George Miller-CA. Barney left Congress after 32 years.
Downing-D if he gets appointed- will have to run in the Special Election in 7/2013, he might face a tough primary challenge from ambitious and egotistical Boston Area US House Members- Markey-D,Capuano-D,and Lynch-D. Frank, Markey,Capuano,and Lynch will split the Easterm MA vote-allowing Downing-D who is the Western MA candidate and Patrick's hand pick candidate to win the Democratic primary in the Special Election. Downing-D the defeats whoever the Republican nominee is (Scott Brown) in the special election.

[MADem]

27. Barney Frank is retiring, he's seventy. He is happy to fill in, but if he wanted the job he would

have already announced.

He does NOT WANT the job, just the placeholder appointment.

[lonestarnot]

16. Is Markey down with that?

[RudynJack]

18. I have no idea

But anybody who thinks he can run in such a tough race and win should be ready to take advantage of the only perk Democrats can give him right now - incumbency.

Two weeks ago Frank swore he didn't want the job. Now he wants it. Politics is a fickle world.

[Tx4obama]

19. Frank said that BEFORE he knew that the fiscal cliff spending cuts were going to be ...

delayed for two months.

Ya have to keep up with all the facts to see the whole picture

And there is a difference between wanting to be a seat warmer for a few months and wanting the seat permanently - Barney doesn't want it permanently.

[RudynJack]

23. OK

If you insist on being condescending, there's no point in continuing this. As I just wrote (above), we agree on the goal, and we're arguing about strategy.

But if you want to treat me like an idiot because we disagree on that strategy, then have a great night.

[Tx4obama]

25. Have a great weekend. n/t

[MADem]

29. He's not being condescending--he's being accurate.

Offering to be a placeholder and helping out the MA delegation with a career's worth of budgetary knowledge is a very different thing than actively running for office at age seventy and serving a six year term.

Barney does not want to serve in the Senate for six years--he just wants to play "fill in." Governor Patrick said weeks ago that he had NO intention of assigning a "candidate" to the interim slot.

That's the Big Picture--nothing to do with strategy or tactics.

[RudynJack]

30. Of course he's being condescending.

Do you understand?

You, and he, continue to ignore my main point.

Do you understand?

we're discussing the best strategy for the future. How do you gauge accuracy?

[MADem]

32. Your main point is not clear--you seem to be confused about what Patrick and Frank have said. nt

[RudynJack]

33. I don't know how to make it clearer.

Incumbency gives a big advantage. IMCUMBENCY GIVES A BIG ADVANTAGE.

And you know that Frank said two weeks ago he had no interest in the position. Now he does. Politics is fickle. POLITICS IS FICKLE.

Now do you know what condescension is?

Do you understand? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

[MADem]

37. I don't know how to make THIS clearer.

Patrick has said he will not appoint a candidate to the interim position.

One more time: Patrick has said he will not appoint a candidate to the interim position.

Barney has said he is uninterested in RUNNING for the Senate job. Again--that's RUNNING. The thing that "candidates" do, in case you are uncertain. There is a difference between RUNNING for a six year position and being appointed for three months.

Do you understand? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?




I'll tell you what I understand--you are both uncivil and obtuse. And you haven't kept up on MA political news at all, though you somehow believe that snarking is a substitute for facts.

Your reputation does not improve with every post you make.

[RudynJack]

46. Sorry you feel that way.

You're a very uncivil person, in my view. So I guess we're even.

