Massachusetts 2026 Congressional elections

He's not wrong about age concerns (not just for Markey, but for most of the Senate). I like the idea of a younger, but ideologically compatible candidate taking up the reins. But Markey needs to step down and endorse somebody. I don't really think a fight between him and somebody like Moulton is helpful, but the Senator should consider the fact that this will be two elections in a row involving a younger, but otherwise similar primary challenger.
this is why Kennedy should have waited a term and gotten the Markey endorsement this cycle.

Who are the young progressives in the pipe for Senate? Katherine Clark is probably waiting to be Speaker, and she’s north of 60. Ayanna Presley or Michelle Wu?
I think Wu will probably stay in state politics, I would be surprised to see her making the move to Washington. Maybe a governor's run eventually
 
He simply stated his discomfort with allowing trans girls/women to play competitive sports with natal girls and women, a position that is only controversial within certain circles of the far left.
I'm not even sure he even went as far as that. My recollection is that he said it wasn't a winning issue politically (in perhaps slightly different language). There is room to criticize such a position, but I don't interpret his statements to mean that he is fundamentally anti-trans participation in sports, just that he doesn't want to spend political capital on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
I'm not even sure he even went as far as that. My recollection is that he said it wasn't a winning issue politically (in perhaps slightly different language). There is room to criticize such a position, but I don't interpret his statements to mean that he is fundamentally anti-trans participation in sports, just that he doesn't want to spend political capital on it.
He's consistently said transwomen athletes are "male or formerly male" which is well known as both a far-right talking point imported from the UK and a harmful way to exclude transwomen athletes. His direct quote from the post-election wrap-up is “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

The literal interpretation of his words is that he feels chastised for saying that he doesn't want his girls to play against transgirls (or transwomen in the future). He's very directly saying that he doesn't want transwomen (whatever may he think about transmen) in equal competition.
 
He's consistently said transwomen athletes are "male or formerly male" which is well known as both a far-right talking point imported from the UK and a harmful way to exclude transwomen athletes. His direct quote from the post-election wrap-up is “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

The literal interpretation of his words is that he feels chastised for saying that he doesn't want his girls to play against transgirls (or transwomen in the future). He's very directly saying that he doesn't want transwomen (whatever may he think about transmen) in equal competition.

He took a position that most Americans (and most of the world) support. To continue to push this idea that natal-boys (trans girl/woman) don't have some biological advantages over girls and women is preposterous. There have been many solutions to this issue, some of them pushed by more moderate conservatives. I've heard them argue in favor of a "trans" or "open" division in sports that allows them to compete fairly with other trans people.

One can fully support the rights of trans people to live and work without harassment, while at the same time recognize that there are some areas where one group's "freedom" interferes with another group's "freedom." And even if you disagree with me on this statement, to push out moderates such as myself will only result in more people leaving the party. Do you want President Vance? Because this is how you get President Vance.

Dems should just take the position of "let the courts decide" and move on. It's a losing issue.

And from my perspective, I only apply this standard to schools that are under title 9 requirements, basically all secondary school and colleges/universities.

Private organizations, such as the WNBA, can apply whatever standards they like.
 
Last edited:
Behold the myopia of the American voter--based on your views on youth sports, I'll threaten to vote for the guy who doesn't even want there to be elections! I'll do it!!!! Guys I'm about to vote for the fascist!!! You're making me do it!!!
 
Behold the myopia of the American voter--based on your views on youth sports, I'll threaten to vote for the guy who doesn't even want there to be elections! I'll do it!!!! Guys I'm about to vote for the fascist!!! You're making me do it!!!

I think the issue runs deeper than what’s immediately visible.

Whether we like it or not, people often vote based on social and cultural issues that touch their everyday lives. When many voters see debates around this topic, they interpret it as part of a broader cultural shift they’re uncomfortable with. And frankly, I don’t think trans rights activists have helped their own cause in how they’ve approached it.

Fifteen or twenty years ago, when same-sex marriage was being debated and gradually legalized across the U.S., advocates for gay rights managed to win over the mainstream by appealing to empathy. “Joe Sixpack” might not have understood why two men would want to be together, but he did understand love. Even if his church disapproved, he didn’t see how two men or two women getting married directly affected him.

