A new open seat in the Senate?

Republican Senator Thad Cochran from Mississippi had been on everyone's retirement list at the beginning of the cycle. Then, he started raising significant money and Rep. Pickering, long rumored as Cochran's heir, announced he was retiring from Congress to join the private sector... This was taken as a sure sign that Cochran had told Pickering he was running for re-election, if not Pickering would never have made such an announcement. And as such, Cochran dropped the retirement watch.

Until today. Out of nowhere, The Hill started reporting that Cochran was mulling retirement and that he would announce his decision next week, after the Mississippi state elections. The Hill anonymously quoted two people who said Cochran was leaning towards retirement. And as such, we could have another open seat in the Senate.

While Mississippi is certainly not the tightest of swing states, Democrats believe they would mount a very strong campaign here by running Attorney General Moore, a popular Dem who would definitely make the race competitive. Republicans are likely to turn to Pickering again, though it's unclear how that would work out at this point.

Democrats have had a rough few weeks in Senate news: Kerrey's announcing he would not run made one of the top pick-up opportunities for Dems drop down into likely GOP category, while the strongest Dem candidates declined runs in New Mexico. Now, with a new candidate in North Carolina, the possibility of an open seat in Mississippi, Democrats are looking up again. The DSCC is also pulling all the stops to recruit Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich to run in the Alaska Senate race. His entrance would put Ted Stevens in a lot of trouble, given Stevens's already has to deal with a tightening FBI investigation.

Of the benefits of being the frontrunner

Less than 24 hours after being hammered and attacked from all during the Philadelphia debate, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the benefits of being the frontrunner: You get good news so often (a good poll, an endorsement), that you can change the subject pretty quickly.

• Damage control

To control what can still be controlled after yesterday's debate, Hillary Clinton issued a statement today embracing the Spitzer plan to give illegal immigrants driving licenses. This is a courageous move (Obama is also in favor of it, but did not say a word during the debate yesterday), and one that has could greatly hurt Hillary in the general election... So apparently the Clinton campaign decided that they could not give the impression that they were evading the answer and had to figure out something, and decided to come in favor of it. The Republicans are likely to prepare their ads right now blasting Hillary for this, but good for Hillary for taking a principled stance on this one... though she was forced by circumstances as her rival campaigns kept attacking her today for not giving a straight answer yesterday. Her campaign also released a video called "The Politics of Pile-on" to make her look like a victim... You can watch it here.

• Union endorsement

Clinton got one of the most valuable union endorsements today when the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) announced they would support her. The AFSCME is the second-largest union nationwide, representing 1.4 million workers, and this is obviously a major boost for Hillary. Gerard McEntee, the union president, had some very interesting lines in his speech today, directly referring to yesterday's debate:

We need someone who knows how to fight and knows how to win. Sisters and Brothers, Senator Clinton is a seasoned fighter. Believe me, she knows how to fight and she knows how to win. Some of you may have seen last night’s debate. Six guys against Hillary. I’d call that a fair fight. This is one strong woman.

Obama's campaign immediately and surprisingly went after this endorsement, with the spokesperson saying, "We understand that Gerry McEntee and Bill Clinton have a long and close relationship so the push for a Clinton endorsement is no surprise." It is rare for candidate to question endorsements, but Obama seems to be on attack-mode these days... Whatever the reason behind the AFSCME's decision, there is no question this allowed Clinton to get some relief today and to change the subject at least slightly away from her debate performance and her illegal immigrants answer (though the AFSCME is lobbying in NY to get Spitzer's plan passed, so interesting connection). The big question: Did Clinton time this on purpose (or get the union to announce it today) the day after the debate?

• Clinton trounces Giuliani in new poll

Pew specializes in detailed large sample surveys, and it released today a massive poll with tons of internals. The bottom line: Things look great for Democrats. The poll is particularly important because it surveyed 2000 people (double the usual), including 500 on cell phones, and the margin of error is a small 2.5%. Some highlights:

• Hillary Clinton beats Rudy Giuliani 51% to 43% in a head-to-head match-up, a large margin particularly because Clinton crosses 50%.
• The internals of the match-up are particularly interesting: Clinton leads by 20 points among women, and trails by only 5 among men. There is no doubt that she will be very strong in the general election if she maintains such an edge among women... Remember that Kerry had not managed to do that in 2004, one of the reasons for his loss. Clinton also crushes Giuliani among African-Americans (Giuliani only gets 8%), Hispanics (57-38), and she wins all age-groups! In particular, she leads the 18-30 age groups by a massive 19 points, 59% to 40% (Among women of that age group, Hillary gets 66% to Rudy's 32%!).
  
• The most surprising result is no doubt that Clinton leads in all four regions (East, West, MidWest and South) and that she leads by 11% in the South, her biggest edge! She also does much better than Democrats usually do in rural areas, only trailing by 3 (47-44). Make sure to check all the other internals.
• Another very interesting finding is that 76% of Clinton backers say they are voting "for Hillary" rather than against the Republican (only 20). This is the highest affirmative vote a Democrats has obtained since Pew first asked the question in 1988. The previous high was 66% for Clinton in 1996. As a comparison, only 43% of Kerry voters were voting "for Kerry" in 2004. The reverse holds among Giuliani backers, where 46% are voting "for Giuliani" and 50% "against Clinton" -- once again a record of negative voting for GOPers since 1988. This underscores how much this race is about Hillary Clinton.
  
• A quick look at the nomination numbers: Hillary leads 45% to Obama's 24% to Edwards's 12%. Giuliani is at 31% while McCain has risen back to second place at 18%, ahead of Thompson's 17%. Romney has gone down to 9%, tied with Huckabee who has gone up to 8%.

Morning polls: Fletcher six days away from being crushed

• Kentucky Governor

There was never much suspense in the Kentucky Governor's race. In fact, Democratic challenger Beshear seems to be increasing his massive lead in the closing days of the campaign. SUSA now has him him leading Governor Fletcher 60% to 36%! Certainly not where an incumbent wants to be six days from the election. Fletcher has only reached 40% once in any public poll released over the past few months, and how he is supposed to win with that? SUSA also pits his approval rating at 36%... coincidentally the number he gets in the trial heat!

Don't forget that recent indications are that the GOP's woes in the governor's race and Fletcher's major judicial problems are now spilling over to other races, as the Republican brand in the state seems very damaged. Not only is State Minority Leader polling very weak numbers, but Hillary Clinton is leading Rudy Giuliani in this reliably red state.

• Quinnipiac's new national numbers

Quinnipiac had been kind to Democrats over the past few months, but the GOP is slowly inching back into contention. In the latest poll, Hillary appears a bit weaker in the general election than usual, though not in the primary race. We shall see in the coming days and weeks if yesterday's debate had any impact on the race. Rundown of the numbers:

• In the Democratic primary, Clinton is way ahead with 47%, against 21% for Obama and 12% for Edwards.
• In the Republican primary, Rudy Giuliani is at 27%, with 17% for Fred Thompson and 14% for Mitt Romney.
• Giuliani polls the strongest in the g-e, as he edges out Hillary 45-43 and Edwards 44-41. Obama, however, edges out Rudy 43-42.
• John McCain ties all three Dems, at 44% with Clinton, at 43% with Obama, and at 42% with Edwards.
• Against Thompson, Clinton leads 46% to 41%, Obama 45% to 37%, and Edwards 46% to 36%.
Against Romney, Clinton is up 48% to 38%, Obama is up 46% to 36% and Edwards 47% to 34%.

These are not bad numbers for Democrats, nor for Hillary, who is the only candidate of either field to reach 48% in any match-up. But we have grown used over the past 3 months to see the Democratic candidates leading Republicans, even if the leads are very small. There does have seem to be a small movement back towards the GOP in recent weeks. I'm at a loss to say what exactly happened in the absence of major controversies or of major news.

Philadelphia debate: No more Mike Gravel, and no more of Clinton's laugh

Tonight's debate has been the most engaged of all the debates so far. The quick summary: Clinton attacked Bush; Obama, Edwards and Dodd attacked Clinton; Kucinich attacked everybody; and Biden delivered clever one-liners. The result: Obama and Edwards did what they needed to do, but Clinton (barely) managed to stay afloat... though she opened a door to the GOP on immigration.

