Author Topic: What is next for Scott Brown?  (Read 2500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2012, 11:27:58 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17975
  • Tommy Points: 634
Please… There is no doubt more 'casual voters' that only come out during presidential elections. Of all those new casual voters, how many of them are less informed or base their vote on how others around them are voting or because of an attack ad? I would argue A TON. Otherwise, why are these candidates spending so much time on these ads that don’t even address the issues!

Also, there is a strong ‘correlation’ between individuals and peer influence. So my take is not meritless.

Actually, in MA, I think there is doubt about this.  Because the Presidential race is not in question in MA, I think a huge amount of the "casual voters" who come out in other states were not moved.  However, I believe there were a massive amount of people who don't usually vote (like myself), who were moved to vote, based on the hotly contested Senate election, that had the potential to swing the senate, and have huge immediate consequences.

Not to mention, I would argue even further that Democrats are even LESS likely to come out to vote in MA than Republicans, because Democrats feel a lot more secure that their guys or gals will win without their help.  Republicans, on the other hand, know they need to be out in force to win an election in MA, because of the amount of Democrats.

Either way, I am not necessarily saying your take is meritless.  I understand (but don't agree with) your stance.  But it was incredibly inflamatory.  It came across as suggesting that Warren was elected because of "uneducated voters". Whether you meant it that way or not, perception is important.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2012, 11:30:36 AM »

Offline Bankshot

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7491
  • Tommy Points: 631
Brown lost the election because of all these uneducated voters came out, saw a D next to some woman's name and filled it in. That is MA for you.

Brown wins a special election because those folks who come out in droves for a presidential election don't otherwise.

I think this is more than a little unfair.  While I agree that Brown lost because of the letter next to his name, I think the voting public were actually pretty well informed about this election.  The problem was, the majority of MA voters were scared to death of having Republicans take control of the Senate. 

This is the problem with Senate and to a lesser extent Congressional elections.  Because so much is voted on party lines in those houses, and the balance of power can have such a huge effect on what gets done, party plays a much bigger role than even the presidential election, where I think the individual is taken much more into account.

I don't think it's unfair at all. More people come out for presidential elections to submit their American Idol like votes. In the process it gives anyone with a D next to their name here in MA an advantage.

Do you live in MA?  Because speaking as someone who does my darndest to avoid political ads, etc. it was VERY hard to avoid this election.  The market was saturated with information about Brown and Warren.  The vast majority of people knew who they were voting for.


Yes, I live in MA and work in Boston. And let me tell you, I can't remember a race and ad campaign(s) LESS about the issues than this Warren/Brown race.
That's because Brown made it about everything but the issues.  Ms. Warren talked about the issues and Brown's votes in the senate, while Brown was fixated on Ms. Warren's heritage.  I'm a woman, and I don't know any women that voted for Brown mainly because of his votes in the senate for the Blunt Amendment.  I know some women did vote for him, but none that I know.

EDITED, see msg below.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 11:37:09 AM by IndeedProceed »
"If somebody would have told you when he was playing with the Knicks that Nate Robinson was going to change a big time game and he was going to do it mostly because of his defense, somebody would have got slapped."  Mark Jackson

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2012, 11:36:54 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9124
  • Tommy Points: 681
Studies of voter heuristics suggest that "casual" voters tend to vote the way they would if they were better informed much more often than some people assume.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2012, 11:38:21 AM »

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37752
  • Tommy Points: 1867
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Reminder, no abortion, no drugs. They're off topic, even in passing. Even tangential topics (like listing the % of voters who are pro-life or pro-choice) are off-topics. Please refrain from bringing them up at all. Thanks.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2012, 11:41:58 AM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12204
  • Tommy Points: 559
  • Historical Draft Best Overall/Best Defensive team
I agree that Brown lost because more casual voters showed up.  I wouldnt necessarily say they are uniformed voters though, I think they were just partisan voters.  Voters who would have voted for somebody that left somebody to die after getting into a car accident. 

