South Dakota Politics: Faith in Massachusetts 2

The Massachusetts special election to fill the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy is surely the most exciting thing right now. Here are some of the reasons for its importance:

First, a Scott Brown victory would deprive the Democrats of a filibuster-proof 60 votes. That would either kill healthcare reform this year, or force the Democrats to pass it under very constrained rules.

Second, it would confirm what was suggested by the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections: a strongly anti-Democratic bias across the national electorate. It would no longer be possible to argue that the former were merely local phenomena.

Third, it would confirm what all the polls are telling us: that the electorate is robustly opposed to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare bills. Scott Brown has made this his key issue, and if it can't win in Massachusetts…

Fourth, it would send the message that support for the healthcare bills, and perhaps support for the President's domestic agenda in general, might be fatal come next November.

What if Coakley manages to win? Republicans are arguing that a narrow Coakley victory would be almost as bad for the Democrats, but I say it would be at worst half as bad. The Democrats can pass their healthcare bill and argue that it was affirmed in the only real electoral test. Items three and four would still be in play. By contrast, a strong Coakley finish would put some much needed starch in the Democratic shirt.

Right now a Brown victory looks likely. Brown is ahead in the latest three polls, and in five of the last seven. Of the last five, the Pajamas Media poll, showing Brown 15 points ahead, does not look credible, and it's difficult to judge the InsideMedford poll, showing Brown more than nine points ahead. But the American Research Group and Suffolk polls are serious, and show a three to four point lead for Brown.

Brown has been gaining yards over the last three months like he thinks he's Brett Favre. The Suffolk poll had Coakley ahead by 31 points in November. It had Brown four points ahead a week ago. Since Coakley is well known and has strong support among the state's political establishment, and Brown was all but unknown a few months ago, their situation is analogous to that of an incumbent versus a challenger. In such cases, the incumbent should be well ahead. If the challenger is ahead, the incumbent is going to lose.

I don't know who is going to win, but I do know that the Democrats think the situation is desperate. Here is the Washington Post (Paul Kane and Karl Vick) take on Obama's appearance in support of Coakley:

BOSTON -- President Obama made a last-ditch effort Sunday to resurrect the candidacy of a struggling Democrat who could provide him a critical Senate vote, returning to the city that launched him onto the national stage in 2004, this time to preserve his ambitious agenda…

Obama, whose 2004 address to the Democratic convention here set him on an arc to winning the presidency, said his entire domestic agenda -- from financial regulatory reform to climate change legislation -- would be at risk with a Brown win.

"A lot of these measures are going to rest on one vote in the United States Senate," he said. The roughly 30-minute speech was heavy on partisan rhetoric, without much appeal to the independent voters who account for nearly half the state's electorate.

If Kane and Vick are right in their reading of the President's campaign speech, the Democrats have given up the independent vote and are focusing their efforts on turning out every last Democrat. That suggests a hope only for a very narrow victory.

This is better than the Viking's game. To be sure, I am enjoying this most because I think my team is poised to win. But I am also a fan of the Republic, and this is how republican government is done.