ARG polls the early states, shocks the political world

Mitt Romney is ahead in South Carolina. For anyone who has been following the Republican race over the past few months, this is truly a shocking finding. And not only that, but his lead in that state is bigger than the one he enjoys in Iowa! That is truly too much to be believed, and entirely challenges the conventional wisdom of the primary situation.

South Carolina is supposed to be the barrier to Romney's presidential ambitions. He has been leading in Iowa and New Hampshire for months now, due to early advertising, but he had failed to move South Carolina numbers. With Rudy Giuliani looking to survive the early primaries and hit his rivals on February 5th and with Fred Thompson putting all his strength in Southern states, South Carolina was shaping up to be a firewall state for both of their campaigns, the state in which any early momentum Romney accumulated would be stopped. But the new ARG poll from South Carolina (released with Iowa and New Hampshire numbers) shatters this strategy by showing Romney on top for the first time (not just in ARG polls, but any polls of South Carolina taken by any institute -- Romney hadn't even been close to being first!)

On the other hand, the Iowa and New Hampshire surveys contain some very bad news for the Romney campaign, as his large leads in IA and NH have mostly evaporated (this is confirmed by other recent polls). This leaves the campaign in a paradoxical situation: They seem to have finally moved the race in South Carolina, but that will be completely useless if they don't get their act together in the two earliest states. Without victories in Iowa or (and?) New Hampshire, Romney can kiss South Carolina (and the nomination) goodbye.

But however we spin this, the fact remains that Romney is leading all three of these early January states. He is more than ever the favorite to win the Republican nomination -- albeit a fragile one. Let's look at the numbers more closely:

• In Iowa, Romney is only up 22-21 on Giuliani. A month ago, his lead was 27-17. Thompson comes third at 16%, McCain fourth at 11% and Huckabee collapses from 14% to 4% in a month.
• In New Hampshire, Romney leads with 24%. McCain and Giuliani are tied for second at 20% (last month, McCain was only at 12%). For the second straight month, Thompson is stuck at 8%, while Huckabee collapses here too from 9% to 3%.
• In South Carolina, Romney has moved from 9% to 26% in a month. Giuliani is at 23%, McCain at 15%, and Thompson at 10% (down eleven points). Huckabee's free fall is most drastic in this state: Huckabee has been reduced to 1%, down eight!
  

These numbers contain a few other lessons besides Romney's stunning across-the-board lead. First - and this is confirmed by all three surveys -- Huckabee has completely lost his August momentum in the heels of his second-place finish in the Iowa Ames straw poll. He had finally broken the barrier that separated him from the first-tier, had gotten the media interested in him and covering his statements... It looks like Thompson's official entrance in the race and Giuliani's intense September activity sucked all the oxygen out of Huckabee's campaign.

Second, all three polls also show a McCain resurgence. The Arizona Senator is approaching his numbers from earlier in the spring, and is recovering from his campaign's July debacle. Third, Thompson's numbers have gone down significantly. Fred Thompson has failed to make a significant mark on this race. While polls shortly after his official candidacy showed he was enjoying a bounce and had closed in on Giuliani in national polls, there has been no evidence of even a faint movement in Thompson's favor in early states.

The Democratic numbers are less shocking, but Clinton confirms just how much of a favorite she is by posting very healthy leads in all three of the early states:

• In Iowa, Clinton's 30% distances Obama's 24%. Edwards comes third at 19%, and Richardson is fourth at 10%.
• In New Hampshire, Clinton has a massive 41-22 lead against Obama. Edwards, third at 10%, is basically tied with Richardson at 8%.
• In South Carolina, Clinton has 41%, followed by Obama's 30%. Edwards has fallen to a dismal 7% (he was second last month with 24%).

These polls are particularly meaningful because they confirms other recent IA and NH surveys in which Edwards is becoming increasingly weaker in Iowa and Clinton is building a massive lead in New Hampshire. Edwards should really be careful at this point, as his once firmly entranced positions are not looking so hot anymore.

There is no question, looking at these polls, that Clinton will sweep everything if she wins Iowa. But if Obama overtakes here there, he is close enough in South Carolina that he might ride the momentum to a victory there and turn the table on Clinton.

October Rankings: (Almost) Everything breaks for Democrats

October is coming, so it's time for our new Senate Rankings. September was a great month for Senate Democrats. Is started with news that John Warner was retiring, featured the endless saga of Larry Craig's guilty plea to lewd behavior, saw another crucial GOP seat open up in Nebraska and was marked with recruitment coups with the candidacies of Mark Warner in VA and Jeanne Shaheen in NH. In fact, the only bad news Democrats are fearing now is that Bob Kerrey might end up taking a pass in Nebraska -- but even there, the fat lady hasn't yet sung.

All of this is really icing on the cake for Democrats, who already felt great before Labor Day. Not only is the GOP is defending 22 seats, and the Dems only 12, but the NRSC has been doing poorly in fundraising and recruitment, failing to move to target states beyond... the one state of Louisiana. Democrats, on the other hand, are expanding the map left and right: While they are huge underdogs in TN, KY, NM, TX, and ID, odds are they will at least put one of those in play (just like VA in 2006 and KY in 2004 became competitive only in the last stretch). And the most problematic second-tier seat is turning to be Alaska, where incumbent Ted Stevens is facing significant bribery allegations.

The coming weeks are likely to bring more news that will determine how some of these races shape up. Bob Kerrey's decision is obviously what everyone is waiting for, but there are other important questions: Will Craig retire as he had promised? Will there be more open seats, with all eyes turned towards SD's Tim Johnson, AK's Stevens, and NM's Pete Domenici? Will Democrats find candidates to run against Dole in NC, Domenici in NM, Stevens in AK, McConnell in KY? All of these races could end up on the map, but Democrats have to succeed in their recruitment efforts first.

Outlook: Democratic pick-up 4-7 seats.

Prediction: Democrats pick-up a net 5 seats, for a 56-44 majority.

The full rankings are available here, after the jump.

Doolittle closer to the door, Craig slipping back in

• Rep. Doolittle and his aides subpoenaed
  

Doolittle is shaping up to be the Ted Stevens of the House, and not just because his house was also searched by FBI agents. Doolittle is under investigation for his connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and news keeps strolling in about allegations against him. This week, Doolittle and six of his aides were subpoenaed, in part for 11 years of records that could establish what kind of relationship he and his wife entertained with Abramoff. This clearly indicates that the Justice Department is showing no sign of slowing down the investigation, and that news like this will constantly come in over the next few months.

Doolittle has decided to not obey the subpoena, and fight it in court, arguing that this is a breach of the separation of powers. Whether or not he succeeds at this, the court fight will likely take months and be a very costly distraction for Doolittle who intends to run for re-election.

Such developments are actually great news for the Republican Party. The GOP's worst nightmare is to end up with Doolittle as its nominee. CA-04 leans heavily Republican and an open seat would almost certainly favor the Republican candidate. But with Doolittle weighted down by corruption charges, Democrats are confident they will pick-up the seat. Doolittle said a few weeks ago that he fully intends to run for re-election, but he has to survive a very contested primary first. The Republican Party sure is hoping that Doolittle either resigns or loses the primary, and news like this subpoena make such an outcome much more likely.

• Expanding the map to AL-02

When Republican Rep. Terry Everett announced he was retiring last week, I did not even bother mentioning it here. AL-02 is a very Republican district, and it seemed unthinkable the Democrats would want to compete for the seat when they have so many other opportunities more ripe for pick-up. But TPM reports that the DCCC is very seriously looking at this seat, and trying to recruit some top-notch candidates: Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright (Bright seems to have been approached by both the GOP and Democrats; and though he appears to have more ties with the Democratic Party, what does that say about his politics?) and the state's Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, who had considered jumping in the (non-open) Senate race earlier this year. If Democrats manage to make districts like this one competitive, it would wear out even more the already very thin Republican resources.

• Larry Craig keeps us guessing

Has Senator Craig now entirely given up on his intention to resign at the end of the month? A few days ago, it appeared that Craig would not resign on September 30th as he had said he would, and that he would wait for the MN judge to render a decision (probably some time next week) on whether Craig can withdraw his guilty plea. But Craig's lawyer has just implied that the Senator's ultimate decision has nothing to do with the judge's decision. Here is the relevant exchange between MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Stanley Brand:

MATTHEWS: Stan Brand, is your sense that the senator may well be able to hang on until the end of his term?

BRAND: I — think that’s conceivable, especially if he gets some type of relief in Minnesota. But I don’t think it depends on that.

Is it even worth asking what it would depend on anymore, given how many stunning turns this story has taken so far?

Obama leads in Iowa, and keeps himself in the game

Barack Obama was having quite a bad week -- an erratic debate performance, worrisome polls from New Hampshire, an Edwards resurgence... But all of that is now a distant memory. A Newsweek poll out today shows him leading in Iowa, which is really all that matters at this point for the Obama campaign (the "whole shebang," as some would say).

Among likely caucus goers, Obama comes in first with 28%. He is followed by Hillary Clinton at 24%, and John Edwards at 22%. Bill Richardson comes in fourth, with 10%. Now, Newsweek also has numbers for all Iowa Democrats, and they paint a very different picture: There, Clinton is ahead with 31%, followed by Obama at 25% and Edwards at 21%.

But Iowa turn-out is very low, because of the huge commitment caucuses require (declaring your vote in public for a few hours on a cold night), and the Newsweek poll rightfully put a very tight "likely voter" screen. The second set of numbers are not very valuable.

But this also comes with a caveat: The margin of error in this poll is a huge 7%, which puts Obama's lead entirely in the margin of error. The second caveat is that 55% Clinton voters describe themselves as strong supporters, against only 41% of Obama's. Strong supporters are naturally much more likely to actually end up going to the caucuses on a cold January night.

Nevertheless, this is great news for Obama, as it demonstrates that he is definitely a very strong contender in Iowa. As has been obvious for weeks now, Iowa is the only obstacle on Clinton's path. If she wins the caucuses, she will probably sweep the early states and run to the nomination. If Obama wins here, though, he will have a great chance at overtaking Clinton -- starting in New Hampshire. The media lately had been starting to doubt Obama's ability to carry Iowa, and this will help his campaign silence skeptics.

The poll is also terrible news for Edwards. Not only is he now third in the state he used to lead earlier in the year, but his supporters are even less strong than Obama's (37% describe them as such). Without an Iowa win, Edwards knows he is toast -- so he is likely to put all his forces here. But coming a few days after news that Edwards was opting in the public financing system, his campaign will have to work overtime to maintain him as a top-tier candidate.

On the Republican side, the numbers are less surprising: Among likely caucus-goers, Mitt Romney leads with 24%. Fred Thompson follows at 16%, with Rudy Giuliani at 13%. And, in what is a confirmation of previous Iowa polls, Mike Huckabee (12%) comes in before McCain (9%). This basically means that Huckabee has entered a three-way tie for second place -- and could make a huge impact on the race were he to confirm that in early January.

But the internals of the race show it is still very fluid: While 39% of Thompson voters say they are strong supporters, only a dismal 26% say the say for Romney and 22% for Giuliani. Clearly, the state of the Iowa race could change dramatically in the next few months, though Romney is in a better position than he appears given that recent reports have indicated rival candidates are not looking to truly compete in this state.

Romney knows that the only path he has to the nomination goes through Iowa. And even though his support in this poll is tepid, his campaign will take comfort in the fact that he has led Iowa for months now, most recently in a poll released earlier this week.

Morning polls: SUSA strikes again, and Democrats look ready to pick up Kentucky

• Washington uncomfortably close

SurveyUSA's now daily presidential poll was just released, and it is from the state of Washington today. Washington is among the slightly swing but must-win states for Democrats. Kerry won it rather comfortably, 53% to 46%. SUSA's numbers are too close to comfort if the GOP nominee is Giuliani, except when he is matched against Obama (that's a story we are not used to seeing from these SUSA polls):

• Clinton is tied with Giuliani at 47%, but she leads Thompson by 10 (52-42) and Romney by 14 (54-40).
• Edwards is also very close to Giuliani, leading him only 45-44. He leads Thompson 51-36 and Romney 55-31.
• Obama does better than both: He wins by 11 against Giuliani (!), 52% to 41%. He also beats Thompson by 14% (54-40) and crushes Romney 57-35.

Obama's electability has not been a theme in the SUSA polls released in the past few weeks (Check them out: Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Oregon), but he certainly performs much better than Edwards and Clinton here. And as always, notice how the percentage of undecideds drops in the Clinton questions (compare for example the Clinton-Romney and Edwards-Romney matchups).

• Edwards crushes Republicans nationally

Is the election slipping away from the GOP? Days after Fox News polls showed Clinton with healthy national leads against Republicans and after Rasmussen said the same about Obama, here is a new Rasmussen poll that pits Edwards against Giuliani and Thompson. The results are excellent for the Democrat: He crushes Giuliani 50% to 41% and leads Thompson 49% to 39%.

But Edwards's decision to opt into public financing will make it harder for him to voice an electability argument. As top Edwards adviser Joe Trippi told Rolling Stone earlier in the summer, public financing would leave the nominee “flat broke like Mike Dukakis — getting the living shit kicked out of him all summer long.”

• Fletcher sinking in Kentucky

Democrats are ready to move in the Kentucky Governor's Mansion. The election is in a little more than a month, and ethically very challenged incumbent Governor Fletcher has not recovered one bit over the past few months. Two new polls released this week show challenger Beshear with wide leads: The first is only 10% (45-35), but the polling firm's head explained that they did not push leaners and Beshear's margin of victory is likely to be widening. The second is from Bluegrass poll and pits the race at 55-35.

Kentucky is currently the most vulnerable governship for the incumbent party, but is followed very closely by Louisiana (check out the governor rankings). It is curious that there are so many polls from KY, and so few from LA.

Idle primary speculations: What if Bill Gardner and New Gingrich do the unthinkable?

Plenty of analysis of the presidential primaries is being done on this website and by every other political observer. What Romney's Iowa lead mean for his chances in Florida? How much can Edwards hope to gain from a potential win in the Iowa caucuses? But all of this speculation is based on the premise that the states will vote in the order that right now appears most likely: Iowa in early January (probably the 3rd), New Hampshire on the 8th, Nevada on the 14th, Michigan on the 15th, South Carolina on the 19th, and Florida on the 29th. Then, of course, comes the mega-huge tsunami-esque February 5th.

It is on the basis of this order that the campaigns have been refining their strategies: Romney's hope is to capitalize on a probable Iowa victory to jump to victory in New Hampshire and then sweep the early states, and Obama and Edwards are putting all their hopes in Iowa as the only place they can destabilize Clinton.

But this calendar is far, very far from being set in stone. And it is all up to Bill Gardner, who has been NH's Secretary of State the past 31 years! It is entirely up to him to announce when the New Hampshire primary will take place... and he could wait as late as November or early December to schedule it. Iowa officials are waiting for Gardner to make his move, so that they can schedule their own caucuses and start the lengthy organizing process (since Iowa wants to go first, they are forced to wait for NH's date in case Gardner leapfrogs ahead of them). Most people are betting on Gardner to schedule the NH primary on January 8th, but some question whether he might do the unthinkable -- and move it to December:

But some in New Hampshire speculate that Gardner could move the primary into December—perhaps Dec. 18—to ensure plenty of time before the contests to follow. Iowa is committed to being first, but officials clearly shudder at the thought of a December caucus. As Iowa Gov. Chet Culver put it, "In this state, we're still going to have Christmas."

If this were to happen, Iowa would either change its state law and stay in January, or move ahead of NH in December. Let's look at the former case first:

1. This would clearly benefit Clinton on the Democratic side and hurt Romney on the Republican side. Clinton is much stronger in NH than she is in Iowa, and she could get some momentum that would then help her win in Iowa. Also, Obama and Edwards will need every moment of the fall to trip up Clinton, and advancing the start of the primary season by a month would not be welcome news to them.
2. On the Republican side, this would dramatically hurt Romney. While he is in a position to win in New Hampshire, he is counting on the Iowa boost to propel him to further victories. Also, if there was a big gap between the caucuses and Nevada, he would be less likely to benefit from his momentum.

If Iowa follows New Hampshire in December, the same candidates would benefit and hurt:

1. First, Iowa and New Hampshire's influence would be greatly diminished. With a month to go between the NH primary and the Nevada caucuses, losing campaigns would have plenty of time to recover.
2. This means that a Clinton stumble in Iowa would not matter as much as it would in early January. And Obama's highest hope - a sweep of the two early states - would certainly give him a boost, but one that would have time to fade before the heavily Clinton states of Michigan and Florida came into the game.
3. Same thing in the Republican side: Romney's best-case (actually his only good case)scenario of a similar sweep would be totally undermined. Giuliani would have all the time in the world to consolidate his lead in FL or California, as Romney's only hope is an extremely rapid succession of states. Imagine what would have happened in 2004 if New Hampshire voted a month after Kerry's Iowa comeback, rather than a week later

Gardner is unlikely to move his primary to December simply because that would dramatically reduce NH's influence on the primary process. But the Edwards, Obama and Romney campaigns better prepare for that possibility.

And another huge development could shake up the race next week: Newt Gingrich might be preparing to jump in the race for the Republican nomination. He had always indicated interest in the election, but Thompson's entrance appeared to have satisfied his desire to see a conservative in the race. Apparently, he is now disappointed in Thompson and is considering jumping in... if he gets $30 million dollar of contribution pledges first from supporters! It is way to early to determine what this could mean, and the first lesson we should draw from this is that the Thompson campaign has completly failed in its goal to fail the conservative void and appear as the "savior" of the GOP. It appears that a Gingrich candidacy would hurt Thompson the most, and then probably Romney as well, in that it would further divide the vote of the party's right. This would obviously give a huge opening to Rudy Giuliani, who might very well benefit from a Gingrich candidacy. Does Newt really want to take that risk?

