By the time the results of last Tuesday’s election were being announced, most people were probably not surprised by Scott Brown’s victory. Many probably weren’t even surprised by the margins. I count myself among both groups.
What did surprise me, however, was the electoral map.
I look at that map, and I see an awful lot of State Senate districts awash in a sea of Red.
That’s a pretty interesting development when you consider that Republicans currently hold just 5 of 40 Senate seats. It’s also slightly deceiving because almost all of that Blue in the western part of the state falls within two districts. The Berkshire, Hampton, and Franklin district, currently represented by Democratic Senator Ben Downing, is the state’s largest with a whopping 48 cities and towns (of which Coakley won 44), and the Hampshire and Franklin District, represented by Stanley Rosenberg, includes Amherst, Northhampton, and 23 and 1/2 (Belchertown) other towns of which Coakley won 22.
So what about the other 38 Senate districts? Will they continue to be dominated by Democrats, or are more of them in play in 2010?
I’m glad you asked, because by my calculations there could be as many as 25 Senate seats in play this year (assuming the Republican party can mount a successful candidate recruitment drive).
Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at last week’s election results.
(A note before we begin: All my calculations are based on the Globe’s breakdown of election night results. These are not official quite yet, and more importantly, they are only broken down by city and town, not by ward or precinct. For the vast majority of towns this doesn’t matter, but a number of Senate districts divide up cities, and so my numbers and conclusions are not going to be 100% correct. For Boston it mostly doesn’t matter (you’ll understand the mostly bit later on), because the city went monumentally for Coakley, but there are other areas where it does matter. For now, in any city or town (besides Boston) that is shared by two Senators I simply split the difference because it was easier. Some numbers will be incorrectly skewed as a result, but I can rectify that when everything is official.)
(Another note: see my brief note on legislative breakdowns before commenting on the post.)
Let’s start things off easy:
The Safe Senators
Democrats (9)
Ben Downing – Western MA, 44 of 48 towns in his district went for Coakley.
Sonia Chang-Diaz – Boston
Cynthia Creem – Newton, Brookline, Wellesley – Coakley more than doubled Brown total in district.
The Galluccio seat – Unless I hear of a Scott Brown like rise, I am keeping this one in the D column.
Jack Hart – Despite the fact that Coakley only polled 45% in Southie, Hart also represents Mattapan and Dorchester, where she topped 70%.
Pat Jehlen – Medford, Somerville – Coakley won district by more than 7k votes by my count.
Anthony Petrucelli – Boston
Stanley Rosenberg – Amherst, Northhampton region – Coakley more than doubled Brown, won 22 of 23 towns.
Steve Tolman – Boston, Watertown, Belmont – Coakley won them all.
Republicans (3)
Bruce Tarr – Gloucester, Boxford, Essex – Brown won district by more than 16K votes.
Michael Knapik – The sole Republican west of Worcester – Brown margin of nearly 5K.
Bob Hedlund – South Shore – Brown pulled 20K more votes than Coakley in district. Hedlund is considering run for Congress, but if he stays he’s a shoo-in.
The Pretty Safe Senators
Democrats (3)
Ken Donnelly – Depending on how the Woburn and Lexington numbers shake out, Coakley appears to have won Donnelly’s district.
Susan Fargo – Same situation as Donnelly, depending on Lexington and Sudbury breakdown.
Mark Montigny – Coakley pulled through thanks to strong showing in New Bedford, but she lost every other town in Montigny’s district.
Republicans (2)
The Tisei seat – Wakefield, Reading, Malden, Melrose – This is an open seat as Tisei is running for Lt. Governor. Brown topped Coakley by roughly 6k votes.
The Brown seat – Needham, Wrentham, Attleboro – This is an open seat and would have been in the safe category, but Democratic State Rep. Lida Harkins hails from the district’s largest voting town, so I’ll keep it here for now.
Admit it, you thought I would have way more Democratic Senators in the safe column.
The Toss-ups (numbers are close and hard to figure)
Next I have three toss-ups, all three of which are probably safe D’s (we have no more R’s).
Stephen Buoniconti, Gale Candaras - These two Senators split Springfield, so I divided the city down the middle. Buoniconti also splits Chicopee with Knapik, so I split that city as well. And Candaras splits Belchertown with Rosenberg, so I had a final division.
Unfortunately for the two Senators, my numbers show Brown winning both Senate districts. These are the numbers I am least sure about, so I am leaving these two in the toss-up category.
The Walsh Seat – In theory this one should be a no-brainer Dem seat right? Walsh represents West Roxbury and Roslindale, plus Dedham, Norwood, and Westwood. But there are a couple of interesting factors at play here. 1) Brown carried the non-Boston portion of the district by 5k votes. 2) While I don’t have the complete breakdown of the Boston portion, this breakdown at Massvotecount tells me that Coakley only won 50% in West Roxbury. 3) It’s an open seat. It stays here for now.