We'll see how it works out.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. You keep saying that incumbency is a big advantage. What are the stats on re-election of

appointed Senators? Do you even know? Of the 17 appointments since 2000, just 7 have won the following election to the same seat. The vast majority do not even run. Why would that be if it is such a big advantage?
In the 90's there were 8 Senate appointments, 3 won the next election, 3 lost the election or failed to secure nomination and two did not run at all.
Condescension can include yelling your unsupported opinion in hopes others will bow to the intensity rather than look up the facts...
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm

[allrevvedup]

62. In the last 10 years the election rate has been 6/6 or 100%

of appointed Senators seeking election. So Markey's elections chances would very likely be improved by the interim appointment. From your link:

-------------------------------------------------

Dean Barkley (I-MN)
Date Appointed: November 4, 2002
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Date Appointed: December 20, 2002
Elected: Yes, on November 2, 2004

-------------------------------------------------

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Date Appointed: January 17, 2006
Elected: Yes, on November 7, 2006

--------------------------------------------------

John A. Barrasso (R-WY)
Date Appointed: June 22, 2007
Elected: Yes, on November 4, 2008

--------------------------------------------------

Roger F. Wicker (R-MS)
Date Appointed: December 31, 2007
Elected: Yes, on November 4, 2008

--------------------------------------------------

Roland W. Burris (D-IL)
Date Appointed: December 31, 2008
Note: Appointed December 31, 2008, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009. Took oath of office on January 15, 2009.
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE)
Date Appointed: January 15, 2009
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)
Date Appointed: January 21, 2009
Elected: Yes, on November 2, 2010

-------------------------------------------------

Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY)
Date Appointed: January 26, 2009
Note: Appointed January 23, 2009, and appointment took effect upon her resignation from the House of Representatives on January 26, 2009. Took the oath of office on January 27, 2009.
Elected: Yes, on November 2, 2010

[Bluenorthwest]

66. But you are leaving out the several who did not even bother to run, that is not honest...

Roland W. Burris (D-IL)
Date Appointed: December 31, 2008
Note: Appointed December 31, 2008, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009. Took oath of office on January 15, 2009.
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE)
Date Appointed: January 15, 2009
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

George S. LeMieux (R-FL)
Date Appointed: September 9, 2009, and began service on September 10, 2009.
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (D-MA)
Date Appointed: September 24, 2009
Note: Took the oath of office on September 25, 2009.
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Carte P. Goodwin (D-WV)
Date Appointed: July 16, 2010
Note: Took the oath of office on July 20, 2010.
Elected: Did not seek election

[allrevvedup]

67. They aren't relevant to the question,

which is: Would the interim appointment increase Markey's chances of election? And the answer appears to be, absolutely.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Good lord. The OP claims that Frank should not be interim because incumbency is a 'big advantage'

and so that is very relevant to the claim he is making. So yeah, questions regarding the nature of that presumed advantage are very relevant.

[allrevvedup]

71. OP claims " Incumbency has a lot of advantages." Stats show that it does. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

76. No, the stats do not show that it does. Stats show that it sometimes does, sometimes harms

and is most often not a factor at all, because the vast majority of appointees do not bother to run at all.
Let's look at MA alone: Since 1914, only 4 people have been appointed to the Senate from MA as interim Senators. Of those 4, not one of them ran for election and thus, not one of them won their election. In MA, incumbent appointed Senators never, ever win the following election. Not one ever has, in history.

(prior to 1914 Senators were not elected directly by the people so 1914 is the entire history)

[allrevvedup]

78. If they don't run, they don't count.

If MA is as worried about this seat as posters have loudly proclaimed them to be they won't throw away this appointment on a non-candidate. If you need a specific MA stat just look at their last special election. Coakely lost.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. Coakly was not an appointee. The appointed interim Senator from MA did not run.

No person appointed to an interim seat in the Senate from MA has ever run for that seat after. Not one of the 4 such appointees in history.

[allrevvedup]

84. Bingo. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

86. They don't run because the voters do not wish to elect an appointee.

That's how it is. The governor has said he will not appoint anyone who intends to run for election for that seat. That is how it always has been in MA.
No appointed incumbent has ever won an election in MA after the appointment. You claim that appointment is a big advantage. There is no proof of that in MA at all, in fact it seems the voters there dislike appointees and want them replaced with elected candidates asap.

[Tx4obama]

104. Appointed folks running in a general election is different than a short term interim senator...

running within a couple months in a special election.