While waiting for Kerrey...

Some Senate news coming out today, though we are still waiting for Kerrey's decision. Kerrey has the power to single-handedly alter the 2008 Senate picture, but other events still deserve some attention.

• Nebraska's GOP field getting thinner

A day after a poll of the GOP primary in Nebraska showed Mike Johanns with a large lead and former Omaha Mayor Hal Daub running third, Daub withdrew from the race and endorsed Johanns. This is especially surprising given that Daub had already run a week-long ad in the state.

This is not necessarily good news for Johanns (and, by extension, not necessarily bad news for Democrats). Joe Bruning, the state's Attorney General, has shown no indication that he will back down from the primary. Bruning is young, ambitious and had initially planned on running in the primary against Hagel. If Bruning is ready to take on an incumbent senator, why would he back down when the seat is now open? And a two-way race might be more dangerous for Johanns than a three-way contest in which he could have triangulated - much like what Hillary is doing with Obama and Edwards in the presidential race!

Why is this meaningful? If Kerrey runs, he will be in a great position, and would benefit from a contested GOP primary. If he does not, well, Democratic chances get much slimmer but they still have the potential candidacy of Omaha Mayor Fahey. Against Johanns, Fahey would probably not stand much of a chance. But against Bruning, the race would probably be much more competitive.

• Texas still second-tier at best

Research 2000 just released a poll (commissioned by DailyKos!) of the Texas Senate race. Incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn leads Democratic challenger Noriega 51-35%. Last month, a Rasmussen poll pitted the race at 53-30. This is a healthy lead for Cornyn - and is above 50%. However, Democrats will take heart in the fact that Noriega is a complete unknown state wide but he polls only 16% behind the incumbent. Furthermore, the internals are pretty disastrous for Cornyn, whose re-elect is only at 40%. His approval rating isn't much better.

Yet, this election is far from being truly competitive. Texas remains strongly Republican - especially in a presidential year, and it is too expansive a race for the DSCC to just "try it out" and test the incumbent. Cornyn might not have a big lead, but Noriega's numbers are basically that of a generic Democrat here. They don't necessarily represent what voters will choose when they actually have to decide between a Republican and a Democrat.

• Johnson wants you to know he is running

Republicans only have two seats to challenge in 2008: Louisiana and South Dakota. And it has increasingly appeared that the GOP would not try to mount a strong challenge to Tim Johnson in SD if the incumbent senator, who suffered a terrible stroke at the end of 2006, decided to run again. Johnson came back on the public stage late August, and repeatedly stated he was planning on running again. This did not squash speculation that Johnson might still retire, and the Democrat stressed again this week that he is planning on running: “I am more determined than ever to run for re-election and continue serving the people of South Dakota in the United States Senate. Please contribute to my campaign before the September 30th end of quarter deadline.” So is Johnson for real? Or is this caused by the fact that the 3rd Quarter is ending in a few days, and the undecided incumbent is still going through the motions of a re-election campaign? At this point, we have to bet on the former.

GOPers skip a debate, and trail in various polls!

Fox News has just come out with a new national poll, and it contains great news for Democrats. Not only is Bush's approval rating back down at 34%, but Clinton has built a healthy lead against her Republican rivals:

• Against Giuliani, she wins 46% to 39%. If Bloomberg is added to the race (why are they bothering polling this anymore?) Clinton's lead goes up to 10: 42% to 32%, with 7% for Bloomberg.
• Against Thompson, Clinton leads by 13% (48-35) and 7% against McCain (46-39)
• Barack Obama does more poorly: He only beats Giuliani by a point (41-40), McCain by two (42-40). He does beat Thompson by 12, however (40-38)

While Clinton is supposed to be more polarizing, notice that she also gets much high percentages of the vote than Obama: She also has more people willing to vote for her no matter what. Also in the poll are some interesting numbers: The Democratic Party has a 50/40 favorable rating, while the Republican Party has only 44/47. Now, look at the numbers for the NYT (47/22) and MoveOn.org (11/22). A full 56% have never heard of MoveOn, and not many voters are ready to condemn the NYT after two years of accusations of unpatriotic journalism. In fact, with the GOP's approval rating lower than the Times's, are Republican accusations perhaps not improving the NYT's reputation?

• Oregon leans slightly Democratic
  

The SurveyUSA poll onslaught continues (seriously, how awesome is it?) with a survey from Oregon. Democrats lead 8 out of 9 contests, while Obama-Giuliani is tied. As always, Democrats fare much worse against Giuliani than the other major Republicans:

• Clinton leads Giuliani by a small 46-44 margin, while she leads against Thompson 49-41 and against Romney 51-38.
• Obama and Giuliani are tied at 46, while Obama has a 5 point edge against Thompson (48-43) and 18 against Romney (53-35)
• Edwards beats Romney 47-44, Thompson 51-36, and Romney 52-34.
  

Oregon is not the most important of swing states, but it could be indicative of how things go in the country. Both Gore and Kerry won the state by small margins. If things are better in 2008 for Democrats, it could mean less worrying about states like Oregon and Minnesota. In MN, SUSA showed a very strong Democratic edge yesterday (see yesterday's poll). Things are a bit less rosy in Oregon, but the state is still light blue.

And one quick question: Isn't Edwards electability argument (he does run the strongest in this poll after all) undercut by his decision to opt for public financing?

SUSA polls from the past two weeks: Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin.

• The Republicans debate on PBS

The Republican candidates were invited to debate minority issues on PBS, and only the six "minor" candidates (including Alan Keyes) showed up. McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson all cited scheduling conflicts; as a result, they spent most of the past week being criticized by many representatives of the African-American community and many Republican figures. Mike Huckabee said he was "ashamed," and analysts pondered how much the GOP stood to lose. Not that Republicans have that much support to begin with among black voters, but the party has been attempting some sort of outreach effort. The GOP candidates also skipped Univision's Hispanic debate last month, an even more problematic move given that Latinos are a key swing constituency.

Presidential snippets: Democrats breath a huge sigh of relief in California, and lead comfortably in Minnesota

Republican groups in California have been mounting an effort to pass an initiative that would allocate the state's electoral votes by district. This would have shifted about 20 safe Democratic electoral votes to the Republicans -- and made it very difficult for Democrats to win the White House. Polls had shown that the measure was unlikely to pass, but it would still have forced the Democrats to play defense in a state they can ill afford to waste time on.

But before the initiative got on the ballot, the groups pushing the effort had to collect enough signatures in a compressed time frame -- which requires a lot of money. And the LA Times just reported that they decided to pull the plug on the entire scheme, mostly because they did not have enough funding to push this to completion. They had actually gotten pretty far, as the Secretary of State had already approved the wording of the initiative, so it is rather surprising that they renounced this now. I would have expected some Republican donors to be interested in heavily funding this. All in all, great news for Democrats who have nothing more to fear in California! They can rest knowing they have 55 electoral votes safely in the bank.

In other presidential news, SurveyUSA released a general election poll from the very important state of Minnesota today. MN gave Kerry a lot of headaches in 2004, and only narrowly went to the Democrat. Republicans had a much harder time in 2006, going down big in the open Senate seat and keeping the governorship extremely narrowly. And Democrats are keeping that edge going into 2008. They win all 9 matchups:

• Clinton leads against Giuliani by the biggest margin, 52% to 41%. She also demolishes Thompson 52-39 and Romney 56-33.
• Obama leads across the board as well, albeit by smaller margins, especially against Giuliani where he remains within the margin of error (47-43). His lead is bigger against Thompson (49-41) and Romney (53-33).
• Edwards does on par with Clinton: 48-40 against Giuliani, 51-35 against Thompson and 55-28 against Romney.
  

Interesting that Clinton is the only one to cross 50% against Giuliani, and is also the Democrat who reaches the highest percentage (56% against Romney) in any matchup. Not what we expect from Clinton "the polarizer." Apart from that, it looks good for Democrats. Obama's narrow margin against Giuliani appears to come from lower recognition -- as Obama does not do worse against Romney than the two other Dems.

Edwards opts out of public financing

John Edwards just surprised everyone - and first and foremost his rival campaigns - by announcing he would accept public financing during the primary campaign. Edwards made sure to emphasize this was not a decision about his campaign's financial difficulties: "This is not about a money calculation. This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing."

Public financing means that the federal government will match campaign contributions Edwards receives up to $21 million dollars, but it also means that Edwards will not be allowed to spend more then $50 million not only through the primaries but all the way through his party's convention in August! That is a long time to go with only $50 million, especially if the Republican candidate has opted out of public financing (as will certainly be the case) and can spend millions throughout the spring and early summer. The Edwards campaign is now relieved it will have as much money to spend through the primaries as the Clinton and Obama campaigns. But if it does, it will have nothing to spend for the next few months. A worrisome thought.

