Why is everyone surprised that Brown won?

Here's a few good pieces on Martha Coakley's loss yesterday.  I hesitate to read too much into her loss as a national bellweather, but I suspect that the hacks and talking heads will play this up because it is easy and can fit into 30 second 'debates.'

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/greider

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/01/19/lessons_of_massachusetts

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/20/exit-poll-of-mass/

Here's why I think Coakley lost:
1.  She was a bland and uninspiring candidate.
2.  She was way too quiet in December, when she could have set the tone of the election.
3.  Scott Brown had a lot of help in the last two weeks, and came off very well AFTER the debates had aired.  Most independent/undecided voters don't watch debates.  They are more easily influenced by ads and word of mouth, and tend to focus on a few small issues.

4.  Voters in Massachusetts have elected 3 Republican governors since 1989.  Is it that hard to believe that they wouldn't vote for a moderate like Brown?  (Ignoring the fact that he will now have to march lockstep with a Republican minority in the Senate that is much more conservative than the voters in Massachusetts envisioned when they voted for him.)

My favorite analysis came from my cousin:

"A year ago everyone and his sister was telling me to vote for obama, i didnt, now a year later those same people are telling me to vote for scott brown, i didnt, for gods sake you elected obama for change, he is one vote away from giving that to you and your trying to stop it...its not Washington that's f'd..its you!"