THE MASSACHUSETTS MESSAGE – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of the very best political commentators we have, analyzes what happened last night:

The final percentages aren't in as this is written, but it's plain that Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a substantial margin in the race for the remainder of the late Edward Kennedy's Senate term. In Massachusetts. The state that in the last four presidential elections has voted on average 61 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. That's a bigger margin than in any other state.

If a Republican can win there, he (or she) can win anywhere. That's a message that is not lost on anyone whose name is on the ballot later this year.

But it may be lost on the narrow operators in the White House.  Their guy's name isn't on the ballot this year, and he's been known to throw even his grandmother under the bus.

On the health-care bill:

...the Massachusetts vote is a loud and clear signal that the American people hate this legislation. Barack Obama came into office assuming that economic distress would move most Americans to favor big-government legislation. It turns out that's not so. Not when Democratic bills would take away the health insurance most of them are content with. Not when it's the product of backroom deals and blatant political bribery.

And...

Democrats will be tempted to dismiss Brown's victory as a triumph of an appealing candidate and the rejection of an opponent who proved to be a dud. But Brown would never have been competitive if Americans generally favored the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders. In that case, even a dud would have trounced the man who drives a truck.

And there's this absolutely fascinating political point:

Unfortunately there was no exit poll (because news organizations didn't think this would be a seriously contested race until 10 days ago), and so we can't be sure whether, as at least one pre-election poll indicated, Brown swept young voters in a state where they voted 78 percent to 20 percent for Obama.

Of course, the academic crowd remained respectably brainless:

Brown's gains were not as great in areas dominated by what the New York Times's David Brooks called, perhaps archly, "the educated class." Cambridge and Amherst remained solidly monopartisan. But in suburbs with many upward strivers, people who (like Scott Brown) have worked their way from the economic margins to some comfort, turnout was almost as high as in November 2008. Towns that split evenly in the presidential race went 2-to-1 for Brown.

What will Cambridge and Amherst do now?  Maybe Obama should have another beer summit on the White House lawn to introduce Senator Brown to the anthropology departments. 

Obama and "the educated class" think they know what is best for the little guy. The voters of Massachusetts (Massachusetts!) beg to differ. Is anyone in the White House listening?

That's the political question of the year.

January 20, 2010