Even more strict are the restrictions on state-by-state spending: Edwards will only be allowed to spend around $1.5 million in Iowa (including what he has already spent) or $2.2 million in South Carolina. Would that leave Edwards with enough to compete against the Clinton and Obama onslaught?

Edwards, however, is scoring a major point here. Public financing of campaign is a huge progressive demand, and rightly so. One of Edwards's main arguments has been that Clinton is beholden to special interests, and is too eager to defend lobbyists (Edwards was greatly helped in this by Clinton herself at the YearlyKos convention). The Hsu fundraising scandal further eroded voter confidence in a clean Clinton campaign, and Edwards has been there every step of the way reminding Democrats that he will run a transparent campaign and a transparent presidency. And Edwards today put pressure on Clinton and Obama, challenging them to also adopt public financing and claiming the sole reason he took this route was because he was fed up with the corruption inherent in the American system. Congressman David Bonior, an Edwards supporter, pressed this point:

You can't buy your way to the Democratic nomination – you should have to earn the votes of the American people with bold vision and ideas. This is the most expensive presidential campaign in history, by far. And the simple fact is that the influence of money in politics – and the focus on raising money in this election – has gotten out of control. It’s time to get back to focusing on the issues that matter to the American people. That’s why John Edwards has decided to play by the rules that were designed to ensure fairness in the election process by capping his campaign spending and seeking public financing.

And Joe Trippi, one of Edwards's main adviser, immediately charged ahead, using today's decision as a campaign argument:

Iowa gets to choose between a Democrat who is taking the money of health care lobbyists and insurance lobbyists and corporate lobbyists and PACs who will almost certainly blow through the spending limits that they would have to abide by under public financing against a Democrat who has never taken a dime of PAC money and has never taken a dime of lobbyists money, and now, will stay within the public financing system in Iowa, which will give the people of Iowa the change to decide who will go to Washington and represent them on all these issues?

But Edwards will be dogged here with doubts about his sincerity. Fine, Edwards did the good thing. But why did he wait until days before the end of the 3rd Quarter, the time where the campaign probably reassessed the financial situation and realized it was not meeting its fundraising goals... Not that there is anything wrong with accepting public financing because of he cannot follow Obama and Clinton's lead, but then he cannot present this as a matter of high principle! And he cannot use his decision to blast rival campaigns for their corrupt ways...

Also not helping is the fact that Joe Trippi - the same Trippi who offered that quote blasting Clinton - managed Howard Dean's 2004 campaign. Dean opted out of public financing (along with Kerry) and Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election."

So which is it? Is Edwards being forced by circumstances, or is he taking a principled stance? His campaign - and Joe Trippi - does not seem to understand it cannot have it both ways without furthering the doubts about Edwards's sincerity...

Disappointing news for Democrats in a few congressional races

• No special election in IL-14

Dennis Hastert had pretty clearly announced his intention to resign before the end of his term (in the tradition of fallen House speakers). Democrats were very excited about this: While IL-14 leans Republican, a special election in the spring would allow them to devote time and money to the district in an effort to wrestle it away. Furthermore, they were planning on holding the election on February 5th (the Governor, a Democrat, would get to decide the election date), which is the day of the Illinois presidential primary. With Illinois Senator Barack Obama on the ballot, Democratic turnout is likely to be much higher than GOP turnout in the state -- which would have given a huge edge to the Democratic candidate in IL-14.

Well, Hastert just ruined all these plans by announcing he would make sure there was no special election. In other words, if he is to resign, he will do so late enough that there will be a vacancy throughout 2008 rather than an election to choose his replacement. Democrats certainly have a shot to win an open seat come November 2008, but how much are they willing to concentrate on IL-14 when they have so many more promising seats to targets (including three others in Illinois: IL-6, IL-11 and IL-18).

• While waiting for Kerrey, Johanns builds a lead

Democratic hopes of wrestling away Chuck Hagel's Senate seat rested on two elements: (1) Bob Kerrey would jump in the race for them, and (2) the strongest GOP candidate, Mike Johanns, would face a divisive primary against Attorney General Joe Bruning and former Omaha Mayor Hal Daub that would take much of his time.

Last week brought news that Kerrey was inching away from a run and that he would decide sometime this week. We are still waiting for further information. And while Democrats had hope that premise 2 would be satisfied (an internal Bruning poll showed Johanns with a small 38-30 lead in the GOP primary), an NRSC poll shows that Johanns has little to fear from a primary: Johanns leads with 58%, versus 16% for Bruning and 12% for Daub.

Meanwhile, Daub has started running ads already, indicating that he is not planning on backing down. Bruning gives the same impression. If Democrats manage to get current Omaha Mayor Fahey to run for them, they might successfully exploit Republican divisions. But until then, the Nebraska Senate race is one of the only Senate races where things are not breaking the Democrats' way.

Update

What is Kerrey up to? He told the Omaha World-Herald today that he is "excited" about the prospect of running, but refused to say whether he would run! Asked when he would decide, he answered, "I have to get it done soon, it's all I know." He explained that one of the main cons is the fear of moving his six-year old son Henry around too much (once to Nebraska during the campaign, and then to DC if Kerrey pulls it off). This a very fair concern, but one's got to wonder why Kerrey is making such a public show of his being undecided.

Morning polls: Romney holds on to his Iowa lead

Strategic Vision, a Republican polling firm, has just released a primary poll from Iowa:

• On the Democratic side, it is a complete toss-up: Hillary Clinton is at 24%, John Edwards at 22% and Barack Obama at 21%. Bill Richardson follows with 13%.
• On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is still ahead -- and still by a big margin. He has 30%, followed by Rudy Giuliani's 17% and Fred Thompson's 13%. Mike Huckabee comes in fourth at 8% and John McCain is far behind at 6%.
  

Let's start with the GOP. Yesterday showed Romney's New Hampshire lead had eroded significantly. But Romney's challenge still remains the same: Remain in a strong position (not necessarily a strong lead) in NH, and then win the Iowa caucuses. The momentum out of Iowa should be enough for the virtual NH tie with Giuliani to become a lead. And if Romney sweeps both Iowa and New Hampshire, can he be stopped, knowing that Michigan is around the corner? So polls like this one have to make the Romney campaign feel much better.

Also notice McCain's weakness in Iowa (he hadn't even competed there in 2000). For that matter, all major Republicans but Romney have a low score, and only Romney and Giuliani cross the 15% threshold supporters need to reach to be allowed to caucus for a candidate (this is a very vast topic we will have to come back to soon, because it could dramatically affect the Iowa results on both sides. MyDD briefly alludes to this today).

On the Democratic side, there isn't much to say. The three leading candidates have been battling for an edge for a few months now. What seems certain is that (1) Edwards cannot be said to be leading Iowa anymore as he was a few months ago, but he is still in a position to win it out. And (2) Iowa is the only obstacle on Clinton's route. Her numbers in every other state (with the exception, perhaps, of South Carolina) resemble her huge national lead, and she is unlikely to slip up anywhere or give any room to her rivals if she gets a win in Iowa. But that is a huge if. Iowa is completely stuck in a three-way tie, and Clinton coming in second or third would open up the nomination fight, boost Obama and Edwards in NH and SC and force Clinton into a long contest.

And the million dollar question: What would happen if Richardson stunningly pulled ahead and won it all in Iowa? He is definitely in a position too, and it is anyone's guess how much he could use that to propel himself in later states as well.

• Rasmussen polls the general election, finds Hillary surging

Rasmussen regularly polls national general election numbers, and he just released a poll matching up Giuliani and Thompson. The marquee match-ups of the election. His title says it all, Surging Clinton Outpaces Giuliani and Thompson. Clinton - who led Giuliani by 1% two weeks and had only led him one other times in the last few months - is now up 5%, 48% to 43%. Against Thompson, she has an 8% lead, 49% to 41%.

The internals tell part of the story. Clinton has reached her best favorability rating since last November (52-46), and Giuliani is at an all-time low (49-45). Obviously, these numbers will have to be confirmed by other polls, but this is the second straight Rasmussen survey in which Giuliani's favorability rating is under 50%.

The Dartmouth debate: Can Edwards become the un-Clinton?

The Democratic candidates met in Dartmouth today for their MSNBC debate, the first in nearly a month. The forum was largely underwhelming because of the poor way in which Tim Russert conducted the debate. No particular moment stood out, but there were many interesting dynamics to be noticed.

• Clinton was on the defensive throughout the night. She had never been attacked to this extent, and it was evident that some of her rivals are frustrated that Clinton still looks like the overwhelming favorite. She handled it as well as she could, never looking destabilized though she did feel compelled to responding to attacks -- an unmistakable and rare sign that she felt threatened.


