Leading

Two new polls show Scott Brown leading Martha Coakley heading into Tuesday's special election. Public Policy Polling has this as a 51-46 race. Another poll, conducted by the Merriman River Group and InsideMedford.com, gives Brown a 9.6% lead (50.8-41.2). In both polls, Brown has a significant lead among independents. The PPP numbers represent an improvement for Brown; last week, he led by only 48-47. There seem to be some undecideds who could swing either candidate's way. There's also some uncertainty about what will happen to those voters supportive of Libertarian Joseph Kennedy. Will they back him or swing to Brown/Coakley? With a special election like this, turnout will be key.

Ohio Change

Ohio's 1st Congressional District offers one indication of how the Obama brand has flipped over the past year. In 2008, Democrat Steve Driehaus unseated incumbent GOP Rep. Steve Chabot.

A new FDL/SurveyUSA poll (full details here)shows Chabot leading Driehaus 56-39 in a 2010 rematch.

Obama's approval numbers are down in the district.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

Approve 42%
Disapprove 55%
Not Sure 3%

The independent numbers are pretty bad: only 28% of independents approve of the job the president is doint.

Driehaus voted in favor of the House's version of health-care reform. This reform is of decidedly mixed popularity in his district:

Would you prefer Representative Steve Driehaus to vote for the version of the health care law that includes the requirement to carry private health insurance? To vote for a version of health care reform that does NOT include this requirement? Or, to vote against any health care bill?

For bill with requirement: 28%
For bill without requirement: 28%
Against Any bill: 40%
Not Sure: 5%

So 40% want him to vote against any bill. That gives him a ceiling of 60% for support for any bill (and that's assuming some bill could be concocted that would satisfy all interested parties). The problem for Driehaus: the Senate health-care bill does carry such a mandate for individuals to have health-insurance. That option only carries 28% support. If Driehaus does vote in favor of the Senate bill as is or without the change in mandates, his support could be further eroded.

Perhaps Driehaus's best chance at reelection would be to differentiate himself from other Democrats on Capitol Hill and act as an independent voice. Health-care could be one opportunity for Driehaus to show his independence. From the looks of President Obama's approval rating in the district, it looks unlikely that he'll be able to save Driehaus; it will be up to Driehaus to save himself.

ARG: Brown Leads

American Research Group comes out with some positive numbers for Scott Brown, showing him leading Democrat Martha Coakley 48-45. The crosstabs show some interesting results. This poll's sample has Democrats significantly outnumber independents (44-36), numbers that do not match the general partisan registration in Massachusetts (where independents are a majority of voters) but could be understandable when one takes into consideration the fact that this is a special election. These numbers also show Brown winning among voters 18-49 (52-42). Has Brown become the youth candidate?

Desperation?

President Obama will, it seems, be campaigning for Martha Coakley after all. He's scheduled to come to the Bay State on Sunday on Coakley's behalf. This is a risky move for Obama and Coakley. Opposition to Obamacare is perhaps one of Brown's biggest electoral draws; Obama's presence in the state only makes the issue that much more central in voters' minds. A loss by Coakley after Obama's campaign trip could damage his brand credibility. After all, if he can't help Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, how many strings can he really effectively pull for, say, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas?

As things get down to the wire, the momentum seems to be on Scott Brown's side. One of his internal polls supposedly puts him ahead by 11 points; one of Coakley's internals supposedly has him up by 3.

The poll numbers are sort of all over the place, which is understandable. This is a special election, an especially moving target all the way until the final votes are cast on Tuesday. Turnout turnout turnout!

The Wrath of Action

Charles Krauthammer has a strong column up exploring the political situation President Obama has found himself in. He identifies a major cause for the fall of Obama's popularity as the unpopularity of his ideas:

The health-care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.

Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.

Over at The New Republic, Jonathan Chait condemns Krauthammer's piece for missing the effects of unemployment upon the president's unpopularity. The left may still be trying to reassure himself that any failure Obama suffers will not be due to the unpopularity of "progressive" policies but instead truly due to a poor economic situation.

However, those economic difficulties are in part policy/political failures. The Obama administration chose to push forward a hyper-partisan stimulus bill, one designed to delay distributing stimulus money. The Obama administration chose to announce a benchmark of success for its stimulus bill vis-a-vis unemployment, a benchmark it has fallen considerably short of. The Obama administration chose to focus its rhetorical energies on health-care reform and cap-and-trade instead of the economy. If the administration and the Democratic Congress had adopted a different approach to the current economic turmoil in early 2009, perhaps the economic picture might be different now. But it didn't, and now it's living with the consequences.

The administration is not a mere victim of the economic dynamic but has itself contributed to this dynamic. And the polled unpopularity of various concrete measures the administration supports on health-care and other issues is not solely (or even principally or significantly) due to the state of the economy.

Krauthammer ends on this note:

Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

If the revenge of the political system continues and Obama's agenda continues to encounter turbulence, look for many "progressives" to attempt to deconstruct the system and its myriad checks and balances. Beyond a push to end the filibuster (which more and more "progressives" are mounting), "progressive" drums might be beginning to beat for ending the Senate itself.

Brown Surging?

The Boston Herald reports on a new poll released by Suffolk University/7News, showing Brown leading Coakley by 4%. Key snippets:

The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead...

Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.

Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade...

The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled.

Brown wins among men and is remarkably competitive among women - trailing Coakley’s 50 percent with 45 percent.

While Brown has 91 percent of registered Republicans locked up, an astonishing 17 percent of Democrats report they’re jumping ship for Brown as well - likely a product of Coakley’s laser-focus on hard-core Dems, potentially at the exclusion of other Democrats whom she needed to win over, Paleologos said...

Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.

Pollster David Paleologos's comments about the causes for Democratic disenchantment are highly suggestive: Coakley may not be able to depend upon a hard-core, base Democratic turnout alone in order to win this election. Will her current negative advertising campaign win over independents and moderate Democrats?

First Impressions

Especially if Scott Brown ends up winning the election on Tuesday, one lesson to take away from this race is the value of establishing a first impression. Due to Coakley's victory-lap vacation from active campaigning, Brown was able to get his message out somewhat unopposed. He was able to focus the Senate debate on a few key issues that played to his strengths. By trying to run a cheery, independent campaign, Brown was able to keep Coakley from casting the race solely as a Republican-vs.-Democrat grudge match on behalf of Ted Kennedy's memory. Instead, the race became about health-care, pragmatic bipartisanship, and the economy (among other issues). All of these favored Brown.

After Brown's image as a scrappy independent and as a brake on radical programs in Washington gained traction, Coakley seemed to have chosen the strategy of a negative assault upon Brown. There is a chance that this strategy of polarizing out the race could work. However, it might also be seen as a significant miscalculation about the mood of Massachusetts and the US as a whole. Both state and nation are increasingly tired of the politics of fear and resentment. Democrats were able to use the "Had Enough?" slogan (one coined by Newt Gingrich) very effectively in 2006 and as part of their 2008 repertoire. So much of the first year of the Obama administration has been defined by the relentless use of demonization---from attacks upon Rush Limbaugh to assertions that skeptics of Obamacare are like defenders of slavery to implications that the Republicans seek to perpetuate a holocaust. Inflaming animosities may be a successful tactic of distraction from the failures of the present, but the public does eventually tire of that torrent of wrath.

Part of what made Barack Obama's campaign a success was its overt emphasis on hope (even as a few fear-inducing digs were made). That optimistic glean helped satisfy the public's desire for an escape from the dead-ender partisanship they saw in Washington. Even if (especially if) the Obama administration has failed to deliver on this glean, the public hunger for a more affirmative politics has only increased.

Brown is very shrewd to be running such positive ads at this point in the campaign. Few voters want to have the bitter taste of venom in their mouths as they vote for a candidate right now. Brown's best hope is to run as a force for the way forward---not just against another person.

Toss-Up

The Rothenberg Political Report has further upgraded Scott Brown's chances in the Massachusetts Senate race, now ranking it as a "toss-up." Bill Kristol reports about private polls putting Brown ahead of Coakley. Brown seems to be picking up momentum and charging forward.

UPDATE: Rumors swirl of an internal Coakley poll that shows her leading by a mere two points: 46-44.) And sources inside Massachusetts tell The Daily Caller that Brown is raising about a million dollars a day.

Why Should Unions Support Coakley?

The big unions seem to be mustering their resources for a last-minute push for Martha Coakley (according to sources, the Massachusetts Teacher Association is unleashing a barrage of mailings and phone calls). However, why should they do so, especially when the Obama administration has set its sights on generous union health-care packages? Has the administration been a great success for the individual members of various labor unions? What about the folks in Detroit---how will they be doing if a bad version of cap-and-trade passes?

It's clear why many of the power players in unions support Coakley: they want a place at the table. By buying into the system, various union heads ensure more power for themselves. But various rank-and-file members of the union must ask themselves if the union's official position advances their best interests. What's the point of having a strong union that can secure a good benefits package if the federal government is going to tax those benefits away?

So it might not be too surprising if, in the privacy of the voting booth, many union members pull the lever for Scott Brown.

Balancing Act

Martha Coakley finds herself in the following odd position: the standard Democratic brand is taking a beating even in Massachusetts, but her biggest advantage may be the appeal to Democratic loyalty. As Chris Cillizza notes, Coakley's campaign ads do not emphasize her party affiliation. So she may be trying to differentiate herself from national Democrats. However, the whole "save-Ted-Kennedy's-seat" argument seems to be premised on the fact that Coakley will indeed be just another (albeit very left-wing) Democratic senator. The latter argument undercuts the former, so she needs to make them to different audiences.

Party Loyalty?

Many online "progressives" have begun cataloging the supposed woes that the nationalization of the Massachusetts Senate race has brought upon Scott Brown's campaign. E. J. Dionne kicks it off:

Brown was running well as an insurgent who was somewhat disconnected from the national Republican Party. Conservatives, Republicans and tea-party types were already mobilized to vote next Tuesday. Democrats were asleep. All the national attention to the race now gives Democrats a reason to vote. Brown does better as an independent-minded outsider than as someone who is now recast as part of Washington's partisan battles. He is trying gamely to preserve his independent image, but that has become harder, and the Democrats' advertising is aimed at tying him into the Washington Republican Establishment.

I'm somewhat skeptical of this view and have written about the benefits of attention to Brown: that he would need to appear competitive in order to have a shot at being competitive. The appearance of being competitive would indeed center Democratic attention on this race, but that attention might be the price of actually winning it. Moreover, I've suggested the value of Brown connecting himself to national issues as a way of raising his profile in the race.

Democrats have themselves been gamely trying to attach Brown to the centralized Republican bureaucracy, but have to contend with the fact that it is Martha Coakley, not Scott Brown, who is attending top-dollar partisan fundraisers in Washington, DC.

Kos picks up on this nationalization theme in an interesting post, but he offers this odd claim:

On the other hand, that conservative support has come at a cost. Among other things, Brown has had to promise to be the 41st vote against health care reform. The teabaggers demand ideological purity, and he's had to deliver.

Kos almost seems to phrase this opposition to the current version of health-care reform as some major concession to the lunatic right wing. When a broad majority is not in support of the current version of Obamacare, stating one's intention to filibuster it is hardly an act that defines one as an ideological purist (how many approve of Obama's handling of health-care? 35%).

This opposition in fact is perhaps one of the major draws for independents, who are increasingly dissatisfied with the Democratic Congress and the current health-care proposal.

Getting Closer

Rasmussen has new numbers up: Coakley at 49%, Brown at 47%. More details about party affiliation:

Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%. To be clear, this lead is among unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the special election.

An earlier Rasmussen poll (which figured things marginally differently) had a 50-41 race in Coakley's favor. Notwithstanding the differences between the two polls, Brown seems to be closing the gap somewhat.

An interesting point about enthusiasm:

The new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Brown is ahead by two percentage points among those who are absolutely certain they will vote. A week ago, he trailed by two among those certain to vote.

See Michael Barone for more.

Distractions!

To read the Washington Examiner's piece on the antics of big-time DNC operative Hari Sevugan is to see an extensive exercise in the politics of distraction. Sevugan has spent the past day or so trying to inject Sarah Palin into the MA Senate race. The following paragraphs encapsulate the thrust of the activity:

Early Monday afternoon, Sevugan sent out an email to reporters featuring a link to a story on the lefty website TPM. The headline: "Is Sarah Palin Avoiding Mass Senate Race?" The story quoted a Democratic strategist saying that "it's interesting" that Palin is "nowhere to be found in this race." TPM conceded that GOP sources say there has been "no talk" about Palin visiting Massachusetts. But that didn't stop Sevugan, who is quoted declaring that Palin's supporters "are anxious for her to weigh in." At the top of his email to journalists, Sevugan wrote, "Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?"

A couple of hours later, Sevugan was emailing again, with a message entitled, "Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?" What followed was a statement from Sevugan on "the surprising silence from Sarah Palin on Republican Scott Brown's bid for the U.S. Senate." Sevugan demanded to know: "Where on earth is Sarah Palin herself? Clearly her supporters are anxious for her to weigh in."

Not long after that, Sevugan sent out another email to reporters, this one with a link to a post by TPM alumnus Greg Sargent, who now writes a lefty blog for the Washington Post. Sargent's post featured Sevugan's question with the headline, "Dems on Palin: 'Has the Pit Bull Lost Her Bark?'"

Everyone seems to know why there's such an emphasis on trying to bring up Palin, who might be a little too "red meat" for the independents and moderate Democrats Brown will need to win on January 19.

While Sevugan's emails represent an amusing attempt to put Scott Brown in an uncomfortable position, they also underscore the paucity of affirmative claims made on Coakley's behalf right now. Is that it---bringing Sarah Palin into the Senate race? Talking about swift boats and Karl Rove?

The Coakley campaign seems in some ways to be edging closer to running a 2006/2008 campaign, in which she pins her hopes on anti-Bush antipathy. However, it's now 2010. That anti-Bush venom might have waning effectiveness. Marc Ambinder hits upon what I think is some mainstream Democratic thinking here:

5. Health care isn't popular. The economy drags down everything. To keep afloat in this scuzzy water, Democrats are going to have to crisply define their Republican opponents as champions of the failed policies that got the country into this mess. Because it is mess. Democrats can't run on stewardship or governance. It's a gamble, and it's not always going to work, but running against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney can be effective, especially in races that'll come down to base turnout.

