A tip for my liberal friends about the 2020 presidential race: If you think the solution to your problem is a Massachusetts Democrat — you need to check your math.
In 2016, Democrats lost perhaps their most winnable contest since the FDR era because they couldn’t hold onto white, working-class voters in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In the two years that have followed, prominent Democrats have embraced such far-left causes as abolishing ICE and socialized medicine. A new Gallup poll finds that more Democrats have a positive view of socialism than capitalism, while Americans as a whole back free markets by a 20-point margin. And cable-channel liberals daily demand the impeachment of President Trump — an idea endorsed by more than 70 percent of Democrats, but opposed by a majority of everybody else.
To Middle America, the Democratic Party is becoming a true party of the left — which has never been a winner in presidential politics — and the answer is: More Massachusetts Democrats?
There are currently four — count ’em, four! — Bay State liberals eyeing a run at the White House: Sen. Liz Warren (of course), U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton (interesting!), former Gov. Deval Patrick (really?) and former Secretary of State John Kerry (What the —?).
All four are openly talking 2020. Sen. Warren has already dispatched a couple of staffers to high-profile jobs in the New Hampshire state Democratic Party. Patrick’s making the media rounds, showing a little political ankle — and a lot of Obama-connected resume.
As for Moulton, he’s denied it, but a longtime Granite State insider told me yesterday, “Oh, he’s in.”
And in classic Kerry fashion, the first reports of his possible candidacy came when he reportedly told Palestinian officials he was thinking of running.
So much leftover liberalism from such a small state.
“I blame New Hampshire,” said political historian Michael Barone. “It’s too easy for Massachusetts politicians to run up I-93, shake a few hands, attend a few rallies and imagine themselves on the steps of the Capitol two years later. It gives your politicians something to do every four years on those long, New England winter nights.”
He’s kidding. Mostly. But Barone — who founded the “Almanac of American Politics” — recently did an analysis of which states have generated the highest numbers of “plausible” political candidates and, sure enough, the Bay State was an overperformer.
“Number one was California, the nation’s largest population. State number two was Texas, the nation’s second largest population state. That makes sense,” Barone told me. But number three? The commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is only the 14th largest state by population.
Those numbers are fascinating, but I have another data set Democrats may want to consider before sending those checks to the Patrick or Warren campaign accounts. It has to do with winning.
Sure, the Bay State produces more than its share of national political talent. But how many of them have actually become president? Since JFK’s extremely narrow win in 1960 (the closest popular-vote margin in the 20th century), there have been three major-party nominees from Massachusetts.
And zero presidents.
Mike Dukakis, Kerry and Mitt Romney — they all went down to defeat. The bench hasn’t done much better. Paul Tsongas, who was supposed to be a major player in 1992, found a way to get the most votes in the New Hampshire primary … and still lose it to Bill Clinton.
And then there’s Ted Kennedy who, until Chappaquiddick, was all but a shoo-in for the White House. Every four years, the magical name “Kennedy” was whispered by adoring Democrats, but when he finally ran in 1980, he couldn’t even get past Jimmy Carter.
Yes, my younger readers, that Jimmy Carter.
With this track record, there’s only one group of people thrilled to see so many Massachusetts liberals in 2020 mix:
Republicans.
Michael Graham is a regular contributor to the Boston Herald. Follow him on Twitter @IAmMGraham.