• The second significant Clinton story tonight is how unafraid she is of moving to the center. She defended her vote to make the Iran Guard a terrorist organization. She refused to give precise answers on issues like nuclear energy. Clinton is thinking ahead to the general election and is unwilling to move anymore to the Left than she has to. This, more than anything else, betrays how huge a favorite Clinton is to win the nomination.


• Most of the attacks were waged by John Edwards. Edwards used his first response to attack Clinton for not being committed to ending the war. Clinton immediately jumped in to respond, setting a Clinton-Edwards showdown within the first 10 minutes. This is really the dream of the Edwards campaign, who needs to show that this race is not just about the Clinton-Obama horse race (Clinton seemed eager to engage with Edwards which could indicate that she also does not want to be locked in a dangerous one-on-one contest with Obama). Edwards also had a very nice moment when he explained Clinton and him had drawn different lessons from their 2003 vote approving the Iraq War. In a sharp and eloquent argument, he used her Iran vote from today to show the contrast between Clinton and himself: "What I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted."


• The other candidates joined in. Mike Gravel blasted Clinton for her Iran vote. "Shame on you Hillary," he exclaimed, putting Clinton's hawkishness on full display in the opening moments of the debate. Biden followed up later explaining Clinton is too divisive to lead effectively, though it is "not her fault" -- a slight refinement to Obama's argument. Biden then went on a strange offensive, saying that all the "old stuff" would come back if Hillary got to the White House, before pausing and adding that he was only referring to "the policies... the policies..." We got it Biden, you were not talking about the sex scandals.


• Barack Obama, by contrast, was absent. His campaign had said before the debate that their candidate had a cold, and Obama's performance confirmed that he probably did. He did not distinguish himself and let Edwards portray himself as the main alternative to Clinton. And Obama could not use Clinton's main vulnerability (her Iran vote) since he had failed to participate in today's Senate vote (Note: This is the second potentially embarrassing vote Obama is missing in two weeks. Last week, he skipped the vote condemning MoveOn.org for its Petreaus ad).


• One good moment for Obama came in the health care discussion, where he went after Clinton in much harsher terms than usual -- and highlighting a key difference between their campaigns. Referring to her 1993 effort to pass health care, he said "Part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, is because you closed the door." His campaign immediately released research material supporting his claim. This is actually a good tactic for Obama, because it deflects one of Clinton's main arguments about 1993 ("I failed to pass health care because Democrats didn't back me up"), and because it focuses on process and transparency (Obama's strong point).


• Mike Gravel offered the most memorable lines of the night, including his dramatic attack on Clinton at the beginning of the debate. What is truly amazing about Gravel is how authentic he sounds in his answers: He is in this race to tell what is on his mind without worrying about further political calculations. Particularly forceful was his plea for Democrats to keep forcing republicans to vote against cloture on Iraq bill.


• Joe Biden had a good night. Today's Senate vote overwhelmingly in favor of his plan for a federal Iraq gave him an ideal issue to bring out repeatedly. Biden slipped in a reference to the "Biden plan" in seemingly every answer he gave for the first hour, emphasizing that he managed to get 26 Republican votes on an Iraq bill that opposed Administration policy. He also shined in his answer to the torture question (see below). Chris Dodd also sounded forceful. Coming out of a great month in which he emerged as a leading candidate on issues relating to Iraq and drew praise from activists for his position on Cuba (Kos even announced he had voted for Dodd in his latest straw poll), Dodd spoke with a characteristic energy. Am I the only one to think that if there was only one of either Biden and Dodd they might actually get somewhere, but that together they simply neutralize each other?


• One question worth looking at more closely is the one asked on torture. The Polico's Ben Smith rightly devotes to it his first full article on tonight's debate. Obama, who answered the question first, offered a stunningly weak answer. He said that torture was off the table as a matter of policy... but then asserted that the president would have to make the call when individual cases arose! Obama did not mention anything about torture being inefficient and the likelihood of obtaining bad information. Biden then offered a great answer ruling out any possibility in which he would be moved to order torture. He clearly emphasized that torture does not work. Clinton then struck a balance between Biden and Obama: She also said that torture does not work and said she would not use it, but she did add that ambiguous "as policy." She did not, however, say anything about a shady hypothetical case in which she might make a different call and rejected the 24 scenario of a ticking bomb (The Politico points out that Clinton did not use to be so pure on the torture issue. Overall, this was not Obama's greatest moment.


• Tim Russert was truly an awful host. He repeatedly asked the same questions when it was clear the candidate was not going to answer, and he pitched softballs disguised as tough questions in Clinton and Obama's direction. To Clinton, he asked how he responded to criticism of a 28-year Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession. Clinton had been praised last month for her witty answer to the exact same question at the CNN You Tube debate. And Russert's hard-hitting question to Obama was a question about his experience, allowing Obama to give one of his best-rehearsed answers. Russert also left only little time for discussion on the issue of health-care, with only a few minutes devoted to that most crucial of issues and no question about anything substantive. And to finish a disastrous performance on an even lower note, he set up a very cheap and sly trap against Clinton by making her comment and disagree with something Bill Clinton had said about torture without saying who the quote was from, and then revealing in evident glee that the quote was taken from "William... Jefferson... Clinton." (Clinton did seem at a loss for a second, but then nicely recovered with one of her best moments tonight, responding, "Well he’s not standing here right now.")


• And there was an incredible number of stupid questions: "Red Sox or Yankee?" and "Your favorite Bible verse..." Not to mention that the question on gay rights was on the strange topic of whether the candidates would find it appropriate for their kids to read a story about a same-sex couple... There are certainly more interesting gay rights issues to address in a Democratic debate.

Romney in trouble in New Hampshire

A day after CNN's poll of the Democratic primary demonstrated the extent of Barack Obama's negative trendline, CNN released numbers from the Republican primary:

• Mitt Romney's lead is down to a statistically insignificant point. He has 25% compared to Giuliani's 24%. McCain is at 18% and Thompson is stuck at 13%.
• A month ago, the CNN poll had Romney at 34%, with a 14% lead against Giuliani at 20%. Thompson was still at 13% but McCain then came in fourth down at 12.

Just as in the case of Obama, this survey is worrisome for the Romney campaign because it confirms what other polls have found in recent weeks. Namely, that Romney's once mighty lead in New Hampshire has dwindled down to low single-digits. The last Rasmussen poll from a few days ago gave him a 25-22 lead down from a 32-20 lead in Rasmussen's August survey. In fact, Romney has led in 19 out of the 20 New Hampshire polls since late April -- many of them by double-digits (the exception was a mid-July ARG outlier in which Romney trailed Giuliani by a point). But the past few polls have showed an erosion of his support.

It is interesting to note that in neither the CNN poll nor the Rasmussen poll does Giuliani benefit from Romney's decline: In Rasmussen, it is Thompson that rises by 8 points (to 19%) as Romney goes down by 7. In today's CNN poll, it is McCain who has the most momentum. Giuliani might be on the verge of overtaking Romney's lead, but he is not showing much sign of life.

The Romney campaign needs to get a win out of New Hampshire. He is trailing in national polls and is not a force in the big February 5th states, for now. His strategy has always been to win Iowa, carry the momentum to New Hampshire, and then use that early sweep to run the tables (just like Kerry did in 2004). This strategy has its downside: A slip-up in Iowa or New Hampshire, and Romney is likely to be out.

The good news for the Romney campaign is that he is still leading in Iowa. This mean he does not need a large lead in New Hampshire right now. If he can maintain himself on equal footing with Rudy until early January and then win the Iowa caucuses (a tall order, but he has a huge advantage in that state right now), he would likely be propelled up and get the edge in the Granite state.

But naturally, Romney would like to be in a more comfortable position in the coming months, and he needs to be seen as a force on the GOP side to generate excitement and raise money. He has been losing much of the momentum he accumulated over the summer, and does not want to lose his status as a top GOP contender. Polls like this one are certainly not good news.

Will Craig resign, or will there be further surprises? (Updated!)

No matter how hard we try to stay away from the Craig story, Craig himself makes sure to keep the story in the news by opening up bizarre new storylines. A month ago, he announced he intended to resign at the end of September. A few days later, it was revealed (because of a voice message Craig himself left on the wrong person's voicemail) that Craig was leaving open the option of not resigning if his judicial troubles were resolved before then.

Craig immediately proceeded to petition the court to withdraw his guilty plea, and he got his day in court this morning in Edina, MN -- even though he himself did not go to Minnesota. Now CNN is reporting that the judge will not announce whether he is allowing Craig to withdraw his guilty plea and go to a full trial before next week... after the September 30th deadline Craig imposed on himself.

Asked directly what he plans on doing on Sunday, September 30th, Craig refused to answer: “We are waiting for the legal determinations and I have nothing more to say.” This seems to imply that Craig is not going to resign at the end of September and say he is waiting for the imminent judicial decision. Though he could also be saying that he will wait until Sunday to see if the judge issues a ruling, and then figure out what he is doing.

