1/5: More Than A Feeling

The rightroots remain fixated on the upcoming MA SEN special election. What excites the conservative blogosphere about this race isn't merely the prospect of capturing Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat, but the possibility of electing "the 41st vote against Obamacare". More and more conservative bloggers are speculating that state Sen. Scott Brown (R) could actually win, especially now that a Rasmussen poll shows him trailing AG Martha Coakley (D) by only 9 pts. and a private poll shows him trailing Coakley by only 11 pts. Righty bloggers are describing the race as "winnable" and declaring that "anecdotally, the enthusiasm and momentum seems on Brown's side." However, some bloggers are bitter that the national GOP hasn't provided Brown with much support. William A. Jacobson writes:

"Everything that has happened since December 9 confirms that Brown has a chance. Rasmussen's poll last night is just the latest evidence. Will the national GOP, which has ignored Brown, get involved now? I'm not sure I care anymore."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• RedState editor Erick Erickson urges UT GOPers to reject Sen. Bob Bennett at their upcoming party convention. Erickson: "[I]f conservatives really do want to be taken seriously by the GOP and not be seen as just puppets for leadership, defeating Bob Bennett should be the number one agenda item of every conservative in the United States of America, even surpassing the desire to see [ex-FL House Speaker] Marco Rubio beat [FL Gov.] Charlie Crist."
• Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Benen, Ackerman, Neiwert, Marshall) are criticizing MN-01 candidate Allen Quist (R) for telling supporters that defeating the "radical" liberals is more important than defeating terrorism.

MA SEN: Wicked Awesome!

Conservative bloggers are growing increasingly excited about Brown's prospects:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Massachusetts Senate Race Heats Up: Rasmussen Shows Brown Within 9 Percent. This is huge given that it's Massachusetts, and a Brown win would probably kill healthcare. [...] I think money to Brown will be better spent than money to the RNC, for any pondering that question."
• NRO's Michael Graham: "If the Rasmussen poll isn't a fluke, and if Coakley is ever forced to defend Obama's policies on terror/the economy/cap-and-trade, she could find herself in a real race -- one she is not prepared to run."
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "Of course, Massachusetts is a tough state for a Republican to win. But anecdotally, the enthusiasm and momentum seems on Brown's side, as Jim Geraghty describes in his post titled 'Anecdotes for Cheer, Data for Gloom.' The anecdotes include the fact that Coakley is hiding from the media and avoiding one-and-one debates -- to the disgust of the Boston Globe!, and that there are lots of reports of a surge in Republican enthusiasm. And if [ex-MLB pitcher] Curt Schilling is for Brown, who can rule him out?"
• Erickson: "I think we should take a serious look at Scott Brown. The odds are he won't win. Let's be realistic about it. But let's also remember [Rep.] Joseph Cao could not win [ex-Rep.] William Jefferson's district in Louisiana -- until he did. And unlike Cao, were Scott Brown elected to the United States Senate, he'd be the 41st vote against Obamacare. [...] The odds are against Scott Brown, but only slightly. This race is winnable."
• NRO's Jack Fowler: "[T]here's a feel -- from e-mails and calls from Bay State political pals (and even some Jim Geraghty musings) -- that something's afoot. That maybe, just maybe, he can pull this off. Imagine: Brown (who comes across as very impressive) becoming that one critical GOP vote that will give [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid the permanent conniption he so sorely needs. So I'm in -- just made my contribution to the Brown campaign here (hey, you can't win without dough!)."

MA SEN II: Let's Be Realistic...

Other righty bloggers are still skeptical about Brown's chances of winning:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[H]ow likely is it that Massachusetts is going to torpedo St. Teddy's dream of universal health care by electing a Republican to become the Senate's 41st 'no' vote? Don't give up -- this is basically a free kick for the GOP, so by all means, if you can spare it, drop some coin in the man's piggy bank -- but if Brown gets close the media's going to go into overdrive with Camelot pathos to guilt Massachusetts voters into Doing the Right Thing. Best-case scenario, realistically, is a narrow Brown loss that spooks Blue Dogs for the rest of the year -- after they pass ObamaCare, of course."
• NRO's Geraghty: "A bunch of ingredients are coming together for Scott Brown. Republicans are angry and fired up, a surprising number of Democrats alternate between unenthusiastic or animosity towards the nominee, and if the independents in Massachusetts are like the ones in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, they'll shift heavily to Republicans compared to 2008. The bad news is that Brown needs almost a perfect storm -- unbelievably fired-up Republicans, immensely depressed Democrats, and a heavy skew among independents -- to make up the traditional 30 percentage point deficit and win this race."

On the left side of the blogosphere, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver is similarly skeptical about Brown's prospects: "I'd be somewhat surprised if the election turns out to be especially competitive. [...] Coakley would have to be an exceptionally poor candidate to lose the race or Brown an exceptionally strong one, and neither of those things are true. [...T]he basic problem for Brown is -- what happens if Rasmussen or whomever shows the race close and the national parties start throwing some money into the contest? Then you have Democrats playing the Teddy Card and Republicans nationalizing the race and talking about killing a bill that Kennedy fought his whole life for; that's not a winning formula in Massachusetts."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Oaths Before Office

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

"Adam Serwer rounds up five promises Obama has kept. As a general point, I don't really understand this idea that presidents should have to answer for the fact that Congress didn't send them legislation that they wanted to sign. I guess presidents should stop saying 'in my first year, I'll blah blah blah,' as it's not really up to them. But beyond that, what are they supposed to do? If Congress would give Obama a cap-and-trade bill to sign, he'd sign it."

LEST WE FORGET: Man Unable To Wear Nice Clothes Without Everyone Asking Questions

From The Onion:

"MENASHA, WI -- Expressing his growing frustration, IT support technician Chris Brennan, 28, told reporters Monday that he is incapable of wearing a button-up shirt and khaki pants without every person he knows asking him why. 'If I wear anything at all besides jeans, people are like, "Where you going? Got a big night out?"' Brennan said. 'Or they say, "Ooh, look who's all dressed up. You have some kind of job interview or something?" I mean, Christ, come on. It's just a shirt with buttons.' Brennan conceded that, on a positive note, some of his coworkers were extra nice to him because they assumed he was going to a funeral service."