The majority of the folks you have on your list were in office for at least around a year (some a lot more than one year) before their election was held.

That much different than the current seat that is being discussed.

[NPolitics1979]

93. Are you including IL-assuming Blagojevich had not got caught.

[MADem]

26. NO. The governor has already said he will only appoint a placeholder--not a candidate or potential

candidate.

Barney is a PERFECT placeholder. He is familiar with the MA delegation, and he knows budget issues. He could be VERY useful to the Dems in the Senate as a House liaison over the next three months.

[RudynJack]

28. And Frank has already said he wouldn't take the job

until today.

Politics is fickle.

[MADem]

31. Barney never said he would not take the placeholder job. It didn't exist until

Kerry got picked as SECSTATE to be.

Barney continues to say he won't run for the senate seat.

Again, there WAS no "placeholder" chair until Kerry got the nod--that was an opportunity that arose out of circumstance and the trashing of Susan Rice.

I think you're not clear on what he's actually saying.

He would like the (very brief and temporary) APPOINTMENT, he does not want to stand for election and serve a six year term--that part has not changed in the slightest.

[RudynJack]

34. You're mistaken.

[MADem]

35. No I am not mistaken--I live in MA and I pay attention when I see my governor on the TV.

Patrick has said he will not appoint a candidate to the interim position. That's what you do not seem to grasp. Perhaps the west coast media didn't cover that important detail.

[RudynJack]

36. I was unclear.

You were mistaken about saying Frank wouldn't take the job. That's what I was referring to.

[MADem]

38. Frank is not taking the job as the sitting, elected Senator from MA.

If he is appointed as a placeholder, he'll have status as a senator but he will not be an ELECTED official. Think PAUL KIRK.

They're two different positions. One is temporary in nature, a few months of service as a consequence of a selection by the governor, the other is a six year, elected term of office where We, The People of the Commonwealth go to the polls and choose a candidate.

Barney has said he won't run for the job as elected MA Senator. Nothing has changed, even if he is appointed to a temporary placeholder position. He has decided that, at age seventy, he's done with ELECTIVE politics.

[allrevvedup]

41. Also: if Frank wants the job, why didn't he just say so privately?

I just googled MA interim senator and see page after page of Barney on MSNBC, "Put me in the coach says Barney," Barney talks to Morning Joe, Barney on Bloomberg, etc etc. If he wants to run a campaign why doesn't just run for the seat instead of weakening the chances of whoever does? That was my thought when I heard he'd put himself forward but I didn't realize how hard he's actually running. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

[MADem]

48. He does NOT want the seat. The governor has already said he will NOT appoint a candidate to the job

The governor only wants a place-holder. Barney only wants to be a place-holder. The guy is seventy and he just got married--he wants to live a little.

Frank wants in on this APPOINTMENT (and just the appointment) because he's a money/budget/fiscal-savvy guy who was denied the opportunity to put his last stamp on the budget process owing to GOP shenanigans vis a vis the fiscal cliff. He feels he has unfinished business.

Using Frank as a place-holder is a win-win--for the MA delegation (no learning curve), for the people of the Commonwealth (we know him, he has staff who can handle constituent services), and for the Democratic caucus in the Senate--he can cut through a lot of the bullshit between the Senate and the House, simply by dint of long experience.

[allrevvedup]

49. He obviously wants the seat.

How he gets it and for how long is a different matter. And I don't see this as a win-win. Unless Frank is in for the whole nine yards and not for the gravy I see it as as divisive and counterproductive win-for-Barney period.

[MADem]

54. No--he wants the INTERIM appointment. If he wanted the seat, he'd declare and run for it.

He only wants the interim appointment because of his finance/budget bona fides in the House--he wants to see that through.

The person who gets the interim appointment, granted by the governor, will NOT serve as MA Senator in an elected capacity. The governor has already said so. There's no negotiation possible on that score.

The person who accepts the interim appointment will do so only after agreeing not to run.

