A special Senate election is being held next Tuesday in Massachusetts to finish Edward Kennedy’s term. The candidates are Martha Coakley (D), and State Senator Scott P. Brown (R).
The election is particularly noteworthy for a number of reasons. First, recent polls show Brown matching or even exceeding Coakley’s electoral support, in one of the most liberal states in the entire country (and one that hasn’t elected a Republican in four decades). See Pollster.com’s aggregation of polls here, and Intrade’s political market for the election here. Second, the consequences of a Brown victory could be the derailment of the Democratic health care reform proposal, if all Senate Republicans maintain party unity.
To my mind, the election is fascinating for another reason. Brown is attracting very positive national and state Republican and conservative attention. On the other hand, State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava attracted very negative attention from conservatives in her special election campaign for the 23rd Congressional District of New York.
Brown is actually a liberal Republican who is to be found to the left of Dede Scozzafava! So why, then, the enthusiasm gap in support for the two? This post documents this assertion, and then answers this puzzle.
Citing my ongoing research on ideology in state legislatures in an earlier blog post, I made some waves by arguing that Scozzafava was actually a conservative Republican in a particular context. That context was the New York State legislature, where Republicans are exceedingly liberal relative to the rest of the country. In fact, she was actually located slightly to the right of the average Republican in the legislature. Despite this, there was a firestorm of opposition to her, leading to an insurgent challenge by Doug Hoffman under the Conservative Party label and her subsequent withdrawal from the campaign.
What about Scott Brown? How liberal or conservative is he? We have evidence from multiple sources. The Boston Globe, in its editorial endorsing Coakley, called Brown “in the mode of the national GOP.” Liberal bloggers have tried to tie him to the Tea Party movement, making him out to be very conservative. Chuck Shumer called him “far-right.”
In 2002, he filled out a Votesmart survey on his policy positions in the context of running for the State Senate. Looking through the answers doesn’t reveal too much beyond that he is a pro-choice, anti-tax, pro-gun Republican. His interest group ratings are all over the map. Business and gun rights groups typically rate him very highly, labor and and environmental groups have rated him both middling and high over time. The teacher’s union rated him low in 2001, and high in 2005.
All in all, a very confusing assessment, and quite imprecise. So how do we compare Brown to other state legislators, or more generally to other politicians across the country? My research, along with Princeton’s Nolan McCarty, allows us to make precisely these comparisons. Essentially, I use the entirety of state legislative voting records across the country, and I make them comparable by calibrating them through Project Votesmart’s candidate surveys.
By doing so, I can estimate Brown’s ideological score very precisely. It turns out that his score is –0.17, compared with her score of 0.02. Liberals have lower scores; conservatives higher ones.
Brown’s score puts him at the 34th percentile of his party in Massachusetts over the 1995-2006 time period. In other words, two thirds of other Massachusetts Republican state legislators were more conservative than he was. This is evidence for my claim that he’s a liberal even in his own party. What’s remarkable about this is the fact that Massachusetts Republicans are the most, or nearly the most, liberal Republicans in the entire country!
Of course, while the Republicans here are liberal, Democrats are incredibly liberal. In comparison to them, Brown is a conservative. He was also the most conservative of the tiny handful of Republican State Senators.
Perhaps the most important context in which Brown can be considered a conservative is the electoral one. We’re talking about Massachusetts here, one of the most liberal states in the country, delivering 62% of the vote for Barack Obama, in comparison to 36% of the vote for John McCain. And as liberal as Brown may be, he’d be far more conservative than Edward Kennedy (-.92), or Martha Coakley (no score as she has never been a legislator, nor has she filled out the Votesmart survey – but ACORN has given her its top rating). And the third party candidate here, Libertarian Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the famous ones), is not a viable candidate nor is he palatable to mainstream conservatives relative to Brown.
In other words, what began as a puzzle turns out not to be much of oneat all. It makes perfect sense that Scott Brown, a liberal Massachusetts Republican, has attracted Republican and conservative support. He’s perfectly suited for his liberal state electorate. Dede Scozzafava, in fact considerably more conservative than Scott Brown was not nearly so well matched to her intended constituency, the relatively conservative 23rd District that had returned moderate conservative John McHugh since the 1992 election.
What this shows, however, is that the conservative base in the United States, far from dragging their party moblike into an unelectable extreme, has made the decentralized decision to support the realistically best candidate they can relative to the context in which he’s being elected. The 23rd special district election can also be seen in this light; throwing Scozzafava overboard made far more sense in the context of that electorate.
January 15, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It comes down to the healthcare bill. I’m a lifelong Republican and I would vote for a Democrat over a Republican — if the Rep was for the health bill and the Dem was opposed to it. No matter how conservative the Republican is on every single other issue.
January 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm
If you are correct, Brown will immediately be called a “RINO” and scorned by the Republican party. He is much more liberal than Crist, but the Republican base seems to have abandoned Crist. The Republican Party abandoned Spector and God only knows why they support Snowe and Collins.
I did not know Brown was pro-choice. Do the conservtives?
There is only one reason conservatives support Brown – he has promised not to vote for cloture on health care. They support him for that, and for that only.
January 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Duh, Allan. That’s what the whole post was about. Did you read it? Conservatives are supporting the most conservative candidate in each race.
January 15, 2010 at 5:53 pm
I don’t know. This seems like a special case. Were this not a special election and the potential 41st vote, conservatives outside of Mass. would likely not be supporting him financially, but choose to spend their money elsewhere.
January 15, 2010 at 6:08 pm
not just health care – he’s going to vote against cap and trade, too.
vote against health care, vote against cap and trade, and vote against Harry Reid – with those three he can take any damn position he wants on anything else and I won’t care.