The trans rights movement, by contrast, has often adopted a “you’re either with us or against us” approach—something reminiscent of George W. Bush’s rhetoric after 9/11. That strategy might mobilize a base, but it alienates the middle. It worked well enough for Bush to get reelected, but he left office with a 25% approval rating for a reason.

When same-sex marriage became legal, the average straight person’s life didn’t really change. Maybe their lifelong bachelor uncle finally married his “roommate,” and everyone was happier for it. But what people see now feels very different. They hear activists insisting that children are “assigned gender at birth,” and they see workplaces mandating pronouns in email signatures or doctors approving major medical decisions for minors. They see biological males competing in women’s sports, and they’re told that even questioning any of this could cost them their job.

So yes, on its own, this might seem like a small issue. But to many, it’s part of a broader cultural wave they feel has gone too far—and they’re reacting to that. Personally, it wasn’t enough to make me vote for Trump—I’m still fully aware of his reckless foreign and domestic policies and general incompetence—but it’s clear that this issue has pushed many moderates rightward, and caused some liberals to disengage altogether.

In short, this is a losing issue for Democrats. They’d be wise to recognize that and move on.
 
He took a position that most Americans (and most of the world) support.
Sadly, this is true. It is not a moral position, but, it is a common one. It's in many ways similar to the one that many people had about gay marriage, racial intermarriage, even civil rights - even as those things were being accomplished.

However, that he broadcasts these thoughts says something about Moulton's lack of suitability for the role of junior US Senator in Massachusetts. Maybe he should try New Hampshire.
Behold the myopia of the American voter
It's not really a myopia. Here it's "you're not giving me anything to vote for, so I'll sit out" kinds of Democratic so-called "big tent" campaigns. The Democrats getting 6mil less votes nationally, while Trump got 3mil more. Losing at least 3mil voters and six states along the way.

What's really sad is that the Dems failed at every chance clear out any questions about viability of a Harris presidency. The last minute 100-day reshuffle giving Harris the Hubert Humphrey, then, getting awkward about the success of the term "weird", and a near pathological inability to reset on the failed parts of Biden policies (Gaza in particular stands out). The Dems there gave voters a whole lot of "you're not giving me anything to vote for".
 
Sadly, this is true. It is not a moral position, but, it is a common one. It's in many ways similar to the one that many people had about gay marriage, racial intermarriage, even civil rights - even as those things were being accomplished.
I can't in good faith argue that allowing transgirls and women to participate in sports against biological girls and women is the equivalent to the civil rights movement or the fight for gay marriage. It's a far more nuanced issue than that.

The right of trans adults to be able to exist and not be discriminated against? Yes, I can draw parallels between the civil rights movement and thans peoples' right to function as equals in society.
However, that he broadcasts these thoughts says something about Moulton's lack of suitability for the role of junior US Senator in Massachusetts. Maybe he should try New Hampshire.


It's not really a myopia. Here it's "you're not giving me anything to vote for, so I'll sit out" kinds of Democratic so-called "big tent" campaigns. The Democrats getting 6mil less votes nationally, while Trump got 3mil more. Losing at least 3mil voters and six states along the way.

What's really sad is that the Dems failed at every chance clear out any questions about viability of a Harris presidency. The last minute 100-day reshuffle giving Harris the Hubert Humphrey, then, getting awkward about the success of the term "weird", and a near pathological inability to reset on the failed parts of Biden policies (Gaza in particular stands out). The Dems there gave voters a whole lot of "you're not giving me anything to vote for".
American liberals and conservatives are kind of funny like that. American liberals fight for movements that often result in greater collectivism (universal health care, public transit, etc) while American liberals tend to be more individualistic. On the other hand, American conservatives tend to be more collectivist, while often fighting more for issues that could be considered individualistic.

That puts liberals at a disadvantage during Presidential elections. As we all know, if there's a greater turnout, Democrats win, but you have to find the right combination of issues that will attract the most amount of people to the polls. That's why there always seems to be talk about whether the Dems should be appealing more to the far left or to the center left.

The GOP doesn't need that. They just need to wave the flag, mention Reagan's name a few times and talk about how things were so much better in the past, and they'll always have a core group of people that can help them to win elections. Plus, they can always count on centrists, who would otherwise be helped by liberal policies, but get so frustrated at liberal smugness and social manipulation.
 
