Dems Will Have To Account For Brown Blueprint In 2010

03/22/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Over the past year, I sensed that the Democrats were basically gaming out the 2010 election like so: the right was mired in an Establishment-versus-Tea Party battle for identity, that fissure was going to divide their voters and this would mitigate the losses that history typically doles out to the party in power in the first off-year election of a presidency. If there is a "national" lesson in the Massachusetts Senate race, it's that Scott Brown has put forth a new campaign blueprint for which the Democrats will have to account.

What is worrying, if you happen to be liberally inclined, is that the morons basically did figure out how to win this one: Brown didn't run as a white resentment-fueled paranoid teabagger. The white populist rage-addict paranoid teabaggers make up his base, and they raised all his money, and they turned out for all his rallies, but Brown did not sound like Those Nuts when the cameras were on. He didn't even actually run as a Conservative. He ran as, literally, a Kennedy, maybe the next John Kennedy, who was also sick of those Kennedys thinking the Kennedy seat was the Kennedy seat. (Whatever, coherency is not actually a virtue in any political campaign.)

The whole point of the slow, miserable collapse of the GOP into warring factions looking to expel various traitors from the tent was supposed to be that they wouldn't fully capitalize on this perfect once-in-a-decade confluence of pro-opposition party factors. 'Cause, you know, they would run a whole bunch of Jim DeMints and Michele Bachmanns in Purple Districts, scaring grandma and anyone else who isn't convinced Obama is going to arm Haitian refugees and train them in disarming and enslaving White Folks.

But no, the Teabaggers repressed their natural instincts to support the craziest available candidate, and instead settled on a tall, handsome naked guy who is able to stand on a truck and say pleasant things.

Now, the basic argument against this is, "Sure, that's a plausible scenario in Massachusetts, maybe, where a Bachmann-esque campaign would have failed anyway." My counter-argument would be, "Sure, but up until yesterday it was the campaign Scott Brown was running that people thought was implausible."

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]