You don't understand the ground rules--the appointed person can not and will not run for office.

This is a win-win for MA and the Dem Senate caucus, if BF gets the upcheck from Deval. BF has knowledge that will be useful on the Senate side as they work with a nasty ass House to resolve budgetary issues in the next few months.

[allrevvedup]

57. A "seat" is a right to sit whether by election or appointment.

Look it up. And if he wants to advise Kerry and/or his appointed or elected successor on the budget or anything else he can do it by email. I have no idea why Frank wants the appointment but unless he's also planning to run in the special election I can think of no way his announcement is politically useful to anyone but Barney Frank.

[NPolitics1979]

103. Kerry's Senate Term does not expire in 11/2014.

Whoever wins the 2013 Special Election- ie Markey,Frank,Capuano,Lynch,or Downing will be running for a full 6 year Senate Term in 2014. Markey or Capuano will be serving in the US Senate- assuming they win the Special Election and win the 11/2014 election for no more than 3 terms.
Downing-D if he wins the Special Election(Primary and General) will be serving in the US Senate for at least 3 decades.
Looking at the US House Delegation
Markey-D has 36 years seniority, Neal-D has 24 years seniority, McGovern-D,Tierney-D,Capuano-D and Lynch-D have 13-18 years of seniority. Tsongas-D,Keating-D and Kennedy-D have less than 5 years seniority.
If Markey-D,Capuano-D or Lynch-D give up their US House Seat to become US Senator-MA will lose between 12 to 36 years of seniority in the US House.
MA former US Senators (Kennedy-D and Kerry-D had a total of 75 years).
MA Other US Senator Elizabeth Warren is likely to run for President in 2016-assuming Hillary does not run or be Joe Biden's VP runningmate or she runs and wins re-election in 2018, -during Warren's 2nd term becomes Senate Democratic Leader after Reid-NV and Durbin-IL leave. Warren-D runs for a 3rd term in 2024. In 2030- Warren-D will have to decide if she wants to run for 4th term at the age of 81. Joe Kennedy Jr. becomes Warren's successor in the US Senate.
Markey-D will be a backbench member of the US Senate during his first term in the US Senate. He runs for election in 2020 then retires in 2026.
Deval-D should appoint a young rising star Democrat that not only could win the 2013 Special Election but could remain in the US Senate for 3 decades. Kennedy-D and Kerry-D ran for President after 20 year service in the US Senate. Kennedy-D ran in 1980- lost in the Democratic primary, remained as the most powerful member of the US Senate for another 30 years.
Kerry-D ran for President in 2004- lost in the November General Election- became chair of the Senate Foriegn Relations committee in 2009 will become Secretary of State in 2013 to retire from politics in 2017. The next MA US Senator should be capable of running for President in 2028 and if he loses the Presidential Election - he remains in the US Senate for another decade. Ben Downing.

[RudynJack]

50. Barney Frank

is a rare creature in politics. He's honest.

I really love him. That's why I want him in the Senate. I also adore Ed Markey (and I guarantee I've loved Ed Markey for a few decades more than most here have.)

I want to ensure Kerry's seat remains Democratic. That's my whole argument - how do we best ensure that?

[allrevvedup]

52. That's what seems odd.

I also think he'd be a great senator if he wants to run for the seat, but if he doesn't, I don't see why he's campaigning so hard for the interim appointment. It creates a problem where there wasn't one. Surely he must know that?

[Sunlei]

42. Barney Frank said he is now free to do much more in the private sector. If he wanted he would ask.

Barney Frank

[allrevvedup]

51. It seems he's already asked:

"Barney Frank: I want to be named interim senator"
January 4, 2013 / Matt Stout / Boston Herald

Just one day removed from the House, Barney Frank says he wants to get back to Washington.

Frank, speaking today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” said he told Gov. Deval Patrick he wants to be interim senator when Sen. John Kerry is named secretary of state.