This opens up a very interesting question no one is really prepared to answered. If Craig waits it out a few more days and the judge does allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, is Craig going to stay in the Senate while preparing for a public trial on charges of lewd behavior? That would seem entirely fair -- how can the GOP ask Craig to resign before his trial when it is not willing to even faintly go after Ted Stevens? And Craig's arrest violates due process strongly enough that Craig should be given a chance here.

Nevertheless, Democrats are salivating at the possibility of the Craig debacle extending a few more months. Even if Craig doesn't run for re-election, Republicans would then have to prepare for the open seat constantly overshadowed by Larry Craig. Not to mention that if Governor Otter doesn't get to appoint Craig's successor Republicans are likely to split in a divisive primary that could favor their candidate, Rep. LaRocco.

Republicans remain likely to keep the seat in 2008, but they could be forced to spend much more energy playing defense than they were intending to.

Update

We didn't have to wait long to get an answer. Craig just released a statement announcing he will not resign on September 30th:

Today was a major step in the legal effort to clear my name. The court has not issued a ruling on my motion to withdraw my guilty plea. For now, I will continue my work in the United States Senate for Idaho.

Look for the GOP to turn against Craig again, and pressure him to step down. This should not take too long though: If the judge rules against Craig next week, the Senator will presumably step down. But if the judge rules in his favor, expect all hell to break loose in the Republican Party.

Morning polls: Democrats better positioned in Wisconsin than in New Jersey

• Wisconsin as tight as ever

SUSA keeps on rolling out daily polls, and today, it released a poll from Wisconsin. Wisconsin has been among the tightest states in both 2000 and 2004. In fact, Bush had a large lead here throughout the 2004 cycle and Kerry ended up winning the state by the smallest of margins. No one ever pays that close of an attention to Wisconsin since Ohio and Florida are deemed much more important, but it is really a crucial state with 10 electoral votes.

And Democrats look like they can hold on to the state -- although he margins are very small:

• Clinton beats Giuliani by 4% (48-44). She leads Thompson by only 2, and Romney by 9 (50-41).
• Obama wins all three matchups as well. He beats Giuliani by 3 (46-43), Thompson by 5 (48-43), and Romney by 15 (52-37).
• Edwards, in a stark contrast to what we are used to seeing, does WORSE than Obama and Clinton against Giuliani, and loses 45-44! But he leads by 9 against Thompson (49-40) and 18 against Romney.

Take a look at the Missouri survey. Or the Ohio one. Both have Edwards running significantly better than his rivals in the general election. Here, while Edwards beats Thompson and Romney much more comfortably, he is the only Democrat to lose a matchup. But these are small problems to have and Democrats are in a good early position in Wisconsin.

• Can Giuliani pick-up New Jersey?

Every two years, Republicans get high hopes of carrying New Jersey in presidential or senatorial elections. Every two years, they dump tons of money into the state and end up hardly making a dent despite early polls showing them very competitive. This happened in 2004 with Bush v. Kerry and in 2006 with Menendez v. Kean. New Jerseyites hate Republicans more than they hate Democrats, which is saying a lot given how much they distrust their local government after corruption scandals have repeatedly rocked the state. But could Giuliani be finally the Republican who has credentials that satisfy New Jersey voters? He has long argued that he would put the coastal Democratic states in play: Connecticut, New Jersey, California.

A new Quinnipiac poll has worrisome news for Democrats, as Giuliani would beat all three main contenders:

• Giuliani beats Clinton by an insignigifcant 45-44, but even that is too much in a must-win state for Democrats. He also crushes Obama 49-40 and Edwards 50-39.
• Democrats fare better against the other Republicans. Clinton wins against McCain 46-41, against Thompson 48-36 and against Romney 52-33.
• So do Obama and Edwards by similar margin. They both barely win against McCain (44-41 and 44-40 respectively) and much more comfortably against Thompson (49-44 and 48-34) and Romney (51-31 and 51-30).

The internal numbers paint the extent to which Giuliani will have to be reckoned with in the state. He is by far the most popular candidate, with an outstanding favorability rating of 61-39. By contrast, Clinton's stands at 51-41, and she posts the second highest favorability number.

More polls will have to confirm this, but I would advise Democrats to not panic about New Jersey until late in the cycle. If the state has not started to come home in late September 2008, for it usually does not do so earlier in the cycle, then there could be cause to worry.

• Are Democrats gaining an edge nationally?
  

In what could be sign that the Democrats are starting to gain a natural advantage, Bill Richardson has been rising in national numbers just released by Rasmussen. He now trails Giuliani by only 3% (46-43) and beats Thompson by 1% (42-41). Earlier in the year, Richardson trailed by double-digits against Giuliani.

Richardson has not been running a national campaign, concentrating instead on New Hampshire and Iowa. This rise therefore cannot be attributed to a rise in name-recognition throughout the country, and Richardson remains far less known than Giuliani. His rise under those conditions seems to say more about the advantage Democrats are gaining generically and structurally rather than about Richardson in particular.

Obama's negative New Hampshire trendline

CNN released a new poll of the NH Democratic primary: It has Clinton leading by a huge margin against Obama. She has 43% against 20%. Edwards comes in a distant third at 12% and Richardson is fourth at 6%. This is quite a change from CNN's July poll, in which Clinton only had a 9% lead (36% to 27%) and in which Richardson had crossed the double-digit threshold at 11%.

These numbers are similar to most New Hampshire polls we have seen over the past few weeks. In fact, the Pollster.com average of the past few surveys put Clinton at 37% and Obama far behind at 17%. This kind of lead is what we are used to seeing in national primary numbers. And the kind of lead we are prone to dismissing in a heartbeat, for all the classic reasons: national polls are irrelevant, they mostly test name recognition, etc.

But New Hampshire polls in no way fall into that category, and it would be a great mistake to dismiss them. Candidates have been campaigning in New Hampshire in months and most of them have started running ads there. With Obama usually coming in third position in Iowa for now, he cannot count on a boost there and needs to be very strong from the get-go in New Hampshire. He has been in full swing in the state and his name recognition there is high: Only 3% of respondents in the CNN survey said they did not know enough about Obama to form an opinion about him (by contrast, 22% did not know anything about Richardson).

The Obama campaign believed that their candidate was tailor-made for New Hampshire, which is known for backing anti-establishment independent candidates who buck conventional wisdom with stunning wins (Hart over Mondale in 84, McCain over Bush in 2000...). Despite this, despite his name-recognition increase, and despite the ads he has been running, he lost significant ground against Clinton in the CNN poll.

This negative trendline is confirmed by the other polls taken in the state, as compiled by Pollster.com. Obama has not been within 15% of Clinton in New Hampshire in all surveys taken since late August. In the 4 September polls taken by 4 different polling institutes, Clinton's lead is 23, 23, 18 and 19 points. By contrast, Obama ran much closer to Clinton in many surveys taken in June-July: He was tied at 31% in ARG's July numbers (Arg's latest poll has Clinton leading by 20%, with Obama crumbling by 14%) and trailed by low single-digits numerous times. Take a look at Pollster's handy chart:


Obama's bad poll results are no longer easily explained away by Clinton's inherent recognition advantage, not after months of campaign in the state. And even if Clinton had maintained a strong name-ID advantage, this would not explain why Obama is on a stark downward trend. This phenomenon is also observed (to a lesser extent) in South Carolina, where Obama used to sometimes edge out Clinton earlier in the year but where Clinton now usually gets a lead.

Worrisome news for the Giuliani campaign

• Could the NRA derail Giuliani?

A week after Giuliani's speech at the NRA gathering (marked by the infamous cell phone incident), the NRA does not appear to have been convinced that Giuliani had a true change of heart from his days as NYC Mayor when he blasted the NRA as a "group of extremists" and led anti-gun initiatives. Giuliani did his best to convince the crowd that they should not be worried about his positions on the second amendment.

But today, the Washington Times reveals that the NRA is considering getting involved early in the Republican primary race and soon endorsing one of the candidates. This would be a striking departure from the 2000 and 2004 races when they endorsed George Bush only a month before the general election. From Chris Cox, head lobbyist for the NRA: "Historically, we have not gotten involved in primaries. We traditionally wait until after the conventions. That being said, given the candidates and the process and the front-loading of the primaries, it is a possibility that we could get involved in one of these presidential primaries."

There is no doubt that the NRA's involvement would be an attempt to derail Giuliani's campaign. And with 4 million members, the NRA can certainly be a strong force in a Republican primary. The question then is who would the NRA choose to help and endorse? Odds are it would be Thompson, who has earned high marks from the NRA throughout his political career.

• How much is too much when it comes to 9-11?
  