PS.  If you are ever in the Barnes and Noble on Route 1 in Saugus and are looking for a Ted Kennedy Biography check in the Murder Mystery section.  I moved them there last weekend.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 12:18:10 PM by Rondo2287 »
Indiana CB Draft, Kevin Durant, Deron Williams, Luis Scola, Robin Lopez, Ray Allen, Elton Brand, Rodney Stuckey, Marvin Williams, Jeff Taylor, Andrew Nicholson, Shaun Livingston, Markieff Morris, Michael Beasley

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2012, 11:51:29 AM »

Offline Bombastic Jones

  • Jared Sullinger
  • Posts: 358
  • Tommy Points: 53
To me, this is one of the more interesting questions in both local and national politics.  I think before the election, Brown was being groomed to be a future Presidential candidate.

I think he represents what the Republicans need to embrace to really win over the general populace.  Fiscal conservative, Social moderate to liberal.  He is a likable guy, who has friends on both sides of the aisle, who really stands out among some of the others.

Now that he lost the election though, he has a really tough choice.  If he is going to run for President 8 or 12 years from now (I think 2016 is too soon), he needs to build more of a resume, and also wash away this loss (kind of like when Mitt lost years ago in a Senate election). 

If he runs for Kerry's seat and loses, that could be the death of his national political career.  You get 2 chances, but generally not 3.  And history does not shine very kindly on Republican Senate candidates in Mass, so its a big risk.

The other option, is following in Mitt's footsteps.  Patrick has very high aspirations for himself, and will likely be looking for a higher office himself.  I have a feeling he is itching to throw his hat in the ring in 2016, and may not run again.  And Mass has been much more willing to have a moderate Republican governor than Senator. 

If I were Brown, that is what I would be looking at.  He is still very well liked in Mass, and I think he would have a really strong campaign for Governor.  And if he can take that spot, then he will have the executive experience on his resume, and a little more momentum for when he makes the run for President a few years down the line.

Good post.  I am keeping my eyes on both Brown and Deval; two very able public servants who I hope go on and do great things for the Commonwealth or nation.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2012, 12:09:42 PM »

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37752
  • Tommy Points: 1867
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I agree that Brown lost because more casual voters showed up.  I wouldnt necessarily say they are uniformed voters though, I think they were just partisan voters.  Voters who would have voted for somebody that left somebody to die after getting into a car accident. 

PS.  If you are ever in the Barnes and Noble on Route 1 in Saugus and are looking for a Ted Kennedy Biography check in the Murder Mystery section.  I moved them their last weekend.

I don't approve of that at all. But its hilarious. Just hilarious.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2012, 12:10:20 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6621
  • Tommy Points: 630
If Scott Brown is smart he'll move to a different state.

Only in Massachusetts could a well respected, upstanding, truly bi-partisan incumbent Senator lose to a despicable human being like Elizabeth Warren.
DKC Los Angeles Lakers
GM: Micheal Corleone
Head Coach: Mike Krzyzewski
Roster

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2012, 12:27:21 PM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
If Scott Brown is smart he'll move to a different state.

Only in Massachusetts could a well respected, upstanding, truly bi-partisan incumbent Senator lose to a despicable human being like Elizabeth Warren.

And he drives a truck!!

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2012, 12:53:54 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7864
  • Tommy Points: 364
  • Anything is possible
According to a couple quick google and wiki searches, roughly 1 million more people came out this past election and in 2008 than did in both the special election of 2010 and the senate election in 2006. Roughly a 33% increase. I'm on my mobile, otherwise I would have links. But the info is there. Approx 3.2 million come out for the presidency is up for grabs, 2.1 million if not. That's 1 million 'casual voters'. Of those, I'm convinced a great deal are uninformed filling in D. Like I said though, if this were Texas I would suggest just as many uninformed voters would be filling in R.

Millions of dollars were spent by both campaigns, on ads talking about anything other than the issues. I would argue that not only is there a large uninformed vote showing up to these presidential elections, but that they were specifically targeted by both candidates for senate with Warren winning the vast majoirty because the region.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2012, 12:57:58 PM »

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37752
  • Tommy Points: 1867
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
According to a couple quick google and wiki searches, roughly 1 million more people came out this past election and in 2008 than did in both the special election of 2010 and the senate election in 2006. Roughly a 33% increase. I'm on my mobile, otherwise I would have links. But the info is there. Approx 3.2 million come out for the presidency is up for grabs, 2.1 million if not. That's 1 million 'casual voters' of those, I'm convinced a great deal are uninformed filling in D. Like I said though, if this were Texas I would suggest just as many uninformed voters would be filling in R.

