Democrats Prepare to Shield Obama from a Loss in Massachusetts

Byron York reports as the Democrats begin to see the bottom falling out of Coakley's numbers, the spin begins to shield Obama and his policies:

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Actually the Suffolk poll showed a 55% approval for Obama, I guess this is new math rounding up by the Democrats.   I would point out that Obama has always been more popular than his policies so Obama's approval in Massachusetts is largely irrelevant.  His policies are relevant, however, a fact this unnamed Democrat chooses to ignore.  Instead, the rush to paint Coakley as the sole reason for an impending loss in Massachusetts is on:

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

 Of course Coakley was a terrible candidate but this is Massachusetts and as the Democratic candidate Coakley should win walking away.  If this were 2006 or 2008 Scott Brown could have been the best candidate ever to emerge from the GOP and he couldn't have won.  Should Scott Brown win on Tuesday it will have been the result of a perfect storm of factors including Coakley's horrific campaign.  To deny that the winds changed as a result of the failed policies of Team "Hope and Change" in Washington is to deny the sky is blue.

Massachusetts blogger Sissy Willis  has a quote from a Chelsea Democrat that makes the point succinctly, this is about what is happening in Washington:

Brown's going to win! I've been a Democrat all my life, and this one-party thing isn't working out.

It took a year of Democrats controlling the House, Senate and the White House to prove the point.  Does anyone really believe if Team Hope and Change had delivered on their promise to turn back the tides, etc. etc., we'd be discussing a possible win by a Republican in Massachusetts?  In this case, Democrats spin at their own peril.  Rather than seeing the handwriting on the wall, Democrats will plunge ahead with a plan to pass health care anyway in the event of a Brown win in Massachusetts which will all but guarantee catastrophic losses in November.

More on this at Memeorandum