“A month ago, or a few weeks ago, I said I wasn’t interested,” Frank said. “It was kind of like you’re about to graduate, and they said: ‘You gotta go to summer school.’ But (the fiscal cliff) deal now means that February, March and April are going to be among the most important months in American financial history.”

Frank said he wouldn’t seek to permanently fill the seat, saying he “wouldn’t want to do anything more” than be a three-month pinch hitter for the Bay State.

“I’ve told the governor I would now like, frankly, to do that,” he said. “Coach, put me in.”

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2013/01/barney_frank_i_want_be_named_interim_senator

[graham4anything]

53. Senator Barney Frank-would be first outed Gay Senator in history.The Dream lives on!Equality rules!

Gov. Patrick already has stated like they did last time, an interim will be named that won't run.

That is so THE PEOPLE can decide.

Why should the great Deval Patrick, who may soon be running for Vice President, give up his capital and name someone that later on the people might not want named permanent.

Remember there will be a special election w/in 6 months
and then
ANOTHER senate race in 2014 as the special only covers the remaining 2 years of Kerry's term.

What I feel bad for are the people of Mass. who lost a senior senator that was in the top 10 of seniority, to now have two of the bottom ranking senators.
The so called pot hole issues are not going to get done for those citizens(of which my sister is one of them so I know what I am talking about here.)

But I will be glad to see Senator Barney Frank. In the placemats of the senators of Mass. pictures, Barney will count as a real one.
It is an inspiration to the nation and mankind in general should this happen.

And if it does, I salute President Obama for his 9 step ahead thinking and of making lemonade out of a lemon situation.

Then Markey can win the special,(HOPEFULLY), and in 2014, one of the Kennedy's can reclaim a senate seat that is rightfully theirs.

Damn cell phones I think caused the cancer Teddy got.
Because he was on his 20 hours a day, doing the "pothole repair" talking to the locals as a senator should along with their national job. Wish there would be better studies into cellphones, because the phone companies don't want you to know how bad health wise it is to have that up against your ear all day.

Barney Frank as Governor would continue the equality for all that Teddy Kennedy so wished for all his life. The Dream lives on! if Barney Frank becomes Governor.
and a Kennedy (be it Vicky, Joe, Teddy Jr. wins the race in 2014.)

[RudynJack]

55. You won't find a bigger fan of the

Kennedys than me. But no seat is rightfully theirs. I find the very idea offensive.

Massachusetts should have a good Democratic senator, and anything that can be done to ensure that should be done.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Incorrect, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is the first out (not outed) gay Senator. Barney would be

the second and the first male if one splits such hairs as that. But Tammy is the first openly gay Senator.

[OccupyManny]

56. The man is a saint

He's an American treasure. Would love to see him in the Senate.

[RudynJack]

58. He's no saint.

He's a brilliant legislator and politician.

So tell me about your political history.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Tell me the precentage of appointed Senators who actually win re-election.

You keep saying it is a big advantage to be an appointed incumbent, but you sure don't show any stats or figures or examples, and reality shows us that appointed incumbents don't really have much advantage at all, if any. Some win, some lose, most don't run and a few don't even get nominated when they try to win the seat.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm

[allrevvedup]

63. 100% for the last decade.

From 2002 to now it seems six appointees have run and all have won. From your link:
-------------------------------------------------

Dean Barkley (I-MN)
Date Appointed: November 4, 2002
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Date Appointed: December 20, 2002
Elected: Yes, on November 2, 2004

-------------------------------------------------

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Date Appointed: January 17, 2006
Elected: Yes, on November 7, 2006

--------------------------------------------------

John A. Barrasso (R-WY)
Date Appointed: June 22, 2007
Elected: Yes, on November 4, 2008

--------------------------------------------------

Roger F. Wicker (R-MS)
Date Appointed: December 31, 2007
Elected: Yes, on November 4, 2008

--------------------------------------------------

Roland W. Burris (D-IL)
Date Appointed: December 31, 2008
Note: Appointed December 31, 2008, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009. Took oath of office on January 15, 2009.
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE)
Date Appointed: January 15, 2009
Elected: Did not seek election.

