From the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report:

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.

UPDATE: Rothenberg's analysis (I misspelled his name earlier and have corrected it) is confirmed by the latest poll results (emphasis added): 

Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown has surged ahead of his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, according to a new poll released Thursday night.

Brown leads Coakley by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, the Suffolk University/WHDH-TV poll found. It is the first poll to show Brown, who had been thought a long-shot underdog, leading the race.

It raises the possibility of an historic political upset in Massachusetts.

“It’s a massive change in the political landscape,” David Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center, told The Boston Herald.

Paleologos told the newspaper that the poll shows high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of independents compared to Coakley’s 30 percent.

That's great news! But I hope the Brown campaign has lots of lawyers and poll watchers at the ready. Hugh Hewitt famously said, in a book of that name, "If it's not close, they can't cheat." The flip side is: if it's close, they can — and will — cheat.

For the benefit of the half-dozen people who visit this blog, but not Instapundit, here's a brief clip of Scott Brown in a recent Massachusetts Senate race debate:

[YouTube link]

Bravo!

Late last week, Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown's campaign scheduled a "moneybomb" for today — a one-day online fundraising effort. Their goal was $500,000.

Since it's past midnight on the East Coast, I thought drop by the website to see how they did. Oh, they met their goal all right. And blew right past it to their revised goal of $750,000. And then they blew right past that, too. 

Final total: "Thank you! $1,303,302.50 raised!"

If you helped, thanks from me, too. If not, you still can. The election is only a week away, and the MoveOn.org/SEIU attack ads are coming fast and furious. Scott Brown could become the 41st vote against government-controlled health care, and an extra $10 or $20 (or $100, or $1000) just might make a difference. 

Massachusetts is one of the bluest of blue states — in Oct. 2008, fewer than 12% of Massachusetts voters were registered Republicans (PDF). But Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown is now poised to pull off a stunning upset. From Politico (emphasis added):

Republicans have a very real chance at orchestrating a Massachusetts miracle in this month’s special Senate election to determine Ted Kennedy’s successor, at least according to a new Democratic poll out tonight.

The shocking poll from Public Policy Polling shows Republican state senator Scott Brown leading Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, which would mean the race is effectively tied.

Among independents, who make up 51 percent of the electorate in the Bay State, Brown leads Coakley 63 percent to 31 percent.

Just 50 percent of voters view Coakley favorably, while 42 percent viewing her unfavorably.

Brown, who began an advertising blitz this month, sports a strong 57 percent favorability rating, with just 25 percent viewing him unfavorably – very strong numbers for a Republican in the heavily Democratic state.

On the issue of health care, which Brown has emphasized that he would be the deciding vote against, 47 percent said they opposed the plan in Congress while 41 percent supported it.

So let's summarize: According to a Democratic pollster, Scott Brown is in a dead heat with Coakley and leads two to one among independents. And opposition to Obamacare leads by six points. In Massachusetts!

Are you paying attention Sen. Bennet? How about you, Sen. Nelson? Sen. Lincoln? And what about you remaining sane Democrats out there — do you realize what your leaders' headlong rush toward socialism is doing? It's now a race to see which they manage to destroy first, their country or their party. 

I'm so hoping Brown can pull off the upset (although just the fact that he's close ought to give Dems everywhere pause). In fact, I just contributed another $100 to the Scott Brown for United States Senate campaign. How about you — can you help create the Miracle in Massachusetts?

UPDATE: One more thing. I tuned into Hannity the other night (which I rarely do) to see (and judge) Scott Brown. He was personable and articulate, and he nicely deflected Hannity's attempts to draw him into social-conservative issues and partisan bashing. He stuck to a solid message of fiscal conservatism — lower taxes, less spending, less regulation, and no government takeover of health care. He seems to be running a very effective campaign, and he made one other forceful point — he doesn't want outside groups, on either his side or Coakley's, dominating this campaign. 

MoveOn.org and the SEIU are apparently mounting a massive intervention on Coakley's behalf. And I've been inundated by emails from right-wing PACs asking for money to spend on the race. If you're in the same situation, I urge you not to donate to these groups. If you're for Brown, donate directly to his campaign; if you're for Coakley, donate directly to hers. Let the candidates shape their message — and be judged by their message, not someone else's.