Do Massachusetts Republicans Need a Scott Brown Win?

I'll Go With A (0.00 / 0)

Scott Brown is the face of the MassGOP. His losing to Queen Hiawatha would be demoralizing for all of us IMO.

---

by: nomad943 @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 13:40:58 PM UTC

Put me in for A .... Because Brown rattles the Dems in this state. (5.00 / 3)

The "Kennedy" seat was the jewel in the crown for the MA Dems and Brown took that from them.  He brought shame and embarrassment to the Liberals in this state.  He beat their precious ground game, and gave John Walsh an ulcer.  

NOW Washington is calling the shots because they lost faith in the establishment here in MA!  They flew in a hag to take the seat back, only to find out the woman says ALOT of dumb shit.  The woman is so bad in front of a mic that she hid behind Gov. Patrick while he answered questions for her.  Now their new strategy is to stuff a sock in her mouth while her supporters shoot video of themselves saying nice things about the woman.

So put me in for A because I want to wake up on Nov 7th knowing the Dems feel the "Kennedy Seat" has slipped away.  And knowing the 3 virgins that run ProgressMass are going back to CO with a big fat loss on their record, as well as the thought that the last 6 months of their lives were wasted on astroturfing the same 50 (already rabid) liberal moon bats on BMG.  I can't wait to dust off my 67 BMG handles and use them to laugh and ridicule the mob on that blog.  And for the prissy David Kravitz to spend his Nov 7th deleting all 67 of my BMG handles ONE AT A TIME . . . ALL DAY LONG.     : )

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 14:11:26 PM UTC

As always (0.00 / 0)

Devastatingly compelling.

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 15:32:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and FUN (5.00 / 1)

---

by: Term Limits @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 17:45:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks guys! (0.00 / 0)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 04:46:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Put me in for A as well (0.00 / 0)

Money is flooding into this state to get Brown re-elected and that money is helping downstream. The Mass Victory phone banks for example.

Without elected officials we lack "posts" to rally around.
That's one thing the Dems have that we do not.

I don't think we're picking up 7. I would say at the top end 3. We're losing the 17th Essex right off the bat because we don't have a candidate, so even plus 4 nets 3.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 14:42:21 PM UTC

Heads up ... Chrismatth from BMG is on here collecting intel (5.00 / 1)

I saw his handle on the active users list at 11 am

Proceed with caution.

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 15:06:47 PM UTC

This is a public site Ram Rod (5.00 / 1)

anybody with a access to the internet can read this. Did you think we had a secret little site here?

---

by: StartedoutRepublican @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 21:37:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

chrismatth was snooping around at 1:05 am EST (0.00 / 0)

I'm telling you this dude is up to no good.  =>

Users who have been active in the last 15 minutes:

chrismatth  
ElectricStrawberry  
Republican Ram Rod Radio  

Strawberry did you see the guy snooping around?  

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 05:11:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Somebody not drinking the RMG Kool Aid snooping around !!! (0.00 / 0)

Oh my G-D, Rob -- get him off this site!!! enough of this libertarian open access and free discussion.  

---

by: StartedoutRepublican @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 13:08:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

StartedoutRepublican .... Is that your water bottle over there? (0.00 / 0)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 13:47:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excuse Me (0.00 / 0)

   At RMG we support freedom of speech. BMG? Please tell us your obviously slanted opinion.
  Yes, I am the eminent sage on Massachusetts Senate elections.
  Anyone blue care to dispute this fact?

---

by: billxi @ Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:03:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are right and you are wrong (0.00 / 0)

I'd rather Scott Brown wins today, and lose some Legislative seats. Winning a US Senate seat is not an easy task, and if he loses, we probably will not be even in this position for quite a while. Hell, we'd have to wait 6 years to even challenge E Dubs. You'd get another shot at the Legislature in two years.

However, you are correct that his loss wouldn't be the end of the world. For instance, I think he'd instantly become the frontrunner for the Governorship in 2014. Not the nomination, the General Election. Brown entering the race would scare away Coakley, probably allowing Murray to win the Dem Primary. Brown would clean up Murray in any Governor's race.  

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 15:09:26 PM UTC

MerrimackMan - your last scenario sounds (0.00 / 0)

delicious! (Still it would be hard to overcome having Warren for six years so the tradeoff is a no win despite the appealing scenario)

---

by: Term Limits @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 15:25:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree 100% (0.00 / 0)

There's also the Kerry becomes Sec of State possibility which would open another Senate seat.

