Let's just face it - the Dem bench here isn't very impressive and Brown is in Snowe/Collins popularity territory

At the end of the day, I think Capuano is the nominee (if Warren runs, she probably loses in the primary, ala fellow intellectual/progressive fave Robert Reich in the '02 gubernatorial race) and Brown probably wins by around 53-46. The sample's not perfect, sure, but the toplines seem wholly plausible. And, FWIW, I don't think Obama's headed to a 33-point romp here, at least vs. a Romney or Daniels. I think Romney would be the first GOP nominee to break 40% since Bush '41.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:11:55 PM UTC

What about the other Warren?

As in S.E.T.I.?

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:15:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

S.E.T.T.I.

n/t

(Still thinking of the appropriate acronym--give me a few hours.)

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:16:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I LOL'd

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:21:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you.

(Still thinking.)

It's going to involve the Tea Party and intelligence.

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:39:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

It's going to involve the Tea Party and intelligence.

You have set out a very serious task for yourself. Teabaggers + intelligence don't usually go in the same sentence!

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:41:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree the sample doesn't matter

If he wins 96% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats and 64% of indies then he is cruising even with 2008 turnout. But I don't think he is quite in Snowe/Collins territory. They have both been through multiple statewide campaigns and walked the walk. Brown has basically had a walkover. An actual campaign can change these numbers quite quickly especially when his voting record is far more conservative than either of the Mainers.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:41:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once again,

what precedent is there for a Republican getting that many Democratic votes--in a presidential year, no less? The only case I can think of is William Weld in 1996--and this is only a possibility, since I am not sure it's at all clear his strength came from Democrats rather than Independents. In his special election, Brown scored only 19 percent (I am pretty sure; I read these numbers once but can't seem to find them; why are they, or some other estimates, so hard to find?) of Democrats. That's huge, of course, but in a presidential year, that will probably go down unless his Democratic opponent is absolutely awful.

We keep hearing the Democratic bench is weak. Perhaps it is. But wouldn't a minimally competent Democrat be able to get 85 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Independents? Hell, if the Democratic candidate can secure 91 percent of the Democratic vote in a 40/20/40 race, along with five percent of Republicans, he or she could dip down to 35 percent of Independents and, with five percent of Republicans, get 51.4 percent of the vote.

You're absolutely right that these numbers can change quickly. I suspect they will. He hasn't been attacked in any serious way since the campaign hasn't really started.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:06:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mile wide

Inch thick.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:08:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basically.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:18:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:46:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think 85% of Democrats is plausible, but I think Indies could go upwards of 65% for Brown

For the Democrat to win, they'll need to prevail among most of the Democrats and Independents who approve of Brown's performance. Simple as that, I think. The problem is, I just don't see anyone on the D side who'll prove an exciting, inspiring candidate. Capuano will be "competent," sure, and Warren will win 100% of progressives, but they'd vote for Capuano, too.  

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:26:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The obvious solution

Is to make fewer Dems and indies approve of his performance. An actual campaign would be a start and there is plenty of material if it is used properly.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:40:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what you can hit him on

Brown seems to be the perfect candidate, an unprincipled hack who stands for nothing who can vote his party line and count on the media to fellate him as the hero against extremism.

He's the new John McCain

---

by: DNick @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:02:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, there's that vid

of him nudging a Koch to help him out some.  That's one thing.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:04:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well you can take some of those party line votes

and put them in ads. Do you really want a senator who agrees with (conservative politican/policy xyz).

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  

---

by: D in FL @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 07:19:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed

His voting record is more conservative than people think.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:13:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, it's a presidential year.

What makes you think he's going to do so well amongst Independents? My impression of the state is that it's inherently more left-leaning that right-leaning amongst pretty much all groups. There are plenty of people that like a candidate, or at least don't hate him, but don't vote for him, just as there are people that aren't crazy about a candidate but vote for him anyway.

He could easily clean up, but I am not sure why he'll do as well as he did last time if the Democratic candidate isn't awful. Coakley probably got about 35 percent of Independents last time--maybe a little more, maybe a little less, but about a third--and I don't see why someone who actually campaigns would have that much trouble getting up to 40 percent.

But let's say that he couldn't. Like I said below, the Democratic candidate could dip as low as 35 percent when it comes to Independents if he managed to get 91 percent of Democrats in a 40/20/40 breakdown.

By the way, 40/20/40 might be too generous. The breakdown in 2004 was 39/16/44, and in 2008 it was 43/17/40. Let's say it's 41/18/41. If the Democratic candidate won 85 percent of Democrats, five percent of Republicans, and 35 percent of Independents in that situation, he'd win with 50.1 percent.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 04:13:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alright, I'll take your model (which looks plausible) and apply my crosstabs...

41 D
41 I
18 R

Brown - 22/64/98 = 53%
Democrat - 78/36/2 = 47%

Which basically matches my aforementioned 53-46 prediction. I think the best-case-scenario for a Democrat is probably...

Brown - 12/54/96 = 44%
Democrat - 88/46/4 = 56%

Worst case...

Brown - 27/68/99 = 57%
Democrat - 73/32/1 = 43%

Range...

Brown - 44% to 57%
Democrat - 43% to 56%

So, given the natural Dem-friendliness of the electorate, this should be a barn burner, though if Brown or the Democrat runs an extraordinary campaign, it could be a comfortable victory.  

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 15:31:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like your ranges,

but I still find it hard to believe that he's getting that many Democrats. I guess we will get a better idea of that once we get a candidate.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 03:44:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's an incumbent

that throws everything off.

But wouldn't a minimally competent Democrat be able to get 85 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Independents?

not if Democrats like Brown, which they seem to do.  

---

by: DNick @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:43:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe, maybe not.

He's an incumbent, but he only won in a special election against a pretty terrible candidate.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:50:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More of an issue of voters not paying much attention

Parts of his record won't be likable to Democrats and he's still got a year to add to that record. When the campaign starts to bring that to light, it will change the dynamics.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:59:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then you make Dems not like him

That is what a proper campaign is for. Don't be so negative. It won't take much to drag him down just enough to defeat him.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If they don't already not like him

I'm not sure what he has to do to make them turn on him.  

---

by: DNick @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 00:43:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt most Democrats

feel strongly one way or the other.  Most people don't pay attention as much attention as we do. Their impressions are probably formed mostly by the positive press he's getting, I would guess. Whatever the case, I think we have numerous openings to drag him down.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 03:51:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because there has been no focus on his positions

His voting record is comparable to Republicans in TN and AL. An actual campaign will point that out.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 14:37:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt Romney would do that well

Yes, he was the Governor, but since then he's shifted far to the right and wouldn't be seen that much differently than any other Republican. There's nothing about Daniels that would make him do better than Bush did in MA in '04.

In a state that tilts heavily toward one party, with presidential level turnout, the dominate party has the edge. In 2012, this race will look very different.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:01:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, really.

Where's the evidence that Romney would do so well in the state? The last poll I remember, from PPP, had him within nine, but that's right after the Democrats took a huge beating in November. He had a 40 percent favorable rating compared to a 51 percent unfavorable rating--and that's before he lurches even more to the right while bashing the hell out of the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:13:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um

1. No he isn't.

2. Republicans just don't get to Snowe/Collins levels of popularity in Massachusetts, especially in Federal positions. The state has not elected a Republican Congressman since 1994, and about of some 200 congressional elections over the last 20 years, they've won 2-4. No Republican has won a single county in a Presidential race here since Bush in 1992. Edward Brooke was far more liberal than Brown, was a two term incumbent, and was running in an MA more open to Republicans than it is today, and he still lost in 1978. A Republican in Maine NEVER gets safe and a living body practically guarantees Democrats 45% of the vote, 47% in a Presidential election situation with the full Boston Machine turning out. It is extremely hard for a Republican to even come close to winning MA at a Federal level, and, as this year proved, pretty hard to win state level elections too, even with favorable environments.

