Author Topic: What is next for Scott Brown?  (Read 2599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2012, 02:50:31 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22473
  • Tommy Points: 1031
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2012, 02:52:06 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17982
  • Tommy Points: 636
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2012, 03:04:38 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22473
  • Tommy Points: 1031
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

  3 times as many democrats as republicans.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2012, 03:15:47 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17982
  • Tommy Points: 636
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

  3 times as many democrats as republicans.

Well, then, that would suggest that a much lower percentage of Democrats than republicans simply voted by party lines.  Which might be the case. 

I can definitely see how more Democrats would have been moved to break the whole "just check the D" thing, and vote for the more moderate Brown, than Republicans doing the same. 

But we come to the same conclusion.  The election wasn't swayed by uneducated voters just checking the D.  It was a Democrat winning in a state that is disproportionately Democratic.  Exactly what is expected, based on the values of the overall electorate.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2012, 04:10:55 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22473
  • Tommy Points: 1031
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

  3 times as many democrats as republicans.

Well, then, that would suggest that a much lower percentage of Democrats than republicans simply voted by party lines.  Which might be the case. 

I can definitely see how more Democrats would have been moved to break the whole "just check the D" thing, and vote for the more moderate Brown, than Republicans doing the same. 

But we come to the same conclusion.  The election wasn't swayed by uneducated voters just checking the D.  It was a Democrat winning in a state that is disproportionately Democratic.  Exactly what is expected, based on the values of the overall electorate.

 There are more independents than democrats or republicans, you'd have to know how they voted, but it's at least reasonably likely that the uneducated voters just checking D would outweigh the republicans doing the same by enough of a margin to determine the winner.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2012, 04:25:29 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22473
  • Tommy Points: 1031
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

  3 times as many democrats as republicans.

Well, then, that would suggest that a much lower percentage of Democrats than republicans simply voted by party lines.  Which might be the case. 

I can definitely see how more Democrats would have been moved to break the whole "just check the D" thing, and vote for the more moderate Brown, than Republicans doing the same. 

But we come to the same conclusion.  The election wasn't swayed by uneducated voters just checking the D.  It was a Democrat winning in a state that is disproportionately Democratic.  Exactly what is expected, based on the values of the overall electorate.

  Here's an exit poll that I found in my brief google search:

http://www.umass.edu/poll/pdfs/20121106_Data.pdf

  People who voted for the candidate that they wanted to win went for Brown 55%-45%, those who voted for which party they wanted to control the senate went for Warren 74%-26%. Also, the number of people that voted for Brown or Coakley in the special election went slightly for Brown, the people who didn't vote in the special election went fairly heavily for Warren.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #66 on: November 13, 2012, 04:32:10 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9378
  • Tommy Points: 710
So, how do you get deep red states like those in the south to elect less crazy Republicans who are more willing to compromise?
"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 #67 on: November 13, 2012, 04:38:57 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1966
  • Tommy Points: 221
So, how do you get deep red states like those in the south to elect less crazy Republicans who are more willing to compromise?
The inverse of how a Scott Brown gets elected in Massachusetts: you recruit conservative Democrats that will pull them to the left in a general election.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #68 on: November 13, 2012, 04:55:13 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17982
  • Tommy Points: 636
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

  3 times as many democrats as republicans.

Well, then, that would suggest that a much lower percentage of Democrats than republicans simply voted by party lines.  Which might be the case. 

I can definitely see how more Democrats would have been moved to break the whole "just check the D" thing, and vote for the more moderate Brown, than Republicans doing the same. 

But we come to the same conclusion.  The election wasn't swayed by uneducated voters just checking the D.  It was a Democrat winning in a state that is disproportionately Democratic.  Exactly what is expected, based on the values of the overall electorate.

  Here's an exit poll that I found in my brief google search:

http://www.umass.edu/poll/pdfs/20121106_Data.pdf

  People who voted for the candidate that they wanted to win went for Brown 55%-45%, those who voted for which party they wanted to control the senate went for Warren 74%-26%. Also, the number of people that voted for Brown or Coakley in the special election went slightly for Brown, the people who didn't vote in the special election went fairly heavily for Warren.

OK, I think we are arguing semantics here then, because I don't consider those who voted for the party for control of the senate are VERY different than uneducated voters.

In fact, I know a ton of people who are VERY educated voters, who voted for Warren, based purely on not wanting Republicans to control the Senate. 

Yes, it was not a vote for the individual person, but it was still a very informed vote.


Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #69 on: November 13, 2012, 04:59:29 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
So, how do you get deep red states like those in the south to elect less crazy Republicans who are more willing to compromise?
The inverse of how a Scott Brown gets elected in Massachusetts: you recruit conservative Democrats that will pull them to the left in a general election.
You go to a thread about that topic and find the answer. :)

In terms of Scott Brown - even if Kerry is appointed, I think he'd be better off running for Gov. Seems like running in an the off cycle (not against a D pres at top of ticket) would be an electoral advantage.

Re: What is next for Scott Brown?
« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2012, 11:40:46 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22473
  • Tommy Points: 1031
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'.

I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D.  They werent necessarily uninformed though

How many voters just clicked R though?  I would argue that they cancel each other out.

  In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.

Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate.  So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out.  Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.

  But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.

Whats this based on?  Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?

  3 times as many democrats as republicans.

Well, then, that would suggest that a much lower percentage of Democrats than republicans simply voted by party lines.  Which might be the case. 

I can definitely see how more Democrats would have been moved to break the whole "just check the D" thing, and vote for the more moderate Brown, than Republicans doing the same. 

But we come to the same conclusion.  The election wasn't swayed by uneducated voters just checking the D.  It was a Democrat winning in a state that is disproportionately Democratic.  Exactly what is expected, based on the values of the overall electorate.

  Here's an exit poll that I found in my brief google search:

http://www.umass.edu/poll/pdfs/20121106_Data.pdf

  People who voted for the candidate that they wanted to win went for Brown 55%-45%, those who voted for which party they wanted to control the senate went for Warren 74%-26%. Also, the number of people that voted for Brown or Coakley in the special election went slightly for Brown, the people who didn't vote in the special election went fairly heavily for Warren.

OK, I think we are arguing semantics here then, because I don't consider those who voted for the party for control of the senate are VERY different than uneducated voters.

In fact, I know a ton of people who are VERY educated voters, who voted for Warren, based purely on not wanting Republicans to control the Senate. 

Yes, it was not a vote for the individual person, but it was still a very informed vote.

  I can't speak to the people that you know, but I'd imagine most of my friends would be fairly offended if I said something that implied they weren't any more educated than the average voter. At least I hope they would be.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog