Hey, there! Log in / Register

Number of Bay Staters running for president could rise again

Deval Patrick might stage a Bloombergian late entry into the presidential race, which would bring the number of Massachusetts candidates back up to three - four if you include El Bloombito, who spent his formative years in Medford. Patrick is, of course, upset that none of the roughly 5,000 moderates in the race (remember Seth Moulton?) seem to have put wooden stakes in the Warren and Sanders campaigns yet.



I don't think Patrick is delusional, so he doesn't really expect to get the presidential nomination. This has to be about positioning for his next gig... a cabinet post? Could he really be thinking of 2024?



"Maybe this is obvious, but these last-minute "trial balloons" (Bloomberg, Deval Patrick) indicate that the Democratic donor class is in an usually weak position, scrambling for desperate Hail Mary scenarios with less than three months till the first vote"


Well he just got a whole bunch of free news buzz discussing him and what he did and his qualifications, so yeah, I think it's about positioning for some other gig. Suspect the cabinet, although he'd be a good VP pick demographically

Oh this is going to drive republicans here crazy! For years when he was governor the Herald and their flock freaked daily that he would bail on being governor (like weld and celluci did) and get a position in Obama's admin. Which he didn't. This will be fun seeing them freak out!


LOL No one is "freaking out". LOL'ing, yes but no, no freakouts.

Patrick is a nice guy. But, there is no way he can stand the heat, imho.

I'm fairly confident Republicans are giving no thought to Deval Patrick. Like Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Patrick deserves credit for highlighting that none of the current 17 Democrat crackpots are viable. In 2024 he'll be able to say "See, I told you so."

It would be fun to see Patrick on the national stage defending his 2009 plan to "put down" zoo animals at Franklin Park and Stoneham unless he got his massive tax increases. For Democrat primary voters, the question is whether holding the lives of zoo animals hostage in exchange for new taxes is better than holding US foreign aid hostage in exchange for billions to Hunter Biden? Best of luck with this crew.


Conservatives seem fixated on him.

Its not about whether he has a chance. Maybe you are new to Mass, but they were constantly worrying he would quit the governorship the last 6 years of his term, maybe PTSD after Weld and Cellucci bolted, and then Romney left after only 1 term, and Swift after less than a term. Who knows, look at the Herald front pages back then if you forgot. But they did. Plus conservatives live in an alternate universe where pizza places are child sex rings, Obama was a secret muslim kenyan and Russia is our best friend who loves democracy and definitely didn't try to help timid Trump win. Who knows what the delusional think.

So this should really freak out all the snowflakes on the right.

You wrote that whole thing without saying Cadillac or Drapes.



Let's skip the eight year catalogue of incompetence and embarrassment and cut right to the chase. Anybody who would fill one of the most important positions in the state, during a multi-foot snow-pocalypse, with that woman has automatically disqualified himself.

Scott had flaws. Ramirez was just downright unqualified. He just sat in an office all day while Pollack ran the T into the ground. I'll take Scott & Davey over Pollack & Pollack any day of the week

in the race through the full primary cycle. In fact, such a commitment should be a requirement for all Presidential candidates to run. It would limit the field to those serious about seeking the office AND insure that every voter, regardless of state, has an equal chance at selecting from all declared candidates.

How do you propose we make him do that? Campaigns cost money; I suspect he's getting into this race for exactly the same reason Bloomberg is: to get the cheaper "candidate" rate for running ads against Warren/Sanders. Once he's done being a useful idiot, he'll drop out, because the donor money will dry up after the first couple of big primaries, and I doubt very much he's going to use his own money to stay in a race where he's polling in the single digits.

Unless you're suggesting a federally-funded election fund, where all candidates get federal money to run their campaigns but are prohibited from using their own or any private money to supplement it? 'Cause I'd be in favor of that, but I somehow don't think that's what you're proposing.


for campaigns to have to raise so much money in the first place (i.e. spending reform) AND the need for the primary process to be dragged out for months.

Unless you think it's better to continue the current system of encouraging people to run who have no real intentions of seeking the office. When you have 24 candidates declared, then it seems to me the bar for entry is too low.

it's a democracy. People can vote for whichever person they want to, as long as he/she is 35+ and was born here. There's very intentionally a low bar to entry, because it's supposed to be government-of-the-people.

I do agree that 18 months of primary season is horrible, though. Problem is, unless we all agree to switch to to ranked-choice voting, it's the only way to cycle through a crowded field like this. Banning private funds might shorten up the cycle a good bit. Other than that, I can't come up with any way of preventing these excruciatingly long electoral cycles (unless I get to wear the Benevolent Dictator hat for a while).


You can't force someone to go to county fairs or give speeches; how do you determine that someone's actually still in the race? And regardless, I'm not sure what we would gain by forcing people to stay in a race even when they don't stand a chance of winning.

Most people don't drop out, they "suspend their campaign" which means they're still able to take contributions and often still appear on ballots. They just don't actively campaign and they fire anyone who was working for them.

I don't see how that helps anyone beyond the candidate themselves.

Patrick is a fool for every considering a run. He missed his chance months ago and even so he was a weak candidate compared to other in the race.


...as long as you only want billionaires to run for president.


How do you force someone to campaign, again?

We all agree he is the Never-Trumper dream candidate, yes?

I have to imagine that Bill Kristol is nagging him hard to jump into the race.

The Republicans have called off primaries in several states to prevent Trump from losing those primaries.

At this late stage in the race, with just a few months before actual voting, there are very few possible candidates who could really shake up the race, someone like Hillary, Oprah, Michelle Obama, even Al Gore. But Deval Patrick, someone who lacks a national profile? It will go over like a lead balloon.

Nikki Haley (and I say that as actual fan of Deval)...

Should join forces and run together. They're essentially identical. Maybe a good trouncing would convince them both to go away.

Then Charlie would actually have to justify not speaking out on Trump or other matters of importance and we know that's never going to happen...

Don't candidates get to draw a salary from their campaign funds? "Living expenses"? Something?

I can only imagine the reason we now have clown cars for motorcades when the Presidential election comes around is that they're all happy to have elevated profiles but the siphoning of campaign funds to their own pocket is probably the real motivator.

They put out feelers, get a rich dupe or two to put up campaign funds, try to get news coverage. If it goes anywhere then great. If it doesn't, then we'll at least you got a paid vacation and maybe some extra cash on the side. Go back to what you were doing and see if the phone rings from the new President or not.

I mean it's win-win. If you have any name cache at all, why wouldn't you run these days where money can flow freely?