-------------------------------------------------

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)
Date Appointed: January 21, 2009
Elected: Yes, on November 2, 2010

-------------------------------------------------

Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY)
Date Appointed: January 26, 2009
Note: Appointed January 23, 2009, and appointment took effect upon her resignation from the House of Representatives on January 26, 2009. Took the oath of office on January 27, 2009.
Elected: Yes, on November 2, 2010

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Incorrect, 5 of the appointed Senators in the last 10 years did not even attempt a run...

That's not 100% when 5 out of 14 don't even think they could win enough to try...

[allrevvedup]

65. Of the 6 who have run, and all 6 won. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Repeating it does not change the fact that the actual question is 'what percentage of appointed

Senators actually win the election for the appointed seat'. The question was not 'of those who think they can win and then run, how many win'. Of course, those who feel they can not win do not run, also those who were interim appointments often do not run because they are holding the seat intentionally to assist the eventual nominated, elected candidate.
Claims that being the incumbent is a big advantage are as yet unproven by actual numbers.

[allrevvedup]

69. The question is whether the interim appt. would help Markey win

the special election. The answer based on the last 10 years of such appointments is clearly "yes."

[Bluenorthwest]

72. No the question was:Tell me the precentage of appointed Senators who actually win re-election.

It is right upthread. The answer from the last 10 years of such appointments is 'about half of such appointments do not even bother to run for election'. That is the fact.
And of course, if we go back to 2000 or to 1990 we find that again, most appointees do not bother to run for the seat and of those who do, about half lose and about half win.
What reason indicates from the actual statistics is that each of these cases is specific and individual to the candidate, to the State, even to the Governor who makes the appointment. It is a complex set of circumstances that adds up to a different answer in each case, there is no assured 'help' for any candidate from being an appointee prior to the campaign and I'd suggest that each person in such circumstances has to take many factors into consideration. It might be best to not be appointed. Because it depends. Because most appointees do not win the eventual election, either due to not running or due to not winning, some do not even get their Party's nomination....

[allrevvedup]

73. The can't win reelection if they don't run.

But if they run, based on the last decade, they have a 100% chance of winning. The conclusion I draw is that it would be foolish not to give the interim appointment to the probable special election candidate. YMMV.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. And those who do not run do not run because they feel they will not win. And to look at the

last 10 years alone-when about half of appointees did not bother to so much as try to win- is a rather tight window for an office that has 6 year terms. Going back to 2000 does not help your case, of course, nor does going back to 1990, or into the 80's. That is to say, if we look at the history of the Senate in any way other than 'just the last 10 years, and only those whose polling showed they might win' reality teaches us that incumbency is a possible help, a possible harm and most usually it is a wash.

[allrevvedup]

75. If Frank was appointed but didn't run, would you say the same for him?

That he didn't bother to run because he couldn't win? No. If they don't run, they don't count. Anything else is special pleading. The stats show that incumbency is a huge electoral advantage and if MA is as worried about this seat as they claim to be they won't waste it.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. In all of history, only 4 people have been appointed from MA to the Senate. Not one of them

has run for the office and thus, not one of them as won that office. MA has never run an incumbent appointee to fill the seat they were appointed to, not one time. That would be either because they do not think they can win, or because using the seat as place holder is a valuable assist to the actual eventual nominee. The State of MA has no example to offer, in the entire history of the Senate, to suggest incumbency is a help because no appointed incumbent from MA has ever run for the seat. Not one. What 'stats' do you get out of that?

[allrevvedup]

80. And Coakley lost their last special election.

Time to try something else.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. She was not an incumbent appointee nor incumbent in the Senate. As you know.

She'd never set foot in the US Senate, she was not appointed to fill the interim seat, Kirk was and like the other three appointees to the Senate from MA's entire history, Kirk did not run for the nomination much less the seat.
Got anything else? MA has never elected an incumbent appointee to the Senate. Martha Coakley was never appointed to the Senate, never elected to the Senate.
She was just a politician who lost an election, nothing more.

