An interesting case study is what some are calling the most-watched Democratic Senate primary in the country: Joe Kennedy (38) vs Ed Markey (73). Both men are solid liberals. Both are vocally anti-Trump. Markey is the leader on climate issues, and he's at the top of his game. There is no objective reason that the party would be better off without him. Kennedy's ONLY justification for primarying Markey is generational change -- he believes that, as the scion of an ancient political dynasty, he offers desirable "fresh blood." Markey has been in Congress longer than Kennedy has been alive. Yet, because the Kennedy name is magical in MA, Kennedy is the immediate front-runner.
Kennedy’s entrance is supremely unhelpful to the national Democratic Party. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is dedicated to protecting incumbent senators, so if Kennedy does become the front-runner, it may have to spend money to protect Markey. That’s money the committee would much rather be stockpiling to spend in the general election in Colorado and Arizona to unseat Republicans.
Massachusetts doesn’t play into the battle for the Senate. But implicitly, and maybe even explicitly, it will play a big role in Democrats’ broader battle about generational change.
Should Kennedy have waited his turn? Should Markey step aside? What will voters decide? Which one would you back?