It is becoming increasingly obvious just how much Giuliani is exploiting the 9-11 attacks. The latest controversy: A Giuliani house party on Wednesday night held in California by Abraham Sofaer is seeking $9.11 from guests in support of Rudy's campaign. The Giuliani campaign has distanced itself from this tactic, but Sofaer is hardly an anonymous supporter: He was a Reagan State Department adviser and is a fellow at Stanford University's Hooever Institution. He has given money to Giuliani since 1995.

Chris Dodd was the first to react, blasting Giuliani for exploiting 9-11 and calling this event "absolutely unconscionable, shameless and sickening." Giuliani has faced very little questions for now about his 9-11 record and the use he has made of the attacks during his campaign, despite numerous reports that Giuliani's role before and after 9-11 should be assessed more carefully. But Giuliani's campaign is so dependant on his using the 9-11 attacks that he really cannot afford the press starting to catch on and turning against him for it. Headlines like "Giuliani party seeks $9.11 per person" might not hurt him that badly in isolation. But if they start painting a consistent picture, Giuliani could easily find himself in trouble.

• New numbers from the Florida primary

Rasmussen released today a poll of the Florida primary. Nothing very surprising in these numbers, which confirms what we saw last week: Clinton has a clear lead in the Democratic nomination, and the GOP race is much more fluid. Clinton leads 47% to 22% for Obama. Among Republicans, Giuliani's lead has shrunk to 6% against Thompson (29-23), with McCain and Romney stuck far behind at 12% and 11%.

Only one thing to look at in Florida numbers (and in polls from Feb. 5th states): Do Clinton and Giuliani have a large enough lead to use Florida as a firewall state if everything goes wrong in the early states? Do they have enough room to still be in a position to win the state even if their number decrease considerably because of a bad showing in Iowa or New Hampshire? All the polls in recent weeks show that Clinton does have such a large lead, but that Giuliani does not at all.

Polls like this are terrible news for Giuliani, who is trailing in the early states and does not have any later states to count on. Ultimately, his campaign will have to figure out what state they are counting on to get a crucial January victory. For does Giuliani really expect to do well on February 5th if he goes 0-5 in the January contests?

Morning Polls: Are Southern states ripe for pick-up?

Two stunning polls out of the South today challenge the conventional wisdom that Democrats should not even try their luck in any states there, especially if Hillary Clinton is their nominee.

First up, a SUSA poll from Virginia:

• Clinton wins all three of her matchups. She beats Giuliani by 6% (50-44), Thompson by 7% (50-43), and Romney by 15 (53-38). That she reaches 50% against all three candidates says a lot about her chances.
• Edwards also wins his three races by similar margins. He beats Giuliani by 5% (48-43), Thompson by 10 (49-39), and Romney by 19 (52-33). As always, there are much less undecideds respondents when the Democratic candidate is not Clinton.
• Obama runs a bit weaker than the other two Democrats. He is basically tied with Giuliani (he leads 46-45) and Thompson (he trails 47-45) but leads against Romney 50-38.

These results also confirm the Rasmussen poll from two weeks ago which also showed Clinton with a slight lead against the major Republican candidates! But even more stunning are numbers released today by Rasmussen from the state of Tennessee, arguably much more Republican than Virginia is today. But Rasmussen shows Clinton in the lead, except against Thompson who is from Tennessee himself.

• Thompson crushes his three rivals by varying margins: He beats Clinton 54-39, he leads John Edwards 56-35, and he destroys Obama by thirty points: 60-30!
• But Clinton has a small edge against Giuliani (46-44) and against Romney (46-40).

Granted, those are insignificant leads that really don't mean much at all. But consider just how Republican Tennessee is. It did not even vote for native son Al Gore in 2000 (who would have won the presidency if only he had carried his homestate). Democrats do not have to win states like Tennessee to get to the White House. In fact, if they get even close to carrying states like Tennessee, odds are they will comfortably win the more important swing states of the Midwest and get a large electoral college lead!

Further, such polls undermine the conventional argument that Clinton cannot win the South or the Midwest. She is criticized as being so polarizing that she could easily win the blue states but fail to make even a dent in red and purple states. Edwards often makes the argument that he would put all those states in play, forcing the Republicans to play defense on their own turn, and Obama has also argued that he would make the South competitive. Whatever the merits of these respective arguments (and there is some evidence that Edwards can make the Midwest more competitive than usual), polls like these ones show that Clinton can stay competitive in very red states -- even crossing 50% in Virginia against all GOP candidates!

Second tier congressional races making some news

• How long can Stevens hold on?

Ted Stevens might very well be a beloved immovable politician, there's got to be a point at which the mountain of allegations against him starts to hurt him. Just a few days ago was revealed that the FBI had recorded phone conversations between Stevens and a businessman who has confessed to bribing Stevens's son.

Today, newly elected Republican Governor Palin put some pressure on Stevens to explain himself. In an interview with the Anchorage News Daily, Palin asserted that many Alaskans are still ready to support Stevens but they would need a more thorough explanation:Not hearing anything in terms of information that can be shared regarding the Senator's innocence is kind of frustrating for Alaskan. Alaskans are getting more anxious to hear any information that he can provide regarding his innocence." While Palin's vision of Alaska voters waiting anxiously for Stevens to give them even the vaguest indication of his innocence seems quite naive, it is remarkable that Stevens, who is embroiled in a massive bribery investigation and is running for re-election next year, has hardly said anything of these matters.

Democrats simply have to find a candidate to run against Stevens who could at worst be ready to benefit from more revelations against Stevens and at best make Stevens really sweat it out. No matter how much federal money Stevens can bring home from Washington, a strong Democrat could turn this into a competitive race. All eyes are still turned to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.

• TN-Sen: Democrats looking to expand the map
  

One of the reasons of the Democratic success in 2006 was the DSCC's ability to expand the map and challenge many Republican incumbents simultaneously, forcing the GOP to play defense and reducing its ability to attack Democratic incumbents. With that in mind, Democrats are trying to find new races to challenge. And many are now celebrating Michael Ray McWherter's decision to form an exploratory committee in the Tennessee Senate race, in against incumbent GOP Senator Lamar Alexander. McWerter is the son of a former Tennessee Governor, and could have the name ID to run an effective campaign against Alexander.

For now, this race is barely on anyone's radar screen, and McWherter's potential entrance would not change that. McWherther has not been visibly involved in Tennessee politics (despite playing some behind-the-scenes roles), and Alexander has never appeared particularly vulnerable. Ford's narrow defeat in the 2006 open seat here showed how difficult it is for a Democrat to win in Tennessee. Also, sons of former political stars do not appear to have a natural boost: When Carter's son ran in the Nevada Senate race against Ensign in 2006, he was hardly noticed by the media or by the netroots and Ensign won re-election easily -- even in that most Democratic of years.

But Democrats could at least force the NRSC to devote some attention and resources to put Tennessee away. And a distracted GOP is considerably weaker.

• Here's one seat that will not open up

Rep. McHugh of NY had been rumored to eye retirement over the past week, which had gotten GOP leaders worried given the number of seats that have already opened up. McHugh won very comfortably in 2006 (with more than 60% of the vote), but Democrats are smelling blood in upstate New York and are looking to pick-up the last few Republicans districts remaining in the state.

The GOP breathed a collective sigh of relief yesterday when John McHugh announced that he had no retirement plans whatsoever: "I have never told anyone otherwise and I have never at any time told anyone I was thinking of retiring and, as the Washington Post put it, ‘wanting to go home...’ My campaign is going forward on those matters necessary to wage another successful effort and when the time comes, we will be ready." At least for the time being, NY-23 remains safely Republican.

Presidential Diary: General election polls and South Carolina ads

• New Mexico leaning Democratic

SurveyUSA keeps on releasing a poll daily this week. And just as it showed yesterday that Iowa was ready to come back to the Democratic column, their new poll indicates that New Mexico might also be looking to switch back to blue:

• Breaking with what we are used to seeing, Clinton leads Giuliani more comfortably than Obama and Edwards do. She wins 51% to 43%.
• Against Thompson, she leads by 11 (53-42) and by 15 against Romney (54-39).
• Obama-Giuliani is the only contest in which the Democrat isn't victorious: There is a 46-46 tie.
• Obama beats Thompson by 11 though (52-41) and Romney by 19 (55-36).
• Edwards wins all three of his contests: He leads Giuliani by 4 (48-44), Thompson by 15 (52-37) and Romney by 20 (54-34)
  

This wave of SUSA polls confirms that the race is the Democrats' to lose, as they are in a great position in most of the states polled -- even in very red Alabama and Kentucky. The two main caveats, of course, are that Republicans are in a position to recover depending on which candidate they nominate; and that the SUSA poll from Ohio has been the one that looked the worst for Dems, and Ohio is still as important as it was in 2004...

• Romney inching up in national poll

Rasmussen polled national general election numbers matching Barack Obama to John McCain and Mitt Romney. Obama leads by 5 against McCain but only by 3 against Romney (46-43). This is quite remarkable given how far behind Romney has been in months. He trailed by 15-points in March and April, and trailed by single-digits for the first time in August, when he was 9 points behind Obama.

