Martha Coakley vs. Scott Brown

Since everybody I know is asking for my expert opinion on this race I will weigh in.

COAKLEY VS. BROWN

Who will win?: Up until Sunday afternoon, I was convinced that the Massachusetts Democratic Machine would save Coakley from herself and power her through to victory. But after sifting through poll data yesterday, I've changed my tune and am now convinced Scott Brown CAN pull this out (Still, in a state where DEMS overpower GOP by MORE than 2 to 1, I will need to see this to believe it).
But if, and when, Brown wins it will be for the following reasons:

• Brown is clearly in the right place at the right time.
• Coakley ran a poor campaign. She won the primary by staying above the fray and letter Pagliuca and Capuano, her only true opponents, argue with each other. She probably thought she could do the same here.
• Even when she did start campaigning, she had a weak message. Scott Brown is in the pocket of Wall Street? Come on, is this the fall of 2008? Scott Brown is in lock-step with the GOP in Washington? Has Scott Brown ever been to Washington?
• There's some Obama backlash going on; not as as the media, especially the right wing that is dying for good news, will make of it. But Barack's shadow does not hold the cache it once did.

200 Words on Scott Brown: You know what the best thing that could happen to Scott Brown would be? Losing. If he loses he is now the leader of the Massachusetts GOP, and will receive national sympathy from conservatives. He could build off of this to become Governor. He could beat Steve Lynch (or whatever district he's in) and become a Rep with solid footing.

If he wins he will have two years as a scorned opposition figure in his own state (remember, there are way more Democrats here). He will sure as hell face a ferocious challenger when the seat is open in 2012.

In short: if he wins, Scott Brown will have two years in Washington. If he loses, his career is just starting.

Beyond that, he's an unspectactular candidate. His positions are as bland as Coakley's. The people of Massachusetts don't care about his opinion on whether terrorists are sentenced as combatants or regular criminals. That's a judicial issue. Oh, and he's for lower taxes. Scott Brown is a product of the sleeper Republicans and others upset with the status quo and nothing more. Although, he's a got a great bod or something.

Who am I voting for? I'll vote for Coakley. I voted for her in the primary due to her performance in the debates. She has a professional record. Beyond that, she's been utterly disappointing. The fact that she can't win Ted Kennedy's seat going away is pretty sad, and even if she survives this election, she'll be a weak incumbent.

The only issue that separates them in my eyes is health care. I'm not 100% confident in Congress' plan for health care, but I am sure of one thing: the bill is getting passed. I don't know if Scott Brown has read the Constitution, but he will not be able to block the biggest legislation of this administration with one Senate vote. The only thing Scott Brown could do is (a) slow it down, which helps nobody, including the opposition, or (b) make it into even more of a compromise bill, which doesn't excite me whatsoever. We clearly need health care reform, this is already a compromise bill. It's going to happen.

So there you go... and for you election followers (and West Wing fans), the weather is terrible here. Forecasted rain has become snow. Is hell freezing over (and Teddy's seat going Red)? Maybe. Seriously though, it can only help Brown, his supporters are way more fired up and will brave the weather.