In one of the final public polls we should see before Tuesday's special election on Massachusetts, American Research Group (600 LVs, 1/12-14, MoE +/- 4%) finds Republican Scott Brown with a slight edge over Martha Coakley.

Special Election Matchup
Brown (R) 48
Coakley (D) 45
Kennedy (I) 2
Und 5

Coakley loses one-in-five Democrats to Brown, while the Republican state senator has 94 percent of Republicans behind him. Brown has a commanding 58-37 advantage among "unenrolled" voters, mainly independents and those who prefer not to register affiliation with the major parties.

A trend worth noting as well: 9 percent of voters say they'd already cast a ballot through absentee voting. Brown leads Coakley among this group 58-42.

Another sign Coakley is in big trouble, from The Caucus:

A senior Democratic official on Friday described Ms. Coakley's chances as “within striking distance.”

Isn't she, you know, still supposed to be the frontrunner? Apparently not.

Arkansas Rep. Vic Snyder announced today he will not seek re-election this year, joining several other Democrats from moderate districts who are opting out of tough re-election campaigns.

Snyder, first elected in 1996, never won re-election with less than 58 percent. In 2008 he was not even challenged by a Republican, while John McCain won 54 percent in the district to President Obama's 44 percent -- an increase from 2004, when George W. Bush won by just a 51-48 margin.

In Arkansas, Democrats hold three of four House seats, both Senate seats and the governor's mansion. However, McCain carried the state with 59 percent, and Sen. Blanche Lincoln is in for the re-election battle of her career.

Snyder's 2nd District is surrounded by the state's three other districts and includes the capital city of Little Rock.

Here is his full statement:

(more...)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is polling under 50% in a new Rasmussen poll (Jan. 14, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%), which finds her leading three potential Republicans in general election matchups. Ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina and ex-Rep. Tom Campbell, who just joined the race, perform nearly identical against Boxer, while conservative Assemblyman Chuck DeVore is just 6 points back.

Boxer 46 - Fiorina 43 - Und 8

Boxer 46 - Campbell 42 - Und 9

Boxer 46 - DeVore 40 - Und 10

Boxer, running for her fourth term, fails to exceed 46% against any of the three Republicans -- not a good sign for any incumbent. Forking out $14 million in 2004, Boxer doubled her opponent's spending and won by 20 points. The seat hasn't been held by a Republican in 42 years.

First it was Ezra Klein on Wednesday, suggesting that a Scott Brown victory on Tuesday isn't "particularly important for health-care reform." Klein posits very matter of factly that Dems will just pass health care reform before Brown gets there.

Today, Jon Chait follows suit, arguing that the best option for the Dems if Coakley loses is:

1. Finish up the House-Senate negotiations quickly and hold a vote before Scott Brown is seated. Republicans will scream, but how could they scream any louder? It's a process argument of murky merits that will be long forgotten by November.

If Chait truly thinks ramming through health care using the vote of an unelected Senator before Scott Brown can take his seat is a "process argument of murky merits that will be long forgotten by November," he needs to have his head examined.

Both of these guys are so far inside the bubble and so hopped up on the health care Kool-aid that they are oblivious to the significance of a Brown victory and, even worse, seem to have no comprehension of the political consequences of pursuing a course of action that treats the public - not just in Massachusetts but across the country - with such utter contempt.

Health care has already turned into a debacle for Democrats. It could be worse by an order of magnitude if they follow Klein and Chait's advice.

I am not talking about church. The AP reports that President Obama will travel to Massachusetts on Sunday to try and boost the floundering campaign of Martha Coakley. This is a sure sign that Coakley is in deep, deep trouble.

Neither Coakley or Obama want to take this step, but they both must feel as if they have no choice. For Obama, this has all the makings of a rerun of the 2016 Olympic bid in Copenhagen: a very high risk maneuver that puts his prestige directly on the line.

Just yesterday Obama urged Democrats in Congress to pass health care, promising he would mount a vigorous nationwide campaign this fall on their behalf and on behalf of the legislation.

But if Obama fails to drag Coakley over the finish line in Massachusetts (a state he won by 26 points just over a year ago) it will be a devastating blow to him politically - and far worse than the egg he laid for Jon Corzine in New Jersey three months ago. It could be a deathblow to his agenda.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, Scott Brown must feel pretty darn confident if he's willing to bring in the country's number one Yankee fan to campaign on his behalf in the heart of Red Sox nation.

Should be a very interesting final sprint and an exciting night on Tuesday.

Is there any elected official in the country who's more of an arrogant, condescending jerk to people - including his own constituents - than Barney Frank?

Watch him in this interview with CNBC anchor Erin Burnett. The clip begins with Frank stating explicitly that the money the government will receive from Obama's proposed tax on banks will go toward reducing the deficit. "This money will be used to reduce the deficit," Frank repeats for emphasis.

