Scott Brown on Twitter: It's the #41st, stupid!

"I love this old truck. It's brought me closer to the people of this state," says Scott Brown in his latest ad (above). If you're a fan like us, you'll love it! Its upbeat folksiness "could be read as a dig at his Democratic rival, Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has done very little retail politicking in either the primary or general election," says the Boston Globe. She ducked one-on-one debates but will face off with Brown and Libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy this morning at 9 on 96.9 WTTK-FM. Listen here live.

"Surely, it’s not a good sign that some conservative blogs are already rumbling with talk of Democratic voter fraud," writes Dave Weigel in "Mysterious Poll Finds Coakley Winning by 11 in Massachusetts" in The Washington Independent. Misreading the entrails, Weigel gets the donkey cart arse backwards, but maybe that's his intent:

It should be interesting to see how hard data on this race effect online Republican/conservative enthusiasm, which has been largely based on rumors that Brown is doing better than expected.

Not. Rumors of how well Brown is doing — which could be used against him depending upon the results of a new Rasmussen poll conducted last night* — are a result, not the cause of "online Republican/conservative enthusiasm." We speak from personal experience, as documented in our ongoing "Scott Brown for Senator" series, starting with "Think Scott Brown can't win? Here's why he can," published way back on December 9, the day following Brown's Republican primary win. As we wrote back then:

There's a Reynoldsian Army of Davids out here behind Taxachusetts enemy lines fixing to stand up and fight for this Shining City Upon a Hill.

Hottie McAwesome Fever isn't about "rumors that Brown is doing better than expected":

It's the referendum on Obamacare, stupid!

Or, as they say on Twitter, shorthand for Scott Brown's own December 28 tweet wherein he electrified potential supporters across the nation with "I could be 41st Senator to Stop #HealthCare Bill":

It's the #41st, stupid!

If you agree, be sure to put your money where your mouth is, early and often. Pledge now for "Jan 11 Scott Brown Money Bomb" at redinvadesblue. We pledged $100, biggest single political donation ever for this political naif. Tea Party!

Update: Just in from Dan Riehl on Twitter:

They must be worried, knives come out for Scott Brown: "more than 130 taxpayer-funded daily travel allowances"

Now off to bed. Gotta get some sleep so we'll be fresh for phone banking from home first thing!

Update: Maggie's links, and we just popped up in Michelle Malkin's "Buzzworthy," a nice place to be.

*Update II: "This is better than I expected for Brown," says Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection: "Earthquake Rumblings In MA - Rassmussen Shows Brown Within 9%."

Update III: Instalanche!

MASSACHUSETTS SENATE RACE HEATS UP: Rasmussen Shows Brown Within 9 Percent. This is huge given that it’s Massachusetts, and a Brown win would probably kill healthcare. I don’t know how his online fundraising is going, but so far he hasn’t gotten much (er, any?) help from the national Republican party. I imagine that will change, if only because people like William Jacobson are asking: ‘Will the national GOP, which has ignored Brown, get involved now? I’m not sure I care anymore.” Whatever else they do, they can’t afford to look irrelevant. . . . Outcampaigned by Sissy Willis?

Oh, my heart.

Update IV: "More from Legal Insurrection, Gateway and Sisu, who have been leading a right-wing blogosphere charge for Brown," says our own Jules Crittenden:

Reynolds, meanwhile, thinks money sent to Brown is better spent than money to the national GOP. Yes, in that the national GOP has been as inept and clueless as … the Mass GOP. Brown still needs national resources, fast, if he has a prayer of winning this, and if I were a GOP donor looking to put a thumb on the Bay State scales, I’d send my check to the national GOP with “FOR SCOTT BROWN, YOU DOLTS” written in the memo line.

Update V: Moe Lane links at RedState:

Rasmussen’s not pretending that this race isn’t a tough one for Brown, and neither will I: but I told a reporter yesterday that Coakley would have to win by at least ten points to keep national Democrats from getting nervous. Her being single-digits now should set off alarm bells for both parties.

Will the disintermediation of the old-boy networks via the internet waken the old boys in time for them to get with the program?

Update VI: In an update to "Earthquake Rumblings in MA," Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection links fellow bloggers who "have been doing yeoman's work on spreading the word about Scott Brown":

Check out SISU, Dan Riehl, Jules Crittenden, HillBuzz, Fred Bauer, Jumping In Pools, and special credit to Instapundit, HotAir, Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit for taking these issues to their large audiences.

And thank you, Professor Jacobson, for your own yeoman's work!

Update VII: "I just kicked $100 into the Brown campaign — following Sissy's lead," writes blog buddy Tom Bowler in a good-news-bad-news post at Libertarian Leanings. Good work, Tom!

