The Associated Press seemed to be laying on the rhetoric a bit thick here [emphasis added].

In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

Obviously, since virtually every poll in the last seven days showed Brown leading the race, the AP was not suggesting that the Republican's victory shocked people last night. So I'm assuming what the AP meant was that it's just astonishing that a Republican could win a state-wide election in “liberal Massachusetts.”

But is that really so astounding? From today's WSJ:

For starters, Massachusetts simply isn't as heavily tilted toward Democrats as widely thought. The state had a Republican governor for 16 straight years, until Democrat Deval Patrick was elected in 2006.

UPDATED: Politico declared the Brown win to be “historic,” even though Politico never bothered to explain what made the victory “historic.” (I think Politico just liked the ring of it.)

UPDATED: If Scott Brown had defeated Ted Kennedy, now that would have been an “epic upset.”