January 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm
RINO’s are objectionable when they are unnecessary evils. While Rick Santorum was perhaps too conservative, Arlen Specter was far too liberal and obnoxious. There were many years where Pennsylvania was obviously willing to elect guys like Santorum(BECAUSE THEY ELECTED SANTORUM) and yet we kept putting forth Arlen Specter. Nobody thinks there’s someone better than Scott Brown out there in MA. If Scott Brown ran for Senate in Texas the Tea Parties would eviscerate him…
January 15, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Brown is squishy on abortion – yes, thinks it should remain a legal option, but he also thinks it should be reduced by means of parental consent laws, etc – things that are considered unacceptable to the average “pro-choice” activist.
His website also talks up adoption, which is an argument that deeply appeals to many many many conservatives.
January 15, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Thats all political posturing. He’s doing whatever he has to do on abortion to at least not turn off conservative votes. My guess is that he’s actually more pro-choice than he’s letting on.
Id vote for him. And I m someone that voted for Obama. But the democrats have moved too far left, and I dont think the health care bill should pas. Maybe this would stop it. I especially don’t like that it will limit womens access to abortion beyond what even The Hyde amendemnt does.
January 15, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Scott Brown is supported by the Massachusetts Citizens For Life Federal Political Action Committee because of his position on seven life issues. He favors (1) parental consent for minors, (2) the ban on partial birth abortion, (3) the exemption of abortion from Health Care, (4) adult stem cell research and (5) the Infants Born Alive Protection Act. He opposes (6) tax funding of abortion and (7) the proposed Freedom of Choice Act. MCFL places Martha Coakley on the opposite side of all these issues.
In last week’s debate Brown stated he supports Roe v. Wade, and he certainly tried to avoid talking about his support in the Massachusetts legislature for conscience rights of hospital personnel with respect to providing what was described as contraceptive protection for rape victims. (This so called contraceptive often acts as an abortifacient.)
Nevertheless at a practical level compared to Kennedy, Kerry, and most members of the Massachusetts legislative delegation Brown presents a rare opportunity for pro-life Massachusetts voters to be represented by a person who supports a number of positions compatible with a pro-life perspective.
Brown is also supported by the Coalition for Marriage and the Family which spearheaded the effort to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He was opposed vigorously in both of his election campaigns for the State Senate by Mass Equality, the major group supporting the Goodridge decision that was based on a re-definition of marriage as unrelated in its essence to sexual complementarity. In my opinion the court by re-defining marriage illegitimately took on a function properly belonging to the Legislature.
For these two reasons this life long Democrat, and I hope many others, will vote for Scott Brown next week.
January 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“There is only one reason…” B.S.
As Boris points out, Brown is conservative for Massachusetts, and, therefore, is preferable to Coakley, and should be supported by the national GOP, and Conservatives, who’s home is the GOP these days, and who need every vote we can get.
Allan, not every “conservative” makes “choice” a litmus test as you so mistakenly believe. Unlike DEMOCRATS, we are generally not single issue voters. Reagan used to preach taking the person who agrees with you 80% of the time over the one who agrees 40% of the time. In this case, I’ll gladly take 50% versus 0%.
The Crist comment is a red herring. As Boris put down the Scozzafava incident, something similar is true in FL. In that case, you have an articulate, young, smart candidate in Marco Rubio, who probably better represents the state of Florida than the slick, wishy-washy, semi-liberal Crist. Sure, conservatives, when given the choice of a solidlt electable conservative, would choose that candidate, but, that is not the case in Massachusetts.
Learn something from Boris’s analysis.
January 16, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Exactly. Scott Brown will probably not turn into a conservative icon, but he, like Olympia Snowe, will be tolerated because conservatives and the GOP know that he is as good as one can get from a liberal state.
It is odd how liberals point to Florida as an example of “extremism” in the GOP. I think that is just wishful thinking on their part. Just because Crist is governor does not mean he has the automatic right to be the nominee for Senate. That’s why we have primaries and Rubio has every right to challenge Crist. My sense is that Rubio has a good shot at winning both the primary and the general election. I wonder if that isn’t what really worries the liberals — that the GOP might have a bright, energetic conservative hispanic on the national stage. That might undercut their ongoing attempts to use the race card against the GOP.
January 15, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Great analysis. Context is so crucial; there’s not many states where Brown could run and energize the right, but he does so because he’s the most conservative *electable* candidate possible in Mass. I listened to him on a fairly friendly radio talk show, where he could have let it hang out (so to speak) and spout right-wing talking points, but he came across as someone who’s a legit moderate. And a political moderate in Mass would be a huge rightward shift in the Senate, more so than a hypothetical “put Cheney’s brain in Lindsey Graham’s body” type scenario.
January 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm
[…] And now, at this moment of near-triumph, when the conservative world is feeling as warm and festive as the Whos down in Whoville, I’m going to have to play Grinch. I didn’t want to do it to you, but you have a right to know. Brace yourselves, my friends, for … the ultimate heart-ache. […]
January 15, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I agree with the conclusion (or suggestion) that conservative Republicans have behaved rationally in these (and, I would say, most) cases in supporting/opposing candidates. (I think the same is generally true for liberal Democrats also.)
But, I question the claim that “Brown is more liberal than Scozzafava.” What matters in Congressional elections are the promises/expectations re how a candidate will vote on matters before Congress. The killer for Scozzafava was card-check (not abortion, as Democratic spinners claimed) — does Brown support card-check also? Has he waffled on the health care bill as she did?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I suspect that they are “no.” I’ll believe that Brown is more liberal when I see his stated positions on national issues stacked up against Scozzafava’s.
