Thursday, May 20, 2010

Comparing Brown and Burns

I know most Republicans don't want to hear this but when you compare Scott Brown's fate in Massachusetts earlier this year with Tim Burns' in PA-12 this week it shows the contrast between GOP candidates who can appeal to the middle and those who can't.

Scott Brown had a 2:1 positive favorability ratio with moderates on our final Massachusetts poll, at 62/31. That allowed him to win moderate voters 55-41 in our polling.

Tim Burns had a 2:1 negative favorability ratio with moderates on our last PA-12 poll, 27/52. And Mark Critz absolutely swamped Burns with those folks, leading 67-27.

PA-12 is a lot more conservative than Massachusetts but that doesn't change the fact that the GOP can't win elections if it doesn't have more appeal to the middle. Republican voters are failing to learn from their own successes by nominating the most strident candidates possible instead of folks like Brown who have shown the ability to expand their support beyond the party base.


Chris Terry said...

Long live the Tea Party, keeping the GOP out of office since 2010! ;)

Christian Liberty said...

The stakes were higher in MA. Brown was able to win campaigning openly for being the 41st vote to filibuster Obamacare.

And Brown didn't have to run a primary campaign (Burns-Russell) and a general election campaign at the same time.

Governor Rendell's strategy of scheduling a special election on the day when the Democratic primaries (governor and senate) were more competitive than the Republicans greatly aided Democratic turnout. And Critz needed the boost in turnout, since he only earned 85% of the votes of the Dem turnout. Burns did a better job of Critz of attracting cross-party support.

Unknown said...

That would make sense if there was anything moderate about Brown's campaign. Take a look at his website and you'll see he went far right on most every issue. He ran against healthcare (as the 41st vote), illegal immigration, cap and trade, and for low taxes and free trade. He's actually moved leftward since he was elected. Brown was elected because he ran a good campaign that tapped into what people wanted.

Actually that's very similar to Mark Critz's positions. Critz pretty much ran on the Republican platform. I wouldn't be surprised if Critz did almost as well as Burns with self-identified conservatives. If Critz votes the way he said he would he'll be a very reliable Republican vote.

Anonymous said...

Which begs the question, what did Critz do to win "moderates"?

Critz ran as a PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, ANTI-CAP & TRADE, ANTI-OBAMACARE, PRO-IRAQ WAR/MILITARY, ANTI-AMNESTY candidate who had no problem about getting rid of OBAMACARE.

wt said...

I agree with you for the most part, but Critz also ran a gaffe-free campaign, wheras Coakley didn't want to shake hands in the cold.

Anonymous said...

"Brown was able to win campaigning openly for being the 41st vote to filibuster Obamacare."

How's that filibuster working out for ya?

Unknown said...

Since I didn't filibuster it hasn't worked out for me either way. It got Scott Brown elected, so I'd say it worked really well for him.

Unknown said...

Critz was more of a tea party candidate than Burns. If Democrats want to embrace all the tea party goals it'll be a very difficult year for Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Tom, I came to the conclusion that your polls are accurate in high-turnout races like MA, NJ and VA screw badly in low turnout races like NY-23 and PA-12, maybe b/c of a bad screen.

Web Statistics