Can Scott Brown win with Palin leading the ticket?

[Mr.Phips]

Brown has an excellent shot at surviving. Coattails are indeed overrated, Reagan won 49 states, and didn't exactly expand the Republican majority in the senate, or help Republicans regain control of the House.

1984 was a far less polarized time.  People dont split tickets the way they did back then. 

[Eraserhead]

Ever read the comments on Scott Brown's facebook page? *facepalm*

No. What are they like?

Almost every comment is about how he's somehow a traitor to the Republican cause. A lot of them are misspelled or in all caps.

[cinyc]

Palin is very polarizing and that sort of polarization would be a weight on any Republican in a very blue state. Voters don't separate the top of the ticket from the down ballot in a situation like that.

Just like Carl Paladino in New York, right?  Voters didn't separate him from the down ballot races, correct?

Brown has an excellent shot at surviving. Coattails are indeed overrated, Reagan won 49 states, and didn't exactly expand the Republican majority in the senate, or help Republicans regain control of the House.

1984 was a far less polarized time.  People dont split tickets the way they did back then. 

Ah, yes, the old "the good old days were always less polarized than today" canard.  Things were just as polarized in 1984 as they are today.  Liberal Democrats hated Reagan with a passion, called him things like dumb, extreme, and too conservative, and questioned his foreign policy bona fides.  Notice a pattern?

[Holmes]

Correct, cynic. Since when is upstate New York representative of the country as a whole?

[tpfkaw]

Ever read the comments on Scott Brown's facebook page? *facepalm*

No. What are they like?

Almost every comment is about how he's somehow a traitor to the Republican cause. A lot of them are misspelled or in all caps.

Probably some talk show host told his/her listeners to post on his Facebook page.

[DrScholl]

Just like Carl Paladino in New York, right?  Voters didn't separate him from the down ballot races, correct?

That was a Governor's race, the federal races were unaffected by his presence. In a Presidential race, it's easy for the Senate candidates to be affected by a polarizing candidate at the top of the ballot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's safe to say that polarization wasn't as set in then, otherwise Reagan wouldn't have won 49 states.

[Mr.Phips]

Palin is very polarizing and that sort of polarization would be a weight on any Republican in a very blue state. Voters don't separate the top of the ticket from the down ballot in a situation like that.

Just like Carl Paladino in New York, right?  Voters didn't separate him from the down ballot races, correct?

Brown has an excellent shot at surviving. Coattails are indeed overrated, Reagan won 49 states, and didn't exactly expand the Republican majority in the senate, or help Republicans regain control of the House.

1984 was a far less polarized time.  People dont split tickets the way they did back then. 

Ah, yes, the old "the good old days were always less polarized than today" canard.  Things were just as polarized in 1984 as they are today.  Liberal Democrats hated Reagan with a passion, called him things like dumb, extreme, and too conservative, and questioned his foreign policy bona fides.  Notice a pattern?

Reagan had decent approval ratings among Democrats for most of his Presidency and got over 30% of their votes in 1980 and 1984.  That would never happen in 2012.

[cinyc]

Just like Carl Paladino in New York, right?  Voters didn't separate him from the down ballot races, correct?

That was a Governor's race, the federal races were unaffected by his presence. In a Presidential race, it's easy for the Senate candidates to be affected by a polarizing candidate at the top of the ballot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's safe to say that polarization wasn't as set in then, otherwise Reagan wouldn't have won 49 states.

In coattails theory, a governor's race would affect downballot state races like State Senate and Assembly, right?  Well, Democrats lost seats in both houses - and control of the NYS Senate.  Besides, both US Senators were up for election and won in landslides - yet Republicans picked up 6 US House seats.

By the way, how many Senate seats did Republicans pick up due to President Reagan's 1984 landslide?  None.  They actually lost a seat, despite Mondale sucking as a candidate.

Coattails are overrated, particularly in Presidential re-election years.

[Brittain33]

Things were just as polarized in 1984 as they are today. 

There was ticket-splitting on an enormous scale which has mostly vanished, especially in the last few years. Look at Democratic congressional representation in the South in '84 vs. presidential voting.

[redcommander]

Ever read the comments on Scott Brown's facebook page? *facepalm*

No. What are they like?

Almost every comment is about how he's somehow a traitor to the Republican cause. A lot of them are misspelled or in all caps.

Probably some talk show host told his/her listeners to post on his Facebook page.

This. Or too many Tea Party sheeple don't realize he is the best thing going for Massachusetts right now.

[Brittain33]

Few of those comments are from his constituents. I doubt he's losing sleep over random people from Baton Rouge or Iowa announcing they are deeply disappointed in him.

[Nichlemn]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

[Mjh]

Ever read the comments on Scott Brown's facebook page? *facepalm*

No. What are they like?

Take this one for example, by Bryan Flynn:

"Scott the libs aren't going to run marther in 12 and with control of the house us real conservatives that gave you big money won't need you anymore, so let us know if pandering to the homosexuals will get you elected, it didn't seem to work to well for Baker."

I hope to God the primary electorate in 2012 isn't dominated by retards like him.

[Brittain33]

"If it's Brown, flush it down! That's my new motto for you, Sir!"

[Brittain33]

I hope to God the primary electorate in 2012 isn't dominated by retards like him.

There is zero chance that Brown gets seriously primaried. Republicans here know what they're doing. I just checked again and at least 3/4 of the people expressing their profound disappointment with Brown on FB are still from Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, places like that.

[Brittain33]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Remember there were also a lot more Conservative White Democrats back then, who've by now realized what party they should be in. It was only a matter of time.

I hope to God the primary electorate in 2012 isn't dominated by retards like him.

There is zero chance that Brown gets seriously primaried. Republicans here know what they're doing. I just checked again and at least 3/4 of the people expressing their profound disappointment with Brown on FB are still from Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, places like that.

The danger is that those people will fund a Tea Party Primary challenger to Brown, who will in all likelihood be an unelectable extremist who'll lose in the general: look what happened in Delaware.

[Brittain33]

The danger is that those people will fund a Tea Party Primary challenger to Brown, who will in all likelihood be an unelectable extremist who'll lose in the general: look what happened in Delaware.

I guess I just don't think there are enough Republican voters in Mass. who view Brown so negatively that they'd throw him over for an alternative. He's conservative enough and still handsome and drives a truck and all that. He's not comparable to Castle, who was distinct from the party.

[albaleman]

He'll have a difficult time keeping his seat regardless, but having Palin on the ticket would be one more drag he'd have to deal with.

[Mjh]

I hope to God the primary electorate in 2012 isn't dominated by retards like him.

There is zero chance that Brown gets seriously primaried. Republicans here know what they're doing. I just checked again and at least 3/4 of the people expressing their profound disappointment with Brown on FB are still from Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, places like that.

Maybe such a primary challenger could be a blessing in disguise, since it would allow Brown to define himself in opposition to the Conservative wing of the Republican Party?

[Nichlemn]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

[redcommander]

Will Brown's vote in favor of repealing DADT help him be reelected?

[Brittain33]

Will Brown's vote in favor of repealing DADT help him be reelected?

Certainly. It won't win him many gay votes but it makes him look like less of a conservative culture warrior which turns off some straight independents.

[ajc0918]

Ahh, gotta love Scott Brown.

[Mr.Phips]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

When was the last time an incumbent Presidential race was decided on "lessor of the two evils"?  People always vote by the job the incumbent did on the economy and war.