In an opinion originally published by the Boston Herald, Suffolk Sheriff Steven W. Tompkins is accused of missing a key strategic opportunity. The piece alleges that while other local leaders used anti-Trump sentiment to their advantage, Tompkins chose not to do so—potentially costing him valuable political traction.
Subscribe
Analysis and Opinions
Campaign Strategies
Lucas: Tompkins should have played the anti-Trump card
Photo by Boston Herald
Key Takeaways:
- Peter Lucas critiques Suffolk Sheriff Steven W. Tompkins for not leveraging Donald Trump as a distraction.
- The commentary contrasts Tompkins’s approach with that of figures like Mayor Michelle Wu, Governor Maura Healey, and AG Andrea Campbell.
- The original piece highlights that failing to mention Trump might have been a “mistake.”
- Published on August 28, 2025, the article appears in the Boston Herald.
- The central focus revolves around the shifting political dynamics and tactics in Massachusetts.
Introduction
The Boston Herald published an opinion piece by Peter Lucas criticizing Suffolk Sheriff Steven W. Tompkins for what the commentator calls a fundamental strategic oversight. According to Lucas, Tompkins neglected to capitalize on the wave of anti-Trump sentiment in local politics and, in doing so, missed a chance to shift the public’s focus.
The Alleged “Mistake”
“One of the ‘mistakes’ Tompkins may have made was not using Trump as a distraction,” the article states, underscoring how some politicians gain traction by drawing parallels to or criticizing the former president. In Lucas’s view, positioning Trump as a foil can rally support or deflect scrutiny in a contentious atmosphere.
Comparisons with Other Leaders
Lucas contrasts Tompkins with Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Governor Maura Healey, and Attorney General Andrea Campbell—three Massachusetts leaders cited as effectively employing anti-Trump messaging. According to the opinion piece, these officials have used references to Trump to solidify their platforms, direct media focus, and rally supporters, shaping public conversation in the process.
Implications of the Strategy
Invoking Trump, the commentary suggests, offers a convenient way to pivot discussions or shift attention. The column hints that Tompkins, by not engaging in such tactics, might have lost a powerful avenue for generating public conversation around his office. Whether this approach benefits or hinders genuine policy dialogues is left open to debate.
Conclusion
Peter Lucas’s perspective raises questions about the evolving nature of local political strategy. While some see referencing national figures like Donald Trump as an effective distraction, others may view it as opportunistic. For Sheriff Tompkins, the opinion suggests his choice may have led to missed opportunities in a landscape where the anti-Trump card often remains a dominant talking point.
