With Susan Rice dropping out of consideration for secretary of state, attention has immediately focused on Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. If Kerry is chosen, his seat in the United States Senate will be subject to a special election in 2013. Republicans almost certainly have zero chance of winning – unless soon-to-be-former Senator Scott Brown, who just lost to Democrat Elizabeth Warren, runs.

The question is, will he?

The reason for Brown not to run is pretty clear: winning federal office as a Republican in Massachusetts is hard. Excluding Brown's 2010 victory, the last time a Republican was elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts was in 1972. There hasn't been a single Republican elected to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts since Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen won during the "Republican revolution" of 1994. That includes no Republicans elected to the House during the Republican romp in 2010 and John Tierney's miraculous survival, despite major ethics problems, in 2012.

Indeed, you could argue that Brown's victory in 2010 was a fluke more than anything else. Brown's opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, ran arguably the worst campaign the state had ever seen. She refused to do much of anything in the way of retail politics – and bragged about it. Coakley made herself an object of ridicule by stating that Boston Red Sox hero Curt Schilling was a member of the hated New York Yankees.

Brown, by contrast, rode his pickup truck around Massachusetts, winning over voters under the radar, and reversed a 30-point deficit in the closing weeks of the campaign. But it's improbable that Brown would catch such a break again.

Even if Brown were to win in 2013, he'd face another election in 2014: the seat currently occupied by Kerry is due for its regular election in 2014. A Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts three times in five years could be considered equivalent to Adam Sandler winning an Oscar three times in five years.

Brown also has another option for a powerful statewide office: governor. Unlike senatorial elections, Republicans have actually had a string of success in capturing the governor's mansion. Republicans won four consecutive gubernatorial elections from 1990 to 2002, including Mitt Romney's bid in 2002. The reason is that Democratic-leaning voters in Massachusetts don't have to worry that Republican governors will have to vote for the national Republican agenda, as they might be obliged to if elected to federal office.

So, is Brown not running for Senate a sure thing?

No. Brown might not find the post of governor too alluring upon deep thought. He might prefer the Senate and would discount the seemingly long odds. In any case, the past doesn't necessarily predict the future. Brown's loss in his 2012 race to Senator-elect Liz Warren was, at least partially, because of the demographics in presidential elections. Black voters turned out in higher numbers for Obama than they would have otherwise; 18- to 29-year-old turnout also is usually depressed in non-presidential years.

I wanted to find out what Brown's loss in 2012 might have looked like under the 2010 special election turnout. The problem is that there were no exit polls taken for the special election. There was a survey conducted by telephone afterward, but exit polls tend to find more minorities and younger people than telephone surveys. The 2012 exit poll also found an electorate that was actually 7pt more white in 2012 than in 2008, which a whole host of evidence indicates was almost certainly not the case.

We can still get a decent idea of what would have occurred in special and midterm elections based on a number of factors, including voter age, ideology (more consistent from survey to survey than party identification), and race. Warren's margin of victory of 7pt in 2012 probably would have dropped by to only a 4pt win with special election or midterm turnout. This is not enough to erase her margin of victory, yet it's a significant reduction. Without Obama on the top of the ticket, you could make the argument that Brown might have made it much closer.

Still, the fact that Brown would have lost to Warren based on reasonable demographic assumptions is a big warning sign to him. When I look at this math plus history, it tends to suggest to me that Brown would be wise to pass on a Senate run. If he is still ambitious for a return to high political office, governor is where he should focus his attention.