When will Republicans next win a congressional race in Massachusetts?

[Roll Roons]

Unbelievably for a state that has 9 districts (10 prior to 2012), Republicans haven't won a House race in Massachusetts since 1994, though they have come close on several occasions. And with the exception of the infamous 2010 special election, they haven't sent a Republican to the Senate since 1972.

I don't see the state electing a GOP Senator anytime soon, but with 9 districts, the dry spell in House races has to end sooner or later. When does that happen?

[Pollster]

Part of the issue is recruitment - the state's top GOP talent (of which there isn't much) probably doesn't see much benefit in a hard-fought campaign for Congress that would come with virtually zero job security and two years (at least) of tough votes that cause issues at home. There's a reason the MA GOP has a much better track record of winning less polarized statewide offices over the same period of time that they never won a Congressional seat.

[Schiff for Senate]

The most GOP district under current borders is the CPVI D+6 MA09. I think it could go red if the Democrats nominate someone scandal-ridden in a good year for the GOP. But even MA09 gave Biden an 18-point margin of victory. I don't see the GOP winning any seat in MA anytime soon; every single part of the state is blue - even Western Massachusetts, which many people may think will follow the trends of Essex County, VT; Coos County, NH; and rural Maine, given its rural character, is very Democratic (there are many Romney/Biden towns here). Only a few towns voted for the GOP in the whole state in a few areas. MA is so blue that it gave Biden over 65% and less than 10% of voters there are registered Republicans. The point is that it could be full decades before a GOP representative is elected in MA (although expect them to continue their penchant of voting for GOP governors).

[VBM]

Hopefully never

[progressive85]

I recall in 2014 that there were some that believed Richard Tisei could win actually.

It would be MOST LIKELY, imo, to occur in a special election, such as Scott Brown's.

[MarkD]

Given that the last two Republicans who got elected to the House from the Bay State were Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen, and that they won in 1992 thanks to the fact that both incumbent Democrats they ran against were plagued by scandal, it doesn't seem likely that any Republicans will ever get elected to the House again unless and until some incumbent Democrat gets mired in another scandal. That will happen, eventually; it's only a matter of time.

[smoltchanov]

Trumpish candidates - not in foreseable future (even in MA-09, which tolerates such candidates slightly better). Non-Trumpish? It's extremely difficult to be a maverick congressman now (in BOTH parties). I shake my head in disbelief when i compare, say, present day votes for Supreme Court nominees (almost exactly - according party lines), with, say,  Haynsworth-Carswell votes of not so distant (i remember them) past: a lot of mostly southern Democrats - for, a lot of (mostly northern) Republicans - against. It was interesting .... THEN. No more....

[Brittain33]

Special election in a Biden 2nd term is the likely answer.

[MillennialModerate]

I’d say... when the Angels win the pennant

[Xing]

The geography of Massachusetts makes it extremely hard to create a winnable district for Republicans. Barring a shocking special election with a Coakley-tier Democratic candidate, I’d say not until the next realignment.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Is it just me, or are Republicans really poorly distributed in the state? In addition to not winning a House race since 1994, there's 14 counties and NOT one has voted Republican for President since 1988. You would think with them getting at least 32% of the vote in the last six presidential elections and sometimes a little more than that, there would be a part of the state that's red. I guess Oklahoma would be an example of the reverse.

[Matty]

Is it just me, or are Republicans really poorly distributed in the state? In addition to not winning a House race since 1994, there's 14 counties and NOT one has voted Republican for President since 1988. You would think with them getting at least 32% of the vote in the last six presidential elections and sometimes a little more than that, there would be a part of the state that's red.

Romney came fairly close in one mass county. think he got 48% of vote

[TML]

This is a state where it is extremely difficult to create an R-leaning congressional district. When 538's Atlas of Redistricting tried, the best they could do is create several districts which barely tilted R (based on the 2012/2016 PVI results).

[QAnonKelly]

Unless we move to a proportional rep system (which we should but that's another story for another time), not for the foreseeable future.

[Tartarus Sauce]

If it happens, it will be in the southeast. The shoreline and interior in Plymouth County are ancestrally Republican (but have had a decent sized swing to the Democrats during the Trump era), while in Bristol County, Fall River and New Bedford anchor the only area in the state that actually swung heavily towards Trump compared to the Obama years.

[Tekken_Guy]

If it happens, it will be in the southeast. The shoreline and interior in Plymouth County are ancestrally Republican (but have had a decent sized swing to the Democrats during the Trump era), while in Bristol County, Fall River and New Bedford anchor the only area in the state that actually swung heavily towards Trump compared to the Obama years.

The area around Worcester could be a possibility.

Anyway, it could happen as a red wave fluke, and even then it would likely last for only one term.

[Hope For A New Era]

Not during this party system.

Is it just me, or are Republicans really poorly distributed in the state?

The single worst party distribution in the country. Massachusetts Republicans have cracked themselves spectacularly. The only other states where it is literally impossible to draw a district that the other party wins are the two-district states.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Not during this party system.

Is it just me, or are Republicans really poorly distributed in the state?

The single worst party distribution in the country. Massachusetts Republicans have cracked themselves spectacularly. The only other states where it is literally impossible to draw a district that the other party wins are the two-district states.

Where do Republicans win state legislative seats in the state? Still pretty bad...less than a fifth of the state House and less than a tenth of the state Senate.

[Hope For A New Era]

Not during this party system.

Is it just me, or are Republicans really poorly distributed in the state?

The single worst party distribution in the country. Massachusetts Republicans have cracked themselves spectacularly. The only other states where it is literally impossible to draw a district that the other party wins are the two-district states.