Some highlights:

• Barack Obama and John Edwards were all over Hillary Clinton tonight. They needed to attack her strongly considering how much strength she has been building up, and they barely let her breath in the first half of the debate. Most of the attacks came around Clinton's vote in favor of the Iran resolution, and Edwards had the strongest line: "So.. to put pressure on the Bush Administration is ... to vote yes on a resolution that [looked as if it] was written by the neocons? Has anyone read this thing?" And Dodd added, "What you didn’t learn back in '02, you should have learned now."


• Unlike the Dartmouth debate, Barack Obama was much more forceful this time around. He took swipes at Clinton about the Iraq War and about Iran, but it is after Clinton refused to say that she would release the archives paper of her time as First Lady that he turned towards her to say, "This is an example of not turning the page." That was particularly out of character for Obama, as he volunteered an attack and seized on a passing opportunity to jump on Hillary.


• Edwards attacked Clinton more sharply -- perhaps at times doing a bit too much, and repeating his points too often, compared to Obama's harsh but overall more subtle criticisms. He repeatedly linked Clinton to the status-quo, and attacked her for double-talk: "I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time."


• Hillary Clinton was clearly on the defensive throughout the first hour -- how could she not be when she was being attacked this consistently by Obama and Edwards, and also by Chris Dodd? Bill Richardson rescued her, calling upon more civility and less negative attacks, but that was not going to be enough. Hillary managed to not take any baits and answered everything and everyone the best she could. Her main strategy: Take the conversation back to George Bush. She mentioned the president many many more times than anyone else on stage, and she was clearly running against the current Administration and "its cronies." Her message: I am not afraid of Obama and Edwards, and I have more pressing issues to take care of.
  


• Hillary was successful in staying afloat, but we have to wonder whether the attack line on Iran will end up functioning. Obama has his own huge problems on Iran, but Hillary is not attacking him on that -- and ultimately Obama did not vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. It has now been a month since the vote, and Hillary is getting increasingly bad press because of it. Will Obama and Edwards manage to make this stick as proof that Hillary does not have the right judgment to become President, and that she is too beholden to moderation and calculation and hackishness? They have not been able to for now, but if there is one thing they might sink Clinton on, it's this.


• And that brings us to the other main topic that will be remembered from tonight: The Dodd-Clinton back-and-forth on illegal immigration. Asked whether she stood by her statement in a NH newspaper that Spitzer's plan to give undocumented workers driving licenses "made sense," Clinton said it did... When pressed by Chris Dodd who appeared to be one of the only Democrats to oppose the idea, saying a driver's license is a privilege, not a right, Clinton refused to say whether she actually supported the idea -- just that she understood its need. A very weak difference... and Clinton was obviously trying to avoid answering the question. Edwards called her out on this, accusing her of giving two positions in the space of a minute. I personally am more sympathetic to Clinton on this one: No one else on stage defended Spitzer's plan, and Clinton took a huge political risk by saying good things about it. And though she strangely did not endorse it, I am at least glad she recognized that it is a good plan. For Edwards and Obama did not go there...


• Make no mistake about it... you can be sure that the GOP will attack Clinton on this for weeks to come (just look at how much Chris Matthews was obsessed by this in post-debate coverage): the GOP has little to run on in 2008, and immigration is one of the only topics they have left in which they believe the voters trust them and agree with their positions. And the electorate probably strongly disagrees with giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses... so Clinton will be attacked on this very heavily, and this will probably feature in the general election campaign the GOP will run against her if she becomes the nominee.


• And credits to Joe Biden for delivering the most memorable one-liners, as always. This time, it was about Rudy Giuliani: "There are only three things he makes in a sentence... A noun and a verb and 9/11." What is most surprising about this is how little Democratic candidates go after Giuliani... Obama went after Mitt Romney twice, but Democrats are mostly leaving Giuliani aside.


• Meanwhile, Mike Gravel is rightly protesting his exclusion from the debate. He is, after all, a former Senator, and he has served longer than John Edwards.
  

