Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Massachusetts U.S. Senate Race: Special Elections Frequently See Flip in Voter Preferences

Bookmark and Share

More than half of U.S. Senate special elections since 1970 have resulted in a partisan flipping of voter preferences

The special election for Massachusetts' U.S. Senate seat is garnering significant national attention for what is perceived as a surprising degree of competitiveness. Massachusetts, one of the most Democratic-friendly states in the country, has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Edward Brooke in 1972.

Most polls show the matchup between Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican state Senator Scott Brown a dead heat with Brown surging.

Many Democratic loyalists are explaining away the highly competitive race as a result of poor campaigning by Coakley.

Republicans, meanwhile, see the Senate race as an extension of the national momentum the GOP is experiencing across the country; as evidenced last November when the Party picked up two gubernatorial seats - in Virginia and New Jersey.

However, a Smart Politics historical analysis finds that turnover in special election contests is actually quite common. In fact, since 1970, there has been more turnover than not - with voters changing their partisan preference at the ballot from the last time the Senate seat in question was up for election in 13 of 20 races.

In most of these states, appointments have been made to temporarily fill the U.S. Senate seat in the interim - and frequently such appointees have gone on to win the special election. Since the first popular vote special election in 1914, 22 appointees have won the special election contest.

However, in the case of Massachusetts, the appointee, Democrat Paul Kirk, is not on the ballot.

Overall, the partisan flip-flopping in U.S. Senate special election contests among the electorate has been on the rise, with 65.0 percent of seats flipping since 1970, 48.8 percent flipping since 1942, and 36.2 percent flipping since 1914.

Seven of these 13 partisan shifts in special elections since 1970 have been from Democrats to Republicans (Alaska in 1970, Minnesota in 1978, Washington in 1983, Texas in 1993, Tennessee in 1994, Oklahoma in 1994, and Missouri in 2002), with six from Republicans to Democrats (Illinois in 1970, New Hampshire in 1975, Pennsylvania in 1991, California in 1992, Oregon in 1996, and Georgia in 2000).

(Note: a partisan shift or 'flip' is defined here as a change among the electorate from the last time the Senate seat was on the ballot. Such a flip is not necessarily synonymous with a 'pick-up' in the Senate Chamber, however, as such changes sometimes already occurred after gubernatorial appointments changed the seat from one party to another, with the appointee incumbent then going on to win the special election (e.g. Georgia 2000, Pennsylvania 1991, Washington 1983, Alaska 1970)).

The tightness of the Massachusetts race is also not surprising in light of the fact that special elections have been much more competitive than regular U.S. Senate contests in recent years.

A Smart Politics analysis of the fourteen U.S. Senate special elections since 1990 finds the average margin of victory was 16.7 points, whereas the margin of victory in those fourteen states for full-term U.S. Senate seats was 26.4 points.

Even when pick-ups have not occurred, special elections over the past two decades have resulted in some competitive races for both Democrats in heavily Republican states and vice-versa.

For example, in the heavily Republican state of Kansas, the average margin of victory for full-term U.S. Senate races has been 39.8 points since 1990. However, the 1996 special election race between Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Jill Docking was decided by only 10.6 points.

And in Mississippi's 2008 special election, Republican Roger Wicker defeated Ronnie Musgrove by 9.9 points. Republicans had trounced Democrats in full-term U.S. Senate contests by an average of 48.1 points since 1990.

Republicans have also made Democrats sweat bullets in heavily Democratic states. For example, in 1990, Democrat Daniel Akaka defeated Republican Patricia Saiki in a Hawaiian special election by just 9.4 points. The average margin of victory by Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in the six elections since has been a whopping 44.4 points.

Given the fact that special U.S. Senate elections are much more competitive than regular Senate races and that voters frequently 'flip' and vote into office the opposite political party from when the Senate seat in question was last on the ballot, it should not be so stunning that the Coakley-Brown matchup is as close as polls suggest heading into Tuesday's election. (Particularly given the current political environment that shows many Democrats struggling nationwide).

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Minnesota Republicans to End Census Period with Best U.S. House Electoral Record Since 1970s
Next post: Brown Victory in Massachusetts Would End 3rd Longest GOP U.S. Senate Drought in Nation

1 Comment


  • I appreciate your point of view and insight into special elections. At the same time, Brown has done a clearly superior job utilizing Social Media, especially Facebook and Twitter. This has been at the core of the GOP's plan since Obama was elected.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting