Senate election history - Can someone please explain...

[Keystone Phil]

Does anyone have a good explanation for how the hell Edward Brooke got to the U.S. Senate? I understand he was a liberal but he was also a black man running in Massachusetts (a state that isn't typically as progressive as the rest of the NE on races issues) in the 1960s as a Republican. He won in 1966 with 60% of the vote and was re-elected with 64% in the lone state that comfortably voted against Nixon!

So what was the deal here? How did he do it?

[Torie]

Brooke was an uber Oreo. He was just Leverett Saltonstall with a deep tan, the last refuge against the indecency of the Kennedy ascendancy.

[Dan the Roman]

 Edward Brooke befitted from two things:

1. He ran in 1966 which was a good year for the GOP nationally and in MA, and he was also running for a senate seat that had been in Republican hands for decades, succeeding Leverett Saltonstall. So it was a Republican-held open seat in a republican year, with an unpopular democratic governor who also happened to be the Dem Senate nominee vs. a popular Attorney General. It really isn't a surprise that Brooke won.

2. Massachusetts' tendency to reelect incumbents of either party. is less a solidly Democratic state than it is a solidly incumbent state. If you look at the state legislature, it is not just that Democratic incumbents don't lose in the general, no one loses. With the exception of one republican rep knocked off last year, I don't think a single incumbent has lost for at least three or four cycles. Most of the republicans are not even opposed even though most of their districts are democratic at the national level. Incumbent republicans win and usaully by massive margins even against strong democrats. Best recent example is Joe Malone, who won 62% or so against William Galvin(who is now SOS) for State Treauserer in 1990, and then won 65% against Shannon O'Brian in 1994(she succeeded him in 1998 and lost to Romney in 2002. Both were serious candidates, but people had no reason to vote against Malone so he won.

This doesn't work as much in federal races because the stakes are much higher and the national GOP is extremely unpopular in MA, but that wasn't the case in the 1960s and 70s, so Edward Brooke benifitted from the electorates reluctance to fire him unless he did something wrong. When he did do something wrong, he was defeated fairly easily in 1978.

This comes from a tendency to reelect people if things are going well.

[WalterMitty]

phil, massachusetts was politically much different in 1966 than it is today, although it was clearly in transition at the time.

in 1966, about 1 in 4 massachusetts voters were registered republican, today it is about 1 in 10.

[Brittain33]

If you look at the state legislature, it is not just that Democratic incumbents don't lose in the general, no one loses. With the exception of one republican rep knocked off last year, I don't think a single incumbent has lost for at least three or four cycles.

Some Democrats have lost in primaries or faced a close primary race over that time. It's true that most of the action takes place in open seats.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Considering that George Wallace got less than 4% of the vote in Massachusetts in 1968, two years after Brooke's election to the Senate, I think we can ssume that the state was not as racist as many others were in the 1960s.  What does surprise me is that Brooke was a Republican - he must have seemed very out of place in a party that was running Bary Goldwater, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.  Isn't he now a Democrat?  I can't imagine an Edward Brooke running as a black Republican today in Massachusetts getting as far as he did somehow. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wallace actually won Boston in the '76 primary.

[rbt48]

I never understood what Brooke had done wrong to bring about his loss to Tsongas in 1978.  It was a marginally Republican year (some rebound from the terrible congressional elections of 1974 and 76) and I think the GOP picked up 2 or 3 Senate seats to get above 40.  I gather there was some questionable behavior, but perhaps someone else will chime in.

[rbt48]

As for Brooke being a Republican, I recall after WW II, he had run for the MA State House of Rep in both party primaries.  He won the Rep and lost the Dem primary and remained a republican throughout his career.

This exceprt from Wikipedia seems to help understand his 1978 defeat and also imply he is still a Republican, though an 88 year old one:

" ... In Massachusetts, Brooke's support among Catholics weakened, and during the 1978 re-election campaign, the state's bishops spoke in opposition to his leading role, in spite of the equally pro-choice position of his Democratic opponent. In addition, he was challenged in the Republican primary by a hard-line conservative talk show host, Avi Nelson. He lost some of his personal popularity during his second term after a contentious and widely-publicized divorce. He lost his bid for a third term in the Senate elections of 1978 to Paul Tsongas. He remains, as of 2008, the last Republican senator from Massachusetts.


