It’s already putting out CYA memos.

[Late afternoon update]

Coakley’s people are blaming the Democrat primary voters for her loss. Well, it’s certainly true that if they hadn’t been so foolish as to nominate her, she wouldn’t be losing today.

This reminds me somehow of Mr. Burns’ anger at the electoral process:

Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That’s democracy for you.

Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.

More than Coakley, actually.

[Update a few minutes later]

Her (few) supporters know it’s over, too:

As of late this afternoon, Luntz was still scrambling to balance his focus group with supporters of Democrat Martha Coakley. “I just lost another one,” Luntz growled over his cell phone from a hotel ballroom at Logan Airport. In the last 24 hours, six Coakley voters have dropped out. By contrast, Luntz hasn’t lost a single supporter of her opponent, Scott Brown.

The problem isn’t money. “They’re getting paid well,” Luntz says, “probably more than they’re making at their jobs. And they still don’t want to do it.”

Instead, says Luntz, they’re ashamed. “They don’t want to be on television defending Martha Coakley. It’s passé. It’s socially unacceptable. I never dreamed I’d see Democrats in Massachusetts embarrassed to admit they’re Democrats.”

They should have been embarrassed for at least the past four years.

An interesting point by Brown’s campaign manager:

If tonight’s vote is close, the Brown campaign is prepared to fight, says Fehrnstrom. “We’re used to political chicanery here in Massachusetts. We saw it yesterday when John Kerry came out and manufactured allegations of voter intimidation — a tactic that comes literally out of the Kerry playbook, of making up wild tales in the absence of any evidence. People are tired of that kind of partisan politics and Scott is ready to engage in a recount if one becomes necessary and also to fight to be seated as soon as possible. Right now, the seat is occupied by an interim senator (Democratic Sen. Paul Kirk) with a constituency of one — Gov. Deval Patrick (D., Ma.), the man who appointed him.” Think about it, he says: “If they had just left the law alone, they wouldn’t be in the situation they find themselves in now.”

It’s the Boston way. But maybe not for much longer?

[Update a couple minutes later]

Zombie has started an open thread to track reports of voter fraud. Let’s hope that there aren’t many.

…of poor judgment:

The judgment errors are many and serious. He misread his mandate, confused campaign rhetoric for persuasive communication, overexposed himself, refused to let go of his juvenile fixation on blaming George W. Bush for all the problems he faced, replaced bipartisanship with hyper-partisanship, and declined to take seriously early-warning signs sent by the voters in New Jersey and Virginia. The common thread through all of this: arrogance. “We won!” he pronounced early on and therefore never seemed to take seriously criticism or objections, whether from the other party, concerned Democrats, the media, or even polls. He simply plunged ahead, oblivious to the backlash that was building.

I predict that even if he loses today, he’ll continue to double down.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of doubling down, Richard Fernandez has some depressing thoughts.

…of the Dems, as epitomized by Ed Schultz.

It’s sort of of a piece with this news that Massachusetts has well over a hundred thousand dead or moved voters still on the rolls. I guess that, if they have the same attitude as Ed, they’ll all be voting tomorrow. One guess who the vote will be for.

Ann Althouse dissects Obama’s speech yesterday.

You know, all that dissing of trucks (and truck drivers) isn’t going to play very well in southeast Michigan this fall. I can see a lot of campaign ad fodder arising from that speech. They don’t just drive trucks back where I come from — they build them. And the guy who’s running them down is the putative owner of the company who makes them. It’s truly amazing how politically tone deaf these people are. Now that the Bush derangement among the general populace (which was the prime driver for electing this cipher) is wearing off, they’re going to reap the whirlwind in November.

…why didn’t he mention it?

They may be able to delay certifying Brown, but Kirk will not be able to provide the sixtieth vote after election day. So it won’t matter what kind of games they want to play with the Brown certification.

The latest rumor is that the last-ditch ploy will be to tell the House that they have to just vote for the Senate bill, so it won’t need the sixty votes after reconciliation.

The problem with that is, I’ll bet they don’t have 218 votes for that. Particularly after the now-expected outcome in Massachusetts on Tuesday. They won’t get Stupak’s vote, for sure.

I have to say that there’s another good outcome of this whole thing. I’ve finally learned how to spell Massachusetts reliably. I could never figure out whether there were supposed to be two esses in the second one, or two tees, or both. Of course, I’ve never made the stupid mistake that the Coakley people did. And they live there. Supposedly…

[Update a few minutes later]

Patrick Kennedy is a big fan of “Marcia” Coakley. Do all of these Democrat morons need remedial spelling lessons? Or is it that they just have a problem with names? Either way, hilarious, and it just adds to the fun.

[Monday morning update]

Intrade now has Brown at 66, Coakley at 35.

AP interviews people who are disappointed by Barack Obama. The oxymoronity of these people (a “fiscal conservative,” and a Ron-Paul libertarian who voted for him) is staggering.

Obama and Coakley can’t fill a 3000-person hall in Boston. I guess the magic is gone.

Meanwhile, it’s standing-room only at the Brown rallies.

[Sunday evening update]

The latest Cross-Target poll is out, taken this afternoon, while Obama was rallying the troops (what few he could get to attend). It has Brown up by over ten points among likelies, with a 4% margin.

To me, the tale is here:

2. And do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott Brown? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you are undecided press 3.

1. Favorable 60.3%
2. Unfavorable 31.9%
3. Undecided 7.8%

3. And what about Martha Coakley? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Martha Coakley? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you’re undecided press 3.

1. Favorable 39.7%
2. Unfavorable 54.2%
3. Undecided 6.1%

The Donkeys will use this as an excuse, saying that they just had a terrible candidate. I think that the turnout at the president’s rally today belies that. They were stupid enough to think that, because it was Massachusetts, and Teddy’s seat, that they could nominate a ham sandwich and win. She certainly thought so, since she quit campaigning after she won the primary.

They completely misread the mood of not just the nation, but of the state. If they try to ram this crap sandwich down our throats now, the retribution in the fall will be apocalyptic for them. Of course, at this point, even their efforts will be pretty devastating to them, as they were in 1994. And also of course, when it happens, they’ll say (and even insanely delude themselves into believing) that it wasn’t because they tried to socialize medicine, in defiance of all the polls, but rather because they failed. Because, you know, they’re never wrong.