As we all know, if there's a greater turnout, Democrats win
This has not been true during the Trump era. Democrats have become the party of the highly engaged while Republicand have performed best when turnout is highest.
 
I guess what I am trying to convey to you is that while strategic discussions are welcome, expecting your specific views to be catered to by the megacoalition is silly. I mean, left wing people get told that all the time--there are people a few posts up gloating about what's happened in Gaza--but for some reason when an issue is one of the anti-woke bugbears then the "I'll just vote for Trump" posturing is suddenly seen as more credible? Sorry, but I don't think you're more likely to see a popular politician that matches your beliefs than I am.

I hope you realize that the goal of conservatism in the modern era is to use social media to make you mad about an issue a disproportionate amount. Basically they show you enough facebook posts, and you eventually get a big button on the middle of your forehead that they can press *whenever they want* to make you mad. And then during election season, they are pressing your button over and over and over and you get angrier and angrier and wonder why everyone is so 'intolerant' of you--when the thing you are mad about in the first place you figured out about not from "pronouns in email signatures" not from your lived experience, but from reading posts! Literally reading posts! I know you see yourself as a smart liberal who is just perhaps, out of step with the kids--but when you quietly fill in your ballot for Vance it won't be a surprise at all because you've been primed for it over and over.
 
I guess what I am trying to convey to you is that while strategic discussions are welcome, expecting your specific views to be catered to by the megacoalition is silly. I mean, left wing people get told that all the time--there are people a few posts up gloating about what's happened in Gaza--but for some reason when an issue is one of the anti-woke bugbears then the "I'll just vote for Trump" posturing is suddenly seen as more credible? Sorry, but I don't think you're more likely to see a popular politician that matches your beliefs than I am.

I hope you realize that the goal of conservatism in the modern era is to use social media to make you mad about an issue a disproportionate amount. Basically they show you enough facebook posts, and you eventually get a big button on the middle of your forehead that they can press *whenever they want* to make you mad. And then during election season, they are pressing your button over and over and over and you get angrier and angrier and wonder why everyone is so 'intolerant' of you--when the thing you are mad about in the first place you figured out about not from "pronouns in email signatures" not from your lived experience, but from reading posts! Literally reading posts! I know you see yourself as a smart liberal who is just perhaps, out of step with the kids--but when you quietly fill in your ballot for Vance it won't be a surprise at all because you've been primed for it over and over.
I had a much longer response, but I decided to delete it.

However, I just wanted to say that there's no fucking way I'd ever vote for Vance.
 
I guess what I am trying to convey to you is that while strategic discussions are welcome, expecting your specific views to be catered to by the megacoalition is silly. I mean, left wing people get told that all the time--there are people a few posts up gloating about what's happened in Gaza--but for some reason when an issue is one of the anti-woke bugbears then the "I'll just vote for Trump" posturing is suddenly seen as more credible? Sorry, but I don't think you're more likely to see a popular politician that matches your beliefs than I am.

I hope you realize that the goal of conservatism in the modern era is to use social media to make you mad about an issue a disproportionate amount. Basically they show you enough facebook posts, and you eventually get a big button on the middle of your forehead that they can press *whenever they want* to make you mad. And then during election season, they are pressing your button over and over and over and you get angrier and angrier and wonder why everyone is so 'intolerant' of you--when the thing you are mad about in the first place you figured out about not from "pronouns in email signatures" not from your lived experience, but from reading posts! Literally reading posts! I know you see yourself as a smart liberal who is just perhaps, out of step with the kids--but when you quietly fill in your ballot for Vance it won't be a surprise at all because you've been primed for it over and over.

I've had a few nights to sleep on his and something about the last sentence of your last paragraph has really gotten to me.

To be fair, your view that I will vote for Vance in the future PERFECTLY illustrates what I was trying to say about liberal gatekeeping.

I've been voting since 1996 and I have NEVER voted for a Republican in a Presidential general election. And because I have taken a less than "pure" view on an otherwise minor issue, you seem to believe that I'm ready to join team MAGA.

That's the problem problem with the American left - you're so quick to cast off the "not pure" that you fail to realize you're hurting your own cause.

