They may be obscure, but gotta love the primary choices

Thus far, we've had Bob Massie and Alan Khazei in the race to replace Senator Scott Brown. Now we can officially add Newton Mayor Setti Warren to the list. All three of these candidates are known as progressives and each have diverse backgrounds and compelling stories, so the differences will have more to do with style and priorities than a checklist of where they stand on the issues. Now we just have to find out more about them, both as candidates and how they'd act as legislators.

There's another question, too. All the heavily rumored candidates are either in or, in the case of Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, out. Since what we have in the race thus far are three candidates of little fame or fortune, does that mean someone very different will be compelled to risk entrance into the race?

Be it a Congressperson who's looking at the improving odds, or a wealthy hedge-fund type, it shouldn't shock anyone -- though it's probably just as likely that what we see is what we get, which would suit me just fine. After all, despite however little known they may all be in public, if you're a lover of good government and reality-based policy, it's hard to complain about any of these fine Democratic candidates.

MA-Sen Campaign News: Alan Khazei and Bob Massie

• To the surprise of no one, Alan Khazei jumped in the race. For those of you who remember, last time around, when I knew Martha Coakley was going to walk away with the primary, I endorsed his candidacy. 
• In a race of unknowns, Khazei may be the least unknown, but he's starting out $190,000 in the red from his last effort to take the seat -- though much of that debt comes from his own personal loans, which he doesn't exactly have to pay back. That said, $200k doesn't grow on trees, so without more money coming in, there's only so much a candidate can self-fund, at least when we're not talking about Meg Whitman here.
  
  At the end of the day, this isn't a whole lot of money for a US Senate race, but Khazei's going to have to prove he can raise the big bucks if he wants to win a wide-open primary and take on Senator Brown. 
• Another favorite candidate of mine, Bob Massie, just picked up a major national political player on his team in Joe Trippi. Trippi's claim to fame was Howard Dean's '04 campaign, but he also worked for Governor Brown's campaign in California (against previously-mentioned Meg Whitman). Ultimately, this may best serve to kick-start his campaign a little bit and show that Massie's not just in some quixotic quest -- in a race as wide open as this one looks to be, Massie's got a real shot. 

The BMG Surprise

I have to admit, the BMG endorsement of Alan Khazei surprised me. I thought David supported him, but I didn't actually think the three of them would be able to come together on it. Kudos, Team Editors, for joining me on the Khazei train.

Anyone else looking forward to a week from now?

People Forget, Coakley is a Progressive

Alternatively, I could title this piece, "The Path to Senate Victory." It has become clear to me that people don't understand the dynamics of this race. With my endorsement of Khazei yesterday, some people have inevitably said, "Ryan, you're going to split the vote!" In most elections, I probably would have agreed with them. However, the dynamics of this election are not at all like the dynamics of, say, the election that first put Steven Lynch into power. There are no two progressives in this race, with a third conservative candidate hoping to be able to sneak by. That's just not happening.

What we have in this race are three progressive candidates and one corporate-gobbler who's come out as a lefty on social issues. While there isn't any liberal/conservative battle in play this election, no matter how much people try to manufacture one, there is certainly identity politics. It's identity politics, not a liberal/conservative divide, that has divided up the progressive camp -- and not into two, but at least three sides.

I'm going to paint in the broadest of brush strokes with the following comments, so let's all take a deep breath and understand it's just a generalization, and proceed. Who's supporting what candidates? Coakley's support is coming from a lot of civil rights activists, with organizations like MassEquality, NARAL and Planned Parenthood on board. I know a lot of glbt activists who have fiercely lined up behind Martha because, to her credit, she's pushed for our rights on a national level. Coakley took a firmer stance on the matter of choice than any single person in the House of Representatives did, including those so strongly in favor of a women's right to choose that they sit on the boards of some of these national civil rights organizations. There are certainly some unions on board her campaign, too, but that's not where the bulk of her support is coming from, at least not in my eyes. Feel free to argue otherwise in the comments.

Capuano's support is coming from a lot of the party base; the local activist bread-and-butter types have, at least in my opinion, lined up heavily behind him. I can't think of a single person on my Town Democratic Committee or the North Shore Young Democrats, both organizations I'm a part of, that supports Coakley (which isn't to say there aren't some, but they're certainly not being vocal about it, which is in huge contrast to Capuano supporters in both groups).

And why not? As anyone would notice who listened to my LeftAhead interview with Capuano, his local experience in Somerville as Mayor is key to why he understands constituent service and the big no-no of passing unfunded mandates. He's also been around for a longer time in many of these circles -- while the bulk of the state doesn't know who every Congressperson in Massachusetts is, party activists are a whole lot more likely to know them. Many union/blue collar types are lining up behind Capuano, as well, because he has a strong track record there. This is why, before I got to know Alan Khazei better, I was lining up behind Capuano, because these are among the most fundamentally important issues facing America -- and the one issue almost all Americans face together, because 97-99% of us aren't extraordinarily wealthy.

Pagluica's 14% or so of the electorate are not progressive activists. His strategy has seemingly changed from ad to ad, but he's certainly tried to paint himself a liberal. However, he has not been doing much of anything in this campaign beyond the ads and he hasn't done anything on the political scene before then, except give political donations -- and often to Republicans. The people who will vote for him in the Democratic Primary may be persuadable voters, but they're not the well informed ones, which probably means it'll be hard to actually reach these voters in a state-wide special election, least of all in the last week. For the other candidates, his votes are a black hole. There probably isn't enough time for them to escape, but they may not show up at all.

So where's Khazei's support coming from? Given that it's only recently that he had any sort of a political pulse in this campaign, coming in the form of the Rasmussen poll and Globe endorsement, it's a bit harder to tell. He has a natural connection to the progressive, college-educated, wonky types -- the people who are movement progressives, but may not specifically line up with any particular subgroup within more than any other. Like I said, harder to define. Polls have also suggested that instead of stealing votes from Capuano, he's been stealing some from Coakley. He's no doubt gained some traction on issues like health care, whilst more people have had the opportunity to learn more about him. People who learn more about his background are much more likely to vote for him; the only question is if there's enough time for him to cash in on this momentum he's gained over the past week.

The Globe poll that came out just before Rasmussen showed around a quarter of those polled were soft Coakley supporters, in addition to her strong supporters, which pushes her into the 40s in that poll. If any candidate is going to upset Coakley in this election, it's going to be because they ate significantly into that 26%, as well as the undecideds. That's the only path for victory for anyone not named Martha Coakley. What does that mean for the supposed liberal/conservadem divide? It means in this race, it's nearly nonexistent. One of the three progressives is going to win and if Khazei or Capuano are to pull off the upset, it won't be because their votes were pooled -- it'll be because they stole persuaded the bulk of Coakley's soft support to switch sides.