So now let’s get to the fun part. By my math (and remembering that these are NOT official numbers) Scott Brown won at least 20 Senate districts currently represented by Democrats. This could bode very poorly for incumbent Senators next year.
Slightly At Risk (Brown won by less than 3k votes)
Tom McGee – A squeaky close victory in Lynn kept McGee’s entire district from going Red. But while Brown appears to have won the district, it was very close (my unofficial estimate has Brown up just over 1k votes). Would probably take a very strong challenger to knock off McGee.
Joan Menard - Like McGee, Menard needed a strong showing from the city in her district (Fall River) to avoid seeing her district go completely for Brown. The Riv’s big margin (Coakley won 57-41) meant that Brown’s overall victory in the district was relatively small (roughly 2,400 votes), but still cause for concern.
At Risk (Brown won by roughly 5k votes)
Harriette Chandler - Chandler’s district held up the best of any others in her region, mostly because she has half of Worcester (which went for Coakley 52-47). The rest of Chandler’s First Worcester district was just plain red, and Brown topped Coakley by roughly 5,600 votes. But as I said, that was the best Coakley did in the region…
Jamie Eldridge - Coakley came within roughly 5,000 votes of Brown in Eldridge’s Middlesex and Worcester district, and even managed to win a few towns (Acton, Maynard, Boxborough, and Harvard).
Brian A. Joyce - The numbers in Joyce’s district probably could have been worse, considering what was happening all around him. Brown looks to have won the district with a margin just shy of 5k votes, with three towns in Joyce’s district (Milton, Randolph and Sharon, which he shares) going for Coakley.
Robert O’Leary - Despite the generally Red appearance of Cape Cod on the map, strong turnout for Coakley in Provincetown, Truro, and the Islands helped her close the gap a bit in O’Leary’s district. Brown still won easily, but the margin was right around 5k votes.
Karen Spilka - Considering that Spilka’s district borders Brown’s (and she actually splits two towns with him) her numbers could have been much worse. Coakley won in Framingham (53-47) the biggest voting bloc in Spilka’s district, as well as Natick. (Brown actually lost Needham and Natick, both of which fall in his district, and ran even with Coakley in Wellesley, which he splits with Creem.) Brown’s total margin was around 5k votes, not bad for Spilka considering the location factor.
Trouble spots (Districts where Brown won by 7k votes or more)
And this is where November could get very tricky for Democrats. Some of the districts below resulted in absolute blowouts for Scott Brown, margins that the state GOP will certainly try to translate to other races down ticket. Let’s start with a geographic approach:
Trouble up north
The northern border of Massachusetts broke for Brown in a big way. This is a region that has been especially impacted by the sales tax increase, and may not look too kindly upon incumbents.
Steven Baddour – The northernmost voters in the state were not kind to Coakley. She finished more than 10k votes behind Scott Brown in Baddour’s district, which borders New Hampshire and includes Merrimac, Methuen, and Haverhill. Only Newburyport went for Coakley, and it was by the slimmest of margins (50-49).
Susan Tucker – Tucker’s district borders Baddour’s, and Coakley shared a similar fate there. Brown rolled up close to 8k more votes, and won every town except Lawrence North Andover. (Thanks to a reader for bringing this inexcusable transposition to my attention).
Steve Panagiotakos – The Senate’s Ways & Means chief saw his district break overwhelmingly for Brown. Every city and town in the district, including Lowell, went Republican. Brown’s margin was more than 7k votes.
Frederick Berry - A little further south in Fred Berry’s district (which includes Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Salem and Topsfield), the story was more or less the same. Brown took every town except for Salem, and out-polled Coakley by 8k votes (I’m sensing a pattern).
Central Mass pulling away from center
Some of the margins for Brown in Central Mass were simply eye-opening.
Michael Moore - State Senator Michael Moore represents the Second Worcester District (and splits the city with Chandler), and Brown’s numbers were even stronger there. The Republican topped 60% in every town in Moore’s district, and outpolled Coakley by roughly 9k votes. And the rest of Central MA was worse for Democrats.
Jennifer Flanagan - Flanagan’s district was a complete Red wash (is that a thing?). Even Leominster and Fitchburg went overwhelmingly for Brown, who cruised to a 13k vote margin over Coakley. Flanagan’s district is another that lays on a state border where small businesses have no doubt been hurt by the sales tax increase.
Stephen Brewer - Brewer’s district is unique in that it borders both New Hampshire and Connecticut, stretching north to south across 29 towns in Massachusetts. Every single one of those 29 towns voted for Scott Brown, leading to a remarkable margin of nearly 18k votes. It’s a big district that requires a lot of work to gain name recognition, but based on Brown’s strength alone Brewer could be vulnerable to a challenge.