January 15, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Thing is… Dede was associated with ACORN and was not only pro-choice but had received the Margaret Sanger award…
January 15, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I agree with Monty above and add:
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” pretty much sums it up.
January 15, 2010 at 6:22 pm
We have a Republican in NC running against David Price. Frank Roche. Kinda looks like Brown, too. Similar philosophy. Again, big tent means you support the candidate who most reflects your values. I can do that. Frank Roche. Remember that name.
January 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm
I’m a northeast Republican. I have two words for those who want to rag on Brown: shut up.
Just shut up. Now is not the time for purity tests. Unity and moderation, right now, are CRITICAL.
Again, shut up. Zip it. No crying.
January 15, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I am a staunch, Midwest conservative, and generally in favor of a purity test. In this case, however, I am with you. If you are a conservative, support Brown or STFU.
January 15, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I am more consevative than most in MA but I am supporting Brown. He is the best candidate.
We do not have any really conservative candidates in MA. In 2008 two real RINO’s ran against Ed Markey (he wanted to bring troops home and end wars) and another RINO against Kerry, same views as above, nothing about national security.
Scott Brown is for national security. I am against abortion but think that if a woman wants one, that’s between her and God, I don’t want to hear about it and I do not like Coakley insulting Catholics, I am one. Yesterday she said that “maybe they should not work in ERs or hospitals”. If she said something against a Muslim, there would be a huge uproar, but it’s okay to bash Catholics?
January 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Excellent analysis. It is refreshing to find someone willing to do real legwork to add to what we already know, instead of just rehashing what everyone already knows (which is sadly common on political blogs).
January 15, 2010 at 6:34 pm
this si a very misleading article title as well as not accurate to his present views on the issues.
i buy into some of this but he has spoken with pro-life MA groups and they support him because he is not for late-term abortion and is for government restrictions on abortion. Which is more than Kennedy or Obama or Coakley would ever be for. He would not support overturning Roe vs Wade but that is being worked in the courts anyway. there are no bills to overturn R v W.
the rating you mentioned is not how he is presently running. he has moved to center right, at least. all the liberal or mid dems who vote for him know he is running with the support of the state’s pro-life movement and yet he is still AHEAD.
abortion is the law of the land even without Brown. If he promised to vote against obamacare, then that will be less goverment & taxpaying support of abortion, which is a GOOD THING AND IS VERY PRO-LIFE.
here is how a pro-life reasonable voter looks at voting for Brown and I agree 100%:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=596
January 15, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by bshor: My research shows #ScottBrown is more liberal than Dede Scozzafava. So why the enthusiasm gap on the right? http://bit.ly/liberal-brown…
January 15, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Coakley is a doctrainaire liberal so no need to parse her ideology. I support Brown even though I anticipate will be another squishy NE ‘moderate ‘RHINO. If he weren’t his tenure in MA would be shorter than that Pope who was poisoned. It is a comparison between Brown and Coakley-period.Reagan is not on the ballot. The hope Brown MAY help stop that terrible health deform bill is worth taking any chance on him.America has known what to expect from MA since it was the only state that went to McGovern.
January 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm
This is about government takeover of healthcare. That’s pretty much it.
January 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm
“pro-choice, anti-tax, pro-gun Republican”
What this says to me is that he’s a proponent of individual rights & choices v. more government intrusion & interference in those rights and choices.
What’s not to like?
Not all of those who call themselves conservative are hung up on abortion v. choice; many of us give greater priority to fiscal sanity and smaller, less intrusive government, in all respects.
January 15, 2010 at 6:49 pm
He’s not a climate-change cultist. That’s reason enough to support him.
Otherwise, he’s as conservative a candidate as Massachusetts would ever consider electing, and he’d be a roadblock to one-party Politburo governance.
Pro-choice? So am I, nominally, and I can count on one hand the number of times since 1980 I’ve voted for a Democrat.
January 15, 2010 at 6:54 pm
[…] that Scott Brown, whom we all are hoping will win next Tuesday in Massachusetts special election, is more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava, who was reviled by the majority of the people currently enthusiastically rooting for State Senator […]
January 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm
[…] Comments Boris Shor, a professor at the University of Chicago, makes what appears to be a persuasive case that Scott […]
January 15, 2010 at 7:05 pm
It is the possibility of killing the massive government control of healthcare in the Senate.
Dede was running for the House.
And this is important. Was Brown chosen by a group of 11 out-of-touch GOP county heads?
And the last key piece:
NY-23 is significantly less liberal and more conservative than MA overall.
January 15, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Is Scott Brown a proud winner of the Margaret Sanger Award?
Is Scott Brown heavily in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, ACORN or the NEA?
Is Scott Brown married to a leading union organizer and in favor of card-check?
Is Scott Brown going to change his opposition to ObamaCare?
No. Pro-choice is not any more a dealbreaker for the GOP than the opposite is for Dems. In the end, though, you must worry about those who will cave on serious issues when they’re supposedly liberal, like Specter, Collins and Snowe or McCain and Graham.
The GOP needs loyalty from its Congressional members, elected representatives who will be able to resist the siren song of “history.” Bribes, in other words. Conservatives were right to cast out Scozzafava, who was more liberal than Brown. They were right to reject Specter. There needs to be a house-cleaning, and if Brown votes against his constituents in the future (should he be elected) then he needs to look for a new job, too.
We’ll cross that bridge when we find it. In the mean time, Scott Brown can be relied upon to vote against the healthcare bill. He is even crucial to the debate on Capitol Hill, because Romneycare is something he voted for and saw firsthand.
