I'm totally unqualified to predict who'll win tomorrow's Senate election, which puts me right up there with every other pundit or expert. I suspect Obama's last-minute intervention and a desperate get-out-the-vote effort just might eke out a narrow win for Coakley. But I wouldn't bet on it; she's a bad candidate with an aura of entitlement and zero resonance with the national mood Obama tapped into just over a year ago.

I also suspect some in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party wouldn't mind losing their supposed super-majority. All it ever did was raise public expectations that they'd bring in effective legislation. As the health-care fiasco showed, that kind of pressure is the last thing congresscritters want.

A Coakley loss would seriously damage Obama. But presidents come and go; Congress, and the party power brokers, endure. And losing a Senate seat oddly serves their interests: In the short term, it would force the House leadership's hand. If they wanted any health legislation at all, they'd have to enact the Senate version basically intact, or with such minor tweaks it could pass within the 15 days or so it would take to certify Brown's election. A majority of 59 would make the current claim of "That's the best we could do" almost credible. And the insurance industry would keep its anti-trust exemption. Everybody wins!

In the long term, a loss would also serve the dream of Rahm and the DLC types of moving the entire party toward what they consider the center. They'd already marginalized the party's progressive wing, and now -- even before the blood on the floor is dry -- they've started the process of blaming liberals for Coakley's impending loss. (See Bernard Avishai's TPM Cafe post for some flavor.)

Immediately after Obama's election, it almost made sense to pull a pre-emptive Clinton, occupying the middle ground the Republicans were abandoning as they sucked up to their crazy core. Long-term Democratic majorities looked within grasp.

But the Obama team didn't seem to grasp that a key factor in his election -- the anger and sense of betrayal by the entire political system -- wasn't transient. The Republicans managed to channel some of that mood into the tea party movement; the Democrats never even acknowledged the anger of the most active part of their base, much less channel it. Intead, it was more or less, "Go home, take a Valium, and await further orders." No orders ever came, except for fund-raising appeals. The very people who'd worked their asses off to give the party the White House and solid majorities in both houses was told their input wouldn't be needed until the next election.

Well, surprise -- that next election is upon us. And a Democrat is poised to lose -- or suffer a near-death experience -- in the bluest of states. The party leadership still doesn't get it. It must all be the fault of those progressives, liberals and hippies -- fair-weather friends, staying home and sitting on their hands! Well, screw 'em; we'll just shift our policies to the right and pick up the votes we need there. What's that, the independents are deserting us too? Crap.

I almost hope Coakley loses big, to send the party leadership a wake-up call. But I have zero confidence they would have a clue how to interpret it. Or grasp what to do about it. Step one: fire Rahm Emanuel. Won't happen.