The Massachusetts special election for US Senate, won by Scott Brown, was said to have been the result of angry independents expressing their political will. But is this cliche true in this case?
Registered independents in Massachusetts have outnumbered the registered Democrats (or Republicans) in the state since February of 1990. While some 2.1 million independent are enrolled in the state, naturally not all of these vote in every election–just as every registered member of the major parties does not vote in every election. The independents make up a solid majority of the registration numbers, 50.75% as of October of 2009. With a clear majority in Massachusetts, independents play kingmaker in every election. Unfortunately, no reliable exit polling was done in this race because it was originally expected to be such a blowout. However, pre-election polling showed independents breaking for Scott Brown, with 65% of independents indicating they would vote for him, a dramatic shift from 2008 when they voted for Obama by 57% in the state.
While 91% of Republicans claimed they would vote for Scott Brown in pre-election polling, only 78% of Democrats answered that they would be voting for Martha Coakley. This means that roughly 22% of Democrats chose to vote Scott Brown instead of Martha Coakley (excepting those 1% of voters that voted for independent Joe Kennedy). This 22% of Democratic votes represents a substantial swing-vote in a state where Republicans make up only 11.62% of the registration.
So while independents played a major role in swinging the election to Scott Brown, 22% of Democrats voting for Brown is not an insignificant factor. Higher voter turnout, and party loyalty, amongst Republican voters was a contributing factor to this shocking election result as well.
I do not think you can call this an election determined by Independents. Just because people do not choose a party when registering indicates they are an Independent. The Tea Party’s claim to victory due to Independent voters is kin to a hijacking of ideology. All you have to do is re-register a bunch of Republicans as without choosing a party and “woeho it’s magic” an Independent movement. I hope the American people wake up and realize they are being hypnotized again. As an Independent who is running for office, I am reaching out to all disgruntled party members and true “Americans” who are sick and tired of duoplay and the stank, yes stank of elite Capitalists and elite socialists. We must unite as a people for a people centered government and protect both of our flanks. Living Free, is the most dangerous, yet the most rewarding of lives! Here the sound of reveille….we need to assemble and vote!
Richard,
Sshhhhhh. If people find out about the registration-Crystal-Ball, they’ll want to know how it works.
Yes, 2008. haha.
The registration data from October 2010 must have been obtained from a crystal ball! Probably the post meant October 2008. But more recent data says independents are 52% in Massachusetts.
Bored of education….
ATC, Brown won because independents were not in a mood to be taken for granted, that they somehow “owed” the seat to the Ds based on the Kennedy legacy. Coakley dissed them, and thought she could coast into the job.
People don’t like what BHO and the Dems are doing, having swung far to the “left,” pushing healthcare that they already have in MA rather than fixing the unemployment situation.
Not exactly encouraging for us Ls, but in this case, Brown was the preference over Coakley since gridlock is better than unchecked one-party rule.
Brown won because of stupid people who thought Brown stood up for small government principals when their was plenty of evidence in his record that he did not.