Comments

[Gayle Miller]

Glenn Reynolds has accused you of outcampaigning the national GOP idiots! I agree with Glenn Reynolds that you have outcampaigned the national GOP who are (my assessment) idiots! I'm 67 years old, have been a Republican my entire life and feel I have EARNED the street cred to make that assessment of the national GOP!

[goomp]

I bet Joe Kennedy is sponsored by the Dems.

[Roxeanne de Luca]

I bet Joe Kennedy is sponsored by the Dems.

Well, he's been a Dem/Independent his entire life....

[Tom Bowler]

I matched your bid, Sissy! Won't raise you, though.

[David Hogberg]

Ms. Willis,

I'm a reporter with Investor's Business Daily who is working on a story about Brown-Coakley race, especially in light of the new Rasmussen poll. Could you please email me ASAP so I could interview you for my article?

Thanks,
David Hogberg
david.hogberg - at - investors.com

[Omnibus Driver]

Sissy --

Just wanted you to know that, due to your cheerleading, this Chicago girl just kicked some campaign cash your candidate's way. Keep up the great work!

Leslie

[Teresa]

Sissy!!! You go girl! Outcampaigning the Republican party - you rock.

BTW - we just subscribed to Investor's Business Daily a few weeks ago (can't think why we waited so long to do it) and will be dropping the WSJ as our daily paper. IBD is excellent - what the WSJ used to be before Dow-Jones sold it. So if you get back to David and do an interview - I can't wait to see it!!!

[KingShamus]

It's amazing how Sissy Willis pwns the douche-tard national GOP when it comes to...I dunno...supporting candidates that have a chance to make an enormous impact on the political scene.

And yes, Kennedy the Libertarian is a third party plant by the Donkey-Punchers. Jon Corzine and the Democrats tried the same thing in New Jersey, to no avail.

As Hugh Hewitt says, "If it's not close, they can't cheat." If right of center turnout is what it should be, it can overcome a multitude of Democrat party shenanigans.

[Boston Rob]

LOL... look at all you GOP suck-wads claiming to be "real tea-partiers".... LOL

Joe Kennedy is the only real TEA PARTIER in this race....

Get on board or get outta the way..... time for some real change... No More Two-Party Lies....

[Teresa]

Got the paper this morning, dashed into the house and immediately read the article! Yay Sissy! Excellent quote from you and an overall great article about the election too.

BTW - I was so excited to get today's paper, I totally forgot about the groceries I bought this morning and had to go back out to the car to get them after I read the article. Heh.

[Trochilus]

Sissy,

I like the idea . . . previously expressed elsewhere by others, of giving "$9.12" contributions (or multiples thereof) to his campaign.

There are two basic reasons.

First, it is catchy because it is an issue that may make or break his campaign. There is not a lot of time, so "catchy" is good. The ill-conceived return by the Obama Administration to the pre - 9/11 mentality of heavy reliance on law enforcement to deal with terrorism, is frightening. This is a reminder that says we are now post 9/11 and we cannot go back to embrace the foolishness of the '90s.

Independents, and at least some Democrats who are deeply concerned with that pre - 9/11 approach, are supporting Scott. Scott has come out four-square against it, while Martha is babbling in banal blather. She simply has no position, or at least none that she is willing to articulate.

Secondly, $9.12 is a modest enough donation that it maximizes the potential for attracting a very large number of donors, from all over the country. And, there is nothing to stop someone from making such a donation in multiples of the amount, depending of course on their ability to do so.

Meanwhile, keep up the good work, Sissy!

[Trochilus]

Regarding the suggestion above by Goomp, and subsequent comments on the topic by others, please recall that during the Gubernatorial campaign in New Jersey just this past fall, an "independent" named Chris Daggett was in the race, who turned out to be nothing but a stalking horse for the unpopular Governor, Jon Corzine.

Several patently bogus polls came out showing Daggett gaining "increasing" strength -- one even suggesting that he had broken through the 20% mark!

But a day or so before the election, a story by Matt Friedman on "Politickernj" revealed that the Democratic State Committee was caught red-handed making robo-calls to Republican households in a heavily Republican county, urging voters to vote for Daggett.

It later turned out the calls were made to Republican households throughout the State. And the Democrat State Party Chairman lied to Friedman. The ultimate source was an unnamed DSC staffer who admitted to Friedman that it was true.

Only that ONE news-gathering organization did a written story, and AP did no follow-up, which would have appeared in papers statewide. But the story was instead quickly circulated by blogs, and heavily mentioned on talk radio.

Christie won by nearly 4%, while Daggett got less than 6% of the vote. Just watch the Democrats in MA try to "manipulate" the vote! They will do it in a heartbeat.