Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts over Martha Coakley yesterday. In an earlier post, I argued that Scott Brown’s legislative record in the State Senate put him in the liberal wing of his party – a state legislative caucus which was amongst the most liberal Republicans in the country.
My comparative research design allowed me to place him to the left of Dede Scozzafava, even though the two had never served together. It also allows me to put Brown on the same ideological scale with members of Congress, so I can make an informed prediction about how he’ll vote when he joins the Senate.
In particular, based upon his voting record in the Massachusetts State Senate as well the Votesmart surveys of MA state legislators (include his own from 2002), I estimate that Brown is to the left of the previously leftmost Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe of Maine (see her issue positions here) and to the right of the rightmost Democrat in the Senate, Ben Nelson of Nebraska (issue positions here). Just as important, Brown stands to become the pivotal member of the Senate—that is, the 60th by rank most liberal (equivalently, the 41st most conservative)–a distinction previously held by Nelson.
These figures come thanks to the hard work of UCLA political scientist Jeff Lewis who keeps an archive of almost up-to-the-minute votes in Congress, and Stanford political scientist Simon Jackman who calculates current ideological scores for all members of Congress in the current 111th Congress, past and present.
By dropping Senators no longer in office in this Congress, I created a dual Google Docs spreadsheet ranking of current US Senators before Brown’s election, and afterwards. It can be found here. The crucial columns to focus on are the first one, containing the ranking, and the third one, containing Jackman’s best estimate of their ideology (the final three columns express the uncertainty surrounding the estimates – ignore this for now). For a graphic version of this data, click here.
Before yesterday’s election, the 60th senator was Ben Nelson. This ranking made Nelson uniquely powerful–in political science we call this power pivotality. It’s a very useful insight into how Congress works. Nelson was pivotal because, on any divisive legislative votes, his vote could either provide the crucial 60th vote to cut off a filibuster, or the crucial 41st vote to sustain one. And of course, without the Senate, there’s no new law. Thus, it’s not a surprise that Nelson was such a central figure in the health care debate, and why the President expended no little effort in trying to convince Nelson to come on board, which he finally did in the wake of a sweetheart deal for his state.
After Brown’s election, however, the picture changes. Paul Kirk–the appointed temporary replacement for Edward Kennedy–estimated to be the third most liberal Senator, leaves. Brown, who’s to the left of Snowe but to the right of Nelson, enters. He therefore becomes that pivotal 41st vote to sustain a filibuster and deadlock legislation (or the 60th vote to end a filibuster and pass it).
How far to the left of Snowe and how far to the right of Nelson is Brown? It’s difficult to tell exactly. In the spreadsheet, I put his score (in Jackman’s scale) at 0.299, or a smidgen to the left of Snowe (0.300). But he could just as well be just a touch to the right of Nelson (0.138), too. And his drifts left and right will be watched very carefully by President Obama and Congressional and party leaders, given his likely newfound status as the filibuster pivot. That’s a lot of power.
Thus, I disagree with Josh Tucker that the election isn’t that consequential. First, the pivotal Senator will now be a Republican, not a Democrat. The parties put a lot of pressure on moderate members of Congress to vote one way or the other; it’s often unsuccessful, but its a pretty powerful source of influence. Second, that pivotal Senator will be Brown, not Snowe (if my prediction proves accurate). Finally, this pivotality will exist on every issue, not just health care reform, which probably just expired in its current form. Not too shabby as a consequential election, right?
Could I be wrong? Yes. It’s possible Brown turns out to be more conservative than we would have expected given his rather liberal state legislative record. At last night’s victory speech, he laid out a number of conservative policy positions.
The observation that politicians are ideologically consistent as they move throughout their careers (“they die with their ideological boots on” in Keith Poole’s memorable phrase) is true on average, not in every case. What could make him more conservative? The party could pull him in that direction. Or maybe presidential considerations (Obama has made the hearts of all State Senators full with ambition) will pull him to the right.
But let’s be realistic. Scott Brown is a politician, not a kamikaze pilot. As David Mayhew argued in 1974, the first and proximate goal of politicians in the United States is to get re-elected. Brown will have a far harder time in 2012 against some credible, seasoned Democrat who won’t get surprised again (or run so badly). Turnout will be higher in that presidential year, meaning the Democratic base will be far more evident at the polls. And the Democrat will get to ride Obama’s coattails, influencing independents in the Democratic direction. And Brown doesn’t have that many years to build up the incumbency advantages that other freshman Senators get. He won’t have brought home as much bacon, and he won’t have risen too far in Congress.
All in all, 2012 will be a very tough election for Brown. So what will the soon-to-be-worried Senator do to enhance his electoral chances? He’ll take the public opinion pulse of his state very, very carefully. And his state is amongst the most liberal in the country. Unless he aims to run for President in 2012 (pro-choice Republicans do well in Republican primaries, right?), his liberal constituency and a desire for re-election will inevitably pull him to the left. Sure, he is far more conservative than Kennedy, Kirk, or Coakley, but that’s immaterial. Brown’s a liberal Republican, and now he’s pivotal.