If you can't "run on stewardship or governance" as a majority party, the only thing you have left is slamming the other guy and playing the blame game. Unfortunately, the blame game will not improve the employment situation, render the health-care bill a magnificent cure-all, or solve all our foreign policy woes. Indeed, that game might not even win elections.

(Sidenote (vis-a-vis of all the fancied historical parallels between Obama and Franklin Roosevelt): was it mainstream media opinion in 1934 Washington that Democrats couldn't run on governance? Seeing that Democrats gained 9 Senate seats in 1934, I'm doubtful...)

Money Explosion

Scott Brown's campaign has exceeded its original goal of $500,000 for its "moneybomb" today; as of 5 EST, it's at $626,000 and climbing. Around 3:45 EST, it was at $486,000. That's about $100,000 an hour! This could top out at a very big number.

UPDATE: Around 9:40 EST, Brown's passed the $1 million mark.

Poll Issues: Still the Independents

Jonathan Martin at the Politico posts the following private poll results:

The survey, conducted by longtime Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, has Democrat Coakley, the state attorney general, leading state Republican Sen. Scott Brown 50 percent to 36 percent.

Sounds bad for Scott Brown, right?

Maybe not so much. Check out the sample Mark Mellman used according to the story:

Mellman surveyed 800 likely voters on Jan. 8-10. His sample included 49 percent self-identified Democrats, 25 percent independents and 24 percent Republicans.

These numbers wildly overstate the proportion of Democrats and wildly understate the portion of Republicans in Massachusetts. Registered undeclared voters actually comprise over 50% of the electorate in Massachusetts. Democrats only constitute 36%. According to many polls, Brown holds a commanding lead over Coakley with independents. If Coakley is only getting to 50% with sample numbers that favor her so heavily, Brown must be very competitive indeed.

There are at least two possibilities here. One is that Mellman is using a turnout model that deliberately discounts independents, assuming that they won't show up to the polls. However, enthusiasm seems to be pulling along Brown's campaign. Can he whip up independent enthusiasm? He better hope so.

Another possibility, quite compatible with the first, is that this leak is meant to dispirit Republicans and Brown-friendly independents in Massachusetts. And if they don't go to vote (and get their friends, neighbors, and relatives to vote), Coakley will certainly win.

UPDATE: Welcome Campaign Spot and Gateway Pundit readers! You might also like this imaginary speech delivered by a Republican candidate for Senate in Massachusetts.

Global Outlier

Many have noted that today's Boston Globe poll is an outlier in showing a 17-point advantage for Coakley (53-36), a bigger advantage than any recent poll has given. While other polls are showing Brown within single digits or even ahead, this Globe poll puts him at a more significant deficit. What gives?

I think a lot of the discrepancy between this poll and other polls boils down to the independents. According to this poll, the Registered Undeclared voters support Coakley over Brown 48-42. This number is wildly out of line with the recent polls released by Rasmussen and PPP, both of which show Brown leading handily with independents, winning at least 60% of their votes (Coakley hangs at between around 20% and 30% of independents). If, using all the other weighting methodologies of the Globe poll, you change the undeclared levels of support to 61% for Brown and 31% for Coakley (her highest number in the most recent polls), you come up with a 47-44 lead for Brown.

Is it credible that Coakley should have such a commanding lead among independents, when so much evidence would seem to suggest increasing independent disenchantment with the Democratic brand? Brown's supporters should not lose heart from this poll. Instead, they should use it as a reminder of how crucial independent support is.

Public Policy Prescience?

I'll be looking into these new MA Senate poll numbers from Public Policy Polling in more depth later, but they certainly seem to show a grim story for Democratic nominee Martha Coakley. According to PPP, GOP nominee Scott Brown leads Coakley 48-47. The numbers from PPP show him with a net favorability rating of +32 (compared with Coakley's +8 rating). Anger about the health-care reform bill in the Senate is clearly driving people to Brown (voters also seem upset about talk about delaying the certification of the election in the case of a hypothetical Brown win). Independents are flocking to Brown 63-31, a margin that is in line with Rasmussen's poll earlier this week.

Hypothetical Stumping

An imaginary speech delivered by a Republican candidate for Senate in Massachusetts:

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the invitation to speak to you at this time and at this place. The people of Massachusetts have been very supportive of my candidacy. As I go from house to house, neighborhood to neighborhood, from town to town, and from city to city, I am reminded of the diversity of our Commonwealth, but also of its universal hospitality.

While my opponent was taking a vacation, I was traveling across this state, meeting with the voters. Enough is enough. I can see it in their eyes. I hear it on their lips. Enough is enough. Enough of the corruption. Enough of the incompetence. Enough of the lies. Enough of the thuggery. Enough of the profligacy. Enough of the resentment. Enough of the fear.

In Washington, we have seen a majority party turn its back on the promise of hope for the politics of fear, resentment, and avarice. It tries to get the American people to look backward in order to distract them from the failures of the present. On so many issues---spending, jobs, financial services reform, cap-and-trade---the current Democratic Congress is massively out of step with the American people. But no issue has caused as much public unrest as the current attempt at health-care "reform." It is a case in point of the excesses of the current Congress.

The health-care bill that passed the Senate is so toxic and so unpopular that they could only pass it in a party-line vote, and that passage could only come after countless special backroom deals. The public---the Senate itself---was given little time to analyze the text of the bill that passed before the vote was made. But partisanship ensured that such a vote did take place, and that the vote was in the affirmative.

The negotiations for this bill take place in secret. Nearly everything that could be done to shut the public out of Capitol Hill's health-care discussion has been done.

This bill will add additional taxes to many Americans' medical care. It will cut the care for our elderly. It will place new regulations and limitations on the kind of care and medical financing available to you.

Candidate Obama pledged that you could keep your health-care plan if you like it. President Obama now supports policies that will make many Americans' health-care plans an endangered species on the fast track to extinction. Candidate Obama attacked taxing medical benefits. President Obama now supports taxing them. Candidate Obama said he opposed mandates forcing you to buy medical insurance. President Obama now supports these mandates. Candidate Obama promised again and again and again that the negotiations for the health-care bill would be broadcast. President Obama and the Democratic Congress now conduct these very same negotiations in the shadows, away from the cameras. The story of this health-care bill is a long litany of broken promises, partisan pacts, and demagogic tirades.

Is this the change the American people, the people of Massachusetts, want?

When there are so many needs in this country and this state, with jobs still being slashed, with states and other organizations and many Americans' households on the verge of bankruptcy, with skyrocketing deficit spending threatening our financial future, is this the best Washington can do? I know they can do better. We all know they can do better.

It's time to unlock the power of the American people. Supposed stimulus money is doled out to special interests, costing much but raising employment little. These levels of spending add to the yokes of debt of our children and grandchildren. It's time to focus on investing in the future. Let's invest in generating new reserves of energy---not taxing away the energy we do have. Let's focus on restoring industry---not driving it away. Let's focus on reforming the financial regulations to reward prudence and so that the growth of firms does not endanger the stability of the market---not paying off high-rolling insiders. Let's focus on really reforming health-care and improving the quality of care for all Americans. Let's put aside the endless, zero-sum partisanship and try to find solutions with an open mind.