(In case you want to refresh your memory on the Dartmouth debate, here is the rundown).

Senate news: Democrats get a new candidate in North Carolina

• Hagan runs in North Carolina

Democrats finally got an elected official to jump in the race. State Senator Kay Hagan has agreed to run against incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole. Up to now, the only Democrat in the race was investment banker Jim Neal who got in the race two weeks ago. Many are upset that the DSCC redoubled recruitment efforts only when it became clear that Neal was openly gay, but that is definitely unfair. Dole is supposed to be vulnerable, and the DSCC has been trying to find a top-tier candidate for months... and an elected state senator is definitely more competitive than an investment banker. A poll taken in July of a Hagan-Dole race had Dole up 43-27, definitely much ahead by under 50% against a mostly unknown opponent. This definitely remains a long-shot for Democrats, but they can at least try to mount a strong challenge.

• Poll in New Mexico

Martin Chavez, the main Democrat running in the New Mexico Senate race, released an internal poll of the Senate race today, pitting him and Republican Heather Wilson. The poll has the two tied, with Chavez at 41% and Wilson at 40%. This is certainly not that good news for the Democrat... not only can an internal poll never fully be trusted, but everyone noticed that Chavez did not release the numbers pitting him and the other Republican candidate, Steve Pearce, who many now see as the stronger general election competitor. In the first poll of the race released by SUSA last month, Chavez and Wilson were roughly tied but Chavez badly trailed Pearce.

Democrats are probably still looking for another candidate to make this as competitive a race as it should be. There has been some speculation about Rep. Udall jumping back in the Senate race... and there is new speculation now that Bill Richardson might still be considering to jump in the Senate race and out of the Democratic primaries.

ARG polls the early states: Romney and Clinton on top of the world

American Research Group just released its monthly wave of early state polls (IA, NH and SC) for both the Democratic and Republican sides. As always, plenty to look at.

• Democrats

A few hours from the debate, these numbers provide a useful overview of where the race stands. And there is no surprise: Hillary Clinton dominates the race.

• In Iowa, Clinton leads 32% to 22% for Barack Obama. Edwards is continuing his slow decline, coming in at 15%. This is the lowest Edwards has been in in the 11 surveys since December 2006. A month ago, Clinton led 30% to Obama's 24% and Edwards 19%. Richardson is at 7% (down from 10%) and Biden climbs at 5%!
• In New Hampshire, the numbers are unchanged since September. Clinton comes in with 40%, far ahead of Obama's 22% and Edwards's 10%. Richardson goes down to 5%, his lowest level since April.
• In South Carolina, Clinton is more dominant than she has ever been. Last month, she led 41% to 30%. Today, she is still at 41% but Obama is down at 19%, tied with Edwards's 18%. Here too Biden shows some movement, moving up to 6%. Among African-American voters, Clinton is ahead of Obama 39% to 30%.

Could things be any better for Hillary Clinton? Not only is she building big enough leads in New Hampshire and in South Carolina to survive a stumble in Iowa... but she is expanding her Iowa lead, and is coming in consistently ahead in Iowa surveys. Her opponents will have to find a way to get those numbers down in the early states. They are quick to dismiss national numbers as irrelevant, but it is hard to make the same argument with such a collection of early state surveys.

We also seem to be witnessing some shake-up in the lower-tier, with Joe Biden emerging to contest Richardson's role as the possible foil of the top-tier. This has been confirmed by other surveys from IA and NH that have shown Biden rising towards the high single-digits.

• Republicans

I argued yesterday that Giuliani would have a very tough time winning New Hampshire, but that he has to find a way to do survive January. The ARG numbers underscore the extent of the challenge Giuliani faces:

• In Iowa, Romney is ahead, as always, with 27%. But the shocking result is the solid second-place of Mike Huckabee, who comes in at 19% -- ahead of Giuliani's 16%. Then comes McCain at 14% and Thompson at 8%.
• In New Hampshire, Romney is still on top -- and he even reaches 30% for the first time. Giuliani is behind at 23%, followed by McCain at 17%, Huckabee at 7% and Thompson at 5%. However strange the Thompson number might seem, it is in line with other polls we have seen.
• And in South Carolina, ARG once again finds Romney on top, expanding his lead: 29% to Giuliani's 23%, with McCain at 13% and Thompson at 10%. It is worth to point out that ARG is the only institute that has shown Romney ahead in SC.

