A spicy take on Rep. Thomas Massie getting primaried

All eyes were on today’s Republican primary election to represent Kentucky’s 4th district. President Trump put conservative firebrand Rep. Thomas Massie in his crosshairs for holding hardline positions that contradict Trump on issues such as the release of the Epstein files, pushing back against the war in Iran, and pushing against the spending in the One Beautiful Bill, among other things.

Massie’s hardline positions failed Trump’s loyalty test, and were too much for the President. Trump went after Massie, calling him “unpatriotic” and the "Worst Congressman in the History of our Country”— and endorsed a full-throated Trump loyalist in Ed Gallrein — whose campaign centered around doing whatever Trump needed as a “team player”.

Gallrein just won.

Rep. Massie had his supporters within the Republican Party — namely “Reluctant Right” as identfied by More in Common — for being a check against Executive Branch power. And, it should surprise no one, that in our hyper-partisan game of political tug-of-war, partisan Democrats built a rooting interest in Massie. Which is wild, when you realize how steadfastly ideologically committed Massie has remained even in the face of threats from the mob.

But, in the end, the mob boss got him.

Massie ran as a maverick. A true free agent.1 Not afraid to go against his party. And yet, on Bridge Grades, Thomas Massey earns an F on his report card (10.3 / 100) for his contribution to this 119th Congress so far—calculated by our non-partisan collaboration measure.

When we think of political mavericks, the bipartisan Sen. John McCain is the poster child. McCain engaged in actual bipartisan efforts including the cross-partisan “Gang of 14” to thwart a filibuster threat, successful bi-partisan legislation around campaign finance reform, and a 9/11 commission with Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Massie? Not so much. If you look closely at his report card above, the yellow bar charts show that he falls below his peers in every collaborative category—across legislative record and rhetoric analysis.

A “performative” maverick, Massie’s voice is loud, but his actions are few. He’s so mavericky that he’s unable to collaborate with his own party, let alone the one across the aisle.

This pattern is recognizable in Sen. Elizabeth Warren [F | 6.3/100]

Warren’s collaboration stats (bar charts) are remarkably similar to Massie’s for this 119th Congress.

It’s a paradox. One can agree with the content of what Sen. Warren has to say, but it’s difficult to call her effective. Her lack of collaboration or unlikely coalitions holds her back from driving pragmatic legislation to match her agenda. F.

Similarly, Massie can be commended for speaking truth to power and having the integrity to do what he says. But, his inability to collaborate limits his ability to build win-win solutions for our common interests. F.

In both cases, each hold hard lines, but neither is effective enough in driving their agenda forward. After all, what use is a free agent who governs as a lone wolf? Real mavericks, like Sen. John McCain, are pragmatists who leverage their agency and align with others who share common interests to get stuff done.

Share

Our core thesis at Bridge Grades is that when voters re-elect bridgers (As and Bs) and vote out dividers (Cs and Fs)—over time we will systematically raise the baseline of collaboration on Capitol Hill for the benefits of our common interests and a healthier Legislative Branch.

These principles mean we are never sad when an F graded candidate loses an election.2 Same goes for Massie. Sorry, not sorry. He had his shot. You get an F, you’re out. Who’s next?

In this case, unfortunately, our optimism for improvement on the collaboration dimension for this particular seat is dim. The Representative elect has made his intentions clear as a loyalist to Trump, with most projecting very little cross-party collaboration ahead for Gallrein.3

But, hey, here’s to hoping he’ll surprise us.4

Bridge Grades, a project of 501(c)3 Mediators Foundation, is an educational tool and neither endorses nor opposes individual candidates for public office.