The market can work. The free actions of free people can lead to marvelous results. If we have faith in ourselves and faith in our fellow Americans, we can accomplish great things.

We can, despite what you may have heard, change the way things are done. We can challenge injustice when we see it. We can raise our voice, and Washington will hear us.

On January 19th, we can change the course of this nation. We can take a step towards restoring something like sanity to what's happening on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, I would be the forty-first vote for the Republicans. This vote will force the Democratic majority to work in a bipartisan fashion to forge sensible, effective legislation. It will put the brakes on the current version of health-care reform. It will say to the leadership on Capitol Hill that partisan ferocity is not enough to govern this nation.

Now is not the time for a politics of recrimination. We can only go forward, so we must keep our eyes on the road. We must work to stabilize our finances. We must work to uphold our international obligations. We must work to put our nation on the road to economic and civic renewal. I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats alike to get on that road.

I speak to you at a time of great uncertainty and great crisis. Yet now can be our opportunity---not an opportunity for the extension of political power or personal gratification. No. Now, can be an opportunity to renew the promise of America, to renew the principles upon which America has stood, stands, and, I hope, will stand. Let us work to keep true to the faith, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance."

This is a chance to change things. Let's make the most of it.

Fighting for Transparency

Scott Brown probably makes a good strategic move in hammering his Democratic opponent over the lack of transparency for health-care negotiations:

“Martha Coakley needs to repudiate the decision by Capitol Hill powerbrokers to move the health care negotiations to backrooms behind closed doors,” said Brown. “Given the significant implications of the health care legislation on the lives of millions of Americans, the negotiations need to be readily accessible for any citizen who wants to see how Washington plans to transform one-sixth of our economy."

“Given that the winner of the special Senate election in Massachusetts will likely cast the decisive vote on the final version of the health care bill, it is critically important that voters know where their candidates stand on the issue of transparency,” added Brown. “I agree with candidate Obama: the negotiations should be televised on C-SPAN, and it is extremely disappointing Harry Reid has decided to move the debate behind closed doors. Now, I am calling on my opponent to make her position clear on this critical issue immediately.”

Those kinds of tactics on the part of Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration are sure to rub independents and moderates the wrong way. The level of panic the leadership is inspiring to pass this seems to be a sign of desperation, cynicism, fear, or some combination of the three. Obama swept into office with the promise of being a good-government, pro-transparency reformer, yet now even many "progressives" are disappointed with the way in which the administration has fallen short of this vision.

Instapundit is right to note that Brown is running as the "change candidate." His campaign ads often have an offbeat (at least compared to many political commercials), change-y feel. And his election would certainly change some of Washington's current power structure.

Registering the Facts

Legal Insurrection notes Scott Brown's success in the world of Twitter and argues that his race can indeed be won by the GOP.

Meanwhile, the Cook Political Report has moved the MA special election Senate race from Solid Democratic to Lean Democratic. That puts this race in the same category as Blanche Lincoln's run for reelection (Lincoln currently trails Republican challengers by 10-12 points).

Equality and the Law

David Frum has a good column up at CNN about the interest both the right and the left should have about limiting inequality. He also has some pointed remarks about how tendencies on both sides of the political debate may have contributed to an unequal instability. Here are a key few paragraphs:

For the left:

Here's a story I heard last week from a onetime foreign investor in Argentina. The thing that drove him out of the country was a 5 percent tax on his company. Five percent may not sound like much, but what mattered was not the amount of the tax. It was the way it was imposed. The tax was not enacted by Congress. It was not even ordered by the president.

One fine day, one of his operations received a letter from a government ministry with a sudden demand for payment. As far as he could tell, the demand was ungrounded in any law. He litigated the matter and (eventually) prevailed. But a country where the government could remake the rules at any time was no country for him.

Think it could not happen here? It is happening here. It happened in the Chrysler bankruptcy, when the government muscled bondholders to surrender their legal rights in favor of politically preferred creditors. It happened to AIG bonus-holders, intimidated by Congress into surrendering their contractual earnings.

It is on the verge of happening to the pharmaceutical industry, where one preferred idea of health care reformers is informal government pressure on drug prices.

A modern economy can bear the load of even quite high government spending -- see Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc. What it cannot bear is arbitrary power. Deals are deals, contracts are contracts, laws are laws, and they must be respected by the government as well as by the governed.

For the right:

Latin American politics has been savage on a scale hardly imaginable north of the Rio Grande: at least 9,000 -- and perhaps as many as 30,000 -- murdered in Argentina's 1976-83 "dirty war" against suspected left-wing radicals, to cite just one example.

The extreme concentration of wealth for which the continent is notorious has tended to frustrate reformists and galvanize radicals, including violent radicals. Latin American "haves" have felt threatened by attack from below since independence two centuries ago -- and they have repeatedly defended their possessions with murderous repression.

Part of the aim of a liberal republic is to have enough socio-political fluidity so that reform can happen within the political process. If a government wishes to maintain its popular legitimacy, it must seem capable of responding to real civic needs and real debate.

Republican legitimacy is also poisoned by reveling in arbitrary power. Law, in grounding the limits of governmental power, helps pave the way for wealth, both civic and commercial.

The Price of Loyalty

One wonders if there's any connection between this:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Arkansas shows Lincoln’s support for reelection at 38% or 39% no matter which of four potential Republican challengers she is matched against. In surveys last September and December, her support was between 39% and 41% in these match-ups.

State Senator Gilbert Baker leads Lincoln by 12, and State Senate Minority Leader Kim Hendren holds an eight-point edge over the incumbent. Curtis Coleman, a private businessman, and Tom Cox, head of the Arkansas T.E.A. Party, both lead her by 10 points. In reality, however, the numbers reflect very little about the challengers and are best viewed as a referendum on the incumbent.

The two-term senator, who was reelected with 54% of the vote in 2004, appears more vulnerable because of her visible and pivotal role in the Senate debate over health care. Lincoln was the last Democrat to vote for allowing the debate to formally begin, but she took a lower profile in the vote for final passage.

And this:

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln on Tuesday said a political deal that benefits Nebraska and may have clinched a lawmaker's support for health care legislation should be removed from the bill.

The Democratic senator from Arkansas said she was disappointed about a provision in the Senate's health care bill that will require the federal government to permanently pay the entire cost of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska, while only paying the costs of expansion in the other 49 states for three years.

Conservative Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson lent his crucial support to the bill only after winning the provision for his constituents.

"The people of Arkansas didn't send me to Washington to be a horse trader," Lincoln told reporters before speaking at a Kiwanis Club luncheon in downtown Little Rock.

Lincoln did not say whether she would support a final version of the health care legislation if it included the Nebraska agreement.

While Lincoln may have gratified Senate leadership with her support of Obamacare, the leadership isn't responsible for her election to the Senate and associated political power; the people of Arkansas are. And the radical unpopularity of the Senate's health-care reform measure damages the persuasiveness of her "moderate Democrat" brand there.

Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher, perhaps as a harbinger of a left-right convergence, creates a list of those House Democrats most likely to fall as a result of their support for Obamacare.

The Limits of Name Recognition

Via Legal Insurrection, I notice that Chris Cillizza is still doubtful of Brown's chances. I have to quarrel with Cillizza's point about name ID:

First and foremost, the odd date of the special election -- coming so soon after the extended holiday break -- means that Coakley's name identification edge and fundraising prowess are close to determinative.

