Markey or Lynch: Who Would You Vote for Today?

Democratic congressmen Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch will face off in a primary on April 30 in the race to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by new Secretary of State John Kerry.

Editor's note: This article was updated on Friday at 1:20 p.m. after Scott Brown announced he would not run for the Senate seat.

We have a race.

On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch became the second candidate to officially enter the race to fill the Senate seat vacated by new Secretary of State John Kerry, following his fellow Democratic Congressman Ed Markey.

Lynch and Markey will now face off in a primary set for April 30 for the right to represent the Democratic Party in the special election on June 25 against a still unknown Republican opponent, as no GOP candidate has officially entered the race yet. Former U.S. Senator Scott Brown fired an early salvo against Markey, but told the Boston Herald on Friday that he would not run for Senate.

There are differences between Lynch and Markey, despite being members of the same party. Lynch voted against Obamacare, officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while Markey voted for the bill.

Lynch also has an anti-abortion stance, although it's not absolute—Planned Parenthood currently gives him a score of 83 percent to Markey's 100 percent. The National Right to Life Committee, meanwhile, gave Lynch a score of 10 percent during the last Congressional session, while Markey received a zero.

The most recent National Journal rankings from 2011 give Markey a liberal score of 89.2, making him the 41st most liberal member of the House, while Lynch received a liberal score of 72.8, ranking him the 123rd most liberal member of the House.

Lynch also touts his union support as a former ironworker who then graduated from law school and later won his current congressional seat in 2001, while Markey, also a lawyer by trade, was first elected to Congress in 1976.

Another potential factor is the state's unenrolled voters, who can choose to cast a ballot in one party's primary. Over half of Bay State voters are registered as unenrolled, which would allow unenrolled voters who lean right to vote in the Democratic primary for Lynch—or against Markey—if they decide to show up at the polls. During the special Senate election in 2010 between Brown and state Attorney General Martha Coakley, during the height of the Obamacare debate, 54 percent of registered Massachusetts voters turned out.

Who would you vote for if the primary were held today: Lynch or Markey? Are you an unenrolled voter and, if so, do you plan to vote in the Democratic primary on April 30? Tell us your plans to vote in the comments below.

Vincent DiRico February 27, 2013 at 05:39 PM
So you agree: "Your desire to declare the R party dead and Rs having only one place to migrate is a fantasy."
Steven Sadowski February 27, 2013 at 06:26 PM
Vinny: Judging by your reiteration, I can only deduce two things: either a.) you feel a religious Renaissance is in the works, or b.) you feel the GOP rank and file will stay in the party regardless of the success ratio and whether or not it is aligned with their own morals. Now that my friend is truly "fantastic." Furthermore, I never said the republicans would cease to exist. Instead I've said they will cease to be the sole opposition party to progressives. Now it is possible, that all of these future GOP cast offs could find a new home in one party, like the Libertarians party, or they could disperse into smaller groups creating a coalition style government like they have in the UK. I could foresee an official Tea Party, a Libertarian Party, a much smaller GOP (moderate conservatives), maybe a Christian Party, being part of a larger coalition. But the days of a two party system where the GOP is the other party are slowly going away.
Gene Pinkham February 27, 2013 at 08:16 PM
Something about washing machines that (don't get the clothes as clean) run more efficiently.
Vincent DiRico February 27, 2013 at 08:23 PM
You did try to come down hard on the R party, it is my opinion if you did not vote R this last time then you helped the dear leader get 4 more. We agree on a lot of issues, I'm just not confident/bold enough to try to predict the future. The same was thought about the Tea Party after 2010 and we got Mr-0 again, 2014 will help to tell what to expect from them in the future.
Steven Sadowski February 27, 2013 at 08:45 PM
Vinny: I voted for Ron Paul up until Romney got the nomination and then voted Romney, and I was one of the few telling the republicans NOT to nominate Romney but no one listened. They wanted an "electable" candidate and look what they (Dems) did, "War on women, 47%, Swiss bank accounts, anti-gays, anti-abortion" it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I hope Axelrod gave some of his fee back. That was too easy. Warren did it here in MA, and they will keep doing it ad infinitum. For the record, the one candidate Axelrod feared the most was Huntsman because he was socially liberal and had a Libertarian foreign policy stance and exit polling showed that college aged students affiliate themselves as Libertarian (aka the future). As for the Tea Party they are still there and still a force, they just aren't an official party where candidates run /caucus as a Tea Party candidate yet, but they could especially if Christie is nominated and if the GOP fractures.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »