Republican Wins Massachusetts Senate Race

The news services have just declared State Senator Scott Brown the winner over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy from 1962 until his death in 2009. This is big news. Though Republicans have won four of the past five races for governor in the Bay State, there are no Republicans in the state's House delegation and there hasn't been a GOP Senator there since 1972. Massachusetts is widely regarded as one of the most liberal states in the union, and Barack Obama won the state by nearly 26 points in November, 2008.

There will be a lot of post mortems on the meaning of this vote. I feel there were some local factors in play here, but there are messages for the nation too. Zeroing in on local conditions, here are some points to think about.

1. Massachusetts has three times as many Democrats as Republicans. But the majority are independents. It's about 36% Democrats, 12% Republicans and 52% independent. Obviously, I feel analysis will show Brown did well among the independents. Turnout was much lower than a general election, and as a bloc Republicans typically turn out at a higher percentage than Democrats.
2. Gender was likely a factor. Only four women have ever been elected to Congress from the state, and none of these to the Senate. There were no women representatives from Massachusetts in Washington for 25 years before Niki Tsongas was elected in 2007. And she, of course, enjoyed the coat-tails of being the widow of former representative and Senator Paul Tsongas.
3. In much the same way that liberals were energized in opposition to the Bush presidency, so conservatives are against the Obama presidency and its agenda.
4. Coakley and the state party in general took the campaign for granted and got off to a slow and late start. Brown's message was clear and simple.

Now for some observations with national implications.

5. The Democrats have hurt themselves very badly by dragging the health care process on for so long. They would have done much better to resolve it quickly, however they were to do it, and get on to what the electorate cares most deeply about--jobs. Surveys showed the people in 2008 were concerned about health and wanted reform. But they felt change would happen faster than this. Something quick and simple such as extending Medicare would have been the kind of decisive and understandable step more people would have supported.
6. The Democrats have also hurt themselves by some of the deal making they did to get such as Ben Nelson and unions with extraordinarily good health insurance on board the health plan. Obama campaigned on change, and most especially on changing the way things are done in Washington. Deals like that smack of the same old same old.
7. Many people are genuinely concerned about the increase in the deficit. Although the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will reduce the deficit in the long run, many are skeptical.
8. The problems Obama inherited are becoming his own. The Republicans in congress are not interested in helping. So to the extent that things are not getting better in the economy faster the Democrats are starting to get blamed.
9. People are angry and fed up in general. It may not seem logical to vote for someone whose views are precisely what allowed the economy to crash and the health problems to get out of hand in the first place, but the Democrats (particularly in Massachusetts) are now in control and they took the brunt of the anger in this race. It will be interesting this fall to see whether such anger is directed at all incumbents or merely at Democrats.
10. Obama and the Democrats had better come up with some plans fast to create jobs. If they have any brains at all they had better get that message at least.