The trouble for Romney's opponents is that Romney's winning Iowa could ensure that he also wins New Hampshire and South Carolina by giving him such momentum that his opponents could not possibly stop him. Contested Iowa victories lifts candidates who were left for dead into NH triumphs (see Kerry), so imagine what it can do for candidates who are already on top!

The trouble for Giuliani is that he is not even a strong second to Romney, and coming behind Huckabee in IA (and possibly behind McCain in NH) would be quite humiliating. Rudy's hope is that Huckabee's showing becomes the story out of Iowa, taking wind out of the Romney campaign. But as long as Romney wins, that seems to be wishful thinking on part of the Giuliani camp. Then there is always the possibility that Huckabee could win the Iowa caucuses -- it seems more likely at this point than a Giuliani victory. David Yepsen thinks that is very much possible... That could very well save Rudy by making Romney as big a loser out of Iowa than he would be.

Morning Polls: So much for Giuliani's home-state effect

• SUSA polls New York

So much for the boost that Rudy Giuliani is supposed to give Republicans in New York. SUSA's new state poll shows just how strong Hillary Clinton is in her home state, as Giuliani manages to hold her... below 70%!

• Against Rudy Giuliani, Clinton has her smallest advantage... though she still wins 64% to 30%.
• In fact, McCain does about as well as Rudy, since he trails 67-38.
  
• Against Thompson, it's 70-26, roughly similar to her 70-25 against Romney, 72-22 against Huckabee and 72-21 against Ron Paul.
• In further proof that New York is not for Republicans in 2008, SUSA shows that Al Gore would lead Rudy 59% to 38%.

Rudy Giuliani's argument is that he would put NY, NJ and CT in play. Though New York seems out of consideration (to say the least), NJ and CT polls have shown tighter races there.

• GOP should still be stronger in Virginia

A few days after SUSA showed Hillary slightly ahead against Republicans in the usually reliably red Virginia (at least on the presidential level), Rasmussen came out with its own poll of Virginia. A month ago, Rasmussen had Hillary with a small edge against Rudy. Today, Giuliani leads her 46% to 43%. Against Thompson, Hillary is basically tied, trailing 46% to 45%.

These are still great numbers for Hillary, who is not supposed to be this competitive in the state at all. The last time Virginia voted for a Democrat was 1964, and neither Gore nor Kerry ever had any chance here. Hillary is not supposed to be competitive in states like this, say her Democratic opponents, and that she has managed to tie or lead Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in every single Virginia poll that has been out this season shows that these are not outliers, and the GOP will have to sweat it out to keep this must-win state.

• Warner ahead in Virginia

Rasmussen also released the first Senate poll from Virginia since Tom Davis announced he was not running. That left the GOP nomination in the hands of former Governor Jim Gilmore. And as we expected, the seat looks like a sure pick-up for Democrats: Mark Warner leads Gilmore 53% to 37%.

It has to be said, however, that Warner typically has posted bigger leads, coming in sometimes in the 60s. If his lead is indeed approximately 16 percent, Republicans can perhaps hope to bring him down enough to make this competitive. But both Gilmore and Warner are known commodities in the state and the GOP is likely to concede this seat without much of a fight, so don't expect too much fireworks here.

Edwards hits Hillary, but who will benefit most?

John Edwards is stepping up his attacks on Hillary Clinton. Both Barack Obama and him have no choice at this point but to be much more confrontational. Hillary is running away with the nomination, and no amount of money and ad will get her down unless her rivals try some new arguments -- or are willing to take it up a notch. Obama has been promising to do this for weeks now, but he has mostly remained quiet. But today, Edwards delivered a major speech tying Clinton to Washington's culture of corruption. His full speech - entitled "The Moral Test of our Generation" - is available here. Some excerpts:

It is not an accident that the government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people, because it is no longer our people's government — and we the people know it. This corruption did not begin yesterday — and it did not even begin with George Bush — it has been building for decades — until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy...

Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington, and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses...

Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party — more money than any Republican candidate... The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

Edwards's rhetoric is strongly populist, and it should appeal to many in the Democratic base... so why has Edwards not benefited more from this? The main answer seems to be that people are not taking him seriously, or taxing him of hypocrisy. Edwards might simply not be the best candidate for this message -- he was running four years ago after all, so the sudden differences in campaign style are obvious!

Edwards is going after Hillary exactly the way he should be: Attacking her on her main weakness, and on her progressive credentials. She is part of the establishment, and Edwards is reminding voters of that. But the main question now is who will benefit. If Edwards softens Hillary up, will he be the one to take her votes? Or will disillusioned voters rather turn to the politics of hope of Barack Obama? Especially in Iowa, people turn away from negative campaigns (witness Gephardt's self-destruction in 2004), and Obama might benefit from Edwards's attacks.

At the end of the day, however, Obama cannot rely on Edwards to soften up Clinton. The race will come down to Hillary versus an alternative. Obama will have to step it up a notch as well if he wants to take this away from Clinton. There is a Democratic debate tomorrow, let's see if he performs better than at the Dartmouth debate last month. After all, Obama himself said today that the "politics of hope was not about ‘holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya.' "

In other news among Democrats, Obama is still being hurt badly by the controversy over anti-gay gospel singer McClurkin. Though HRC condemned Obama, the event went ahead as planned... and things got worse as McClurkin declared at the event that, "God delivered me from homosexuality." Obama's response was very weak, and his campaign was blasted all day by progressive activists. Prominent blogger Atrios talked about the "audacity of homophobia". This does indeed go at the heart of Obama's all-inclusive philosophy and tolerance of every view in the name of a post-partisan political culture.

And Obama did not endear himself to the base today by running a new ad on Social Security acknowledging that there is a Social Security crisis -- a point Bush made repeatedly in the past few years but that the Left countered. Kos, who has historically been very favorable to Obama, summarized Obama's day thus:

Not a good week for Obama, and it's only Monday. His b.s. about bringing American together is clearly just b.s. His judgment is seriously in question. And now, on a major policy issue, he appears to be adopting right-wing rhetoric. It's a real train wreck.

Giuliani betting on New Hampshire

The Politico is reporting today that Rudy Giuliani will play for the win in New Hampshire. This includes a renewed effort to spend time in the state (he just spent four straight days there) and compete seriously -- whereas until now he seemed to be content with second-place. Giuliani's plan has always been surviving January and waiting for February 5th to pounce in the quasi-natoinal primary day then.

It has long since been obvious, however, that the plan had a glaring flaw: Giuliani cannot survive January that easily. He cannot expect to lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina without his numbers plunging in California, Florida and the other big February 5th states. With Romney set up for an ideal IA-NH double victory and Thompson looking strong in SC, that is the scenario Giuliani is looking to. At least if he could be sure he would be second in all of these state that might make things easier -- but he has no such assurance. He is tied with Huckabee and Thompson for second place in IA, and McCain could very well take it from him in New Hampshire.

So Giuliani seems to have understood he can't survive January without winning SOMEWHERE. Iowa seems pretty much out of the picture at this point, and Giuliani is not strong enough in SC to hope for a win there without momentum from previous victories. So that leaves New Hampshire, where polls show him a very close second behind Mitt Romney. Romney's lead typically vary from 1 to 15 points, though he is consistently ahead.

Thus Giulani is betting that with a strong push there, he could make it happen, and he could come out of NH with a victory. One reason supporting Giuliani's theory is that he has not even started running ads in the state, whereas Romney has already done an intense ad campaign.

If the primary takes place in December, as is possible (we will know in about a week), very well! Giuliani as 5-6 more weeks to cover the state with ads, camp there, and win it away from Romney. But if the primary takes place on January 8th, as is more probable... Giuliani will find a victory extremely difficult.

Romney looks very strong in Iowa, and is likely to come out with a victory in the caucuses on January 3rd. Thus, Romney will have strong momentum coming out of Iowa and heading into New Hampshire -- the kind of momentum that lifts one by a lot (witness Kerry's 20 points jump overnight in 2004). Romney is already leading in New Hampshire. All he has to do from now till January 3rd is stay in contact with Giuliani. Not necessarily be in the lead, just hover somewhere tied or behind Rudy -- that much should be enough for Romney to get back ahead after Iowa votes.

For Giuliani to win New Hampshire he will have to build a significant, large and non-volatile lead by January 3rd... Something that looks very unlikely for now. Even if he manages to get ahead of Romney by airing lots of ad, that support is likely to be weak and non-committed, the kind of support that Dean had in 2004.

So the only way for Rudy Giuliani to win New Hampshire would be to seriously contest Iowa -- many not come out with a win, but place a strong second so that his rise/come-back is THE story out of the Iowa caucuses (after all, everyone expects Romney to win at this point). But this morning's Iowa poll shows Giuliani has a long way to go to make that happen. He would be lucky to barely be second at this point, and he does not appear particularly commited to Iowa.

Romney's great morning: He crushes the field in IA and gets key endorsement in NH

The University of Iowa just released our favorite kind of poll -- one from the Iowa caucuses. The results are not particularly surprising, and confirm what we have seen elsewhere:

• Among Republicans, Mitt Romney crushes the field with 36.2%, with a three-way tie for second far far behind: Rudy Giuliani at 13.1%, Mike Huckabee at 12.8%, Fred Thompson at 11.4%. John McCain comes in fifth at 6%.
• Among Democrats, Clinton at 28.9% and Obama at 26.6% are pretty much tied for first, while Edwards is falling behind with 20%. Richardson is no longer in the double digits, at 7.2%, and Biden is rising above the last-tier (as we have seen in other polls) at 5.3%.

Before you put too much stock in this poll, however, read this warning from Pollster.com that explains why the likely voter screen of U of Iowa poll are much looser than any other polling institute, so that many people are polled here that will likely not go to the caucuses -- something which probably hurts John Edwards if anyone, since he has the most support among regular caucus goers and motivated voters.

A few quick notes. Interesting to note that Hillary's edge is coming entirely from women, among whom she gets 33%. Among men, Clinton comes in third with 22%. We see, once again, that Iowa is the state in which Clinton might stumble -- she is strong everywhere else, and will remain so unless she slips here. Obama and Edwards are definitely in a position to make that happen. Among Republicans, Romney is in an incredible position and has to keep this going. The fight is and will likely remain for second place, though it really might not matter if the three come so close to each other. Huckabee would get a huge boost out of second-place showing, and Giuliani might take a huge hit to his frontrunner status if he does not come in second.

Also noteworthy -- the Iowa Democrats are now set on January 3rd for sure. I reported this last week but there was still a chance they might have changed their mind. No longer.

• Key endorsement for Romney in New Hampshire

Judd Gregg, NH's senior Senator, just endorsed Mitt Romney. This is great news for the Romney campaign -- albeit not a great surprise since Gregg had long been a fan of Romney's. This means that Romney got good news in one morning from both Iowa and New Hampshire, underscoring exactly why he is in such a great position. Favored to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is successfully following the classic model of winning presidential primaries and setting himself up for a one-two punch in Iowa and in New Hampshire. That would put him immediately in the driver's seat, with all other candidates scrambling to survive until February 5th.

• Rasmussen continues to show Rudy's rise

In another poll released this morning, Rasmussen shows Giuliani's rise once again. Yesterday, he showed Rudy up nine points against Clinton going from a 7 points deficit to a two point lead in two weeks. Today, Rasmussen shows Rudy up 10 points on John Edwards. A month ago, Edwards led by 9% (he led by 8% two months ago). Today, Rudy Giuliani is up 45% to 44%. But Edwards keeps his lead against Fred Thompson, 48% to 39%.

Ten days ago, the 3 Dems led all 12 match-ups against the 4 Reps. One by one, Rasmussen is peeling these away. Now Rudy is leading against Clinton and Edwards, and Mccain against Obama.