January 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Not only that, Scozzafava turned around and endorsed the Democrat after her campaign collapsed, even though the national RNC had pumped nearly a million dollars into it.
January 15, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I don’t quite buy this breakdown.
First off – the culture war has shifted to an almost exclusive focus on fiscal discipline and responsible taxation. Brown has shown himself to be in the right place on that front.
Secondly – the foreign policy /national security component (which this analysis doesn’t touch) is crucial for a national office, and Brown is in the right place there.
On abortion he’s a mixed bag but not a disaster.
The Republican Party HAS to be open to having purple-tinged candidates in blue states and stop testing for ideological purity.
January 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“the culture war has shifted to an almost exclusive focus on fiscal discipline and responsible taxation. Brown has shown himself to be in the right place on that front.”
Say what? Brown is nowhere close to being in the right place on that front. Unless of course you think fiscal discipline can be reconciled with opposition to Medicare and Military cuts. There are perhaps 30 memebers, out of 535 in the entire Congress, who are currently in the right spot and he isn’t close. I scratch my head and wonder …. where are the people who want to raise taxes, crush out-year entitlement spending, pull $50B out of 600B+ in discretionary spending and cap future increases, cut $150B out of a $600+ billion DoD budget and eviscerate the existing health insurance industry. Those are the people in the “right place.” Scott Brown couldn’t find that place with a GPS.
January 15, 2010 at 7:41 pm
One of the strong themes of the grassroots demonstrations in 2009 has been opposition to the wild growth of and spending by the federal government. The health care bill is seen by many a continuation of this trend.
Brown seems to line up well with these sentiments. He has talked about fiscal conservatism and not supporting the federal health care initiative. Therefore, there is little mystery as to why the grassroots movement supports Brown and supported him through his fundraising effort earlier this week. There is some important ideological synergy.
This was a really good blog post. My thanks to Boris Shor for providing it.
January 15, 2010 at 8:25 pm
This is exactly how I choose who to support or oppose: I want the most conservative candidate that can win, in each district. Scott Brown may be to the left of Scozzafava, but he is the most conservative guy we will ever get out of Mass.
Scozzafava was far to the left of her district, and it was much preferable to put a democrat in that seat for one year, than to have a left-leaning so-called Republican taking a seat that an actual conservative could have, forever. I sent Hoffman money, more to stop Scozzafava than to elect Hoffman, and consider her loss a scalp on my spear.
That election, and this one in Mass, should send a shiver through the hearts of all politicians who think they can vote against the interests of their constituents, in the name of party unity or the “comity of the Senate”. I don’t care what party you are from (*cough* Lindsay Graham *cough*), if you find yourself consistently to the left of your district, you may find your scalp hanging from our spear next.
January 15, 2010 at 8:48 pm
[…] Boris Shor, a professor at the University of Chicago, makes what appears to be a persuasive case that Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Massachusetts, is a liberal. Indeed, Shor argues that, objectively speaking, he is more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, the candidate for Congress in New York against whom most conservative turned, opting instead to support a third party candidate. […]
January 15, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Hey, Boris!
I wouldn’t presume to question your numbers, but from my vantage here in Boston, Brown seems more in tune with the national Republican party than the Republicans who have succeeded here–Weld, Celluci, the pre-2008 Romney. You would never have caught Bill Weld giving a speech at a Tea Party! Brown’s popularity bodes ill, I think, for the revival of the Rockefeller Republicans, who could save the Republican Party from the know-nothing wing of the party represented nationally by Palin.
(Drop me a line and let me know how you are! I didn’t realize you had a blog).
January 15, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Scott Brown said that he would be the 41st vote against Obamacare. This is the one issue that can directly impact the lives of most Americans — and the people of Massachusetts (most of who don’t want the health reform proposed) have a chance to make a real difference in the key election.
If my nearly one-year of Tea Party activism has taught me anything, it is that NO ONE party can be trusted. Americans must stay informed, engaged, and aware of what their representatives are doing and actually dialog with the politicians.
Note Brown in, and keep a close eye on what he does in office.
January 15, 2010 at 10:31 pm
[…] dragging their party moblike into an unelectable extreme, has made the decentralized decision to support the realistically best candidate they can relative to the context in which he’s being elected. The 23rd special district election can also […]
January 16, 2010 at 12:52 am
It’s tempting for this Massachusetts resident to bore others with many details. I won’t.
Some conservatives in the state are aware of differences with Mr. Brown’s positions. One organization, of which I am a member, which generally gets an ‘extreme right-wing” label, has chosen to highlight positions where it and Mr. Brown agree, while ignoring sharp differences. They recognize they share nothing with Ms. Coakley; she is a hard and demagogic leftist and has campaigned as one.
The left’s misreading of the Hoffman-Scozzafava-Owens race in Upstate New York reflected many prejudices. Think Frank Rich. Leftists misread the sophistication of many conservatives, who match leftists in political sophistication, but do not have the left’s strengths in schools and colleges, the entertainment media, or what passes for news media in this country. (As a former newspaper reporter, the current corruption of the press saddens me greatly.)
People who will make false, single-issue conclusions on the basis of whoever wins Tuesday. The candidates and the vote are too complex for reductive analysis.
E.g., do you now who Gerald Amirault is?
And, in the kicker: Prof. Shor’s analysis is brilliant. I wasn’t aware universities were capable of intelligent analysis. That is a pleasant surprise. (A relative was a faculty officer at an Ivy university; I was consistently underwhelmed by the intelligence of its professoriate, while overwhelmed by their prejudices and ignorant biases.)
January 16, 2010 at 12:55 am
[Perhaps you could remove that last paragraph. After all, my relative was a professor.
Or you could end with the first sentence. It is indeed a brilliant analysis.
