I think people are justifiably upset today. It's no fun seeing polls you don't want to see out there. Scott Brown looks like a complete tool too, which doesn't help matters at all.
But I would look at that same poll and say that I have some problems with it. I don't think, for example, that the likely electorate is 36-51 against health care reform. Rasmussen has it at 52-37 for. Who knows? You might disagree and say we're doomed, but the simple fact is, no one knows what's going to happen.
I do feel some worry, but my gut tells me the chances are still quite good that Coakley will win this thing. I think Nate Silver has built up a lot of credibility, but the statistical analysis he is so good at has nothing to do with this race. He has a regression with an N of 5-6 polls. He has no history to go on.
So I want you guys to all go out and fight/GOTV hard.
Now, I don't want to say that there wouldn't be policy consequences if Scott Brown got elected. There probably would be. Who knows what would happen to financial reform and energy reform? But that's for another day.
The bottom line is, I really think, on the off-chance Coakley loses, that we should not extrapolate too much of this to the electorate as a whole.
The electorate will look quite different in 2010. We will have been campaigning, it won't be Massachusetts in the wintertime. The only reason Scott Brown is in this race is because of a freaky special election at an odd political moment with a kinda crappy candidate.
I think we have lots of advantages in 2010 still, like money and organization, and we won't have to fend off our own version of teabaggers.
That being said, if we apply the same level of campaigning intensity that we have in the last week, I feel quite confident moving forward.