I got a lot of great feedback from my post a few weeks back about how I think Scott Brown has no chance at reelection. It resonated with a lot of people, and a few gave me some compelling reasons why I was wrong. The reasons were good enough that I figured they deserved a post all their own.
Don’t Forget Independents
Someone on Twitter (whose name I can’t find because of Twitter’s GODAWFUL search capabilities) pointed out that my spreadsheet completely forgot independents. Great point! During both of the past gubernatorial elections we have had strong, independent, right-leaning challengers, Tim Cahill in 2010 and Christy Mihos in 2006. One would assume that, barring a major third party conservative candidate, every single one of those votes would go to the Republican. First off, I dispute that assumption strongly. During the campaign, when Tim Cahill started to lose votes, we saw them split evenly between the Governor and Charlie Baker; Massachusetts Independents are a weird bunch. Let’s take a look at the final totals:
| Year |
2010 |
2008 |
2006 |
2004 |
2002 |
| Dem Total |
1112283 |
1904097 |
1234984 |
1803800 |
985981 |
| GOP Total |
964866 |
1108854 |
784342 |
1071109 |
1091988 |
| Indy Total |
184395 |
|
154628 |
|
|
Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that every single Independent voter AND every single Republican voter would vote Republican in the upcoming Presidential election. That means 938,970 Republican votes in 2006 and 1,149,261 Republican votes in 2010. Neither of those comes close to President Obama’s total. So, we see that the independent candidates don’t even matter. If you combine Charlie Baker’s votes with Tim Cahill’s votes, you still come in just shy of Scott Brown’s vote total. Far lower than President Obama’s 1,904,047 votes. Point Josh.
Don’t forget Mitt Romney
My boss, Charles Steelfisher, argued that the key flaw in my theory is Mitt Romney. If he is elected, then not only will there be a Massachusetts connection but there will be a moderate candidate at the top of the ticket. That argument doesn’t hold if you look at the numbers. When he was running for Governor and MORE moderate than he is now, he won 1,091,988 votes. Plus you could argue that both Scott Brown and John McCain had reputations for being moderate – something that doesn’t help them break 1,200,000.
However, I think his argument is more of a messaging thing, which makes it kind of hard to argue against with pure numbers. The race is won as the field is formed, and the combined moderate appeal of Romney and Brown could swing a bunch of votes… maybe. But I don’t necessarily buy it. Romney has already spent the last 5 years distancing himself from Massachusetts and trying to obfuscate every moderate thing he ever said. Those are trends that are going to get worse, not better, as the Republican primary heats up. I don’t think the Barnstormin’ Mormon can help Senator Brown.
Getting more popular
In a conversation with long time City Hall observer Jordan Newman, he argued that while my numbers were sound, Senator Brown is more popular and well-known now than he has ever been before. That means that my numbers don’ t accurately reflect the kind of support he is likely to get in the upcoming election.
Good point, but polling is very different than voting – different kinds of people are involved and they give their responses for different reasons. Even if you take Senator Brown’s polling numbers as gospel, any poll is only a snapshot in time. In April 2010, Governor Patrick was polling at 34%. Nine months later, he won a closely contested election with 48.5% percent of the vote.
So there we have it. Three good arguments and my attempts to rebut them. Anything I am missing? Do you think Scott Brown is a shoo-in? Doomed? Just kind of a shmuck?