January 16, 2010 at 1:42 am
[…] picture that emerges after examining this fellow’s record and his position on the issues is one of an independent thinker with conservative principles who […]
January 16, 2010 at 1:56 am
[…] Boris Schor: Scott Brown is to the left of Dede […]
January 16, 2010 at 3:17 am
A few points to consider.
“Brown is actually a liberal Republican who is to be found to the left of Dede Scozzafava!”
You make this the centerpiece of your article and other than some talk about “context”–which is just another way of saying ‘I’m going to compare apples and oranges, then proceed as if I’m only talking apples’–offer absolutely no proof to back it up.
2-Scott Brown won a primary and represented who Republican voters in his state elected to represent them in a larger contest. Scozzafava was the product of some deal-making that ignored the voters she allegedly represented in the contest. Doug Hoffman was the result of those voters crying “Foul! We weren’t consulted.”
3-Brown represents perhaps the last chance to stop a mad powergrab by Washington. A ‘no’ vote on this issue trumps almost everything else to many voters.
4-There are other arguments, but it’s late.
January 16, 2010 at 4:06 am
Scazzofava was unfairly maligned by the Dick Armey run Tea Partiers, but she was also a pretty weak candidate. Brown is a strong candidate and is conservative in the areas that matter to the republicans right now. That is why Dick Armey is now supporting Brown.
Brown and Scazzofava were pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Anyone who treats gay marriage as a dealbreaker is crazy in this climate. And pro-choice is mandatory in Mass as Mitt Romney can tell you.
January 16, 2010 at 7:58 am
The difference is that Scozzafava was running in a district that had been Republican since the War of Northern Aggression, and she had a viable conservative candidate that the party insiders passed over for her. Oh, and she showed her true colors by endorsing the Democrat candidate when she pulled out. Mr. Brown is running in the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts. Conservatives may be portrayed as idiots by the media, but we recognize “the best of a bad situation” when we see it.
January 16, 2010 at 9:02 am
[…] Boris Shor, a professor at the University of Chicago, makes what appears to be a persuasive case that Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Massachusetts, is a liberal. Indeed, Shor argues that, objectively speaking, he is more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, the candidate for Congress in New York against whom most conservative turned, opting instead to support a third party candidate. […]
January 16, 2010 at 9:09 am
Good analysis.
There’s an old saying: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Most conservatives realize that and are supporting Brown as I am.
January 16, 2010 at 10:02 am
What I noticed from watching him in MA – he has alot of the same problems as Mitt Romney had – trying to “nuance” his beliefs to appeal to both sides, therefore leaving you unsure exactly what he believes. This will surely come back to bite him. Although, unlike Romney, I don’t think he’s got alot upstairs, from some of what I’ve witnessed. Honestly, people in MA must be really annoyed at the Democrats to be impressed with: “Hi, I’m Scott Brown. I live in Wrentham. I drive a truck.” Although I’m not opposed to electing Republicans, and have in the past, I just don’t really want this guy representing me.
January 16, 2010 at 10:04 am
I meant to say I’m not opposed to “voting for” Republicans, not “electing” Republicans. There’s only so much one can do in MA.
January 16, 2010 at 10:07 am
Let’s assume the title of this article is correct and that Brown is a very liberal republican; wouldn’t he have to be in order to have any shot at all in MA? And besides, who cares? ANY republican who wins in MA will send a shock wave through the Dem Party and will have congressmen in vulnerable districts running away from Obama/Pelosi as fast as they can. IMO Brown can vote with the Dems on every issue he wants to (except Health Care which he specifically stated he would fillibuster) and it’s just…fine…with…me!
January 16, 2010 at 10:38 am
Interesting analysis but at first glance, I have to question the underlying research.
First, state legislatures are not likely to vote on matters similar enough to create a system of sufficiently accurate comparison – yes, those at the extremes in your analysis are in the extremes by any analysis but those in the middle of the curve have probably not had enough points of reliable comparison to be rated accurately to the left or right of one another. Also, in terms of conservative placement, matters of national security and state’s rights are hugely important, yet a state legislature would never touch on these subjects.
Moreover, I have to question the ability to gauge those votes made on the “lesser of two evils” principle. One might vote for a bill in MA or NY that would get you tarred and feathered in IN or TX but represent a decision (similar to that you posit about conservative voters)that is still a defense of conservative principles in perspective of the status quo in the state where the vote was cast.
Nonetheless, I agree with the premise of the post about conservatives naking a practical decision about electablity and I don’t doubt that he is a more moderate (I refuse to use the term liberal in a modern political context – we have not seen true liberals on a large scale basis in this country for decades), or even leftist if you prefer, than the center of the curve of Republican/conservative voters. I simply have to disagree with a rating of more liberal than Dede based on their stated positions on key national issues.
January 16, 2010 at 10:53 am
I livre in Massachusetts and Brown is pretty conservative except on abortion, and he’d like to see abortions made much rarer. He’s reliably anti tax increasing, pro strong national security/defense, anti government mandate/regulation, pro private sector, anti illegal immigrant, and believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
I don’t see him as nearly as liberal as the NY “Republican” Scozzafava. He’s no Jesse Helms, either…..but Jesse Helms could never win in Massachusetts. He’s as conservative as can get elected here in Massachusetts.
Bill
January 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm
As an independent in Massachusetts, I have to say that those of you from outside of the state who are saying “under ordinary circumstances I would never support a RINO like Brown, but . . .” don’t realize quite how fortunate you are.
