Can Democrats Defeat the Midterm Curse and Keep Control of Congress?

Roses are red, 

make your selections, 

the president's party loses during midterm elections...

...or so the adage goes.

An out-party win during midterm elections is one of the oldest features of U.S. politics, outliving several party realignments and surviving into the modern era. In fact, since 1934, the only midterm election in which the president's party gained in the generic congressional vote from the election prior was in 2002. George W. Bush was still atypically popular one year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The following graphic, which I lifted from FiveThirtyEight, spotlights this phenomenon.

To read more about this pattern and theories for why it occurs—and to see the above graphic in a better resolution and in its original context—I encourage you to check out FiveThirtyEight's article by Geoffrey Skelley and Nathaniel Rakich discussing midterm losses. From here, I'm going to explore the idea that Democrats can defy this expectation in 2022.

Dobbs Rewrote the Script

Up until this summer, it seemed like there was no doubt that Democrats were going to fall to the midterm curse. Despite a resounding win in California's governor recall election in September 2021, Democrats significantly underperformed their 2020 results in regularly scheduled governor races later in the fall. In Virginia, Democrats lost by 2 points despite winning by a whopping 10 points just one year prior. Up in New Jersey, Democrats held on by 3 points, but the underperformance was just as stark—in 2020, Biden beat Trump in the Garden State by 16 points. As the year went on and turned into 2022, Democrats continued to poll poorly on the generic congressional ballot, trailing Republicans by 2-3 points. 

However, the reason the question premised in this article can even be reasonably posed is due to a stunning reversal in Democrats fortunes after the notorious Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. The decision stripped American women of their constitutional right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and the right to choose, on a 6-3 party-line vote, with the GOP-appointed justices voting in favor. Soon, the media was flooded with horrifying stories of 10-year-olds who were raped and impregnated traveling over state lines to terminate their pregnancies, and of adult women whose lives were threatened by ectopic pregnancies and inaction by healthcare providers who feared legal retribution. 

The backlash to the GOP was swift. In Kansas, the decision was rebuked when an August referendum to remove the right to an abortion from the state constitution lost by an incredible 18 points. In congressional races, similar ripple effects were seen. On June 28, just four days after the Dobbs decision was announced, Democrats narrowly lost a special election in Nebraska's 1st congressional district. However, NE-01 is 17 points more Republican than the baseline congressional district, meaning that in a neutral political environment, a Republican should expect to win by 17 points. A generic ballot average of R+3 would predict a 20-point win for Republicans. Instead, Democrat Patty Pansing Brooks only lost by 5 points, a 12 point over-performance relative to the district's partisan lean. Democrats continued to do well in other special elections in Minnesota, New York, and even Alaska, where former state lawmaker Mary Peltola beat Sarah Palin by 3 points to become the first Democrat to represent Alaska in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1972—a state that Trump had just won by 10 points two years ago. Altogether, Democrats in these elections over-performed relative to their districts' partisan leans by between 6 and 18 points. 

What did the polling say about these elections? 

Unlike 2016 and 2020, polling in these special elections underestimated Democrats by-and-large. In Kansas, for example, polling suggested the referendum would pass by 4 points, underestimating the final result by an absurd 22 points. In NY-19 not a single poll portended Pat Ryan beating Marc Molinaro. In fact, even a Democrat internal poll had Pat Ryan losing by 3 points, when he ended up winning by over 2 points. (Partisan internal polls tend to overestimate their candidate to generate buzz and encourage donations). In NE-01, the only non-partisan poll underestimated Democrats by 4 points. NY-23 and MN-01 unfortunately weren't polled, and the only pollster who surveyed Alaska was actually quite accurate in predicting the election results. For what it's worth, this same pollster, Alaska Survey Research, is predicting a blow-out for Peltola in November. Meanwhile, generic ballot polling shifted a few points in the Democrats direction over the summer, with their lead peaking at 1.9 points on September 19. This is in stark contrast to the results Democrats were putting up in these elections, which looked not even like 2020, but like the D+8 environment in 2018.