3. Romney left office with shit approval ratings, and he's spent the past 6 years trashing Massachusetts to pander to conservatives and recanting on most of his moderacy and many of his signature projects as Governor. He won't do any better than any past Republicans have.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:48:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*A Republican in Massachusetts never gets safe

terrible little brainfart.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:50:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weld got 71% in 1998

Malone got 62% and 63% when running in 1994, and that was against William Galvin and Shannon O'Brien.

Massachusetts is an absurdly pro-incumbent state. The overweening majority of incumbents are nigh on invincible unless they do something really wrong(like Romney did). This even applies to GOP legislators in D+9 or 10 seats, who consistently run unopposed. And its worth noting that one of the Republican reps who lost in 1996, lost while running 19 points in front of his party's nominee. Obama has never been, and is nowhere near as popular as the Clinton's were in the state, and unless he faces Palin, his 2008 numbers are probably his peak.

MA is a go-along-get-along state, and partisan politics does not play a big role. There is a large liberal community that does care intensely about control of the Senate and national issues, but they are not more than 30% or so of the electorate. What most people want is someone who brings home the bacon and makes Massachusetts important. In the space of one year, Brown has made himself as effective and influential as John Kerry, and far more so than any member of the House delegation. He is just the first Republican to benefit from this incumbency.

Something that needs to be understood is other than partisan Democrats and the liberal intelligentsia, there is no group in the state(not Unions, not Teachers, not Gays, not Woman), other than a few Tea Partiers, who have the slightest problem with Scott Brown. This makes it very hard for candidates to raise money, and it makes it highly likely that you will end up with a candidate that represents the one group that does not like Brown, the liberal intelligentsia. Hence why you have Massie, Khazei, and both Warren's being tossed around.  

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

---

by: BenjaminDisraeli @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 04:57:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

1994, not 1998.

And I'm not sure it's so much a pro-incumbent state as it is a pro-Democratic state, where most of the incumbents happen to be Democrats. The thing is, you can say that about a lot of states.

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of the state probably wouldn't mind if he's reelected. But at the same time, would they care if he isn't? The state's natural affinity towards Democrats is probably much, much stronger than any affinity towards Brown. He can certainly overcome that, but it's a big hurdle.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:27:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes that's true

but when the incumbents are Republicans, they tend to win too (Weld, Malone)

---

by: DNick @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:45:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't mean to seem

difficult, but I am not seeing anything that tells me that the state is more prone to elect incumbents than any other state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:58:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When was the last time a statewide incumbent was defeated?

Hint: My mother was in high school.

---

by: DNick @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:05:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh no, not this again.

People were murmuring the same thing about Djou and how Hawaii has never voted out an incumbent Senator, Gov, or congressperson.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:09:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Djou won a three way divided race

he never would have won head to head with either Hanabusa or Case.

Brown won a head to head, in a special election that had almost the same turnout as last year's midterms in Mass.  

---

by: DNick @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 12:35:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So?

He was still an incumbent who was defeated. Brown had close to a perfect storm to get 52% remember.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:18:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When has there been an opportunity?

Yes, Weld was re elected once, but Malone left under a scandal, Cellucci left during his first term; Swift never sought a full term, Romney only served one term.

And Weld also ran in 1994 against a very flawed opponent.

---

by: Padeco @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 12:38:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The last time MA had an incumbent Republican Senator?

I do see your point tho.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 15:48:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Notice those are state

jobs, governing positions. In the same manner 4 of Wyoming's last 6 governors have been Democrats and have won easily. It happens sometimes, and in Massachusetts it certainly was almost a bit of balancing by a lot of independents. The absurdly large majorities in the legislature were kept in check by liberal, competent managerial Republicans, and in the case of Weld, who started it, a truly brilliant man whose intelligence and open-mindedness won over a lot of the "liberal intelligentsia" (I have a former Williams College poli sci professor who knew Weld from a distance in College and voted for him for governor, and, who, despite being as liberal as you can be, voted for him both times out of respect, but still voted against him for President).

Brown is not a liberal Republican, or even a moderate one. He's to the right of Snowe, and is a better fit for NH than MA. His approval ratings are tepid right now because the campaign season hasn't begun, and because the media tends to still treat him as a bit of a wunderkind and the Boston media especially I've noticed, doesn't call him out when he does his conservative grandstanding like he did on the Financial bill, (even after countless bits of pandering and negotiation on the part of the Democratic Leadership and widespread bipartisan public support for the bill). Whoever runs will have resources. Setti Warren would be good, but Capuano would probably be best, especially in his ability to get unions and the Boston machine fully involved in the race.

---

by: jwaalk @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gah, I keep making stupid typos

I meant, voted against him for Senate. I was thinking of how much Kerry underperformed President Clinton and substituted the word. I hate when that happens.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:04:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unions

Didn't they sit on their hands for Coakley? Any Democrat should use the current busting efforts against Brown.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:20:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even when the seat

Could decide control of the chamber? I find that hard to believe.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:19:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If the GOP Controlled the Senate

I think Brown would be in serious trouble against a cardboard box. But its hard to get people to vote on a hypothetical. Especially low-info voters.  

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

---

by: BenjaminDisraeli @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 17:07:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wasn't so hard in Rhode Island

It was basically the reason Chafee lost.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 18:47:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP controlled the Senate then, tho (nt)

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 04:47:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Control is control

Do MA Dems want it? It should be part of the campaign.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 14:40:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, sure

I was only pointing out that Chafee/Whitehouse wasn't a counterexample to BD's claim.  A counterexample would be, say, Blanche Lincoln losing in Arkansas, if "take back the Senate" had been Boozman's pitch.  (I don't know to what extent it was or was not).

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:32:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, sorry, that's still wrong

We need an R incumbent losing in a D state while the Ds control the Senate, or a D incumbent losing in an R state while the Rs control the Senate, with "keep control" the message.  So, Gordon Smith in 2008, maybe...Coleman too.  Can't think of others offhand.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:38:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Massachusetts Hates

Mittt Romney and I think that turnout in 2012 will favor democrats like it has too, the most important MA County next year will be Middlesex, the states most populous which Coakley barely won

---

by: MAVoter @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 11:00:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not entirely...

For one, we don't really know yet what Setti Warren or Elizabeth Warren is capable of.

Last year really was a special circumstance because Martha Coakley was a horrible campaigner and that was a special election. In a Presidential year, however, things will be different.

I seriously doubt whomever is the GOP nominee will get anywhere close to 40% in Massachusetts. I don't think Romney will be the nominee, but even if he is I don't think he's well liked there any more.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:05:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Setti Warren is overrated

As A Massachusetts Democrat I still don't feel like Setti Warren is even capable to make it through a democratic primary if challenged by Elizabeth Warren or Capuano.  

---

by: MAVoter @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 10:55:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

There is absolutely no way that Romney will get 40% of the vote in Massachusetts. That is simply not a claim worth entertaining.

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

---

by: xcave @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:47:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't Romney avoid MA in 2010

If I remember correctly, Romney backed Brown in the GOP primary, but kept his head down in the 2010 special because he knew his unpopularity in the state would be a drag on Brown.

---

by: Ebjebie @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 10:29:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did I miss something or was Deval Patrick still considering this race?

Would he be an upgrade?  And would polling him show us a more likely scenario with Brown against a known Democrat? (As whomever runs will likely shower the state with ads before all is said and done)

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:18:43 PM UTC

You missed something

He's been pretty clear that he doesn't want to run, and has said at least once that he plans to finish out his term as governor.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:21:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not running

not in 2012 anyway

---

by: primaryarlen @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:25:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Note the age cross tabs

According to the poll, if they aren't reported there are less than 40 responses.

This means at most the 18-29 vote comprised 10% of the electorate, versus 17% in 2008 and 16% in 2004.

You can see the same thing in the PPP polling in March. Maine was 6% (against 16% in 2008 and 17% in 2004), Virginia was at 9% (versus 21% in 2008 and 17% in 2004), Wisconsin was 10% (22% in 2008 and 20% in 2004) for example.  

Polling on 2012 still is finding an electorate similar to 2010.  There are two explanations:

1.  The young are really turned off and won't come out in 2012 like they did in '04 or '08.
2.  The young haven't focused on these races but will.  

If number 2 is true you can conclude that polling of likely voters at this point in time is understating the Democratic vote by about 5 points.  If number 1 is right we are so screwed.....

Of course, if number 2 is correct, Brown is under 2.

My bet is on number 2, since the falloff in 2010 was almost identical to the falloff in 2006.

BTW the exit poll numbers are easy to find - I have a book so I am not going to link to each example.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:35:34 PM UTC

There's no partisan

composition listed, is there?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:41:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

34d 12r 47i

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:50:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Normally, I just pay attention to the toplines

But this seems way too skewed against the Dems. I still think Brown will not win reelection in 2012, and I don't think it will even take an extraordinary campaign to beat him. It's going to be extremely difficult for any Republican to win in Massachusetts, especially one that is on his first election. Collins and Snowe built up extraordinary goodwill, in a less Democratic state.

And this is one time where the lack of a legitimate tea party challenge may hurt Brown - he won't be able to play the centrist.  

---

by: markhanna @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:56:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By my math

He would take 51.81 of the vote with these numbers even given 2008 turnout and giving the Dem the rest. I don't think it will be as easy as you suggest or as impossible as others are saying.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:00:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I guess I don't want to pretend it will be easy

I mean, you're not going to be able to have a Coakley campaign here, but that kind ineptness comes along once every 20 years. Hell, even Coakley came within four points. Combine a minimally good campaign with Presidential level turnout and the fact Brown doesn't have the loyalty some other moderate Dems have earned over the years. I still say Lean Dem.

Just remember, I'm the guy who calls Tennessee Senate Lean Republican even with Bredesen in the race. So some might argue I lean too much on historical precedent.  

---

by: markhanna @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:12:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You may remember

I agreed with that TN rating at the time. Still, as we stand today and with polls like this I would find it hard to argue with a Lean Republican rating for MA too. But he hasn't been challenged properly. I do think the ACU ratings tietack posted a few weeks back were important. You had Snowe and Collins in the 50/100 range while Brown came in at 70/100, similar to Lamar Alexander and Richard Shelby. Tennessee and Alabama! And MA is more Democratic than Maine if not more liberal. The fact this seat could well be the decider for control must also be a major part of the campaign.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:16:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly.

In theory, it's a tossup, and will likely be that way when we have a better idea of the candidates. But until we see better numbers, it's Lean R.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:31:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I remember in late 2007 Whitehouse was down by 15 with Chafee

over 50. So I think this one remains a top target unless the polls look like this 3 monthes from election day. I think Obama realizes the importance this time of having congress with you so I expect a major effort to tie Brown to the republican caucus on policy (which won't be hard) if the numbers don't budge at that point then were in trouble.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  

---

by: D in FL @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:10:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Try 19 points

As late as April 2006.

http://www.ric.edu/bgrs/pdf/BG...

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:12:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah ment 2005* as well.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  

---

by: D in FL @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 00:01:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anybody

Giving up here or celebrating prematurely on the other side is a fool. More examples.

Coleman 54
Franken 32

http://minnesota.publicradio.o...

And comparable numbers from Oregon and North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

None of these states are anything like as Democratic as Massachusetts. We are talking D+2, D+4 and R+4 as compared to D+12.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 00:09:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a fair rating for Tennessee.

All we have to go on is one poll. I'm as optimistic as anyone about some of these races, but we'd need to see a lot more before making any more judgments.

