One of my readers does some world-class number crunching and analysis based on voter registration, polls, etc. For much of the fall, he was looking at the polling numbers in New Jersey and assuring me Republican Chris Christie was on track to win by a few points. Here’s what he thinks of Massachusetts’s special election:

I was looking at some data to see what chances Republicans have in Massachusetts. While I agree things are less likely, I would not be shocked if the GOP could pull this off; in fact I would give it a better than 40% chance, and make no mistake .400 hitters get a lot of hits.
For one thing, Massachusetts has elected Republicans in the past. Despite conventional wisdom, the GOP is not a dead brand in Massachusetts. In fact the Republican Mitt Romney won the state by 50-45 in 2002. The GOP also won in 1998, with Paul Cellucci defeating Harshbarger by 3.5 points. Simply put the Governor’s mansion has been a place where the GOP has had success. Which means Republicans have won in state wide races. So why not the Senate? Well, it has been a long time in Massachusetts, but there might be a reason for this
. . . For one thing the Kennedy name. Simply put the Kennedy Machine, is immune to everything short of evidence of a drunk driving accident resulting in the death of a passenger . . . wait a minute that didn’t even derail him. So you get my point.
The other Senator John Kerry, has had luck in running in pretty good years, absent scandal, an incumbent senator isn’t going to lose their seat without a political correction. In 1984 (Kerry +10), Democrats gained 2 seats, 1990 (Kerry +13.5)Democrats gained 1 seat, in 1996 (Kerry +7.5) GOP gained 2 seats, In 2002 (Kerry ran unopposed) the GOP gained 2 seats, and in 2008 where the GOP lost by 8, Kerry, a 24 year incumbent, won by 35. Simply put, Kerry has run in stable races throughout his career (except 2008 which was a huge Democrat year). By the way Kennedy, who ran in the difficult 1994 (a 32 year incumbent at the time) won by only 17 points, 14 points less than he won in 1988 (and most other years)
The 1996 Kerry race is interesting because it was the only year Kerry ran in a GOP year (where he had an opponent), and there he won by a comfortable but rather under whelming (for a two going on three term senator) 7.5 points. Is Coakley in better shape in 2010 than Kerry was in 1996? Are we to believe that in a state where in 1996, they sent a two-term Senator back to the Senate with a single digit lead, some how this will not be a close race today? Is 1996, a year where Clinton defeated Dole by a pretty significant margin, as bad a Democrat year as what 2010 is shaping up to be, at least at this point in time?
Look at the facts on the ground: we have a Democrat candidate who has barely campaigned, who does not have any advantages of being an incumbent, is running in a GOP year with a Democratic Governor who two-thirds the state believes does note deserve re-election. Could this be a referendum on Obamacare? While some are saying the GOP needs VERY VERY low turnout, I disagree. What the GOP needs turnout among its faithful and independents. In special elections angry voters will make the difference, angry voters sent Corzine packing in a race I predicted would be called early (and was correct). While in a general election trailing 50-41 Rasmussen poll probably would mean a (53-47 loss [i.e. 2/3 of the undecided break away from the incumbent/incumbent party). This is not a general race.
. . . . And if healthcare reform is not on the president’s desk in two weeks (I have heard that this could go into February), Could a GOP victory in Massachusetts effectively kill final passage? How keen are people in Massachusetts on the health care bill floating in Congress? Given how un enthused liberals are (no public option/mandates for all), and how utterly angry seniors are about this (and these voters vote). It would not surprise me at all if the GOP wins this seat, while a general election would be tough, this is a special election in a general election which means its much harder to get all those union folks mobilized. Again, Massachusetts might be the bluest of blue, but its not a state that is foreign to GOP statewide victories.
Keep one more thing in mind, if my assumption is correct and the outcome of this race could affect passage of Obamacare, the voters of Mass might in the back of their minds think that if elect Brown, they can still throw him out in a year (not something that is usually common with Senators). Perhaps this thought might keep Democrats home until November . . . how Ironic would it be that a Massachusetts Senator would kill Obamacare?

A caveat or two: I think that as state attorney general, Coakley has some of the advantages of incumbency. (She won 73 percent in 2007.) And while her campaign was quiet after the primary, there’s a logic to not spending much time campaigning during the holiday season if you can pick up the pace in the final two weeks or ten days or so.