Altogether, this is great news for Democrats, because we know that special elections are strongly predictive of general election results. Moreover, these races now present the interesting scenario of a potential Democrat underestimation—an outcome that most forecasters would be quicker to jump out a window than to predict, after getting burnt so badly in 2016 and 2020. 

However, it's important to remember that special elections are also just a single tool that is used to predict elections outcomes. While the data shown here point in a very clear direction, other indicators like presidential approval, economic conditions, and historical patterns all point the other way. It's also worth noting that these special elections were all in the northern US and not in particularly diverse geographies at that, so performances here cannot be extrapolated to a national context—the same goes for the performance of the polls. In the meantime, the winds seem to be reversing course yet again.  Republicans have regained their lead in generic ballot polling, and you don't have to go far to find renewed "red wave" discourse. In the end, Republicans could very well be in for a satisfying November. If these special elections are any clue, though, it is more likely that it's the Democrats who will be underestimated this cycle. 

2020 isn't 2016, but Trump could still win

Screenshot of the New York Times’s election needle, taken by Vox’s Libby Nelson at 11:15pm Eastern on the night of the 2016 presidential election.

Donald Trump winning the presidential election is unlikely. But, it's a possibility. If you look at elections forecasters like 538, the Economist, or Plural Vote, a Donald Trump win is 4-35% likely—non-zero odds. Even a 4% win chance is slightly more likely than the probability of there being a full moon tonight. When folks hear numbers like those, though, it is hard not to remember 2016 when several forecasters gave Hillary Clinton ridiculously high win chances—like the HuffPost, who assigned Clinton a 98.2% chance of winning. However, there are several factors in this race that make it fundamentally different from 2016 in ways that bode poorly for Trump.

First, let's revisit 2016. Eleven days before Election Day, FBI Director James Comey reopened an investigation into Clinton's emails. While the polls were generally turbulent throughout the cycle, the letter likely contributed to a last-minute narrowing of the race from about a 6 point Clinton lead to a 3 point lead. Even then, the race still had large numbers of undecided and third-party voters, probably owed in part to the fact that Clinton and Trump were historically unpopular nominees. These undecided voters broke heavily for Trump, often by 20+ point margins in battleground states, when it came time to vote. This dynamic on its own made polling less predictive—what can a pollster do about surveying someone who has not made up their mind yet? Then, there was also a systemic polling error that disproportionately impacted the accuracy of polls in northern battleground states. In 2016, we learned educational attainment strongly correlates not only with a respondent's willingness to talk to a pollster on the phone, but also their voting intention. Thus, because Trump performed especially well with the non-college educated white voters who were less likely to complete election surveys, his support was famously understated in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin, for example, RealClearPolitics's polling average overestimated Clinton's margin by a whopping 7.2 points. On the other hand, national popular vote polls withstood the many quirks of 2016 and were actually quite accurate, leading to the Electoral College-popular vote mismatch that handed Trump the presidency.

Thinking about 2020 again, we can see a completely different race. Joe Biden has held a steady lead in averages of the national popular vote the entire cycle, unlike the volatility seen in 2016. There are also far fewer undecided and third-party voters going into Election Day. Importantly, Biden is polling at 50%+ in the Trump-won Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, meaning he doesn't need to bank any voters who are not already firmly in his column to win. These states are notable because they are among the likeliest "tipping point" states, i.e. the states most likely to deliver the 270th electoral vote and decide the election. Moreover, Biden's favorability numbers are much stronger than Trump's (and Clinton's in 2016, for that matter). Biden has actually grown his net favorability from about +0 at the beginning of the race to +6 now, according to Morning Consult. This could be due in part to Biden's success at presenting himself as a moderate. Trump's net favorability, on the other hand, has stayed around -10 to -15 for most of the cycle. Trump's path to victory becomes that much more complicated, as he needs to do even better with undecided voters this time around, and also convert a few Biden voters—all the while running against a much better-liked competitor. Moreover, Trump is unlikely to be able to count on the same polling error that saved him in 2020. Many pollsters revised their polling methods for the 2018 midterm elections to weight for education in their samples, and it was one of the strongest years for the polls in awhile.

However, it is not all sunshine and roses for Team Biden. While he has an impressive 8.4 point lead in an average of national polls, there is no national election—rather, there are 50 simultaneous state elections, and the winner is decided by the Electoral College. And Biden's lead in the likeliest tipping point state, Pennsylvania, is only 4.8 points. If a 2016-size polling error occurred in 2020, Biden's lead would shrink to 0.4 points. For the reasons mentioned above, it is unlikely that the polls will be off this year in the same way they were in 2016—not only that, they have to be even more wrong than in 2016 because of Biden's impressive lead. They would also have to be biased against Republicans across a variety of geographies and demographics, because of Biden's leads in North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona. It is possible that such a polling error exists, it is just very unlikely—hence Trump's roughly 10% chance of winning.

At the end of the day, there is a lot more on the ballot tomorrow than just the presidential race! The House seems to be all but a lock for Democrats. The race for control of the Senate is shaping up to be quite competitive, and the precise margin of control will be important in determining what either party will be able to accomplish. I wrote a piece back in July in which I discussed the competitive Senate races this cycle—the only caveat I would add is that South Carolina's Senate race has become more competitive since, but otherwise, it is a good overview. There are dozens of ballot initiatives across the country, ranging from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour in Florida, to changing the voting system in Massachusetts (check your state here!). Control of state government is up for grabs in a number of states, which will have major implications for not only policy setting, but also creating Congressional districts for the next decade.

In the meantime, do not discount any possibility within the realm of reason from occurring tomorrow. As easy as it is, and as much as we would like to, we cannot change probabilities into a binary by rounding them up or down. 10% is not 0%. 90% is not 100%. Also, do not expect the race to be decided on election night–results could take until the end of November to be fully settled as mail ballots are counted. Finally, I did not even touch upon the possibility of drawn-out legal battles leaving the race undecided for days or even weeks. Trump has signaled that he intends to contest any election result that shows him losing, and has spent months attacking the integrity of U.S. elections. For now, just make sure you keep on breathing, and make your vote count!

A Supreme Court Vacancy and the 2020 Election: Kavanaugh Part 2?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 1993 swearing-in ceremony. @Yahoo

On September 18 at 7:32pm ET, the AP reported that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was dead. Justice Ginsburg was known for her trailblazing legacy in the legal world as a fierce advocate for women's rights. Throughout her 27-year tenure, she became famous for her scathing dissents. Among her most notable opinions was her dissent in the 2007 ruling Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. In a rare move, she read aloud her opinion at the bench, decrying what she saw as judicial activism working in favor of gender discrimination in the work place. Two years later, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was passed by Congress and a framed copy hung in Ginsburg's chambers.

Her passing lays to rest one of the most remarkable careers in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. It also leaves the Supreme Court with a 5-3 conservative majority and Donald Trump with the opportunity to nominate a third justice in his first term. In a striking abandonment of the precedent they established in 2016 after Justice Antonin Scalia died, Republicans have made clear they intend to move forward with a nomination before the election. 

In order to stop a Trump-appointed justice from being confirmed by the Senate, the 47 members of the Democratic Caucus would need to be joined by 4 members of the GOP. Who exactly these four members could potentially be is uncertain. So far, the only GOP senator to say the vacancy should be filled by the winner of the election in November is Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska is likely to join her. Other possible defectors include institutionalists Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley, retiring Senators Lamar Alexander and Pat Roberts, and those with tough reelection bids like Cory Gardner. Furthermore, the Arizona Senate race is a special election in which the winner would be sworn in by the end of November. If Democrat Mark Kelly wins and replaces Republican Martha McSally, which is looking likely, this makes the math a little easier for Democrats if they need to block a confirmation during a lame duck session.

What effect will the vacancy have on the election?

Historically, the Supreme Court has been more effective at motivating Republican voters than Democrats. In 2018, many consider the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process to have tanked Democrats' chances in a number of red state Senate races—namely Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, and Tennessee. The process riled up the parties' bases and curtailed the crossover appeal that red state Democrats needed to win. That said, other red state Democrats like Jon Tester of Montana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia managed to hold on by narrow margins.