But when Burnett asks Frank if that's a "promise," he immediately shifts gears and begins lecturing Burnett about how the federal government works and how it needs to spend money on roads and bridges and Afghanistan and people with disabilities.

Eventually, Burnett gets a chance and tries again:

Burnett: So, but when are we going to start cutting spending? Cause all this money was supposed to go to the deficit, and now it might go to bridges and Afghanistan and...but we, we're borrowing all this money.

Frank: Excuse me, are you - Excuse me, you're surprised we're going to have to pay for the war in Afghanistan?

Burnett: No, I'm just saying this money I thought was supposed to go to deficit reduction, you said.

Frank: No, I'm sorry Erin, I don't mean to be rude but I don't think you understand the way the government works. You don't say this money goes for that, this money goes for this. We have expenditures. And then we have revenues. The deficit is the extent to which expenditures exceed the revenues.

Burnett: I understand that -

Frank: No, no, but you don't if you say, 'well it's not supposed to Afghanistan, it's supposed to go the deficit....

Pretty amazing, no? Frank says the money will go to deficit reduction, then turns around just a few seconds later and arrogantly berates Burnett by arguing that people who say money can be allocated specifically for deficit reduction don't understand how government works. If you ever wanted a textbook example of why the public has such a low opinion of the some of the people inhabiting Congress, Frank has just provided it.

N.B. Incidentally, Frank also ignores the fact that Congress wrote a specific provision into the TARP legislation saying the any money recouped would be devoted to deficit reduction - though in the end that did not stop the Obama administration from spending it anyway.

A new Colorado Senate poll finds former lietenant governor Jane Norton (R) leading both potential Democratic opponents by 12 points.

In the Rasmussen poll (Jan. 13, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%), Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) not only trail Norton, but both also would be defeated by former state senator Tom Wiens (R) and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck (R).

Norton 49 - Bennet 37 - Und 11
Norton 47 - Romanoff 35 - Und 14

Wiens 44 - Bennet 38 - Und 14
Wiens 44 - Romanoff 39 - Und 14

Buck 43 - Bennet 38 - Und 15
Buck 40 - Romanoff 39 - Und 16

Rick Lazio, the former New York congressman, was last seen in 2000 during his unsuccessful run for Senate against Hillary Clinton. A decade later, he's running for governor, and he sat down with RCP in Washington Thursday to discuss the race, New York and all things politics -- including the potential run for Senate by former congressman Harold Ford Jr.

Lazio was recently asked by GOP insiders in the state to consider switching to the Senate race -- Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, rumored to likely run for governor, has a big lead in early polls, and appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand looks potentially vulnerable. He said no, but Ford, his old friend from Washington, is considering challenging Gillibrand in the Democratic primary.

"On a personal level, I think Harold Ford is a really good guy. I like him, he's down to earth, got a great sense of humor. We got along very well in Congress," said Lazio.

"My guess is he won't have an easy time in the Democratic primary in New York. It's an easier state in the general election than Tennessee obviously. But," he continued, "I think it's going to be an adverse year for Democrats in general. This cycle is going to be a very tough cycle. And I just think it's going to be – it won't be an easy primary if he decides to get into it."

This morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Ford knocked down a recent rumor that he would consider running as an independent, saying if he ran, it would only be as a Democrat.

The possibility of a Republican winning Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts has heads of politicos spinning everywhere. And make no mistake: a loss for Democrats would be unspinnable.

But to the extent that national Democrats will try to explain it away, you can expect to hear a lot of talk about how the real fault lies with a candidate who lost a seemingly un-losable race. And there will be some truth to that.

But really, it's all John Kerry's fault.

Think about it. It's his fault that Democrats in Massachusetts got their hopes up, and thought their home state senator had a real shot of being elected president in 2004. And because of that, they worried that the state's then-Republican governor, Mitt Romney, would be able to appoint a fellow Republican to replace Kerry when he won. So they passed a law that stripping Romney of that power and calling for a special election instead.

Of course, Kerry did not win the presidency, and that seat remained safely in Democratic hands. But now, more than five years later, that political maneuver threatens to backfire on Democrats in the worst way possible.

Had they not changed the law in 2004, Gov. Deval Patrick (D) could have appointed a Democrat to Ted Kennedy's seat within days of his passing. Instead, Democrats employed another political maneuver to allow for a temporary appointment to pass health care. And now, with health care legislation still pending, they're being forced to spend millions on an unexpectedly tough race, and are a facing a defeat that will make Byron Dorgan's retirement look like the good old days.

So if Brown wins on Tuesday and you hear whispers from Democrats that they were felled by a weak candidate, know that it was really John Kerry's fault.