Brown is a much more conservative candidate, particularly on social issues (abortion aside) than we would ever election under normal circumstances. I’m always amazed when I hear people calling the likes of Brown, Beatty, and Chase “RINOs.” The problem is that they’re *not* Weld Republicans, and normally only people like Weld–socially libertarian, pragmatically conservative on fiscal issues (or who pretend to be in the election, like Romney) have a chance of winning here.
However, I’m voting for Brown, who I would normally, under no circumstances vote for, for three reasons–I dislike the Democratic hegemony, I find Coakley to be personally reprehensible the more I learn about her, and I oppose the healthcare bill. Everybody I know who’s voting for Brown has similar reasons. If the Democrats weren’t in control of everything, trying to ram a godawful bill down our throats, a candidate as conservative as Brown would never stand a chance here. Count your blessings, and if you don’t live here, don’t you dare bitch if he’s not a doctrinaire conservative on issues other than healthcare.
January 16, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Alfred’s point is well taken. However, for many voters, the vote will come down to a single issue.
In my case, I am a MA resident who normally votes a straight Democratic ticket. And my distaste for Coakley is such that I considered voting for Brown. I won’t, however, since Brown has voted against same-sex marriage on a number of occasions – and this is the issue that directly affects people that I hold dear. He’s now had something of a change of heart and gives some indication that he’s moved on, but rather than risk giving political cover to reopen that can of worms from 5 years ago, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the devil I know.
Would Brown have appealed to more people in this state with a slightly more liberal record in some key areas? I have to think yes. Perhaps the same can be said that he would appeal to a different set with slightly more conservative views in other areas.
January 16, 2010 at 1:16 pm
So in a nutshell, next Tuesday, Massachusetts wil either elect Martha Coakley or Olympia Snowe II to the United States Senate.
January 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm
…but Brown will vote to defeat cap & trade, obamacare, and any more stimulus bills. why paint him as exactly like Snowe?
…his stand on the issues makes him more of Snowe’s disobedient son…
January 16, 2010 at 2:46 pm
…actually i am rather pissed by your post the more i think about.
you are a liar.
January 19, 2010 at 10:27 am
Lu-ree
Snowe was not going to be a 60th on HC and Carbon now looks like it will end up being an administrative action, rather than a legislative initiative. And besdies, Brown is a guy who voted for the RGGI and now feels duped because he was sold a bill of goods on rates. What kind of moron thought a new regulatory regime had the prospect of lowering rates?
Moral to this story, I would take Olympia over a guy who says he is a fiscal disciplinarian and yet opposes a HC bill because it cuts Meidcare beneifts.
That statement comes from the mouth of a child and not an adult. And we need adults who are ready to do what is neccessary to bring these defecits down.
January 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm
[…] of course is laughable — Scott Brown would actually be among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. But hey, facts play no role in this modern era of do-or-die […]
January 16, 2010 at 2:19 pm
[…] Boris Shor makes a compelling argument that Scott Brown is to the left of Dede Scozzafava. While I’m not familiar with Brown’s voting record in the Massachusetts State Senate, I am familiar with some of the backers of Dede Scozzafava. She has more in common with Martha Coakley than she does Scott Brown, in my opinion. […]
January 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm
[…] that Scott Brown, today’s conservative darling, is really no conservative at all. Clutching this Boris Shor, PhD piece to their breasts, David Frum and Rick Moran are claiming a certain large measure of triumph in […]
January 16, 2010 at 6:41 pm
All of this goes to say that Brown won’t be a lock step Republican, which is exactly the kind of Republican that MA voters would support.
Snowe or Collins II is probably about right, with perhaps a touch of McCain ‘reformer’ on earmarks and good government thrown in for good measure.
Yes, he plans to oppose the current heath bill (thank God), but he’d likely be willing to work with a bipartisan group on a new health bill that started with the proposition that there is already more than enough money in the current system and that there are items we should agree on before expanding entitlements and digging ourselves further into debt.
January 16, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Interesting analysis. Though I think that many of the issues on which Dede had a conservative record like gun control, drug laws, regulation of wetlands, and a farm labor bill were not top tier issues.
January 16, 2010 at 8:59 pm
[…] Scozzafava as if she was on the far left and allowed the Democrats to win the seat. Even though Brown is more liberal than Scozzafava we are not hearing any complaints that he is a RINO at the […]
January 16, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I’ve written 848 words providing more detail on the Massachusetts race, but that seems inappropriately long for a site’s comments.
I can sum up, however, by repeating that this election is not a referendum, where one issue gets voted up or down. Much will hinge on the Democrats’ ability to get relatively uninterested voters to the polls. The President could inspire many Democrats to vote, especially given the closeness of the race. An accumulation of weaknesses could pull Ms. Coakley down, her pushing to keep an innocent Gerald Amirault in jail, her position on issues that do not have majority support in this state and her ability to avoid a late mistake.
My head says Ms. Coakley will win. Leftists rate Presidents as intelligent depending on whether they share leftists’ views. Thus Ronald Reagan was stupid, though, as we now know, he was a gifted editor of cogent policy articles he had written in longhand. I have the same problem, from a rightist perspective, and don’t rate the voters’ political aptitudes highly.
My heart’s with Mr. Brown, who appears not as liberal as the study indicates, and his abortion position appears more middle-road than many think. But he’s preferable because he’d be a better legislator. Period. I don’t like popular music much, but it would be nice to hear his daughter sing when he holds a victory party. If he holds a victory party.