Richard Moore - At least three towns in Moore’s district (which Brown swept) went for the Republican by 70% or more. Others were in the high 60′s, including Moore’s hometown of Uxbridge, which went 68% for Brown. Final tally? Brown topped Coakley by nearly 20k votes. That spells trouble for any incumbent of the opposite party.
South of Boston
Normally Democratic strongholds like Brockton, Taunton, or Quincy would be enough to help balance Republican voters in the surrounding suburbs. That certainly wasn’t the case last week.
Thomas Kennedy (Full disclosure: I used to work for Senator Kennedy when he served in the House.) - Down here in the City of Champions, this seat has always been thought of as a Brockton seat, and always belonged to Democrats. But the election map shows Brockton surrounded by bands of Republican voters, and the city’s margin was not enough to stem Scott Brown’s massive win. Coakley won Brockton by about 2,100 votes…but Scott Brown won every other town HUGE, and beat Coakley in Kennedy’s district by about 8k votes.
Michael Morrissey - Before Coakley lost, Morrissey was among those trying to find a new office to jump to in the aftermath of her sure victory. Maybe he sensed the red-tide overtaking his district. At least Kennedy, Menard, and Montigny could still count on Brockton, Fall River, and New Bedford to break Democratic. Every single city and town in Morrissey’s district, including Quincy, went for Brown, who rolled to victory by more than 10k votes.
James Timilty - To the west of Scott Brown’s district, Karen Spilka’s district managed to hold it’s own. To the east? Timilty was not so lucky. Aside from Sharon (which he splits with Joyce), every city and town in Timilty’s district went for Brown. In fact, as far as I can tell from my unofficial numbers, Brown actually did better in Timilty’s district than he did in his own, on his way to crushing Coakley by more than 16k votes.
Marc Pacheco - Like Morrissey, Pacheco watched his entire district turn red, including his home base of Taunton. Brown cruised to a mammoth victory in Pacheco’s First Plymouth and Bristol district, downing Coakley by more than 16k votes.
The Number One Target
Senate President Therese Murray
In the Massachusetts House of Representatives, the Speaker nearly always comes from Boston or a community bordering Boston. Those districts are the safest of the safe, and the Speaker’s electoral chances are never in doubt. The same cannot be said for the Senate President, who hails from a region of the state that has grown more conservative every year.
The numbers in Murray’s Plymouth and Barnstable district were simply shocking. She was Coakley’s campaign finance chair, her biggest proponent, and a fearless campaigner for the Attorney General. But Coakley got crushed in every town. In Murray’s hometown of Plymouth, Brown took 64%. Kingston, Plympton, Sandwhich, and Pembroke all broke for Brown at more than 2-1. Only Falmouth (53-47) went for Brown at less than 60%.
In the end, Brown topped Coakley in Murray’s district by roughly 20k votes. You can bet the State GOP will be searching thoroughly for a strong candidate to take her on.
So what’s in play?
So those are the numbers. Obviously, it’s not quite that simple, and whether or not these Senators are actually vulnerable will have a lot to do with whether or not they have strong, or any, opponents.
What do readers think? Is this the year Republicans make a move in the Senate?
Conor, you are doing some fantastic work over here.
great insight into the data from the election. The question then becomes, how much will the attitude of “throw the bums out” get generalized to a voter’s own particular senator? It’s one thing to want to through the incumbents out but another if that incumbant is YOUR senator who has been to a relative’s funeral, gotten an earmark or been “good enough” not to warrant being tossed. Mary
Mary, I agree. Check out my MassBeacon motto post (you can find it in a search. I addressed that question directly.
I’d tend to disagree with this. The Senate race was a national election, and national and statewide factors came into play. State Senate races are different, and motivated by more local factors. Much opposition to Coakley was because of healthcare, and that is because healthcare on a national stage does nothing for Massachusetts. Thus, a vote for Coakley would be very altruistic. However, supporting Democrats in the State Senate is much more self-interested, as they are running on programs that actually affect us in MA. Also, what State Senators do in their local communities is definitely important, and how much they bring things back for their home districts. What Mary said above is very much true. Also, it is a lot easier for an incumbent to defend a seat that a new person to come in and win an open seat race. Furthermore, Coakley’s and Brown’s campaigns created perfect conditions for a Republican takeover: a Republican candidate who was very likeable and ran a flawless campaign, and a Democratic candidate that wasn’t very likeable (the general attitude among Khazei and Capuano voters was to hold their noses and vote for her) and ran a terrible campaign. Most legislative races won’t look like this.
Also, I think the Brown seat will be a Democratic takeover. Rep. Harkins should do the job. This means that they have to go from 4 seats upwards, and that will be difficult to do. Not many candidates will be like Martha Coakley or Scott Brown, and it will be rare for there to be both in a single race. The gubernatorial race should boil some anti-incumbent sentiment against Senators closely affiliated with Deval, but many who are more distanced should be safe. My guess is that they get up to 7 or 8 seats max. And Therese Murray is safe; she’s very distanced from Deval, and is still fairly popular in her district
Edit to the Tucker post: N Andover was a huge Brown town and isn’t even in her district. I think you meant Lawrence.
Are your numbers based on precinct breakdowns or are you just doing “rough justice” with overall town numbers?
Interesting stuff overall… nice work. If Terry goes down in 2010, all I will say is Ka-Ching!
One more thing on the Brown seat; a Great historical footnote that isn’t getting enough play. He got elected to the state senate in a special. His predecessor, Cheryl Jacques, timed her resignation to the day to get another year’s pension credit… Brown justifiably made hay out of this and managed to get elected. If she wasn’t such a greedy hack, none of this might have happened.
I heard about your site on Emily Rooney’s Greater Boston. Before you look at the map and see a ‘sea of red’, remember that was for Coakley against Brown, a statewide race. The greater question is what does each district think of its current Senator? That race will be concentrated within that district only. I don’t know what to make of the headline question because I haven’t looked at their history in office, votes, previous races, and potential opponents. I just can’t see the kind of turnaround needed to flip the Senate. I know it would be a good thing if the Republicans put up serious candidates for all races instead of the collection of doorknobs that Romney put up while he was governor.
A great contribution in these PS times. (Credit to the SHNS for coining that term)
Ed,
Thanks for that correction. Absolute bonehead move by my part. I think I went cross-eyed from spending two days staring at these numbers. Lawrence went for Coakley in Tucker’s district, North Andover did not. Post has been updated.
Also, I noted in the beginning that these numbers are NOT broken down by precinct. I will update all the numbers when the official results are available from Galvin’s office.
Jumbo,
Thanks for the thorough analysis. In general I agree with your reasoning, but I think there will be more at work this year. Especially in the districts where Brown won by more than 10k votes, incumbents absolutely need to be wary.
Al,
Agree that much of this depends on opponents, voting records, etc. This was a simple analysis based on the numbers. There will be more to come over the next several months.
Interesting analysis. I do think the conversation about MA becoming “red” in this election does miss one simple fact about this recent senate race, the “perfect storm” analysis:
A great candidate ran a great campaign against an awful candidate who ran an awful campaign.
Any Republican who sees red and thinks they can go after an incumbent had better put together the perfect campaign, and hope the opponent doesn’t feel it necessary to go out in the cold and shake voter’s hands.
Down here in Taunton, we have a candidate ready to battle Marc Pacheco. His name is Dave Pottier, a Taunton City Councillor. He’ll be making an official announcement in the next few days. We are ready to take Pacheco down.
I would caution using one special election to predict future results. For example, if you look at Murray’s district you will see that voters in her towns have historically crossed party lines. Go all the way back to the 80s when Gerry Studds and Ronald Reagan were winning the same towns. The republicans targeted Murray in 2004 and and she won overwhelmingly. I expect the same will happen this year.
Great piece. While these results are certainly eye-opening, your closing statements are right on: it will all depend on the viability of potential opponents. Rep. Daniel Webster is the only Republican being talked about to run against Murray, but the fact that he all but squashed that possibility this week I think speaks to a solid support base for the Senate President that the voter margins in that district do not necessarily reflect. I still maintain that the outcome of that election was ultimately dictated by a poor effort on the part of the Coakley campaign coupled with an outstanding effort by Brown the campaign (52-47 is not a blowout). I tip my hat to Brown and I am not attempting to downplay what he accomplished, but this is still Massachusetts and some of the numbers in these senate districts may be the result of displeasure with “Coakley the Candidate” more than the state senators who represent them.
Conor – I knew I was going to love this site. Nice job. Break it down for those of us who hate the tiny, tiny details.
Of the 52% of MA voters who voted for Brown, how many were registered Dems, Repubs and unenrolled. That might help folks like me who have detail deficiency syndrome.
This is a classic case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 22.
Just because Scott Brown carried a state senate district against a horrible candidate in a highly unique special election does not mean another Republican can duplicate the results.
For instance, you need strong Republican candidates and they are in short supply.
Also, voters tend to hate the legislature but love their rep. or senator.
The new candidates better get their talking points polished. Scott Brown ran on the “people’s seat” more than on his own record. Does anyone in his district even remember his record? I know I don’t and others here in town don’t remember either.
I think we need to pay more attention. Look at what is happening right now in Lawrence with their new mayor/state rep Lantigua. What a mess.
I think all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation better beware. The “people” are looking to clean house.
Starting at the top.
This is a lot of simplistic bullsh*t. Extrapolating from Brown is totally overblown.