But I think he'll do it this time.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 15:32:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not even close- A (0.00 / 0)

I hate to be a killjoy, but does it matter if we have a smaller minority in the legislature?  Is anyone worried that the carpool caucus will lose its power if it drops from four to three out of 40?  Unless Republicans get close to 80 in the House and 20 in the Senate, the Democrats will continue to roll over them.

Brown has brought energy, organization, and money into the party.  And unlike any candidate for state legislature, he has a change to tip the balance in favor of a Republican majority.  

Easy call.

---

by: Bravehaht @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 21:46:42 PM UTC

Yes, the size of our legislative minority is very important. (0.00 / 0)

First, even the increase from 16 to 32 (and then 33) seats in the House led, at least initially, to more Republican involvement in legislation and more Republican ideas getting taken seriously.

Also, 54 seats in the House or 14 seats in the Senate means the ability to sustain vetoes. Neither is likely to happen in this cycle, but it's crucial that we build on our gains in 2010 this year so that we're in a position to build toward 54 and/or 14 (and then beyond!) when we elect a Republican governor in 2014.

---

by: mecowett @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 12:36:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

These aren't really things we can choose can we? (0.00 / 0)

These are just scenerios.  A possible C is Scott Brown wins and everything else is a massacre.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 23:08:09 PM UTC

Or even (0.00 / 0)

a complete massacre of all Republicans in MA

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 05:04:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A (0.00 / 0)

I'll be dead and buried long before we get a decent legislature in this state.

A Scott Brown win gives us a one eleventh representation in Washington, and assures that at least some of our interests will be represented some of the time.

---

by: geo999 @ Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 23:18:22 PM UTC

Brown or Bust (2.00 / 1)

Senator Brown is the indispensable man. He is a role model, not just because he won, but because of who he is and how he campaigns. Here is a guy who actually makes his race about winning over the unenrolled. Everyone pays lip service to that; he actually does it. He's respectful to everyone. Democrats like and endorse him. He comes across as reasonable, not partisan.

If Brown loses, it hurts us in many ways:

1. All the money and people who work for him provide so many side benefits to the party. This is facilities, training for activists, and much more. Without that, we are far poorer.

2. There will no longer a solid reason to believe a Republican can win statewide office anymore. If a guy with charisma, lots of money, name recognition, moderate politics, appeal to the majority of unenrolled -  and good staff - can't win statewide, what exactly does a Republican need to win?

3. Because Brown is socially moderate, if he loses, all of the RINO hunters will, as they did after Baker lost, scream, "SEE!? WE MUST BE MORE CONSERVATIVE TO WIN!" Even though that is madness.

4. The national party and national media and out-of-state donors will lose interest in the affairs of Republicans in the state.

In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter for party strength if the legislative numbers change a bit. That's like saying someone undergoing treatment for cancer should be happy if they improve their diet, as it will help their long-term health. The party desperately needs things in the short term (money, better candidates, diversity, some agreed-upon coalition to win, some answers for winning urban voters, and an end to ideological warfare). A Brown victory is helpful in working on those things. A few more House seats from more conservative places in the state do not.  

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 03:14:48 AM UTC

Forgot RTCs (0.00 / 0)

Under advantages of Brown being there, here's another one that applies to all viable statewide candidates:

- RTC Involvement

I think a large number of RTCs/Wards in the state have a bunch of local elections that are unwinnable, even if there are candidates running. It's hard to get people excited. But, and we see this in Boston, having Scott Brown there is a great way to get people involved in the RTC. Without him, there is little motivation for most people to get behind candidates who can't possibly win. Even after he wins, people in that area have someone above them in government, when there may be no one else who represents them from the party.  

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 04:12:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because Brown is socially moderate, if he loses, all of the RINO hunters will, as they did after Baker lost, scream, "SEE!? WE MUST BE MORE CONSERVATIVE TO WIN!" Even though that is madness. (0.00 / 0)

Thank you Ed.
Because Brown is socially moderate, if he loses, all of the RINO hunters will, as they did after Baker lost, scream, "SEE!? WE MUST BE MORE CONSERVATIVE TO WIN!" Even though that is madness.

---

by: StartedoutRepublican @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 13:10:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey StartedoutRepublican way to double post! Pwa! PWA HA! pwa ha ha ha haaaa! (0.00 / 0)

Hey StartedoutRepublican way to double post!  Pwa!  PWA HA! pwa ha ha ha  haaaa!

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 14:00:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Response (5.00 / 1)

I appreciate the sensible comments that everyone has made. Since I appear to be on an island by myself here, let me explain my thinking a little bit more.

