Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state -- entirely so at the federal level in recent years -- that has had the same two US senators since 1985. You might say the bench of elected Democrats looking for ways to move up has gotten rather deep, and, in 2004, when it looked possible that John Kerry would be elected president, there was a lot of jockeying for position among possible candidates. For a state in which there are few competitive elections each cycle, the combined cash on hand of Massachusetts' House delegation is pretty mind-boggling. That group was a major target of the Use It or Lose It effort in 2006 (and, to their credit, several members of the delegation stepped up in response).
With the passing of Ted Kennedy and a special election primary scheduled for December 8 (the general is January 19, but the Democratic primary is where most of the action will be), there's a compressed campaign season and a huge potential field. That season-compression was heightened by the circumstances in which the seat came open, as candidates couldn't exactly declare their intentions while Kennedy was still alive, and even getting into the race too quickly after his death might have seemed uncouth.
Several high-profile figures have already said they won't be running. Kennedy's nephew, former Rep. Joseph Kennedy II (Robert Kennedy's eldest son) has said he won't be running, as have Rep. Ed Markey and former Rep. Marty Meehan.
As for who is in the race, Attorney General Martha Coakley was the first to move, not waiting to hear what Joe Kennedy II would be doing. Since Kennedy's announcement that he'd be staying out, Rep. Michael Capuano has indicated he will run, and Representatives Stephen Lynch and John Tierney have yet to rule it out. According to Swing State Project,
Rep. Stephen Lynch, the most conservative member of the Massachusetts House delegation and a former Ironworker, has been trying to lock down the slot as organized labor's candidate in the upcoming Senate special election, but he was booed at a health care rally and not even invited to a labor breakfast over the weekend, suggesting that his skepticism over the public option could be hurting him among the potential backers he most needs.
Conceivably this recent friction with what would traditionally have been one of his major areas of support is holding him back from committing to the race.
With the field still in formation, there are a lot of possible scenarios. In any of them, Coakley is favored to win. Rasmussen's poll of the race puts her at 38% over Lynch with 11% and Capuano with 7%.
Coakley has three advantages and a disadvantage: She will be the only woman and the only candidate who's been elected statewide, but as a state-level candidate, she does not have a large pool of cash on hand she can transfer to this race (though she does have an EMILY's List endorsement that should help with that). By contrast, Capuano had $1.2 million on hand as of July -- not much for a senate race, but nonetheless a distinct cash advantage. (Capuano has never focused on fundraising, and at the same points in 2004 and 2006 had $800k and $570k on hand.)
Her third advantage is an addition to her statewide office -- previously, she was District Attorney of Middlesex county, the largest in the state. For context, in the 2008 general election, Middlesex county cast 715,640 votes total, nearly 460,000 of which were for Barack Obama. The next largest county in the state, Worcester county, is less than half that size and less Democratic.
The question is, can Coakley lose? A crowded field is to her advantage, since there she will particularly stand out as the only woman, while Capuano, Lynch, and Tierney would each have trouble building on their own advantages as white ethnic men with established legislative histories. Each would be forced to work to distinguish himself from the others rather than being able to focus on running against Coakley. As the most conservative among them, Lynch might also benefit from a crowded field, with the others competing for the more liberal vote. In a two-person race between Coakley and Capuano, his financial advantage looms larger and he can use his legislative record to appeal to the state's liberal voters.
Speaking of that legislative record, while issues such as name recognition and funding will loom very large in this race, the candidates will also have to make their case on the issues. So what about it?
Capuano is a member of the Progressive Caucus who voted against the Iraq War and FISA. He has a 97% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO, has ranged from 90-100% ratings from the League of Conservation Voters, and a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. In an excellent writeup of the House members who were talked about as potential candidates, Campaign Diaries notes:
Few congressional Democrats can hope to out-left Capuano, Tierney and McGovern, all of whom are CPC members. Of the roll calls I have listed here, neither has a single vote that could be characterized as tilting to the right - and that includes matters like the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the progressive budgets, FISA and free trade deals. They all opposed the 2009 defense supplemental bill, along with only 29 other Democrats. They’ve all signed a letter stating they will vote against a health care bill that does not include a public option. (Update: Capuano has just started drawing fire from left-leaning groups after he signaled his openness to a trigger mechanism. Not the best idea just a few weeks from a Democratic primary!)
All three are also known to be concerned with international issues: Capuano has championed international aid, McGovern was arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy during an anti-genocide protest and, as a commenter points out, Tierney is a subcommittee chairman on the National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee.
Coakley, meanwhile, is more of a mystery. Not only has she not cast dozens of meaningful House votes we can use to assess how she would vote in the Senate, her website doesn't even appear to have an issues section. On health care,
Attorney General Martha Coakley, the first major contender to formally announce her candidacy for the Democratic primary, is standing behind a government insurance option while appearing to tread more cautiously on the question of an employer requirement, which could force employers over a certain size to offer health insurance to workers or face financial penalties.
"The employer mandate has worked well in Massachusetts and I would support its consideration as part of a federal health care reform package," she said in a statement.
She has been endorsed by Pipefitters Association and Utility Workers Union of America locals. As well, she has filed a legal challenge to DOMA. The signs, in other words, are decent -- but a well-defined set of position statements would be nice.
(Blue Mass Group has lots of coverage of the race, from event reporting to an interview with Coakley.)