Even in regularly scheduled elections where voters are habituated to going to their polling place, candidates and their campaigns struggle to get people interested enough in the race to not only pay attention to the competing messages but actually turn out and vote.

With historically low turnout predicted later this month, the fact that Coakley has already been elected statewide is a huge advantage as many voters, paying almost no attention to the race, are likely to go with the name they know rather than an unknown.

I think the shoe's almost on the other foot: Coakley's name ID may help her less on a special election than on a general election. After all, especially because this is a special election after a holiday season, only those really motivated to turn out will vote. I would suspect that special election voters are, on average, more committed to and interested in politics, and they're more likely to be driven by strong feelings. Those strong feelings would seem to favor Brown.

And fundraising may not be the ultimate weapon that Cillizza suggests here. A blogger at Red Mass Group notes the following fact about the primary race:

Because of the higher level of interest and education these voters are more easily effected by grass roots direct contact and less so by mass media and big money.

On the Democrat side, Pagliuca was in second place in the overall poll beating Khazei by a nearly 6 to 1 margin. Pagliuca spent tons of money on mass media while the little known Khazei spent virtually none gaining most of his support in his ground game. When the votes were finally tallied Khazei finished narrowly ahead of Pagliuca.

The other out performer was Capuano. He had more organizational support from his fellow congressmen and the unions. His turnout operation allowed him to significantly close the overall gap with Coakley when the votes were cast.

On the Republican side, Jack E. Robinson bought radio ads and had an aggressive direct mail campaign. Scott Brown spent virtually no money on media while volunteers spent time doing phone banks. Brown won a landslide victory that exceeded even the polls. On both sides of the isle, the ground game defeated the air game with tremendous success.

Passion from supporters can make a huge difference. Moreover, polls in Massachusetts can sometimes underestimate the support of victorious Republicans. Some polls taken just before the 2002 gubernatorial election showed Mitt Romney losing to his Democratic opponent, while a poll taken on the eve of the election had him leading his opponent by 3%. Romney ended up winning by 5%. If undecideds break hard for Brown, and if his ground game can deliver, this race might end up surprising some of even the most seasoned political observers.

Yeah, It's a Race

Rasmussen's new poll of the MA Senate race between Scott Brown and Martha is in line with some of the buzz being generated about the contest online and by other polls. The poll shows Coakley with a nine-point lead (50-41), which for a Democratic candidate with statewide name recognition in Massachusetts isn't much. Enthusiasm could really tip the scales here: among those who are certain to vote in the January 19 special election, Brown is within two points. That's margin of error territory.

This poll suggests that Brown is hitting on the right strategy of appealing to independents. According to the survey, Brown leads 65-21 among independents. He'll need that block to deliver for him in order for him to come out on top on election day. That's a huge lead among independents, if it's true, and there could be room for Brown to grow. While winning independents is crucial for Republicans, Democrats need them, too. In 2006, now-Governor Deval Patrick won independents 45-41 over Republican challenger Kerry Healey. Kerry was able to win 54% of independents in Massachusetts in 2004. These numbers suggest, I think, an even brighter picture for Brown.

If he can deliver on independents like that on election day, along with a buoyant Republican turnout, Brown might just find himself headed to Washington.

Brown Closer?

The Weekly Standard has a striking poll leak (emphasis added):

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained the results of a private poll conducted last week by a reputable non-partisan firm. In that survey, Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley led Republican state senator Scott Brown in the ballot test by 50% to 39%--not bad for Brown in a state Obama carried by 23 points. More interesting, perhaps, is that while Coakley's favorable/unfavorable rating was 61% to 32%, Brown's was 56% to 26%--in other words, they were virtually identical at +29/30. That suggests a potentially very competitive race: If Brown can make his case against another Democratic vote in the U.S. Senate, or against rewarding a member of unpopular governor Deval Patrick’s administration, some voters who currently prefer Coakley might be open to voting for Brown, since they view him favorably as well. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has also learned that an earlier poll, done in mid-December by another firm for another client, had similar results in the ballot test--but that the poll also found that the race tightened significantly, down to a low single digits margin for Coakley, among those judged most likely to vote.

If Brown is within 11 points, this could be a close race indeed, especially if you factor in the fact that this poll was taken in the middle of last week. Brown's stock has probably only risen since then. As that snippet from the second poll indicates, turnout could make a huge difference. The enthusiasm gap could---maybe maybe maybe---put Brown over the top.

William A. Jacobson has some pointed words for those in the establishment who are delaying support for Brown until a favorable poll comes out:

Unfortunately, some prominent right-wing commentators and almost the entire Republican establishment have decided to sit this one out unless and until there was a reputable public poll showing that Scott Brown was within striking distance of Martha Coakley.

What foolishness. By sitting this one out these people have increased the likelihood that this first poll will not be favorable to Brown. Anyone ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

It so often happens that victories are made possible by those who are willing to fight for something before they are guaranteed of winning. If Brown is able to win or come close in Massachusetts, part of his success (and coming close would be a considerable success) will be due to the passion and commitment of the decentralized, independently motivated rightosphere. A pack not a herd indeed.

MA Senate Update: Data Rising

Scott Brown continues to hammer away at Coakley and Capitol Hill business-as-usual with the release of a new ad. His campaign continues to hit upon Coakley's avoidance of a one-on-one debate with him.

Brown has also snagged an endorsement from Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling writes:

Our Government is dead set on passing health care legislation the people have made clear we don’t want. Hell they don’t even know what it contains but they’re sure as hell going to try and pass it anyway.

The kickbacks, the corruption, the lying, the phoniness of it all, it’s sickening and only getting worse. The numbers are now beyond comprehension, and there is no one, in office right now, that is giving a hint of those numbers getting smaller or being reduced, it’s just not going to happen, but we can change that.

If this state does the right thing, and elects Scott Brown, it will, in addition to being a comeback/upset of 2004 proportions, put a screeching halt to the Democratic parties fast tracking this country into an abyss.

What Government run/funded program in this countries history has ever been run with an ounce of financial responsibility, prudence, or with the peoples best interest at the forefront? None, that’s which one.

Scott is EXACTLY what this state and this country needs right now.

He’s for SMALLER government, stopping the concentration of power in one political party, a strong military and vigorous homeland defense as well as, and probably most appropriate and meaningful right now, giving all Americans Health Care BUT NOT by creating a new Government insurance Program.

This state can literally change the Nation in one day, think about that and then go vote for Scott Brown and make it happen.

Rasmussen will be polling the Brown-Coakley race tonight; if the results are close, Public Policy Polling intends to run a poll over the weekend (the link also has some interesting electoral speculation). Whether this polling will be good or bad news for Brown's chances remains to be seen.

While John Fund speculates on the race, Jim Geraghty keeps from falling into despair.

To poll or not to poll?

There is some debate about whether or not a poll would be good for Scott Brown's Senate campaign. One of Jim Geraghty's readers summarizes the argument against the poll nicely:

The last thing we really need here is a poll on the race. There hasn't been any; a poll showing Brown very close would wake up the Democrat machine here. A poll showing him getting crushed could depress his momentum. Right now I'd give Coakley the edge on registration alone, but I don't see her winning by more than 10 percent.