Where do Republicans win state legislative seats in the state? Still pretty bad...less than a fifth of the state House and less than a tenth of the state Senate.

here's 2020 by town. this general geographic pattern is very consistent

[MarkD]

Is it just me, or are Republicans really poorly distributed in the state? In addition to not winning a House race since 1994, there's 14 counties and NOT one has voted Republican for President since 1988. You would think with them getting at least 32% of the vote in the last six presidential elections and sometimes a little more than that, there would be a part of the state that's red.

Romney came fairly close in one mass county. think he got 48% of vote

Close; Romney's best Massachusetts county in 2012 was Plymouth County, which voted 47.20% for him, compared to 51.40% for Obama, and 1.40% for others. Another thing that's unique about how Plymouth County voted in 2012 was that, of the 27 municipalities in the county, 19 of them voted for Romney and only 8 voted for Obama. But the fact that the biggest city in the county, Brockton, voted by a landslide for Obama was key to how Obama carried the county as a whole.

Massachusetts has a total of 351 municipalities (hereafter, I will refer to them as "towns," even though the state distinguishes between "cities" and "towns") and in 2012, Romney carried 95 of the towns in the state. That's 27% of the towns. Romney's towns were disproportionally made up of smaller towns, whereas all of the state's biggest towns voted for Obama, usually by landslide margins. The highest percentage Romney got in any town was 60.79% in Lynnfield. Adding up the total population of those 95 towns (2010 census), they collectively have only 16.325% of the state's population. The votes cast in those 95 towns were 18.735% of the votes cast statewide, so voter turnout tended to be higher in the Romney towns. None of the towns in Berkshire, Dukes, Franklin, Hampshire, Nantucket, or Suffolk counties voted for Romney. Besides the 19 out of 27 towns in Plymouth County that voted for Romney, there were 28 out of 60 towns in Worcester County that voted for him, 10 out of 23 towns in Hampden County, 10 out of 34 towns in Essex County, 11 out of 54 towns in Middlesex County, 9 out of 28 towns in Norfolk County, 6 out of 20 towns in Bristol County, and 2 out of 15 towns in Barnstable County.

Four years later, Trump carried 93 towns in the state, but there were significant differences between which towns voted for Trump as compared to which towns voted for Romney. In 2016, 18 of the 23 towns in Hampden voted for Trump, and 33 of the 60 towns in Worcester voted for him. Two towns in Franklin and 3 towns in Hampshire voted for Trump, even though no towns at all in those two counties voted for Romney. On the other hand, Trump lost 5 of the towns in Plymouth that Romney carried, 4 of the towns in Essex flipped Democratic, 4 of the towns in Middlesex did as well, and 7 of the towns in Norfolk flipped too. Then another four years later (last year), only 53 towns voted for Trump, so a total of 40 towns flipped to Biden.

Turning to state legislative districts, all 40 state senate districts voted against Romney in 2012, but 3 of the senate districts voted for Trump in 2016, and just 1 senate district voted for Trump in 2020. In all 3 elections, the most Republican senate district was consistently the Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire, and Middlesex District. That district is arguably the most rural of all 40 of the districts; it has 28 towns and none of those 28 had a population (2010 census) as high as 13,000. In 2012, Obama won that district by a margin of just 6 votes; 39,287 (48.775%) for Obama to 39,281 (48.767%) for Romney (and 1,980 for others). In 2016, the district cast 34,259 votes (40.27%) for Clinton to 42,604 votes (50.08%) for Trump (8,201 for others). Then in 2020, the district cast 45,316 votes (48.00%) for Biden to 46,328 votes (49.07%) for Trump (2,761 for others). In the 2016 election, the two other senate districts that voted for Trump were the 1st Plymouth and Bristol District and the Worcester and Norfolk District. The former (made up of 5 towns in Plymouth and 4 towns in Bristol) cast 39,129 votes (45.55%) for Clinton to 40,167 votes (46.76%) for Trump (and 6,601 for others). The latter (made of up 12 whole towns and 1 partial town in Worcester and 1 town in Norfolk) cast 39,639 votes (44.72%) for Clinton to 41,415 votes (46.73%) for Trump (7,579 for others). But those two districts voted for Obama in 2012 and for Biden in 2020.

In terms of the 160 state representative districts, Romney carried 25 of them in 2012, but Trump carried only 19 of them in 2016, and then in 2020 Trump carried only 5 of them. (So it's very odd that, in 2016, Trump carried 3 senate districts that Romney did not, but Trump carried 6 less house districts than Romney.) Only 12 house districts voted for both Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016; only 4 districts consistently voted Republican in all three elections. Thirteen house districts that voted for Romney in 2012 flipped to Clinton four years later, whereas seven house districts flipped the other way - from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. The 12 districts that voted for both Romney and Trump (2016) were: 5th Barnstable, 12th Bristol, 3rd Hampden, 19th Middlesex, 22nd Middlesex, 36th Middlesex, 7th Plymouth, 8th Plymouth, 12th Plymouth, 5th Worcester, 8th Worcester, and 18th Worcester. The 5 districts that voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 were: 12th Bristol, 1st Hampden, 3rd Hampden, 5th Worcester, and 18th Worcester.

One last bit of trivia about Massachusetts that I analyzed: in the 2012 U.S. senate election between incumbent Republican Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, the latter won statewide by 53.74% to 46.19% (0.07% for write-ins). Among the 40 senate districts, Warren won 24 districts to Brown winning 16 districts. Of the 160 house districts, Warren won 87 districts to Brown's 73. Voter turnout tended to be lower in the senate and house districts that Warren won, but her margin of success was much higher in those districts compared to the margin that Brown won in his higher-turnout districts.