Post-Senate life
After leaving the Senate, Brooke practiced law in Washington, DC and served as Chairman of the Board of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

In 1996, he became the first chairman of Alpha Phi Alpha's World Policy Council, a think tank whose purpose is to expand the fraternity's involvement in politics, and social and current policy to encompass international concerns. Brooke currently serves as the council's chairman emeritus and was honorary chairman at the Centennial Convention of Alpha Phi Alpha held in Washington, D.C in 2006.

 
Edward Brooke is congratulated by President George W. Bush at the Ceremony for the 2004 Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, The East Room of the White House.On June 20, 2000, a newly constructed Boston courthouse was dedicated in his honor. The Edward W. Brooke Courthouse is part of the Massachusetts Trial Court system, and houses Boston Municipal Court, Boston Juvenile Court, Family Court, and Boston Housing Court, among others.[2]

In September 2002, he was diagnosed with breast cancer and, since then, has assumed a national role in raising awareness of the disease among men.[3]

In 2004, Brooke was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom — designed to recognize individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

On April 29, 2006 the Massachusetts Republican Party awarded the first annual "Edward Brooke Award" to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card at their 2006 State Nominating Convention."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'll just confirm what others have said here: Massachusetts was a much different place in 1966 (Massachusetts was 7D/5R in the Congressional delegation back then).  And Brooke was a highly regarded State Attorney General at the time he sought election to the Senate.

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, I'll accept the argument that MA was different back then but what gets me is how successful he was as a black politician running statewide. I knew he was a popular Attorney General but my point is about how did he get to these offices? Some have said that MA wasn't as racist but weren't there still some serious racial tensions there in the 1960s-70s? Plus, it's still quite an achievement for a black man to be elected statewide in the 1960s. It just amazes me.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Ok, I'll accept the argument that MA was different back then but what gets me is how successful he was as a black politician running statewide. I knew he was a popular Attorney General but my point is about how did he get to these offices? Some have said that MA wasn't as racist but weren't there still some serious racial tensions there in the 1960s-70s? Plus, it's still quite an achievement for a black man to be elected statewide in the 1960s. It just amazes me.

I can see what your saying.  Sometimes circumstances are just odd I suppose. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Ok, I'll accept the argument that MA was different back then but what gets me is how successful he was as a black politician running statewide. I knew he was a popular Attorney General but my point is about how did he get to these offices? Some have said that MA wasn't as racist but weren't there still some serious racial tensions there in the 1960s-70s? Plus, it's still quite an achievement for a black man to be elected statewide in the 1960s. It just amazes me.

Oh, sure, there were racial tensions, but Brooke was not the type of "afro-styling radical black panther anarchist commie negro" that the white folk were afraid of.

And white guilt-loaded liberals loved the chance to vote for a qualified black man as Senator.  His initial race in 1966 wasn't even close.

[Brittain33]

Oh, sure, there were racial tensions, but Brooke was not the type of "afro-styling radical black panther anarchist commie negro" that the white folk were afraid of.

To put it another way, he didn't rise through the ranks via the civil rights movement or from the urban communities that helped define the busing conflict of the 1970s, but came from a privileged background.

You really don't have to be radical to get pigeonholed as an ethnic candidate.

[Meeker]

He was having teh sex with Barbara Walters

[Keystone Phil]

I understand Brooke wasn't a race radical and whites found him more acceptable but take a look at someone like Obama (excluding the whole Wright thing). He isn't a radical like Jackson or Sharpton but he still struggles with white voters. There is still that hesitancy towards voting for a black man.

He was having teh sex with Barbara Walters

That's actually what sparked this topic.    I've always known about Brooke but never got around to examining his electoral history.

[Brittain33]

I understand Brooke wasn't a race radical and whites found him more acceptable but take a look at someone like Obama (excluding the whole Wright thing). He isn't a radical like Jackson or Sharpton but he still struggles with white voters. There is still that hesitancy towards voting for a black man.

Note that Obama, like Brooke, got elected to the U.S. Senate from a cosmopolitan northern state. It's only when one takes the campaign nationally, or into certain states, that you hit the wall. It's a different kind of wall.

If Obama didn't come across as post-racial to many people, as implicitly not "a black candidate," he wouldn't have done as well as he did. Ditto for Brooke.