[allrevvedup]

83. Hey you're catching on. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

85. By that do you mean that you have read the education I'm offering to you and seen the error

of your previous thoughts on incumbent appointees to the Senate from MA?

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Not one incumbent appointee to the Senate from MA has ever won election to the Senate.

Not one. In the entire history of direct election of Senators. Zero. Some advantage!

[allrevvedup]

88. None of those 4 ran, and Coakley lost. Time for a new strategy. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

90. That is correct, those 4 did not run. Why do you think that is? Because the people do not want

appointee/candidates. It would seem that this borrowed few weeks of 'incumbency' does not create an advantage at all. The OP claims this advantage is clear. I say there is no proof of advantage, much indication of disadvantage and the OP's whole claim is that by being appointed one is suddenly give advantages of incumbency just seems vapid. Just the fact that a person would have to be trained into the Senate then serve that job well enough to retain the seat, all while waging a fierce first time campaign for the seat against a Republican who is not busy being a Senator in DC is a double disadvantage. All in about 5 weeks.
And the 'advantages of incumbency' exist for actual incumbents, most of those advantages have to do with having won that race once already, grass roots already rooted. Other advantages come from doing the job itself-being in media frequently, advocating positions popular in your State, being seen with the President and other respected figures.
I am not sure there is any actual instant intrinsic advantage to a few weeks as an appointed understudy. I do not think the people see such appointees as entitled to the job, in fact I think many people see appointees as disqualified for that particular gig, as it is an elected office.
So you and the OP think there is some magical super power of incumbency that is not won, but somehow imparted via the governor's appointment that holds 'advantages'. I do not see it. And both of you failed to make any sort of case at all. It was kind of fun though.

[DFW]

94. This reminds me of the old Certs commercial: "Stop! You're both right!"

A few things that color my thinking:

If Markey is appointed, he loses his seat in the house. If he waits to run, and loses, he does not forfeit his House seat. We'd hope mightily that he'd win the Senate seat, but the Republicans have a LOT of money in search of a campaign right now, and guess where their eyes are focusing at this moment?

Many of the appointments that later won election were either a) in safe states for their party or b) in office for more than a few months before they had to stand in a real election, and without teabaggers or Kochs in the equation.

My take is--incumbency would indeed be a great advantage IF the interim appointee had 18 months or more to solidify their position as the U.S. Senator from the state. 5 months or less MAY be enough, but it's not enough to risk betting the farm on it. Also, I take Barney Frank at his word--if Kerry leaves, then it would be a HUGE advantage to us to have a seasoned insider eloquently arguing our side in the Senate. The first three months of this year will not be a slow time as far as legislation on crucial subjects goes. I also agree that Markey would need time to organize his campaign that he would not have as the Senatorial appointee. He would have to be MIA on crucial votes or committee hearings due to campaign obligations he dare not ignore if he is to defeat Brown and his money.

Therefore, while both sides of the argument have valid points and merit, I will risk the verbal firing squad and come down on the side of supporting the appointment of Barney Frank as interim Senate appointment from Massachusetts.

Actually, I wish Teddy Kennedy's kid had come up from CT to go for it, but Markey is well-known and well-liked in MA, and he certainly is less of a buffoon than Brown, and far MORE of a serious candidate than Coakley ever was. I give him a slight edge to overcome the formidable odds he will be facing once the special election rolls around.