William A. Jacobson adds some further comments along this line:

Any poll now would rest mostly on name recognition, and Coakley wins the name recognition contest today. So any poll taken now will show Coakley with a substantial lead which may not reflect the vote on January 19. Brown's momentum is relatively new, and there are bound to be further gains in the coming two weeks.

Polling also would be particularly difficult for this special election, where turnout could mean everything. A lot of people who say they will vote may not do so, particularly for a candidate with tepid but wide support.

Those are all valid points.

Part of the disagreement about polling derives, I think, from a disagreement about the strategy Brown should use to win in Massachusetts. There's a case to be made for an under-the-radar campaign, in which Brown slowly chips away at Coakley's lead, while she (mistakenly) assumes she has this race in the bag. With the Democratic machine unmobilized and without any national attention, Brown would be able, so the thinking goes, to come out on top on election day. The political world reels in shock, Republicans across the country break out in wild parties, and so forth. That's a possible, and somewhat credible, scenario.

But there's another scenario, too. Under this other one, there are so many institutional factors against Brown (power players in Massachusetts, Democratic registration advantage, etc.) that he would need to run a transformational campaign against them. An under-the-radar campaign would be electoral death, as Brown is crushed beneath the institutional inertia of Massachusetts politics.

I think there are elements of truth to both strategies, and, at the moment, I tend to believe that Brown needs to appear competitive in order to have a serious chance at winning. A public poll showing him closing on Coakley might do that. An infusion of donations could also do that. Perhaps one of the best things for Brown's campaign could be a private poll, one showing him with a chance, that could then be passed around to the RNC and various donors. Special elections have a very weird dynamic. There's almost no way Brown could win an under-the-radar campaign if this were an election on a November of an even-numbered year; maybe there's a chance he could win that way this time.

But Brown will need more than Republicans to win this one; he needs independents and needs to find a way to bring them to the polls (and they're not going to show up for what they regard as a lost cause). Look at these numbers from Jim Geraghty:

But to illustrate how tough the odds are for Brown, let's pretend that every registered Republican in the state, as of 2008, shows up and votes for him. And let us pretend that the independents split evenly, and that only one third of the state's Democrats show up and vote for Coakley.

Under that scenario, Coakley still wins by about 1,045 votes. That's how steep an uphill battle Brown faces in this race.

Brown's biggest hope is to get a number better than 50% from the independents. Independents constitute slightly over half the voters of Massachusetts, and, if Brown can get a good majority from independents, a high turnout from them and the GOP could push him over the top. (Sean Trende plays out the numbers a little more here.) Partisan intensity alone won't get Brown to Washington.

MA Senate Race Update

Is panic beginning to set in for the online left about this race, which pits Republican Scott Brown against Democrat Martha Coakley? The New Republic Editor-in-Chief Marty Peretz opines:

So let me tell you what my spitzfingergeful confides in me. That someone who is a reasonable conservative on economic matters and conveys reasonable character has a good chance to beat the anointed Democrat, who happens to be a run-of-the-mill Democrat.

Brown has already put himself out there as a tax cutter without really saying what spending cuts he would favor. This makes for a nonsense ledger. As it happens, I favor the Obama economic agenda, even something with a more egalitarian thrust. But I don't think Massachusetts does. The voters are scared.

Brown compares himself to John Kennedy in a just-released television spot. Well, the Dems have gone hysterical. This is a sign of their (incipient) panic. Maybe their panic is apt.

Maybe, maybe. There's right now little hard statistical evidence on the public record showing the pace of the race. A Public Policy Polling poll (I know, I know) could be coming up if enough people vote for the option to poll this race (a little less than a day left as of this writing).

Still, there's some anecdotal evidence from Brown's campaign staff suggesting that there could be some significant Democratic disaffection with Democrat Martha Coakley (via Jim Geraghty):

Secondly, at the ground level we have seen an incredibly unique phenomenon occurring here. Without the benefit of polls, I would say Brown is causing quite a groundswell of support from Republicans, unenrolleds and even Democrats. Now when registered Democrats are expressing an interest to volunteer, we know something is up.

Part of this may be campaign bluster, but it may also reveal a level of anxiety about the course Washington is headed on.

Martha Coakley may not be helping things by seeming to avoid contact with the media. As one magazine notes,

[W]e wanted to give Attorney General Martha Coakley the benefit of the doubt when her campaign staff was initially stand offish after we approached them about setting up an interview for our story on the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat.

But then we were put off several times by her staff. We suddenly got the feeling Ms. Coakley, a Democrat, didn’t want to speak with us, and the media in general.

At the end of the day, it’s disheartening to think that a potential U.S. Senator for the Bay State would be so reticent to speak to the media. All we asked for was a 15 minute interview. What we got was a canned statement at the last minute. By contrast, we were able to set up interviews with her opponents — Republican Scott Brown and Libertarian Joe Kennedy — relatively easily.

One can understand why Coakley is doing this; she's taken the frontrunner strategy of trying to run out the clock. Avoid gaffes at all costs, smile for the camera, limit your exposure, and you can cruise to victory, so this strategy goes. However, this strategy risks making the frontrunner look complacent and may backfire, especially if the frontrunner isn't frontrunning as much as she thought.

It is clearly to Scott Brown's advantage and to the national GOP's advantage to make this race as close as possible. A victory would obviously be a huge boost for the political fortunes of the right. Brown would provide the crucial 41st Republican vote in the Senate, which could put the brakes on the current version of Obamacare and force Democrats to work in a bipartisan fashion for major legislation. His victory could be the harbinger of significant Republican wins in the 2010 Congressional races.

But even a narrow loss would provide both Brown and the GOP with many benefits. It would certainly make Brown, already a state senator, a viable candidate for other offices in Massachusetts. A close loss might also send a shockwave of worry though the national Democratic party. If, in Peretz's phrasing, a "run-of-the-mill Democrat" can't win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a walk, that could spell Trouble (with a capital "T") for Democrats. The closest a Republican has come to a Democrat in a Massachusetts Senate race within the past 30+ years was 8 points (the popular William Weld, governor at the time, versus John Kerry in 1996). A Republican loss in the single digits could be read as a significant blow indeed.

UPDATE: More information here.

Gathering Clouds

Just from the first few sentences, you kinda suspect that the proponents of Obamacare would care to avoid having news stories like this come out:

The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little. More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman.

At NRO, Jeffery H. Anderson says the Obamacare battle isn't over yet.

No, the air of inevitability that the pro-Obamacare press is presenting needs to waft away and be replace with more realistic reports like the following:

Having passed separate versions of their highly unpopular health-care overhaul by the narrowest of margins (with a mere two votes to spare in the House and none in the Senate) — versions that were tailor-made for their respective chambers and designed to squeeze out the maximum number of votes in each — Democrats are now seeking to somehow, someway gain as many votes for a compromise version as they were able to gain for the respective tailor-made versions. Meanwhile, members are home interacting with their constituents, the clear majority of whom oppose the bills, often vehemently. Yet the Obama administration is expressing determination to move forward in spite of the long and perhaps insurmountable odds.

