Democrat Senator Jim Webb said it well: “In many ways, the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process” (CNN). Rasmussen examined the election night polling (Rasmussen). One story notes “Expectations the Brown victory could be the death knell for healthcare reform drove health insurance and drug company stocks higher on Tuesday, lifting the Dow and the S&P 500 to 15-month closing highs” (CNBC). The shock waves were felt as far west as California, where the very liberal San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome said “this should be a gigantic wake-up call to the Democratic Party – that we’re not connecting with the needs, the aspirations and the desires of real people right now” (San Francisco Chronicle). They’re even worried in the state of Washington (Seattle PI). One columnist who refuses to believe health care and spending were central issues cited “lousy weather, an attempted terrorist attack, a never-ending war in Afghanistan and an earthquake that may have just killed 200,000 people” for voters’ “grumpy mood” (Washington Post). Over at Politico, an even sillier explanation for Coakley’s loss: “…an obstacle that received far less attention in her losing bid for the Senate: a glass ceiling that remains almost impenetrable” (Politico). The Wall Street Journal notes “at his rally for Mrs. Coakley on Sunday, Mr. Obama mentioned health care only by implication. The Commander in Chief did find time to deride Mr. Brown’s pickup truck—six separate times. Mrs. Coakley also didn’t mention health care in her final TV ad. The Democratic Party’s top priority had become such a political albatross that Democrats didn’t dare mention it lest it drive more votes to Mr. Brown” (WSJ). From Victor Davis Hanson: If a liberal senatorial candidate can be defeated in Massachusetts, eleven months after the Obama hope-and-change blitzkrieg, it is hard to believe that any liberal seat is necessarily safe anywhere (NRO). From the Washington Post: Tuesday’s loss triggered unsightly Democratic recriminations, a clear indication of the confusion, disappointment and disillusionment that have set in over the past few months as the party has lost gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and now an almost sacred Senate seat in one of the most Democratic states in the nation (Washington Post). From Michael Gerson: It means a president who no longer inspires political fear. It means moderate Senate Democrats — such as Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln — who now feel nothing but fear from angry voters. It means that cap-and-trade legislation and immigration reform are on life support. It means that Rahm Emanuel’s “big bang” theory of legislative liberalism is the most foolish political strategy in recent memory. It means that spending political capital on health reform instead of economic recovery and growth was a dreadful error. It means that a crisis that Obama didn’t want to waste has largely been wasted.” He concludes “Obama now has the highest disapproval rating in the history of Gallup polling for a president entering his second year in office. He has been handed a series of political humiliations. If he takes all of this as motivation to “stay the course,” the humiliations have only begun” (Washington Post). National security also played a role (NRO). Patrick Kennedy joins the list of Democrats who don’t get it, insisting the voters are “wanting blood and they’re not getting it so they want to protest, and, you know, you can’t blame them. But frankly, the fact is we inherited this mess and it’s becoming ours” (Politico). From NRO: Liberals — some of the same people who chalked up Obama’s win to the public’s new zeal for progressivism — blame the economy for the public mood. But is it really high unemployment that has moved the public against the health-care legislation, abortion, and gun control? Remember that just a few months ago the conventional wisdom was that a weak economy would build public support for Obamacare. The Massachusetts race was as close to a referendum on that legislation as can reasonably be imagined, and it lost (NRO). But Lanny Davis almost gets it: Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better .“ But then he claims “The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?” (WSJ). Brown won with Independents (WSJ). Some foreign press takes: (Daily Express, BBC). City by city results (Boston Globe). Where Brown stands on issues (Ontheissues). The Brown speech transcript (NRO)