January 16, 2010 at 9:15 pm
[…] it looks like Brown belongs to a centrist pool – borderline GOP/Dem Scott Brown is a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava Boris Shor, PhD And Five Thirty Eight agrees it is a tossup: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: OK, It's a […]
January 16, 2010 at 11:50 pm
On what are you basing your claim that Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature are “incredibly liberal”? Certainly not the preceding graph, which to my count shows at least 12 states whose Democratic caucus is to the left of the Commonwealth’s or within 5 or 10% of it. (With the raw data, I could give more precise numbers, I counted this by putting my finger on the screen at the Massachusetts Dem’s mean and scrolling.)
January 16, 2010 at 11:58 pm
[…] night I happened to stumble on this post by Boris Schor, a professor at the University of Chicago which claims that the Scott Brown, the GOP candidate in […]
January 17, 2010 at 12:04 am
A commenter above said that “Mr. Brown is running in the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts.”
This joke outlived it’s truth a long time ago. Massachusetts ranks 29th (!) in tax revenue as a % of personal income at 6.30%. Among states some may be surprised to learn rank higher: Alaska at 11.67% (admittedly mostly by running a socialist petro-state), Arkansas at 8.35%, Wyoming at 7.78%, Mississippi, Idaho, Kentucky, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Louisiana, and Kansas. You’re not going to have many “true scotsman” left, after trying to talk your way around all of those. It’s a very outdated talking point, convenient as it would be for some if it were still true.
January 17, 2010 at 8:57 am
[…] January 17, 2010 538’s Andrew Gelman points me to University of Chicago political scientist Boris Shor’s analysis of the Massachussets Senate race between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown to fill […]
January 17, 2010 at 10:41 am
[…] Yes, Scott Brown seems to be vulnerable to bouts of Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome. Still, let’s get the red herring out on the table and smack it a good one right now. We wanted Hoffman over Scozzafava in upstate NY because, as he showed with his late momentum, he had a shot, and he was clearly more conservative. We support Rubio over Crist in Florida for the same reasons. […]
January 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm
[…] regards to Brown’s ideological positions, Boris Shor of the University of Chicago provides some empirical evidence: I can estimate Brown’s ideological […]
January 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm
[…] picture that emerges after examining this fellow’s record and his position on the issues is one of an independent thinker with conservative principles who […]
January 17, 2010 at 6:31 pm
[…] […]
January 17, 2010 at 7:02 pm
[…] Scott Brown is a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava A special Senate election is being held next Tuesday in Massachusetts to finish Edward Kennedy’s term. The candidates […] […]
January 18, 2010 at 1:10 am
I don’t think this study took into account Brown’s views on foreign policy and terroism, which are very conservative. He actually advocates treating American citizens who are suspected of terrorism and arrested in America as enemy combatants. That’s right, no Constitutional protections for US citizens, just ship ‘em off to Camp Gitmo. I don’t know how you get much more conservative than that — even Bush eventually tried Jose Padilla in Federal District Court.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100107scott_brown_vows_to_work_with_dems/
Listen to the second caller on this talk show interview of Scott Brown (9:30):
http://www.wbz.com/pages/697858.php
January 18, 2010 at 6:13 am
[…] and others are pointing to this analysis claiming that Brown is “a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava.” Nonsense. On […]
January 18, 2010 at 9:04 am
Keep in mind, this is MASSACHUSETTS!. This isn’t upstate New York where the GOP can win in any election and the state legislature is balanced. Brown has served in a State Senate where 9 of 10 are Democrats. His voting record will be also skewed by what bills were available to vote on. I know this man and you can’t pin him down as a liberal or conservative. He may actually be tyhat elusive moderate who actually reads the bills and gives thought to each one before casting his vote on the people’s behalf instead of marching with some special interest or another. Would I be happier with a straight conservative? Yes. Would we talking about him if he was one? No.
January 18, 2010 at 10:51 am
From the Boston Herald report of January 7: “He said there may be cases in which U.S. citizens should be treated as enemy combatants if they have undergone terrorism training outside the country.” Then, quoting Scott Brown:
“Even though they hold the status of U.S. citizens, now they’ve gone to a different level,” he said. “They’re joining a known terrorist group and almost saying, ‘Even though I’m born here . . . I want to be (elsewhere) instead.’ ”
The article characterized him as “exhausted but gung-ho” when he talked with the paper’s editorial board. Perhaps exhaustion explains the puzzling interpolation, “I want to be (elsewhere) instead.” Someone who has undergone terrorist training outside the country may well want to reside where he or she grew up. One can know only that the person learned from terrorists how to change a society by violent means.
But there’s nothing in the statement that suggests that the person would be treated as the mujahideen sent to Guantánamo. Nor does the statement mean that the person would not have the Constitutional protections afforded to any U.S. citizen. It may simply be a reaction to the Administration decision to treat the Nigerian with hot underpants as a criminal. Nor can we know whether Mr. Brown said anything that would further qualify or revise the remark. And I’m no lawyer and do not know what treatment of a U.S. citizen as a combatant for an enemy force should entail.
There is nothing necessarily conservative in Mr. Brown’s position, anymore than there’s anything necessarily liberal in providing full U.S. constitutional rights to an alien who tried to murder hundreds of people in an airplane near Detroit. That has nothing to do with liberalism. The Obama Administration’s decision ought not taint liberalism, nor should similarly mistaken decisions taint conservatism.
In other words, many people characterize certain positions as necessarily conservative or liberal, when, in many cases, they only represent stupid or ill-informed acts or statements that do not necessarily flow from any political ideology, but rather may express someone’s mistaken understanding of the ideology, or incorporation of other ideologies or no ideology at all into their thinking.
That is what happened with Barack Obama, which is an analysis for another day.