I was prompted to write this by seeing the headline on JohnBriare's post about 2010 "Repeating Itself." Though I understand he's trying to make a different (and valid enough) point, my first thought on reading the headline was "What's wrong with that?" Could 2010 have been better? Sure. Was it the best year Massachusetts Republicans have had in a long time? Undoubtedly. That got me to thinking about what NEEDS to happen this cycle for Republicans to maintain the momentum gained in 2010, and I stand by my original position on that question. Brown winning would certainly be an enormous benefit, but I don't see it as essential.

Part of my assessment was based on the point MerrimackMan eloquently made. If Brown loses 51-49 (especially when Romney loses Massachusetts by a significantly wider margin), he becomes the obvious frontrunner for the governorship or the other US Senate seat in 2014 (if John Kerry - for whatever reason - isn't running). Conventional wisdom says that the voter turnout model is more favorable to Republicans in mid-term elections than in presidential elections. I see no reason to doubt that being true of 2014. So whether he wins or loses this year, I still think Scott Brown is a major player in Massachusetts politics and has the potential to remain the face of the Republican party in the state. Losing him from the field completely would be a tragedy, but that's not what I see happening.

As for what the benefit of increasing support in the state legislature would accomplish given Republican's seemingly permanent minority status, there are two points. First, from the long-term perspective it deepens the bench. In the medium term, though, the significance is getting closer to the 54 seats necessary to sustain a veto. The sixteen years of Republican control of the governorship didn't do much good because Democrats had a veto-proof majority in both chambers for the vast majority of that time. Will Republicans get to 54 any time soon? Probably not. But I remember when Bill Weld vetoed the legislature's weak welfare reform bill and the veto was sustained in the Senate because two "DINO" senators from the Merrimack Valley (Jim Jajuga and John O'Brien) joined the Republicans because they felt it didn't go far enough and two ultra liberal senators (I think one was Susan Fargo) thought it was too harsh. If you've got 40 Republicans, then all you need is some combination of 14 conservative Democrats or super liberals to sustain a veto now and then. If MerrimackMan's scenario happens and Scott Brown (or Charlie Baker or Karyn Polito or any other Republican you'd care to imagine) becomes Governor in 2014, don't you want him to have actual negotiating power with the Legislature?

There is one caveat that I should've included in my initial post, and that's alluded to in one of edfactor's comments. He points out that there are relatively few areas in the state where there are bona fide competitive legislative elections, while the Brown-Warren race applies to everyone equally. He's absolutely right. If you're an activist in Boston or Pittsfield, where credible Republicans aren't on the ballot, then the best service you can do is working for Brown because every single vote counts. The same holds true if you're in one of those handful of Republican strongholds where the Democrats are leaving legislators unchallenged. My point applies more to those areas where there is one or more competitive legislative races. If you're in Andover, I think the main focus should be on re-electing Jim Lyons to the House and helping Paul Adams win his senate race, not just because those local races are more important to the long term future of the party but because you're more likely to be able to influence their outcomes with your work (with the caveat, again, that this applies only to truly competitive local elections). The outcome of Brown-Warren depends, in large part, on national circumstances beyond anyone's control. If Romney loses Massachusetts by 25%, can Brown possibly win? If Romney carries Massachusetts by one vote, can Brown possibly lose? I don't think so in either case. But local races are much less tied to the broader national trends, making the grassroots efforts more critical there.

Let me close with this (and I do mean close - I don't intend to come back to this topic again, because I've rambled far too long already for something that's purely a thought exercise and has minimal practical significance). The vote I cast for Scott Brown in January 2010 was the most important vote of my life. The vote I cast for him this fall will either be #1 or #2 in that ranking, because his victory or defeat has both state and national implications. It's certainly more important than the vote I cast in state legislative races. Perhaps I was wrong to present this as an either/or proposition. I can fully understand why nobody wants to surrender the moral victory and inspiration that comes from winning a major statewide race. Yet there's still part of me that finds it hard to accept that the political fortunes of a single person, no matter how important that person is to the party, ought to trump broader considerations. I think back to 1990 when Republicans made huge legislative gains, but then proceeded to give them back over the succeeding cycles. This fall's election starts to answer the question of whether 2010 is a repeat of 1990 - a blip in an otherwise continuous trend towards greater irrelevance for Massachusetts Republicans - or the beginning of a new trend that culminates in Republicans becoming a credible entity. It's my hope that it's the latter.

---

by: Tappan Wentworth @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 14:28:17 PM UTC