However, it is not clear that this go around will follow the same patterns. First, even before Ginsburg passed away, polling showed that the Supreme Court is motivating Democrats more than Republicans this year. Moreover, polling done over the weekend has already shown that Americans are not as divided on this issue as the beltway—62% of Americans, including half of Republicans, think that the vacancy should be filled by whoever wins the November election. 

If Trump and McConnell do indeed try to ram through a Supreme Court nomination, public opinion suggests there could be a backlash against the GOP. Given that a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court poses legitimate risks to the status of legal abortion in the U.S., this could hurt the GOP in some libertarian-leaning red states like Alaska and Montana, both of which have competitive Senate races this cycle. A 2014 Pew poll showed that 63% of Alaskans and 56% of Montanans support legal abortion in all or most cases—far higher than the 36% and 35%, respectively, of voters who supported Clinton in 2016. This same theory would suggest, though, that Democrats would now have worse odds in states like South Carolina and Alabama, where support for abortion hangs at 42% and 37%.

For GOP Senators trailing in their reelection bids in blue states, namely Susan Collins of Maine and Cory Gardner of Colorado, a floor-vote could present a massive opportunity. A defection could net them the cross-party support that they will need to win, and if polling holds, it seems as though GOP voters would not hold it against them too strongly either. However, a party-line vote could sink any remaining chance they have of securing those much needed votes from the left. Considering that Collins has come out early against a pre-election nomination, polling might soon reflect a shift in the race, but a floor-vote might be necessary to really shake things up.

Democratic Senators running in red states, on the other hand, seem as though they will carry less of the burden on this issue. Not only does the polling suggest that there is significant support across parties for a post-election nomination, but also none of the red state Democrats running are incumbents that would have to act in a floor vote. However, if public opinion does shift (which it often does in response to messaging from the top), we might see something similar to what occurred in 2018: party bases are riled up, and crossover appeal is tossed out the window. This could all but tank Democrats' chances in states like Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Alabama, although many would argue that Democrats may never have had a chance to begin with in these states.

It is too soon to tell what effects this will have on the presidential race. Will Democrats be disproportionately motivated and surge to the polls? Will enthusiasm for this issue fade in the face of an "October surprise" or perhaps a major spike in Covid cases? Will Donald Trump and Senate Republicans push back a floor vote into a lame duck session to protect Senate incumbents from a difficult vote? Not to mention, whoever Donald Trump nominates will come with their own set of headlines that will distract voters' attention. At the very least, it presents an opportunity for Donald Trump. Because he currently trails Biden by a wide margin, Trump likely loses in a no-news race. A major shake-up offers him a fighting chance.

Congressional Races I'm Watching in the Massachusetts Primary

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts labeled with its nine Congressional districts @U.S. Department of the Interior

In the second most Democratic-leaning state in the country, general elections for federal office usually follow a simple formula: the Democrat wins. There have been exceptions (in 2010, Republican Scott Brown notoriously won a Senate special election), but the pattern holds. Today, Massachusetts is the largest single-party congressional delegation in the country, with nine Democrats in the House and two in the Senate. Primary elections are high stakes as candidates compete for safe seats and the opportunity for a long tenure—although seats might not be as safe as they once were. Intra-party struggles have become common in the Bay State as progressives vie for increased representation and newcomers angle for a seat at the table. Below I discuss the three races to watch ahead of the September 1 primaries.

Massachusetts' 1st Congressional District

Congressman Richard Neal and Mayor Alex Morse pictured together at the Holyoke Elks Lodge in 2012 @The Berkshire Edge/Michael Gordon

In Massachusetts' 1st, 71 year-old, 16-term incumbent Richard Neal is being challenged from his left by 31 year-old Holyoke Mayor, Alex Morse. 

Folks on the left criticize Neal for being beholden to special interests and failing to support a Green New Deal and Medicare for All. As the chairperson of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Neal losing would be a powerful rebuke to the party establishment. Invigorated by Justice Democrats' primary wins in Illinois, New York, and Missouri, and fellow Massachusetts Democrat Ayanna Pressley's famous win in 2018, the left is hoping that Morse will be the next in a string of progressive upsets.  

Neal's campaign in turn contends that Morse mismanaged the Holyoke school system, and more recently, the challenger has fallen under fire for allegations of sexual misconduct with college students. 

