The Political Pendulum, in MA?

To everyone's surprise, the special election tomorrow in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate is actually competitive. You don't get more "blue" than MA, and there hasn't been a republican Senator from there in over 30 years. Moreover, Ted Kenedy's seat has been controlled by that family since 1953. In the election, you have Martha Coakley as the dem nominee, who is the current Attorney General. On the R side, you have Scott Brown, a col. in the MA National Guard and a virtually unknown state legislator.

The stakes are high. Scott Brown would be the 41st republican senator, which means that they could filibuster the health care legislation, already "hanging by a thread" according to Chris Dodd. Pres. Obama went to MA yesterday to stump for Coakley, just like he did for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, who both lost the election for VA and NJ governor, respectively. Will it help? It's not looking good for Coakley. The poll today has Brown over Coakley 51 - 46.

So if Coakley loses tomorrow, taken in context with NJ and VA electing republican governors, powerful D senators like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan "retiring," and 10 more dems in the House "retiring," does this mean that the democratic party is on its way out? Last May, Creighton asked the same question about the Republicans. It's amazing how quick the tables can turn in politics. I'll answer my own question the same way I answered Creighton's. No. It's just the political pendulum, and I wouldn't read much more into it than that. To Creighton's credit, he didn't know last May that the health care debate would have gone the way it did, that the economy would still be in the tank, and that Obama's first year popularity would drop off quicker than any previous president in U.S. history.

Back to the MA Senate race. Why is Brown leading in the polls, despite all the odds? Has Coakley coasted, bungled the campaign, and taken victory for granted? Perhaps there's something to that. The mainstream press will give that answer, wanting to distance Obama and his policies from another defeat at the polls. I'd give Brown some credit though. He's struck a chord with the people of MA, who already have universal health care. "We're going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we're going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana…boy, that's a real bargain." I also loved his response to CNN's David Gergen when he condescedingly asked Brown if he was willing "to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and block the passage of health care for another 15 years?" Brown immediately shot back: "With all due respect, it isn't Ted Kennedy's seat, and it isn't the democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."

So what do you guys think? Would a Scott Brown victory be a referendum on health care? On one-party rule? On Obama's policies? Or would you chalk it up to Coakley's bungling of the campaign?