[NPolitics1979]

96. Appointed US Senators that won their first election.

1/2013
Schatz(D-HI) and Scott(R-SC) will be facing their first US Senate election in 11/2014 (15 months or more since getting appointed. Both are likely to win the General Election in 11/2014. Schatz(HI) is only vulnerable in the primary in Hanabusa-D decides to run.
5/2011
Heller(R-NV) won his first US Senate race in 11/2012. Democratic nominee Berkley-D was considered damaged goods.
7/2010
WV-Manchin appointed himself or Goodwin was a candidate in the 11/2010 Special Election.
9/2009
Coakley/Capuano(D-MA) had to win the primary in 12/2009 and defeat the pickup truck pornstar in 1/2010.
2/2009.
Bennet(D-CO) Bennet-CO had to defeat State House Speaker Romanoff-D in the Democratic primary and defeat Ken Buck in the November General Election.

Had the Special Election in MA for Kennedy's seat took place in 11/2010,The Democratic nominee would have enough time to expose Brown's Rightwing ideology. The gaffes Coakley made would have been old news.

Regarding the Kerry(MA) seat. Kerry will be confirmed Secretary of State the latest 2/2013 and Markey-D or Frank-D will get sworn in 3/2013. The Special Election will be taking place in the Summer of 2013. A 11/2014 special election will give Markey-D enough time to build up his name recognition statewide and expose Brown's weaknesses.

I would have preferred that Markey-D ran for the US Senate in 2012, Markey-D could have unseated Brown-R due to Obama's coattails and Markey's place in seniority
Heitkamp-ND 99
Fischer-NE 98
Cruz-TX 97
Kaine-VA 96
King-ME 95
Heinrich-NM 94
Hirino-HI 93
Murphy-CT 92
Donnelly-IN 91
Flake-AZ 90
Baldwin-WI 89
Markey-MA 88. Being a 18 term member of the US House. Instead of 97 Recently appointed US Senators Schatz(HI) and Scott(SC) were sworn in couple of days before the 11/2012 winners.

For the Kerry Seat, Patrick could appoint Barney Frank as the caretaker and Elizabeth Warren becomes the MADP endorsed candidate in the Special Election. Professor Warren defeating Former US Senator Scott Brown in the 6/2013 special election would be sweet. Warren-D would then win a first full six year term in 11/2014. or Patrick could appoint Warren to the seat and allow her to run in the special election.

[Tx4obama]

105. You sorta skipped over an important point ...

You said: "Regarding the Kerry(MA) seat. Kerry will be confirmed Secretary of State the latest 2/2013 and Markey-D or Frank-D will get sworn in 3/2013. The Special Election will be taking place in the Summer of 2013. A 11/2014 special election will give Markey-D enough time to build up his name recognition statewide and expose Brown's weaknesses."

The problem is that that the 'interim senator' will be sworn in probably in 3/2013 but there will be only a couple of months before the first special election primary before the special election in the summer. So the issue of Markey exposing Brown for the 11/2014 election is irrelevant - Markey will likely be going up against Brown 'this summer'
So, the focus here is needs to be whoever wins the democratic primary in a few months will need to have time to quickly raise money and campaign. It would be an advantage to Markey to NOT hold the interim seat so that he would have his time freed up to focus on the race and not on senate issues/business.


As far as what you're saying about Warren - she has already been elected as U.S. Senator for a full six-term seat

[NPolitics1979]

106. I was being hypothetical but I do agree with your claim

that the interim Senator will facing a special election this summer needs to focus on raising a lot of $$$ to secure the Democratic nomination in the special and defeat Brown in the special election in the summer.

MA law could be saving a lot of money if the Special Election to fill Senate vacancies occur during the upcoming Congressional election instead of having Special Elections 5 months after vacancy.
Had Romney-R were to appoint Kerry's replacement in 2005- The interim Republican US Senator would have lost in the 2006 Special Election or in 2008. If MA Democrats were afraid the Republican Romney would have appointed to fill Kerry's seat was going to be Cellucci-a moderate Republican, they could have passed a law requiring Romney-R to appoint a Democrat as the interim Senator. Example (WY 2007 when Thomas-R died and Freudental-D appointed Barrasso-R to the seat.

[cecilfirefox]

98. As I understand it the appointed interim senator CAN'T run for the seat- I hope Barney is picked. nt

[John_UAC]

102. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)