Did you know that the primary reason Democrats shouldn’t primary incumbents is because it takes cash away from Democrats in other races?
This is big news. Candidates aren’t supposed to raise money from voters in their district, they are supposed to get it from other Democrat officeholders and then owe them political favors in the future. Sounds like a giant campaign funding loophole to me.
Instead, I thought established Democrats didn’t want primary challenges because it threatened the careers of long-time politicians? Gee, I must be totally wrong.
With this type of internal insurgency, nobody is safe. Party leaders don’t want to see their leadership, their fundraising, and their message being challenged from within. And recently, the Democrat Party moved to cut off funds from any political consultant company that worked on a primary challenger’s campaign. (https://theintercept.com/2019/03/22/house-democratic-leadership-warns-it-will-cut-off-any-firms-who-challenge-incumbents/). Wow. So Democrats believe in “democracy” except when they are challenged from within. Very telling.
Today’s article laments that as much money won’t be raised if Kennedy challenges Markey, but another expert (allied with Kennedy) is later quoted as saying it really wouldn’t make much difference this year since Democrats are so engaged and fundraising shouldn’t be a big problem.
This sounds to me like a trial balloon to try to pressure Kennedy into not running. Democrats across the entire country may lose if Kennedy enters the race! Democrats could lose the House of Representatives if Kennedy doesn’t stay put!! Heck, Kennedy’s challenge might even result in the re-election of Donald Trump!!!
Remember, Warren endorsed Markey and it would be too awkward for her to renege now. So maybe this isn’t about “Democrats” being unable to raise money, but instead about “a Democrat” named Elizabeth Warren. Maybe Warren was counting on both Markey and Kennedy to give her campaign boosts and if they are battling, there will be fewer activists and less local money available to her.
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!