After a triumphant 2006 and 2008 the Democrats had reason to believe that 2010 would continue the trend of Democratic gains in Congress.  Specifically, the 2004 Senators elected with President Bush's victory over John Kerry would be up for reelection and should have provided ripe opportunity for further Democratic gains.  In Nate Silver's January 2008 Senate Rankings, which list the possibility of a Senate seat changing parties, 10 out of the 13 seats most likely to change parties were Republican.  In his last Senate Rankings, 8 of the top 13, including 5 out of the top 6, are now vulnerable Democratic seats.  The worm has turned.  

Nowhere is the dramatic turnaround in the Democratic electoral chances more apparent than in Massachusetts, long the symbol of Kennedy liberalism, where the late Ted Kennedy's seat risks falling into Republican hands.  A September Suffolk poll showed Martha Coakley boasting a 30 point lead over Scott Brown, this week that same poll had her behind 4 points.  By some accounts, the problem stems from Coakley adopting the Hilary Clinton "inevitability" strategy by refusing to appear in public or debate Brown, in the process appearing aloof and sapping the left's interest in a race the appeared to be a forgone conclusion.  Midterm elections during the winter don't generate huge turnout anyway, but at this point the main motivation for left-leaning voters is the polls saying Brown leads the race.  "Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley."

The right meanwhile, has a superabundance of interest in the race.  Beyond the symbolic heft of taking Teddy's seat and planting a red flag in the brightest of blue states - Massachusetts hasn't elected a Republican Senator since 1972 - electing Brown would stop Health Care Reform on the goal line.  While I could imagine how Democrats could force a vote on the final bill without a supermajority (Brown has advocated "starting over"), allowing the Republicans to filibuster rather than simply voting on cloture, I can't imagine they would have the will after the demoralizing loss in Massachusetts.  If Coakley loses every Democrat will see history repeating itself in 2010: the failure of health care reform led to the "Contract with America" Republican rout in 1994 and the failure of health care reform now with lead to a tea party rout in 2010.  

Health Care is undeniably hurting the Democrats nationally- voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the issue by 16+ points - but it is hard to see how failing at it will make things better.  Having legislative accomplishments, however unpopular, to sell to voters is better than demonstrated incompetence accompanied by unpopular ideas.  Health Care reform might get less unpopular once it is enacted and nothing much changes, but it will only become more odorous with Republicans crowing around the corpse.  Besides, as David Frum pointed out, Scott Brown's election should not be attributed to the tea party radical right movement.  Brown's strategy relies on personality, identifiable personal story and moderate politics.  November is still far enough away for Democrats to find a new legislative direction, but unless Congressional Democrats are able to present themselves attractively - good luck Harry Reid - it won't matter.