Since we’re all starved for numbers, a light snack courtesy of Paul Bedard at U.S. News & World Report. For what it’s worth:

Key Findings:

* Brown leads Coakley 48% — 40%.

* 53% disapprove of the President’s handling of health care, 42% approve.

* 53% believe the country is on the wrong track, 36% believe right direction.

* 51% have an unfavorable view of the health care bill, 37% have a favorable view.

43 percent say Brown’s opposition to ObamaCare makes them more likely to vote for him versus 33 percent who say less; fully 52 percent say they’d consider voting for Brown just to “send a message” to Democrats. I don’t even know what to make of this:

That probably has less to do with opposition to lefty policies than with anti-incumbency sentiment — this is still Massachusetts, after all — but either way, that’s some mighty bad mojo if you’re a Democrat (especially a Democrat named “Deval Patrick”).

The money data: 79 percent want Brown seated immediately, although that figure’s undoubtedly artificially high due to the loaded way the RNC phrased the question (“should the Democrat leaders in Washington be allowed to delay seating the winner until after the health care reform bill has been voted on”). In any case, the surer Brown looks, the less likely the Dems are to try to obstruct him; the whole point of ping pong is to take Brown’s vote out of the equation, which probably explains why Massachusetts’s secretary of state is now vowing not to delay certifying the results. Exit quotation:

Asked what would happen if, should Brown win, Democrats rushed through the healthcare legislation, Brown said people “would be outraged.”

“I think that speaks for itself,” he said. “I think people would be outraged and I think people pay for it in 2010 and the next midterm elections.”