Yes, Martha Coakley Is Going To Win A Week From Tuesday, But...

Many of the pollsters and pundits predicting a Republican win in Massachusetts' special election to replace Ted Kennedy have proven themselves absolutely worthless-- unless you use them as contrary indicators. Conservative operations like Rasmussen, GOP pollsters masquerading as nonpartisan, and clueless old Charlie Cook are among the most reliable contrary indicators in the profitable Inside the Beltway scam they're always working. One laughable poll-- by always-wrong-about-everything PPP-- even showed Scott Brown ahead of Coakley 48-47%. Their analysis:

Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:

* As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008. Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.

* Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic about turning out to vote than Democrats are. 66% of GOP voters say they are 'very excited' about casting their votes, while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment-- and that's among the Democrats who are planning to vote in contrast to the many who are apparently not planning to do so at this point.

* Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama's plan with 59% opposed.

* In a trend that's going to cause Democrats trouble all year, voters disgusted with both parties are planning to vote for the one out of power. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Brown's standing is that only 21% of Massachusetts voters have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans...but at the same time only 33% view Congressional Democrats favorably. And among voters who have a negative take on both parties, who account for more than 20% of the electorate, Brown leads 74-21.

* Because he's basically been untouched so far, Brown's favorability spread is a remarkable +32, at 57/25. For some perspective on how good those numbers are, Bob McDonnell was at a +20 spread with Virginia voters in our final poll there before going on to a 17 point victory.

If you're a betting man, I wouldn't rush out and put any wagers down on Brown winning on January 19th, not just yet. Though Republican bloggers and tweeters are already celebrating their victory on the Internet and delusional party hacks are already screeching that Democrats will prevent Brown from being sworn in until after the healthcare vote (the way the GOP blocked Al Franken for half a year), the most recent credible polling shows Coakley with a solid 15 point advantage over Brown. Perhaps Sarah Palin, some Bushes, Marco Rubio, the Club for Growth, Huckabee, former Governor Mitt, Karl Rove, Rudy Giuliani, Ann Coulter, Miss McConnell, Mike Pence, Michael Steele, Michael Savage, Michael Crapo, Michael row the boat ashore, Glenn Beck, and the whole panoply of Republican heavyweights can fly to Boston and swing the race. And by all means, bring GOP "It" boys John Thune and Paul Ryan along for the thumping.

I feel confident that Coakley will be sworn in as the next senator from Massachusetts, but this discussion shouldn't even be taking place. Obama beat McCain there last year 62-36%. And Coakley is very well liked and respected in Massachusetts. Why is it even looking close enough so that bad faith operators like Rasmussem and the NRSC can blow it up into a story for the slow and credulous? My friend Mike Stark hit the nail squarely on the head with the two massive problems Democrats are facing. If you spend any time listening to Fox or hate talk radio you already know that--

1) there's a government takeover of healthcare in the works;
2) going to your doctor will be like going to DMV;
3) our taxes will be increased to pay for deadbeats' Viagra and abortions;
4) those with health care will see their services rationed

As Mike Lux made clear in his brilliant book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, progressives have faced that kind of bullshit from conservatives before and still managed to declare independence from England, win the Revolutionary War, enact universal suffrage, free the slaves, go forward with public education, regulate industries that were poisoning the population, pass Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and so on.

In the above cases, progressives had solid and capable leadership. When Obama was given a clear and definitive mandate for Change last year-- winning 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, primarily in the racist old slave holding states of the Deep South-- he responded by kissing up to conservatives and corporatists and stocking his administration with characters who could have just as easily worked for George Bush. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, of course, did. And they must have thought Obama was talking about changing his underwear. That's sure what it looks like to voters.

You've probably read Ken and Noah and me going on and on about it ad nauseum, so let's put it in Mike Stark's poetic words:

Folks that voted for Democrats in 2008 have learned:

1) they made Joe Lieberman President;
2) they will be mandated to send money to a health insurance company that may or may not provide adequate care;
3) Obama's promises mean diddly; if you have decent health care, he wants to tax it;
4) the rich deserve everything Bush gave them and then some... the stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts...
5) Wall Street bankers deserve 7 digit bonuses on the taxpayers' dime;
6) war is awesome
7) torturers are pretty cool too... prosecutions smoshecutions!!
8) cap and trade? EFCA? financial reform? accountability of any sort? As far as Democrats are concerned, [Yawn... Whatevah...]

Last year we hoped against hope that Obama was going to turn out to be a new FDR. You don't hear anyone bringing that up anymore. Coakley's going to win, and the terribly compromised healthcare bill will probably pass-- although by only one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate-- but the midterm landslides in Congress that Democrats won in the face of hysterical GOP obstructionism after FDR's initial win in 1932 (after losing 101 House seats in 1932, Republicans lost 14 more in 1934, and 15 more in 1936, leaving them with just 88 members while the Senate low left the Republicans with just 17 seats) will not be duplicated this year. Instead, Obama's weak, ineffective and tepid leadership will see voters revert to form and punish Democrats for disappointing them. As we saw so clearly in Virginia and New Jersey, Democratic voters are let down and demotivated. What a tragedy, and what a lost opportunity!