I'm hoping to hear something good about this race, or the one in Texas, or in North Dakota, or anywhere else. We're overdue for good news.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:29:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those are a little off, to say the least.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:14:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure

But 96r 23d and 64i is plenty even giving a Dem everything else. Though, at the same time, that is close enough to the 5/85/40 you talked about earlier.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 22:22:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, He Can Lose

I think the number of people who voted for him in 2010 but won't next time around as least as likely as not to exceed the number of people who didn't vote for him last time and will this time.

Then we throw in the people who didn't vote in 2010 but generally did in 2008 and are likely to in 2012 and I think Brown goes down.

One interesting thing I figured out following the 2010 elections is that individual candidates matter less than many close observers of election think they do. The wave swept in all sorts of people who looked for all the world like weak Republican candidates.

With the roll of seats that are up next year our side needs this seat badly unless we want to see a Republican-run Senate come January 2013.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 21:15:11 PM UTC

Not quite...

One interesting thing I figured out following the 2010 elections is that individual candidates matter less than many close observers of election think they do. The wave swept in all sorts of people who looked for all the world like weak Republican candidates.

That wasn't quite the case out here in The West, where theoretically Harry Reid and Michael Bennet should have been dead meat, and Patti Murray and Barbara Boxer should have been in the fights of their lives. And while Murray was in the fight of her life, she survived while Boxer cruised to a 10% win. And in Nevada & Colorado, Reid & Bennet won their respective races.

I actually do think candidates and campaigns matter, and I think Massachusetts last year was another example of that. IMHO that's why Dems can't take this for granted. But OTOH, Scott Brown shouldn't take his reelection for granted just because his approval numbers look OK now. It will really come down to whether MA Dems can convince Independent voters to vote for Obama AND the Dem Senate nominee.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:13:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He won't coast like Coakley

But this poll is quite informative.

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/...

Brown trailed 58-27 while she had 57-21 favorables and his were 15/8.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 23:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SORRY

for thread-jacking BUT i just got the dailykos numbers on the WI recall and the numbers look damn good for a solid recall effort to possibly change the balance of power in the state senate

---

by: primaryarlen @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:23:47 AM UTC

already posted (with numbers) in the Daily Digest comments

which is where your comment should've gone.

---

by: homerun @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:31:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

didn't see that

---

by: primaryarlen @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:36:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How much name recognition

recognition does Capuano have statewide?
Elizabeth Warren I'm sure has little name rec. but got 34%. And Capuano did only 4% better than that.
Whereas with Brown's acclaim by the MSM over the past year, his name recognition is massive.
Shit, he even was book touring here in California a couple weeks ago selling his f*ing memoir.

---

by: homerun @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:38:44 AM UTC

His memoir?

Brown was on a book tour in California? I call shenanigans--since when do Californians* read? Or does his memoir come with pictures from his Cosmo spread?

But more importantly, why the hell does the Massachusetts bench suck so much? We hold like every single office in the entire friggin' state and we can't find one inspiring candidate? WTF?

I guess my only explanation is that Democrats dominate so thoroughly that none of them really have to work all that hard to get elected anymore? Maybe? Honestly, if Barney Frank was a decade younger, I think that's the kind of candidate we need this for this race... he's a partisan bruiser who could remind Mass folks why they hate Republicans and he wouldn't let Pretty Boy Brown get away with his "I drive a truck" crap.

You're a lawyer, jackass, you drive a truck to haul your daughter's show ponies around.

*well, Southern Californians anyway

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 03:51:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Capuano is a Boston Congressmen

His district is Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville, the liberal stronghold of the state. What screwed him over last year was that in the less than two month primary democrats past Route-128 still did not know him and voted for Coakley. I think that Capuano is definately strong enough and the only democrat in Massachusetts who is capable of unseating Scott Brown in 2012... The only reason many middlesex county Democrats voted for Scott Brown was for lack of a better democratic candidate... a lot of people elected him with the hope hed be a resonable placeholder for a better democrat.

---

by: MAVoter @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 10:50:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More than half have no opinion

It all looks to me like a 52-48 Brown baseline once Capuano or whoever gets their name out there. That margin is more than surmountable.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:24:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, that's how i see it

1. Brown is popular. His fiscally conservative/socially moderate style fits state generally well, especially with people concerned foremost about economy. And he is not Scott Walker even on economy..