Months after starting his rise in Iowa and in New Hampshire, Romney is still struggling to make a splash in national numbers (either in the primary or the general election matchups), mostly because his name-ID remains so low. Is this a sign that the public is starting to pay more attention to the Romney campaign? And that it might be liking what it is saying? The SUSA poll out of Iowa indicated the same thing the other day, as Romney appeared even more competitive than his fellow Republicans in one of the state where voters know him best.

• Clinton's South Carolina ad
  

A few weeks after it started running the "Invisible" ad in the Iowa market, Clinton is now running a variation of that ad as her first radio ad in South Carolina, targeting the key constituency of black women. The ad mentions Hurricane Katrina and the "Corridor of Shame," a stretch of underfunded SC rural schools. You can listen to the ad here. Some excerpts:

If you are a child in a crumbling school along the Corridor of Shame, you ARE invisible to this president.. If you’re a mother without health care, a father without a job, a family that can’t get by on the minimum wage... you’re invisible as well... And if you’re stuck on a rooftop or stranded in the Superdome during a hurricane you’re invisible to this president even when you’re on CNN. Well, you are not invisible to me, and you should never be invisible to the president of the United States.

If Clinton manages to win the vote of African-American women, even by a small margin, she will likely get a win in South Carolina. Recent polls have shown her and Obama neck-and-neck in the black vote, with Clinton having enough of a lead in the white vote to lead in the overall numbers.

Obama has to move those numbers, and he is aware of this: He is also running ads targeting black audiences, and is planning a major grassroots efforts in the state aimed at introducing himself to state voters. His campaign is calling its latest plan "40 Days of Faith and Family." It will organize concerts and Bible study groups to boost his campaign's presence.

Everyone's got something to say about Ahmadinejad's visit

I was going to stay away from discussing the controversy awakened by Ahmadinejad's visit to New York City, by Columbia's invitation to deliver a speech, and by his request to visit Ground Zero. While most presidential candidates had come out blasting Ahmadinejad, emphatically denying that he should be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero and contesting even that he should be allowed to travel to New York City, this all seems an obvious case of campaign trail pandering with no possible relationship to pandering. There is nothing the White House could do about foreign heads of states visiting the UN -- and it would provoke an international outcry if Washington started toying with which world leaders are allowed to travel to NYC.

But the presidential candidates do not seem to care. The Democrats have been mostly tame in their anti-Iran rhetoric. After denying Ahmadinejad a visit to Ground Zero, both Clinton and Obama criticized Columbia's decision to invite the Iranian leader, but both defended Columbia's right to invite whoever it chooses. But apparently worried that she might be portrayed as weak on national security issues, Clinton stepped up her rhetoric today in a statement denouncing Ahmadinejad:

As thousands gather today in New York to decry the hateful and inciteful actions of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I am proud to join them by adding my voice to their efforts. As we know too well, the President of Iran has made a series of incendiary, outrageous comments, questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Israel's right to exist – and exist in safety – must never be put in question. To deny the Holocaust places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. These hateful statements are beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. His request to visit to Ground Zero, the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history — a request that was properly denied —was unacceptable as Iran continues to refuse to renounce and end its support of terrorism...

Republicans have been much more vocal on this issue, clearly wanting to portray the Democrats as weak and gain an advantage on other candidates by driving the point home. Romney in particular has been all over Ahmadinejad's visit. He was the first to blast Clinton's response to Columbia's invitation. He wrote in a statement, "Senator Clinton's refusal to denounce Columbia University for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak demonstrates weakness... Instead of being given a forum for his propaganda, Ahmadinejad should be indicted for incitement to genocide." Romney also took to writing to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, asking him to rescind the UN's invitation to Ahmadinejad and calling for the Iranian president's arrest! He also warns Ki-moon that the US will stop funding the UN if the international body fails to follow his demands... Here is the text of Romney's letter.

To make sure Republican voters know of his commitment to undermining the United Nations, Mitt Romney started running a 60-second radio ad today in Iowa and South Carolina telling voters that he has "led the opposition" to Ahmadinejad's visit. The ad starts with the story of how Romney had also led the opposition to the Harvard visit and speech of former Iranian president Khatami when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts (Romney has visibly no capacity to understand that Khatami was a reformist president intent on reforming his country and reducing the power of the clerics). From the ad:

On the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Harvard University invited former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to Boston. The same Mohammad Khatami who has supported the terrorist group Hezbollah, advocates destruction of Israel and stood by while Jews and Christians were persecuted. The Iranian wanted VIP treatment at taxpayer expense. But Governor Mitt Romney said, 'No.' Governor Romney called the invitation a 'disgrace' and refused to grant Khatami a police escort. Now another Iranian President is visiting America, coming to New York, and Governor Mitt Romney is leading the opposition.

It is very interesting that Rudy Giuliani is also trying to prove his strength on this issue by appealing to an old historical parallel: In 1995, Giuliani expelled Yasser Arafat from a Lincoln Center concert! Many people were appalled at the time and denounced Giuliani's "behavioral problem," but Giuliani is now using that event to bolster his campaign in the wake of the Ahmadinejad controversy.

But the most ridiculous pandering move of all comes today from the NY State Legislature, which may withdraw funding from Columbia to punish it for having invited Ahmadinejad. Democrat Sheldon Silver, speaker of the NY Assembly, blamed Columbia for "attempting to legitimize this individual." He acknowledged that, "We have an obligation because of the U.N. to allow him to come to this country" before adding, "It doesn't mean we have to make him welcome." Other Democrats took similar positions, with Rep. Weiner saying that Columbia's reputation was taking a "serious beating." And then came the warnings, both from city and state officials. From the City Assembly, Dov Hikind said "It's not going to go away just because this episode ends. Columbia University has to know … that they will be penalized." And Silver made a similarly worded threat from Albany:

There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall. Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution.

The options outlined in the article would be reducing the state's contribution to Columbia's financial aid program (for who to better punish than the poorer students who need that money to attend an expensive school like Columbia?), or create obstacles to Columbia's desire to expand into a 17-acre swath of land in West Harlem, for which the school needs the authorization of city officials.

Clinton and Obama dueling with competing endorsements

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are announcing rival endorsements this morning, showcasing the two-way horse race that is most dangerous for the Edwards campaign if it gives the impression he is left out of the game. Especially threatening to John Edwards is that both Clinton and Obama announced union endorsements, which are supposed to be Edward's strong point:

• Obama started it off by announcing he was receiving the endorsement of the NY based Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, a 9000 member-strong union of jail workers. It should be said that this union seems to have an anti-Hillary streak, as it endorsed Rick Lazio in his campaign against Clinton in the 2000 Senate election. While small, this union si the first to endorse Obama.
  
• Clinton replied by rolling out the endorsement of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, a 100 000 member-strong union of masonry workers. Union president John Flynn declared, "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to deliver the chance America needs. After years of an administration that has turned its back on working families, we need a president whose priorities are our priorities." This is the 5th endorsement Clinton has received, making her the Democratic candidate with the highest number of unions supporting her.

Clinton and Obama also exchanged endorsements from political figures. Clinton gets points for the more high-profile supporter, and Obama gets points for having his be a key player in the Iowa caucuses:

• Gordon Fischer, a former Iowa state party chair, is now backing Obama. An equivaleent endorsement in any other state would be viewed as a very minor get, but the Iowa caucuses go for the candidate with the best organization and grassroots mobilization, so that an endorsement like Fisher's, who brings with him his network and connections, is a major structural advantage. Fisher based this laregely on an electability argument:

Like all Democrats I am desperate to win the White House, and I am absolutely convinced Sen. Obama is the candidate who has the best chance against any Republican in the field. "In order to win in a swing state, in a competitive state like Iowa, it's not enough to just get Democrats out. You can't sort of gin up your base. Sen. Obama is best positioned to bring along independents and even some Republicans.

• Clinton's endorsement is not a big surprise, but it is indicative of how likely her nomination appears to many. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who stopped his presidential run earlier in the year, is now backing the NY Senator. Bayh is a very moderate Democrat, and his support is not necessarily a huge help with the Democratic base. However, it allows Clinton to argue that she will be competitive in red states like Indiana and that Democrats there are not afraid to be seen next to her. It will also give her another high-profile campaign surrogate, and secure the party establishment's support.

The Bayh endorsement also emphasizes that the veepstakes have already started on the Democratic side. After Clark's endorsement of Clinton last week and Vilsack's earlier in the year, it is becoming evident that the Democratic heavy-weights with vice-presidential ambitions feel that they can't afford not lining up against Clinton now. Bayh, Visack and Clark are all clearly eyeing the number 2 spot. Mark Warner's jumping in the Virginia Senate race means they have one less major competitor, but also that there is some space now for them to make a move. With this kind of pressure, look for other possible VP picks to soon jump on the Clinton bandwagon -- Will Jim Webb, for example?