January 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I think this analysis is fatally flawed. If you are looking a procedural votes, I guess you can formulate a ranking. But here is the big flaw…you are dealing with the MA State Senate versus the US Senate. This is flawed. In MA the legislature is controlled by Democrats, unless Brown became a “Senator No”, his score is going to be depressed. Also keep in mind that having the State mandate items versus the Federal Gov, in of itself is a big distinction.
In the US Congress its different. Brown ran a clear campaign on:
Limited Gov, 41st vote against health care, less taxes, and pretty much the GOP position on our Wars…So tell he how is this guy to the left of Dede Scazzafoza? Dede, if memory serves me right ran supporting Healthcare, card-check, the Stimulas, and and Cap and Trade. I am pretty sure Brown was against all these issues (with respect to a regional cap and trade vote I recall he regretted it). As far as issues like trying terrorists at home, I am pretty confident in saying that Brown is to the Right of McCain.
Look no one is going to confuse Brown for Jim DeMint, but come on, sometimes you have to take a step back and throw the model out!
January 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“He won’t have brought home as much bacon, and he won’t have risen too far in Congress.”
Although his status as the pivotal Senator may allow him to bring home the bacon. It worked for Sen. Nelson.
January 20, 2010 at 12:59 pm
He’s my state senator and really you are way off base on Brown. He’s not going to be Demint, Colburn or Sessions but he is not liberal and certainly is to the right of Snowe. He’ll be right of center consistently.
January 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm
He’s a federalist.
That’s good enough in a government front-loaded with leftwing statists.
January 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I didn’t think of this “pivotal” issue when I voted for Scott Brown yesterday but, now that you mention it, this is a big plus. Should be interesting…..
January 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm
[…] introductory presser. What exactly does it mean to be a “Scott Brown Republican”? Boris Shor guesstimates: In particular, based upon his voting record in the Massachusetts State Senate as well […]
January 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Shouldn’t it be the following:
the 60th MOST liberal, or the 41st most conservative?
January 20, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Yep, you’re right, I wrote it incorrectly. Correcting now…
January 20, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I think you’re missing the trees for the forest. Scott Brown might be generally more liberal than Olympia Snowe in general, but his status as the pivotal 60th vote will almost certainly expire in November. The two major pieces of legislation that are up in the air between now and then are health care and cap-and-trade… both of which Brown has taken an unequivocal stand against.
January 20, 2010 at 7:21 pm
[…] points out a counterintuitive benefit of Scott Brown’s victory yesterday: he’s “to the left of the leftmost Republican in the Senate,” and “his liberal constituency and desire for re-election will inevitably pull him to […]
January 20, 2010 at 10:29 pm
[…] the Democrats lack a supermajority in the Senate (and, more importantly, now that Ben Nelson is no longer its 60th vote) it is time to stop all the odious quid pro quo, special favors, and backroom […]
January 20, 2010 at 10:56 pm
[…] expired in its current form. Not too shabby as a consequential election, right?” — Boris Shor, assistant professor in the Harris School at the University of Chicago, on the political […]
January 21, 2010 at 7:22 am
[…] bill, or Mr. Brown himself will be persuaded to “flip-flop”, something which, given his voting record, is well inside the realm of […]
January 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm
[…] Scott Brown is more liberal than Olympia Snowe, and now he’s pivotal, too. […]
January 21, 2010 at 7:17 pm
[…] Scott Brown is more liberal than Olympia Snowe, and now he’s pivotal, too Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts over Martha Coakley yesterday. In an earlier post, I […] […]
January 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm
[…] Brown is not a hero riding in on a white steed (he's more liberal than Olympia Snowe). He just happens to be the beneficiary of a groundswell that's been building for some time now. […]
January 22, 2010 at 5:04 pm
[…] Boris Shor, a political scientist at the University of Chicago (h/t Andrew Gelman) has pointed out, Brown is a […]
January 25, 2010 at 3:12 pm
[…] Following news of Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election, Shor finds Brown’s voting record more liberal than the leftmost Republican in the U.S. Senate, Olympia Snowe of Maine. more >> […]
April 15, 2010 at 11:48 am
[…] cold water on too many peoples’ sense of joy, but this prof. at the U. of Chicago says that his analysis of Scott Brown’s voting record in the Mass. legislature suggests he will end up being to the left of Olympia Snowe. Share this […]
May 20, 2010 at 10:44 pm
[…] These four “Republicans” are not conservatives. It is time the country got back to its conservative roots. We all thought the election of Scott Brown was a victory for conservative America. However, we are finding very little that is conservative about Mr. Brown. He appears to be yet another RINO. Scott Brown the most Liberal Republican […]
November 8, 2010 at 3:50 pm
[…] Schor was one of the first people to note that Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown was a lot more moderate than people thought he was. Cancel […]
October 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm
[…] (May 2010). There aren’t a lot of moderate Republicans in Congress, but Brown is one of them. See here for details from Boris Shor.A recommendationIn all seriousness, I think Reuters should fire […]