2. Democrats have no frontrunner, and those mentioned are not especially popular and/or well known

3. The race will tighten considerably by November 2012, that's sure. But Weld's example doesn't impress me: after all he ran against incumbent Democratic Senator (almost impossible to beat in MA), and in 1996, when Gingrich's Conggress and Republican platform ("Contract with America") were extremely unpopular in Massachusetts. Brown is an incumbent himself, and (once again) - a popular one.

So, so far Brown is a favorite, and rather clear favorite - double-digit advantagefor Republican in Democratic Massachusetts is a big thing. But i think this race will nedd (may be even multiple) reevaluation - say, by November 2011

---

by: smoltchanov @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 04:56:40 AM UTC

A Couple Points on 1996

1. There was a highly unpopular Republican congress, and Republicans had majorities in both houses.

2. Weld was outspent 3 to 2, and it was closer to 2-1 with outside groups.

3. Dole got 28% of the vote in MA. Weld got 45%. Thats a 17% point difference. No one seriously expects any Republican other than Palin to go below 35-36%. The major story in MA over the last few years has been the solidification of the albeit small GOP vote. They did not win anything statewide in 2010, but they got over 40% in four statewide races. The last time that happened was in 1966. They got to 40% in six congressional districts as well.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

---

by: BenjaminDisraeli @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:01:37 AM UTC

Any sort of fresh face makes Brown vulnerable

once they get known.  A marginally popular dude or dudette who has been around awhile is the exact thing we don't need to defeat Brown.

The only problem is a fresh face doesn't poll well now because they are by definition basically unknown.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 05:57:18 AM UTC

How much precedent is there for the claims made in this topic?

People love to cite Lincoln Chafee, but for every Chafee there have been lots of off-party Senators who won wide margins for re-election (e.g. Kent Conrad). I'm also sceptical of the "Brown will lose for right-wing voting" hypothesis. Surely the Kent Conrads of the world also made some votes that would have been fairly unpopular with their states, yet it doesn't seem their opponents were able to make much of it.

Also, the Weld analogy isn't very good, particularly because there's a big difference between gubernatorial races and federal races.

---

by: Nichlemn @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 08:28:03 AM UTC

Well the Kent Conrad analogy isn't good either

because unlike MA where Scott Brown is pretty much all the Republicans have, ND was pretty Democratic on a congressional level until recently, having an all-Democratic delegation before 2010.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:16:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is plenty of precedent

The main thing being the difficulty of running in a presidential year. It is becoming much harder to win in a state that leans to the other party, particularly one that leans as strongly as Massachusetts.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 13:29:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course it's hard to win when the state leans to the other party... but *controlling for polling*, this effect might not be large

The average Republican does poorly in Massachussets, but the average Republican also polls poorly in Massachusetts. What we want to know is how likely a Republican incumbent with strong early poll numbers is to lose. (Well, there are other variables that differentiate Brown from a random incumbent, but that's getting too complex). And while the performances of other incumbents in off-party states don't tell us everything we need to know, they do tell us a fair bit. While they appear to lose more often than strong polling right-party incumbents, they still appear to win a solid majority of the time.

---

by: Nichlemn @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 12:14:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But early polling

actually doesn't necessarily take a state's partisan lean into account. That's why you had things like, say, McCain starting off competitive in New Jersey or Obama starting off competitive in the Dakotas.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 14:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My analogy: a reverse Walt Minnick

A popular incumbent, running in a state hostile to his party, in a year where voters of the other party are especially motivated.

If I remember right, polling was friendly to Minnick almost to the end.

---

by: tietack @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 15:39:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rick Boucher too

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 15:58:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One of the saddest things in 2010 was see Minnick going down

I mean, yeah, he was a conservative that basically NEVER voted with us, but he could have built up the Democratic party in Idaho.

I think the same thing is possible in Wyoming if Freudenthal gets in the senate race.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 17:12:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]