The question is: How much longer will individual Democratic members be willing to contemplate electoral suicide so that President Obama can imagine himself pictured in the history books next to FDR rather than Bill Clinton? And even if the Democrats can somehow squeeze their compromise legislation through both chambers in the face of strong public opposition, this question would still remain: Will the American people reward them with a return trip to Congress and the White House so that they can implement their overhaul sometime after the start of 2013?

Technocratic Balance

David Brooks has an interesting column up meditating on the limitations of government and any institution. His main point is that institutions will necessarily fail, that centralized programs will always have their shortcomings. Brooks suggests that we need to be able to accept these shortcomings. Here's the conclusion:

At some point, it’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t the centralized system that stopped terrorism in this instance. As with the shoe bomber, as with the plane that went down in Shanksville, Pa., it was decentralized citizen action. The plot was foiled by nonexpert civilians who had the advantage of the concrete information right in front of them — and the spirit to take the initiative.

For better or worse, over the past 50 years we have concentrated authority in centralized agencies and reduced the role of decentralized citizen action. We’ve done this in many spheres of life. Maybe that’s wise, maybe it’s not. But we shouldn’t imagine that these centralized institutions are going to work perfectly or even well most of the time. It would be nice if we reacted to their inevitable failures not with rabid denunciation and cynicism, but with a little resiliency, an awareness that human systems fail and bad things will happen and we don’t have to lose our heads every time they do.

Brooks's point is not, as some lefty bloggers imply, that we can't have government do anything because centralized institutions will always fall short but that a centralized system can at times fail and still be worth defending. Brooks isn't a Ron Paulite, and he has no interest in tearing down many of the structures of a robust centralized government.

Brooks speaks on behalf of a kind of moral seriousness about the real risks of centralized bodies. Institutional perfectionism---the belief that institutions must be perfect to be worth defending---is a belief that can be used both to defend and to attack the notion of having a strong central government.

There is this amusing paragraph in Brooks's piece:

Many people seem to be in the middle of a religious crisis of faith. All the gods they believe in — technology, technocracy, centralized government control — have failed them in this instance.

As a coda to this point, we might also note that those "progressives" who would create ever-more elaborate temples to those gods of technology, technocracy, and centralized government control have been elevated to positions of great power in the wake of the 2008 elections. Indeed, it is these baroque temples that have increased the pitch of this crisis.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! Here are a few other topics that might interest you: strategy for Republican Scott Brown in the upcoming Massachusetts special Senate election, the dangers of demagoguery, and the meanings of "community" and "government."

The Numbers Game

Patrick Ruffini provides some interesting analysis of partisan affiliation numbers for Massachusetts. This analysis puts an optimistic spin on Scott Brown's chances in the January 19 special Senate election:

Then there is a bit of recent electoral history. It's true that Massachusetts has deserved the mantle of the most Democratic state in its recent history. But that Democratic loyalty is not quite as strong as it was. Massachusetts is now within two points of California in Presidential partisanship, handing Obama a 26-point win to California's 24 points. In California, a larger and more diverse state, we are talking about a possibly competitive Senate race with a recent history of electing Republican governors. Let's also remember that Massachusetts Democrats are not Obama Democrats. Despite the blessing of Kennedy and Kerry, Obama lost the state by 10 points on Super Tuesday. In October 2007, Republican Jim Ogonowski came within 6 points of beating Niki Tsongas in the MA-5 special, and that was in a bad political climate for Republicans. And a final point that bears remembering: Massachusetts has a Cook PVI of D+12. In a strange low-turnout election scheduled during the winter months, Joseph Cao won LA-2 in a D+25 district. Martha Coakley may not be stashing cash in the freezer, but weird things happen in special elections (as NY-23 also showed us). And an extra, final point: in a sleepy, low-turnout special election in CA-10, that no one believed Republican David Harmer could win and which attracted minimal support from national Republicans and the blogosphere as everyone was focused on Doug Hoffman, we came within 10 points. The Cook PVI rating of that district was D+11. That could have been a lot closer with extra resources and political capital spent.

All in all, taking a calculated risk in MA-SEN is worth it. Nobody doubts this is an uphill fight, but I don't want to be the guy who decided not to take a stand only to find out that we lost by 6 on election night when everyone assumed the Democrat would win running away and didn't fight.

Raising the Volume

MA GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown is ratcheting up his attacks on Obamacare and his Democratic opponent's support of those policies.

With Democrats in Congress now using their narrow majority to write a final health care compromise, Brown called a press conference to say he would relish the chance to block the bill, asserting the current proposals would raise costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses without providing any benefits.

“I could be the 41st senator that could stop the Obama proposal that’s being pushed right now through Congress,’’ Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, told reporters at state GOP headquarters in downtown Boston.

Over at NRO, Jim Geraghty is skeptical about the fate of Republican Scott Brown in the MA special election for Ted Kennedy's seat. A few emailers try to convince Geraghty to look on the bright side for the GOP. Here's the rallying cry from one correspondent:

This election is about GOTV and turnout.

The GOP raises millions every cycle from Massachusetts. We realize we're not target #1. But is spending a few hundred thousand on a GOTV effort targeting Registered R's and Independents who vote R to much to ask? Is Mailing an Absentee Ballot Application to R's and R-Leaning U's (Unenrolleds, as in "not enrolled in a party" as in "independents") that has been done to great effect in the past to much to ask?

Is $30,000 to call every GOP household to remind them to vote to much to ask?

Steele said the RNC was going to help us compete in the Northeast. Where is even the TOKEN help?

Another emailer notes:

The real king makers in Massachusetts are the independents. The special election is expected to be low turnout. The independents in NJ and VA broke two thirds for the Republicans last month. It is not inconceivable Mass' independents could move the same way....If Brown loses a close race, the national Republican committees will rue the day they shortchanged this special election in the bluest of blue states.

With all that could be riding on this race, the national Republican leadership could indeed feel more than a slight sting of disappointment.

See also Ed Morrissey on the national GOP's (lack of) spending on Brown's behalf.

The Longest Shot

Following up on this suggestion from Ace and Bill Kristol and an correspondent of Kristol, it really does seem like the Republican challenger for Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, state senator Scott Brown, might stand to gain a lot if he runs as the anti-Obamacare candidate. If Brown were to win, he could become the 41st vote to stop Obamacare. Since, as Kristol notes, the Senate would not be able to vote on the final version of Obamacare after the MA special election on January 19th, Brown's election could be a pivotal turning point. Opponents of Obamacare might find a very high rate of return in investing time and money in Brown. Kristol's email correspondent suggests that the GOP should have "certain Senatorial election committee to pay attention to the race or send money or have actual prominent Republican types come to the state to campaign for the very telegenic State Sen. Scott Brown." All good suggestions. The odds of succeeding may be slimmish, but the benefits of success would be huge.

Moreover, it would be so much in Brown's favor to run as the anti-Obamacare candidate. What his campaign needs the most is oxygen. After all, consider this narrative: Republican reformer, who has won elections in a Democrat-friendly district, takes on an ossified Democratic machine headed by a wildly unpopular Democratic governor. In a low turnout election, the intensity of opposition to an increasingly unpopular president's plans could help tip the scale in his favor. This narrative of success could become a reality, if Brown can make this election more than a ho-hum, off-year, predetermined Democratic "safe seat" faux-contest. Running under the radar will not help his campaign.