Three chapters of college Democrat groups accuse Morse of abusing his power as a mayor and former adjunct professor by pursuing sexual relationships with college students. Morse, a gay man, and his supporters argue that the allegations are vague and unsourced, and that they are rooted in homophobic stereotypes of gay men being sexual predators. Further reporting suggests that some of these accusations were born out of a political hit job by students who sought work with Neal, while Neal's campaign claims no involvement. The issue will almost certainly be discussed when the two debate on Monday. Nonetheless, this story threatens to torpedo Morse's candidacy as details emerge. 

Morse indeed is trailing across a number of indicators. An internal poll conducted by Morse's campaign showed him down by 10 points—perhaps even more if you consider that internals are usually heavily biased in the sponsor's favor. Neal is also entering the home stretch with a 13:1 cash-on-hand advantage. The landscape of the race is changing rapidly, but for now, it remains in the incumbent's favor.

Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District

Pictured from left to right: Jesse Mermell, Jake Auchincloss, Ihssane Leckey, Becky Grossman, David Cavell, and Alan Khazei @The Boston Globe/Pat Greenhouse

Incumbent Joe Kennedy III's announcement to run for Senate has created a mad dash to take over his seat in this comfortably blue district. Twelve Democrats altogether have declared their candidacies, but four have already dropped out. I list the five most competitive candidates and their notable endorsements below:

• Alan Khazei, 2010 candidate for Senate and CEO of City Year. Endorsed by Senator Michael Bennet, Congressman Jamie Raskin, and Susan Rice.
• Becky Grossman, Newton City Councilor. Endorsed by Congressman Ro Khanna, MA State Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem, and Julian Castro.
• Ihssane Leckey, former Wall Street regulator. Endorsed by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
• Jake Auchincloss, Newton City councilor, veteran, and former Republican political organizer. Endorsed by The Boston Globe and VoteVets.
• Jesse Mermell, former advisor to Deval Patrick and Brookline Select Board Member. Endorsed by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, MA Attorney General Maura Healey, and former contender David Cavell.

Attorney Ben Sigel, tech entrepreneur Chris Zannetos, and professor Natalia Linos are also competing, but trail in polling, fundraising, and endorsements, so it is unlikely they will be able to build the necessary momentum to win this crowded race in the next two weeks.

The race has boiled down to Jake Auchincloss versus everyone else—and not because he has a runaway lead. A former Republican, Auchincloss is the most moderate candidate on the ballot. He is the only major contender whose website doesn't embrace a Green New Deal or Medicare for All, for example. 

Meanwhile, the other four are competing for the mantle of the progressive lane. This dilemma is visible in the division of party endorsements. The vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is supporting Khazei, a Bernie Sanders campaign chair and an Elizabeth Warren surrogate support Grossman, and Squad members have split their support between Leckey and Mermell.

In this fight between factions, Auchincloss has caught a lot of heat. He has been criticized for receiving super PAC money from his wealthy parents and the fossil fuel industry, previously supporting displays of the Confederate flag by comparing it to a Pride flag, making a sexist retort about competitor Jesse Mermell's professional career, and posting Islamophobic content on Facebook during college. However, because Auchincloss has the moderate lane to himself and a divided field to his left, the progressives are worried that he could coast to victory despite all of his controversies. 

Although the left has yet to fully consolidate behind a candidate, the race is narrowing.  Allegations of staff mistreatment levied against Leckey and concerns of her campaign being mostly self-funded could spell trouble for her. Alan Khazei, for all his big-name support and big-dollar fundraisers, has not shown any signs of building momentum with voters. David Cavell withdrew from the race this week to throw his support behind Jesse Mermell, and he was promptly followed by other high-profile Massachusetts leaders. Meanwhile, Becky Grossman has her fair share of support from the party's left-wing and has polled well thus far.

Entering the home stretch, the race is tight. Auchincloss leads on fundraising with $1.17 million cash-on-hand. Khazei is close with $1.15 million, while Leckey, Mermell, and Grossman trail, at $726k, $447k and $417k respectively. A poll released by Leckey's campaign showed Grossman leading the race with just 19%, and Auchincloss not far behind at 16%. Importantly, 25% of voters had yet to make up their minds.