I would NEVER vote for a MAGA candidate (although there are some reasonable center-right candidates I could get behind as long as they never bent the knee to Trump), but I find that I'm less excited about voting for Democrats either. Had Biden stayed in, I was planning on voting for a third party. When he dropped out, I reluctantly voted for Harris.

So what should the "impure" like me do?
 
Last edited:
I've had a few nights to sleep on his and something about the last sentence of your last paragraph has really gotten to me.

To be fair, your view that I will vote for Vance in the future PERFECTLY illustrates what I was trying to say about liberal gatekeeping.

I've been voting since 1996 and I have NEVER voted for a Republican in a Presidential general election. And because I have taken a less than "pure" view on an otherwise minor issue, you seem to believe that I'm ready to join team MAGA.

That's the problem problem with the American left - you're so quick to cast off the "not pure" that you fail to realize you're hurting your own cause.

I would NEVER vote for a MAGA candidate (although there are some reasonable center-right candidates I could get behind as long as they never bent the knee to Trump), but I find that I'm less excited about voting for Democrats either. Had Biden stayed in, I was planning on voting for a third party. When he dropped out, I reluctantly voted for Harris.

So what should the "impure" like me do?
1761891203863.png
The Left consistently pushes centrists out because they want ideological purity and they wonder why they lost in 2024.
 
"The Left" has exactly zero power in any state, never mind on a national level, and is thoroughly sidelined within the democratic party. A convenient scapegoat and punching bag perhaps, but a decade of left-punching hasn't gotten the democrats a lick more popular.

EDIT: Meanwhile, the "big tent right", yes that same one that's purged anyone who was a mainline Republican pre-2015! - https://bcheights.com/224430/news/n...hapter-after-group-disavows-speakers-remarks/
 
Last edited:
I've had a few nights to sleep on his and something about the last sentence of your last paragraph has really gotten to me.

To be fair, your view that I will vote for Vance in the future PERFECTLY illustrates what I was trying to say about liberal gatekeeping.
If you have never encountered the plethora of disingenuous, bad faith actors who insist they are totally moderate to center-left but have been "forced" to vote republican by RaDiCaL lEfTiStS I encourage you to spend 5 minutes perusing the Boston Globe comment section or any local Facebook group. Its a cliche at this point and you're taking it incredibly personally.

The idea that Hillary, Biden, and Harris are candidates of the left is patently absurd.
 
If you have never encountered the plethora of disingenuous, bad faith actors who insist they are totally moderate to center-left but have been "forced" to vote republican by RaDiCaL lEfTiStS I encourage you to spend 5 minutes perusing the Boston Globe comment section or any local Facebook group. Its a cliche at this point and you're taking it incredibly personally.

The idea that Hillary, Biden, and Harris are candidates of the left is patently absurd.

Totally moderate centrist and former Republican. I can’t imagine anything that would push me back to the GOP, at least not the bastardized, autocratic and trashy MAGA version of it.
 
View attachment 68150The Left consistently pushes centrists out because they want ideological purity and they wonder why they lost in 2024.
You could be a spooky leaping lord for Halloween with that statement. The chart is from a study that relied on a sample of less than 396 people in the US which was heavily White. Methodologically interesting to use network mapping, but, the eight topics they measured were biased - they picked issues that in general most Democrats agree on and ones that various Republicans disagree on the Democratic take.
 
If you have never encountered the plethora of disingenuous, bad faith actors who insist they are totally moderate to center-left but have been "forced" to vote republican by RaDiCaL lEfTiStS I encourage you to spend 5 minutes perusing the Boston Globe comment section or any local Facebook group. Its a cliche at this point and you're taking it incredibly personally.

The idea that Hillary, Biden, and Harris are candidates of the left is patently absurd.
I'm fully aware of the Tim Pools of the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the Dems still do things that turn voters off to their main message.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
I'm fully aware of the Tim Pools of the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the Dems still do things that turn voters off to their main message.
...and into the arms of the party that kidnaps people off the streets with armed fascist goons, then illegally cuts aid that keeps people from starving to death, all while pushing baseless conspiracy theories about Tylenol.

But sure, some Democrat once said the word "reparations", so that's totally the same thing.
 

Back
Top