January 19, 2010 at 1:16 am
Mr. Lemire, treating a US Citizen as an “enemy combatant,” by definition, means depriving him or her of the “Constitutional protections afforded to any U.S. citizen.” Enemy combatants are placed under the custody of the US military and deprived of all the rights afforded to American Citizens (and other residents) under the Constitution. Obama has now decided to try enemy combatants in Federal Court, a move that Scott Brown disagreed with and made one of his major campaign issues.
You may not be familiar with these issues, but Scott Brown, as a lawyer and a JAG with the National Guard, is VERY well informed. He was asked on talk radio if he would grant any due process to US Citizens before stripping them of their Constitutional rights and possibly sending them to Camp Gitmo. He said he would not.
Just listen to the radio link I provided, Scott is very clear about his position. (Starts at 11:45):
http://www.wbz.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4314117
As to these views not being conservative… Even the conservative Boston Herald calls him “hawkish on national security.”
January 18, 2010 at 11:35 am
[…] not as liberal as his opponent, Martha Coakley. Boris Shor determines that Brown, who is attracting lots of positive attention from conservatives activists and tea party types, to […]
January 18, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Brown is like Obama… he is riding a wave of discontent.
January 18, 2010 at 2:48 pm
[…] Chait is simply ignoring Brown’s very obvious bipartisan record and using a throw-away line to paint him as some right-wing radical, which is silly and preposterous. I’ve already been over Brown’s take on the issues and he’s anything but a far-right Republican. […]
January 18, 2010 at 3:24 pm
[…] […]
January 19, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Let me get right to the point: From what I can tell, Scott Brown is nowhere near as liberal as Dede Scozzafava.
As a New Yorker, I am not as familiar with Brown as I am with Scozzafava, but I have uncovered a few facts about him. Brown is opposed to Obamacare, supports some restrictions on abortion, has voted for an opposite-sex definition of marriage, and is opposed to the anti-freedom card check legislation. Brown supports emergency contraception, but tried (and failed) to add language to an emergency contraception bill that would have provided conscience protections for medical personnel. For a Republican, Brown has received fairly high marks from organized labor and from environmental groups during his State Senate career. Scott Brown’s positions on these issues make him a moderate Republican.
Dede Scozzafava is not a moderate Republican. Dede Scozzafava is wishy-washy on Obamacare and wishy-washy on a public option in Obamacare. She supports taxpayer funding of abortion via Obamacare. She has received an award from a Planned Parenthood affiliate. I am unaware of any restrictions or limitations on abortion that she would support. She supports card check, and I would assume that her union-boss husband does as well. She has voted for same-sex marriage three times and has also voted for medical marijuana legislation. She supported the 2009 Obama stimulus package. Aside from some vestiges of conservatism on issues like guns and the environment, Dede Scozzafava is a liberal. Her positions on many of these issues would not only place her to the left of every Republican member of Congress, but also to the left of many Blue Dog Democrats. Conservative New Yorkers like me opposed her because of her liberal record and values. A moderate is not the same thing as a liberal.
I respectfully question the accuracy of the conservative/liberal calculations referred to above. Also, I believe that certain issues (like the ones mentioned above) should receive more weight than others in evaluating a candidate’s political position.
January 20, 2010 at 3:03 am
[…] is no libertarian. But he campaigned against the Obama-Reid-Pelosi health care plan and against tax increases, so he […]
January 20, 2010 at 9:01 am
[…] District of New York. This is particularly odd since, as political scientist Boris Shor argues, Brown is more liberal than the despised Scozzafava: So how do we compare Brown to other state legislators, or more generally to other politicians […]
January 20, 2010 at 9:27 am
[…] Boaz has a few words about the Brown Revolution. “Brown is no libertarian. But he campaigned against the Obama-Reid-Pelosi health care plan and against tax increases, so he […]
January 20, 2010 at 5:53 pm
[…] His Massachusetts voting record. Nate Silver highlights a University of Chicago prof Boris Shor analysis: So how do we compare Brown to other state legislators, or more generally to other politicians […]
January 20, 2010 at 7:07 pm
BTW: I am in Dede’s district (NY 23) – she is a hardcore Republican who speaks one way (to win) and governs (liberal) to stay in office — blame the voters in her district.
I figured it out a long time ago (in 1994) when I ran against McHugh… Mr. Houdini himself…
January 21, 2010 at 8:39 am
[…] with the help of Mr. Google, I was able to nail down the facts to counter Hare’s lies. Boris Shor, a professor at University of Chicago, did a study of Brown’s votes over his politi… and discovered that he is a liberal GOPer, with 2/3 of other Massachusetts Republicans being MORE […]
January 22, 2010 at 9:51 am
[…] https://bshor.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/sc… […]
January 23, 2010 at 3:02 am
[…] thrown their lot behind a RINO in the form of Scott Brown, a man who voted for RomneyCare. Brown leans further left than Dede Scozzafava. Now the RINOs will point to his victory and see it as a sign that their […]
January 25, 2010 at 11:44 pm
[…] in favor of promoting Yes We Canism. A few commenters even maintained he was more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, the most rhinocerosy of RINOS. If that dubious notion is true, then his anti-“stimulus,” anti-Democraticare, […]
February 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm
[…] could you draw about a party jubilant over the election of Scott Brown, who by one measure is pretty darned liberal, and calls himself a “new breed of Republican”? Certainly, Matthews could draw no other […]
February 1, 2010 at 10:28 pm
[…] could you draw about a party jubilant over the election of Scott Brown, who by one measure is pretty darned liberal, and calls himself a “new breed of Republican”? Certainly, Matthews could draw no other […]
June 8, 2010 at 10:50 am
[…] of legislators’ ideal points later this summer after a publication in LSQ comes out. Woot! (See an example of what you can do with his data.) Jim Battista and Megan Gall are assembling demographic data for […]