Instead, he needs to make it a newsworthy campaign. Independents are a key voting block for either party in Massachusetts, but they are especially crucial for a Republican. Brown needs to get their attention, whip up Republican support, and persuade skeptical Democrats that things in the Capitol have gone too far. Health-care is a perfect issue to pull the spotlight in Brown's direction. With independent support for Obamacare sinking lower and lower, health-care could be a catalyzing issue. This attention could provide Brown with much-needed donations and publicity.

The public polls have been few and far between for this election, an indication of how "safe" many firms view this contest. But there are some interesting ancillary numbers. The current Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, who was resoundingly elected in 2006, has had a collapse in his approval rating. His approval numbers now stand in the mid-30's (if not in the teens). Independent disapproval of Obama in places like California and Oregon is in the mid-40's and climbing towards 50%. In New York, hardly a bastion of rock-ribbed conservatives, 53% of independents now disapprove of Obama. So states that have been friendly to Obama are witnessing a crumbling of support, especially among independents. There are no polls that I can find asking Massachusetts voters about Obamacare, but, based on national polls (which show a clear majority disapproving of the Democrats' current flavor of health-care reform), one would not be surprised to find a significant level of opposition. Massachusetts can elect Republicans for statewide offices (they elected GOP governors for four terms in a row), and, in special elections, they have come very close in the recent past to picking up Congressional seats (Republican Jim Ogonowski ran 45-51 against Democrat Niki Tsongas for Marty Meehan's House seat in 2007).

By making his senatorial campaign a national one, Brown could transform the playing field into one that favors him. Portraying himself as the de facto last hope for a brake on Obamacare could make good political and electoral sense for Brown. The growing resentment at a Congressional majority bent on forcing through ever-more unpopular legislation could catapult Brown to the Senate chamber. The road to victory for Brown could begin with stepping up to the podium and saying, "I'm Scott Brown, and I'm here to save your health-care."

Late-Night Tactics

Though many are pessimistic about the chances of stopping the Senate's version of the health-care bill, here are a few points to keep in mind for the Congressional GOP in the weeks ahead for the health-care fight:

• Undercut the myth of inevitability. The aura of inevitability right now only helps the backers of Obamacare; few Democrats would want to risk angering the (often irritable) White House in a failed attempt at rebellion. In politics nothing is inevitable. All it takes is one Democratic Senate waverer to stop this thing in its tracks and force a more substantive debate on the bill. Even passage of a bill from the Senate in no way guarantees the passage of the bill as a whole. Does every Senate Democrat want to get stuck with supporting an unpopular failed bill?
• Work across party lines. Even if Congressional Democratic leadership has turned its back on Republicans, Republicans need to reach out to Democrats in both the House and Senate. Appeal to concerns about cost, care for the elderly, abortion, effective medical care, legislative due process, electoral concerns---anything. Republicans must forge a bipartisan coalition of interests and values; that's perhaps their only hope of changing the course of this legislation.
• Keep emphasizing the facts. Democrats are obviously afraid of the facts of this bill. That's why they're trying to rush it through. This morning's Face the Nation witnessed the spectacle of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) parrying focused criticisms of the text of the bill with invective against insurance companies. That level of vitriol shows how politically uncomfortable the Democratic position can be. Time---and transparency---is on the side of critics of misguided reform.
• Keep appealing to the public. As a corollary to the preceding point, one of Obamacare skeptics' best resources is the court of public appeal, as "Henry Clay" suggested months ago. This bill, unlike Medicare when it was first introduced, is deeply unpopular. Skeptics need to use this unpopularity to their utmost advantage. Let wavering Democrats know the price they're going to pay at the polls if this measure passes; use public appeals to increase this potential price.
  
• Find a sane middle ground for reform. There is a sensible, incremental territory to be found for reform. Republicans should propose and support amendments that push the current reform in that direction. Appeals to positive change can help provide another lever for maneuvering public opposition to the bill.

Republican and Democratic skeptics of Obamacare have considerable institutional forces aligned against them. But the battle is not over yet. The history of the debate about health-care reform in 2009 has been loud predictions of success for Obamacare followed by delays and increasing levels of public opposition. There is no reason why the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 should not continue in that tradition.

Courage

Courage is not holding out for the best subsidy deal for your home state or rushing something through for the sake of doing something. Courage is standing up to the winds of one’s Congressional leadership and president. It is being willing to put the brakes on what has been described as the legislative process at its very worst, when a massive, potentially revolutionary bill is shoved through in a matter of a few days from its unveiling due to a calculated political urgency for the sake of partisan pageantry. It is fighting for transparency and deliberation in what is meant to be a deliberative body.

The controversy of this bill—not public need or universal acclaim—motivates this rush towards passage. Precisely because it is so influential, this bill requires time for debate and analysis. A poorly written rush job could have implications neither its defenders or opponents foresee. The founders intended the Senate to cool public passions through sustained interrogation of legislative matters. Today, in an Alice-in-Wonderland transmogrification of original intent, we see the Senate on the verge of ramming a bill through in the dead of night on the eve of a holiday in order to avoid public scrutiny. Perhaps due to similarities between the two, legislating has become confused with trophy-hunting.

With a winter storm descending upon the Capitol, the search for that man or woman of courage continues.

Filibuster Psychology

Right now, the leadership has to keep the potential Democratic filibusterers isolated. Being the 41st vote to stop Obama/Reid/Pelosicare would be a very uncomfortable position for any Democrat. Being isolated makes each potential filibusterer more vulnerable to party wrath. On the other hand, being part of a group (albeit a small group) of filibusterers could offer considerable protection. Leadership might be able to turn against one of you; it would have a harder time turning against four or five.

So we see this weird dance going on, in which would-be filibusterers can hide in a fog of other potential filibusterers. It's in the moderates' best partisan interest to look out for each other and offer potential objections and suggest that they may filibuster. Meanwhile, the leadership is trying to pick off each of these moderates and make all of the moderates feel insecure about the intentions of the others to filibuster. Leadership may be succeeding in this attempt. If the moderates are serious about bringing a real reform to this bill, keeping a united front (and being certain of the willingness of the other senators to filibuster) could be a key tool in forcing real changes in the bill.

Shifting Lines in the Sand

Ben Nelson today after the failure of his amendment to limit the availability of abortion coverage under the new health-care proposal:

"I want to continue to work on this," he said, not ruling out his support, at least "not at this point in time. I want to continue to work on the project we're working on... This makes it harder right now [to support the bill]. We'll have to see if they can make it easier."

And:

[Nelson] he did not reiterate his pledge to filibuster the bill.

"We'll just have to see what develops," Nelson told reporters. "I have no plan B."

That allows him substantial wiggle room, if he ultimately decides not to defect from the health care bill, and indeed, after the vote Nelson returned to private negotiations with liberals and other conservative Democrats over the public option.

He's not a firm no vote just yet.

"Not at this point in time. I want to continue to work on the [public option compromise] to see if that can improve the bill from my perspective."

Ben Nelson on December 3, 2009:

"It is Stupak language [limiting abortion coverage]," Nelson said. "I've said at the end of the day if it doesn't have Stupak language on abortion in it I won't vote to move it off the floor."

Asked whether that meant he was intent on stalling the bill, Nelson said: "I just said that, didn't I? This isn't anything new, I've said this for a long time and people are finally hearing it."

Was he just bluffing about this threat?