1. Most conservatives I know are also registered as unenrolled, because the Republican party in MA is so pathetic that in every election several legislative seats–and even state-wide offices–will go without a Republican candidate. In these cases conservatives can vote in the Democratic primary (tantamount to the general election) so as to vote for the “least bad” Dem.

2. In large part this is because Weld, Celucci, and alas Romney had no interest in building the party, even to get a large enough minority to sustain their vetoes.

3. Granny Warren is even more of a liberal scold than Coakley. Martha Coakley could at least claim (at least plausibly) a law-and-order record as AG. But Brown caught the Dems off-guard, and Warren will have plenty of out-of-state money.

4. At the risk of further flames, Brown is worth re-electing. I’d rather have a guy that is with me 75% of the time–and perhaps helps to give us a Senate majority and all that goes with it–than one who is with me 0% of the time. Call me crazy.

5. Though solidly liberal, MA went for Reagan twice and elected a succession of Republican governors. Brown is well-liked. A miracle could happen.

(p.s. – full disclosure – my parents live in Maryland, and are registered as Democrat, even though they vote Republican, because there is effectively no primary for Republicans, if they can even find some sacrificial lamb to run at all!)

The problem with Elizabeth Warren is that as a Harvard intellectual and Berkenstock liberal right out of Central Casting, she just doesn’t reach that group well.

Warren is the choice of the young wealthy liberal college crowd from Harvard, Wellesley and Cambridge, as well as the yuppie playground of the Berkshires. If the Dems had nominated Mike Capuano instead of Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown would have a tougher time.

This electoral map of the 2010 special election shows how this cultural divide played out across MA. Blue-collar Dems vs. Berkenstock Dems:

http://tinyurl.com/82puokt

Just my speculation. Would be interested to hear any data on this, if you have it.

Warren seems to be generating more excitement in the Liberal Blogosphere. She was already a celebrity on the Left nationwide before she got in the race.

It seems like Scott Brown is sort of the flip side of Matheson(D) in UT-2. You want his vote at the beginning of the session when control of the chamber is decided and any other votes for your side are gravy. But the comparison would be better if Mike Lee died and Matheson grabbed his seat in the Senate…

Massachusetts indie voters are much less susceptible to propaganda than the state’s liberal voters.

It is very likely that Brown is ahead in the polling. Warren’s self association with the OWS crowd doesn’t sit well with independents, but in a strong sense that doesn’t matter. The Democratic machine in Mass is very real and very effective. Despite favorable polling for various Republican challengers in 2010, the Republicans scored no upsets. The Democrats ran well ahead of their polling.

Brown will have a very very tough fight to hold his seat. The good news is that the left is spending a LOT of money in Mass that they won’t have for other seats.

The Left’s has the same enthusiasm for Warren that we had for Rubio last time around. It’s tough to beat that passion with the hope that uninformed moderates will vote for the moderate candidate.