When their campaigns were just coming out of the box, I was fairly certain that U.S. Sen. Scott Brown would retain the office won in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, despite the fact that he was the first Republican to hold that office since Edward Brooke's election in 1966.
Sen. Brooke was the first person of African American heritage to be elected to the U.S. Senate, and served for two terms. He considered himself a moderate Republican, much like Sen. Brown who professes his independence, able to work across party lines. And, in fact, Brown has occasionally demonstrated his independence from his GOP colleagues.
His opponent in the race, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, has been continually hammering away at Brown, maintaining he is for the "big guys", whereas she is for the middle class. So far her strategy has proven successful, if you measure success by being able to garner the support of organized labor. I don't know how much orgainized labor's support is worth these days.
I still believe Brown will prevail, but he'll make people of the Commonwealth more comfortable if he pulls a Lieberman, as in U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman, a longtime Democrat, failed to gain his party's nomination in the 2006 primary, but gained re-election as an independent. He continues to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate, but is no longer tied to the apron strings of the Democratic Party.
If Brown were to bolt the GOP upon re-election he would be confirming his claims of independence and probably gain more power in the upper chamber than as the junior senator from Massachusetts.
Hey, Massachusetts and New England has long been an area of political firsts, so why would it be such a bad idea for Brown to show his independent side?