This upcoming week of campaigning will be critical as early voting begins on August 22 and mail-in voting is well underway. The race still has a large amount of undecideds and crowded primaries can swing very quickly, but for now the odds favor Becky Grossman and Jesse Mermell. The steady consolidation of support on the party's left doesn't bode well for Auchincloss in the face of his controversies. Grossman has polled well thus far and Mermell has been rapidly picking up steam. At the end of the day, anything could happen, but it would be surprising if neither of these women won the race.

Massachusetts' U.S. Senate Election

Congressman Joe Kennedy III is challenging Senator Ed Markey for a seat in the Senate. @AP Photo/Michael Dwyer

The Massachusetts Senate race is a battle between titans. Senator Ed Markey is running for a 2nd term, and the 74 year-old served for 36 years in the House of Representatives before joining the Senate. Joe Kennedy III, four-term congressman and 39 year-old grandson of Robert F. Kennedy, is an heir to the greatest American political dynasty in history. 

This race has been broadly characterized as a battle between the moderate and progressive wings of the party, but it has a fair share of idiosyncrasies that such a picture fails to capture. Usually in these faction clashes, a moderate incumbent is challenged from his left. Instead, it's Markey who carries the mandate of progressives. The challenger is usually a younger woman and/or person of color who is considered an "outsider" to the political establishment, but Joe Kennedy III is nothing if not a consummate insider. Kennedy doesn't fit the mold of a moderate either. In fact, many argue that the two men would have nearly identical voting records in the Senate. Instead of a battle of ideology, this race is a contest between political brands and a look at what “generational change” really means.

The timing of the race is notable. Kennedy's bid has created a contest in what was otherwise a safe seat for Democrats during a presidential election year. It's probable that Kennedy saw what was coming for him in his rearview mirror if he waited for Massachusetts' septuagenarian senators to leave their posts. In an open race, Kennedy would have to compete against Massachusetts' deep bench of Democratic leaders, including people like progressive icon Ayanna Pressley and moderate insurgent Seth Moulton. He must have seen challenging Ed Markey, with his low national profile, as his best chance for getting a seat in the Senate.

Joe Kennedy has a shorter political career than Markey, whose has spent more time in elected office than Kennedy has been alive. In his eight years as representative, Kennedy has made a name for himself as an advocate for LGBT+ rights. He has served as a leader on a Congressional task force for protecting transgender rights, spearheaded legislation to protect LGBT+ folk from religious freedoms discrimination, and has hosted events in support of LGBT+ asylum seekers. Kennedy's strongest asset, though, is his last name. Some Democratic strategists argue that if his middle name, Moore, were his last name, his "candidacy would be a joke." 

Detractors argue that Kennedy's motivations are opportunistic and he is a progressive-in name-only. They suggest he should have waited his turn instead of diverting time and funds to a Senate race that should be an afterthought during a presidential election year. Nonetheless, Kennedy has some big names backing his bid, including Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Joaquin Castro.

Throughout Senator Markey's long career, he has maintained a progressive record in Congress. He made his name in the progressive community as a co-author of the Green New Deal with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. However, he has still come under fire for a handful of past votes. Notably, he voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2004, and in 2013 sided with House Republicans in providing funding for immigration detention center beds.

Long regarded as a head-down and do-the-work politician, Markey has also been criticized by Kennedy for not using the bully pulpit of his post to nudge public opinion on key progressive issues. However, this race has boosted his national profile and rallied the progressive left to his side. He has the support of a number of Massachusetts state leaders, as well as firebrands Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

As September 1 approaches, the race is looking tight. Markey and Kennedy have nearly identical cash-on-hand reserves at about $4.8 million a piece. At the onset of the race, it seemed as though Kennedy's last name would carry him to a smooth victory, but as Markey has become better known, the race has shifted. Kennedy led by 16 points in a poll in May, but a poll from just one week ago showed Markey leading by 15. Primaries have a tendency to shift rapidly, but going into the home stretch, Markey is in a strong position to hold onto his seat.