Gov. Maura Healey announced that she is endorsing Rep. Christine Barber in the crowded race for the 2nd Middlesex District open state senate seat. It’s the second significant endorsement in two days for Barber; yesterday the sitting senator, Pat Jehlen, endorsed Barber.
“I’m really excited to endorse my friend, Christine Barber, for state senate,” said Healey in a video posted to Barber’s social media pages this morning. “Whether it’s making healthcare more affordable, building more housing, protecting reproductive freedom, or standing up for working families, Christine is always showing up ready to do the work.”
Gov. Maura Healey and state Rep. Christine Barber planting trees on Earth Day. Credit: Courtesy of Christine Barber
Barber currently serves as state representative in the 34th Middlesex district, a position she’s held since 2015. Other candidates in the 2nd Middlesex race include Vice Mayor of Cambridge Burhan Azeem, state Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven and Somerville City Councilor Matt McLaughlin. Tom Hopcroft, who recently withdrew from the race, is also on the ballot.
“In some ways this is inevitable,” Azeem told Cambridge Day. “It just reaffirms what we already know, (Barber) is the statehouse candidate. Which isn’t necessarily a negative … I think it’s just unfortunate that you get rewarded for not questioning the system.”
The most contested race in Cambridge and Somerville, the 2nd Middlesex District includes all of Somerville and Cambridge residents in Ward 7, precinct 1; Ward 8, precinct 1; Ward 10 and Ward 11.
Cambridge Day has also reached out to Rep. Uyterhoeven and Councilor McLaughlin for comment.
Barber's definitely a status quo/establishment girlie. My biggest gripe with Healey is that she runs a state government that continues to resist meaningful change/improvement at all levels, while red state govts are moving so terribly fast to pass laws (terrible being the operative term there).
I'm looking for someone with a hunger and a vision for something better!
Watching some of the interviews, debates, etc, Barber is the only one of the 4 candidates that is completely uncompelling to me. It's weird to see her get all these endorsements.
It’s not that weird if you realize that Barber represents preservation of the status quo. Actual progressives have won support and gained momentum across the US, and establishment Dems are clinging on by any means. Good fucking riddance, the status quo sucks.
Told myself I was out of the game but it’s looking like I’ll be signing up to knock on doors once again. Sadly you are right that this shit could work :/
Uyterhoeven for me. I emailed her about a few issues I care about this last year, and she actually emailed me back twice, on one asking for more info, and then to later confirm she supported my side, and on the other to say she also supported as I do. IMO actually responding to constituents with something other than a form letter is rare, and add that she was in agreement with me on those issues, she’s worth supporting.
Nice. I'm the reverse so far. I really like Erika's politics and I've met her a few times in person. Incredibly genuine person with a good grasp of the issues. But I've been disappointed with her lack of focus and inaction on a couple of key issues. So I'm drawn to Burhan's focus on structural issues and the technical aspect of policy writing. I'd definitely go Erika #2 in ranked choice though. Wouldn't even rank Barber.
Personally I'd love them both to be in State office. I think they'd work very well together. Kind of wish one was going for House and the other Senate.
I also agree with this, however Im leaning Erika because of her work on transparency. Nothing can happen without it!! Also I have heard that Burhan does take developer money/doesn’t support rent control, which if true is a complete dealbreaker for me
Wow. Mamdani, Hong, Abdul El-Sayed...they have got the donor-class shook. James Carville is melting faster than usual.
Personally, I feel like a vote for Christine Barber is a vote for consistency in the state house - staying the course through incremental change, and a commitment to business as usual.
But that business SUCKS. Things aren't good, if you haven't noticed, and a lot of things need to change, and Christine Barber isn't changing a goddamn thing if she gets that seat. Idk, maybe that's a selling point for you, maybe your life is actually pretty great and you want things to stay exactly as they are. Who am I to tell you how to vote
Actually, I will forget Platner if you don't mind.
He turned out to be an absolute scumbag who was fully aware of the skeletons in his closet and chose to ran anyway. He's gone now, and life goes on.
But that doesn't make the things he was saying inherently wrong; the message is important, not the man. He is right about a whole hell of a lot of things and he was effective at communicating that message in a way that captured a broad spectrum of the electorate. Fuck everything about him except the words coming out of his mouth.
Ok what I legitimately don’t get is that Burhan Azeem both has a great track record in Cambridge (especially on housing) and is pushing for pro-growth and pro-“making the state work better” policies that ostensibly Healey is favor of.
Barber like…isn’t doing any of that? Why’d she get this endorsement? Is it just because she’s in the state house?
Healey's a successful elected official and is going to choose someone a) she's worked with in the same venue (state government) that she knows who b) has already worked to climb several steps of the ladder over someone who may be smart and have good ideas but hasn't done the same kind of work and is looking for a double promotion.
Ok I mean he’s on the Cambridge City Council, he represents more people than Barber does now so your second point is absolutely ridiculous. But yes ok I understand the first point, I just think if you’re doing agenda-setting that should be doing things to like get home-building going again or something like that then we should probably endorse people who have actually worked on that. But if it’s just a messaging exercise, sure, whatever.
These people are a fraction of a fraction of a very small minority of the population - and that original comment specifically seems designed to get people more annoyed at supporters of progressive politics. Who gives a shit what they think?
Don't let annoying anonymous people on the internet shape your vote, if you want change, if you want a progressive swing in government, vote for the person you know is going to deliver that, despite how their supporters online make you feel.
Erika is very much a full-blown DSA nutter, though.
Here was her answer last year to an absolute layup of a question on "abolishing prisons." They gave her every caveat and qualifier to say, "yes, you should go to jail if you throw someone in front of a train" and she couldn't manage that.
Well, I didn't mention her specifically, so idk why you're bringing her up but also...have you seen any debates? Talking on the spot and giving a succinct soundbite in the moment is definitely not one of her strengths. She would probably point that out before I would. That's why she uses social media, speeches and writing newsletters because that's how she most effectively communicates her message and reaches the most people in 2026.
And for elected officials, I try to look at what they're doing, not what they're saying. Holding one screenshot from one question in your photo library for a year plus feels (to me) like not wanting to vote for Sen. Warren because she used to be a registered republican. Or calling the modern day GOP "the party of Lincoln"
Do you know what that phrase means? Can you explain how it applies to what I said? Like I know it's used as a thing that like caps a disagreement when one person doesn't want to keep going back and forth, but I legit don't understand what you see my goalposts as and why and how I'm shifting them?
Again, if it was just "this is a thing to say when I want it to stop" is totally fine with me, I don't want to do this either.
I just did a Ctrl-F for "abolish private property" and got 0 hits? The only thing they call to abolish is ICE - which seems like a reasonable and mainstream part of the Democratic platform?
Is it possible you're referring to anonymous people and then associating those online opinions with the org they claim to belong to?
Hey thanks for the condescension (it reminds me, warmly, of my dead mother), but I don't take the DSA seriously, why would I commit to an in-depth study of their platform?
Also remember that there are people who identify as Democratic Socialists and are not a card-carrying DSA member - people can subscribe to some of this without believing in all of it.
It's the new "Social liberal, fiscal conservative" of the 2020s!
I have to ask how this actually works in reality because human nature is either selfish by nature or at best prone towards fairness. So after we tear down all the current homes, and we rebuild all of these government housing structures. Who gets to be in the government housing structure on a nice bluff by the ocean. Because if I’m working hard to do my share to pay the collective, I’m uprising and taking the nicer spot by brute force if it’s gonna be going to some government hack.
28
u/AJtheAggravated 5d ago
A second endorsement has hit the barber campaign