Millions of dollars were spent by both campaigns, on ads talking about anything other than the issues. I would argue that not only is there a large uninformed vote showing up to these presidential elections, but that they were specifically targeted by both candidates for senate with Warren winning the vast majoirty because the region.

Nobody is contesting presidential elections bring out more voters. What we're contesting is your assertion that most of them aren't informed and just hit "D", at least anymore than a regular voter in MA would.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2012, 12:59:22 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17975
  • Tommy Points: 634
According to a couple quick google and wiki searches, roughly 1 million more people came out this past election and in 2008 than did in both the special election of 2010 and the senate election in 2006. Roughly a 33% increase. I'm on my mobile, otherwise I would have links. But the info is there. Approx 3.2 million come out for the presidency is up for grabs, 2.1 million if not. That's 1 million 'casual voters'. Of those, I'm convinced a great deal are uninformed filling in D. Like I said though, if this were Texas I would suggest just as many uninformed voters would be filling in R.

Millions of dollars were spent by both campaigns, on ads talking about anything other than the issues. I would argue that not only is there a large uninformed vote showing up to these presidential elections, but that they were specifically targeted by both candidates for senate with Warren winning the vast majoirty because the region.

Now, what is your definition of uninformed?  Because I would argue that knowing whether you want a Democratic or Republican Senate is plenty informed to vote on this. 

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2012, 01:25:06 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7864
  • Tommy Points: 364
  • Anything is possible
According to a couple quick google and wiki searches, roughly 1 million more people came out this past election and in 2008 than did in both the special election of 2010 and the senate election in 2006. Roughly a 33% increase. I'm on my mobile, otherwise I would have links. But the info is there. Approx 3.2 million come out for the presidency is up for grabs, 2.1 million if not. That's 1 million 'casual voters'. Of those, I'm convinced a great deal are uninformed filling in D. Like I said though, if this were Texas I would suggest just as many uninformed voters would be filling in R.

Millions of dollars were spent by both campaigns, on ads talking about anything other than the issues. I would argue that not only is there a large uninformed vote showing up to these presidential elections, but that they were specifically targeted by both candidates for senate with Warren winning the vast majoirty because the region.

Now, what is your definition of uninformed?  Because I would argue that knowing whether you want a Democratic or Republican Senate is plenty informed to vote on this.

Wanting a democrat or a republican based on preconceived notions that are untrue, or peer influence, or an attack ad, is uninformed.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2012, 01:32:06 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7864
  • Tommy Points: 364
  • Anything is possible
IP, who are these attack ads targeting? The culture of the region could sway an otherwise apethetic uninformed voter.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2012, 01:32:46 PM »

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37752
  • Tommy Points: 1867
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
According to a couple quick google and wiki searches, roughly 1 million more people came out this past election and in 2008 than did in both the special election of 2010 and the senate election in 2006. Roughly a 33% increase. I'm on my mobile, otherwise I would have links. But the info is there. Approx 3.2 million come out for the presidency is up for grabs, 2.1 million if not. That's 1 million 'casual voters'. Of those, I'm convinced a great deal are uninformed filling in D. Like I said though, if this were Texas I would suggest just as many uninformed voters would be filling in R.

Millions of dollars were spent by both campaigns, on ads talking about anything other than the issues. I would argue that not only is there a large uninformed vote showing up to these presidential elections, but that they were specifically targeted by both candidates for senate with Warren winning the vast majoirty because the region.

Now, what is your definition of uninformed?  Because I would argue that knowing whether you want a Democratic or Republican Senate is plenty informed to vote on this.

Wanting a democrat or a republican based on preconceived notions that are untrue, or peer influence, or an attack ad, is uninformed.

Seems like about everyone involves would be partialy uninformed here by your definition. Did you read the Brown/Warren thread? It was basically one big attack ad and defense on Warren, with multiple appeals to the implied morality and integrity not only of Brown or Warren, but also those who voted for them.

Scott Brown and/or Elizabeth Warren didn't win or lose Mass on the backs of uninformed voters that 'just clicked D'.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog