Is There A ‘Scott Brown Effect?’ (What You Said)

Sen. Scott Brown, left, shakes hands with Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker during a campaign event on Saturday. Auditor candidate Mary Z. Connaughton, another Republican who lost Tuesday, is center. (AP)

Even though he was not on the ballot Tuesday, Sen. Scott Brown still played a starring role in this election and the analysis that has followed.

With his January shocker over Martha Coakley, Brown became the catalyst for Republican energy and the reason behind Democratic fears in Massachusetts. On the campaign trail, his was the coveted endorsement and his appearances triggered e-blasts to supporters. Media, too, judged candidates’ chances on the very red Brown map: “Well, historically this is a Democratic area, but Brown got this percentage there…” The “Scott Brown effect” was thought perhaps to have turned a blue state purple.

But then Tuesday happened. Coakley, considered by some to be running against the “ghost of Scott Brown,” won her attorney general’s race an hour after polls closed. After stumping for Charlie Baker over the weekend, Brown never showed up at the Election Night rally for losing Republican gubernatorial challenger. Instead, Brown went to a rally for auditor candidate Mary Z. Connaughton, who was locked in the tightest race of any top-ticket Republican. (She lost, too.) With the exception of the Legislature, Massachusetts has turned “midnight blue” again.

Tuesday’s results have driven the post-election narrative. Said Todd Domke in his insta-analysis, “We’re back to our pre-Sen. Scott Brown reputation as hopelessly liberal and a bastion of the Democratic Party.” Dan Payne put it more bluntly: “Massachusetts tonight proved that Sen. Scott Brown’s victory in January was more fluke than the leading edge of a trend.” This morning, a feature report from WBUR’s Monica Brady-Myerov asked, “Is the ‘Scott Brown effect’ fading?”

You have weighed, too, and you’re skeptical that there was, or is, a “Scott Brown effect” at all.

On Facebook, Jonathan Hartwell posted first and has had a widely “liked” view. He says Brown just capitalized on poor competition.

Did it ever occur to anyone that Brown won because Coakley ran an awful campaign?

In the comments, Panagiotis expressed as much:

Here is a much simpler, and more likely correct, explanation: There never was a Brown effect in MA. But there was a terribly run, arrogant Coakley campaign. The election of Brown, however, created an effect in exciting Republicans even more outside MA.

Frank also says such an “effect” has more to do with individual candidates.

Martha Coakley’s inept campaign helped to create the “Scott Brown” effect. And Charlie Baker’s inept campaign helped to destroy it.

Shannon Sweeney said the whole phenomenon was just a media creation.

There was no “Scott Brown revolution” in Massachusetts. The hyperbole that passes for political journalism cannot distinguish an exception from a trend.

John May said the “effect” had more to with Democrats being caught off guard.

In the days leading up to the election of Senator Brown, there was not much enthusiasm on the part of Democrats. It was a “given” that Martha Coakley would win, so why bother to get out the vote?

The morning after changed all that. The Democrat voters of Massachusetts realized that they needed to actively participate in elections and that’s what we saw this time.

What are your thoughts? What do you think of the political state of the state?