Evening roundup: Dodd continues courting the base, Democrats courting Udall

Chris Dodd has emerged as quite a surprise in the Democratic primary. I first mentioned his remarkable move to the Left at the beginning of September when he announced his support for lifting the embargo on Cuba. Dodd followed that up by leading on the issue of Iraq throughout September, being the first presidential candidate to announce he would oppose any bill that would not set firm deadline for withdrawal. Then came his promise to filibuster the FISA bill if the immunity for telephone companies is maintained. And today, Chris Dodd further satisfied the Democratic base by announcing he will oppose the confirmation of Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Democrats are not fully opposing Mukasey. The nominee, after all, was recommended by Democrat Chuck Schumer as someone who would be acceptable to Democrats. But Mukasey's refusal to straight-forwardly rule out torture and waterboarding is not matching up with the picture of a law-abiding constitution-respecting Muckasey, so Dodd's latest move will make a lot of people happy. From Dodd's website:

Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States. We have seen for too long, and at great expense to our national security, an Administration that has systematically attacked the rule of law and turned our Justice Department into a political wing of the White House. I'm afraid that Mr. Mukasey as Attorney General would be more of the same.

Dodd has been unablbe to get much traction from this, still registering at 1 or 2% in national and state polls. He is, however, fast rising in the hearts of the netroots -- he came in second in DailyKos's October straw poll (21% of 6000 individual voters), behind Edwards and in front of Obama.

• Will Democrats get Udall in New Mexico?

Democrats are still trying to convince Rep. Tom Udall to jump in the New Mexico Senate race. The Washington Post reports today on grassroots efforts to draft him in -- though there is no mention of any similar effort by the DSCC. The article leave open the possibility that Udall might be convinced to change his mind. Recruitment efforts have been mixed in the state for Dems since Domenici announced his retirement. The two most competitive Dems (Richardson and Udall) declined to run, leaving Albuquerque Mayor Chavez alone in the race. The only poll of the race out last month had Udall crushing Republicans Pearce and Wilson, but both Republicans beating Chavez. With progressives being very uncomfortable with Chavez's candidacy, Udall's entrance would immediately improve Democratic prospects in the race.

Morning polls: Is Mitch McConnell really that vulnerable?

The Kentucky Senate race is currently rated 15 on my senate rankings. I was preparing to move it up a few slots, but that was more because of other races looking much less competitive than because I believed the situation in KY had changed significantly. But a new poll out today -- the first I have seen testing actual match-ups -- suggests that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is in for a tough fight.

The poll, ordered by Herald-Leader/Action News 36, is an independent survey, not a Democratic fantasy, and the numbers are show the extent of the Republican weakness:

• Mitch McConnell's disapproval rating for the first time exceeds his approval rating: 46% to 45%. A small difference, but a significant shift for a man who used to be very popular in his state. SUSA monthly polls have a similar finding, as McConell's approval dropped from 60% in February to 41% this month.
• Rep. Chandler, who unsuccessfully ran for Governor in 2003, is within 5 points of McConell: 46% to 41%. Only trouble, Chandler has made it very clear he has no intention of running.
• But no reason to panic for Democrats, for three Democrats who are strongly considering the race are also very strong: State Auditor Luallen, who is up for re-election in 10 days and has not ruled out a run, is also within 5 points: 45% to 40%.
• Attorney General Stumbo, who is the most likely to jump in the race (he has an explanatory committee and is looking to decide within the next few weeks) is behind 46% to 37%.
• And in perhaps the best sign that McConnell is vulnerable, he only leads by 11 against a veteran of the Iraq War, Horne, who is mostly unknown.

Most revealing, of course, is that McConnell cannot cross 50% against any candidate. Being under 50% is supposed to be a sign of vulnerablity for an incumbent, as undecideds tend to break for challengers, but failing to gather a majority against unknown candidates is definitely a sign something is wrong. The most likely explanation is that McConnell is being Dashle-ized. His new partisan position in DC is having a bad impact on his image back home. Reid is suffering from the same phenomenon in Nevada, but he is not up for re-election until 2010.

This is as much a sign of the weakness of Kentucky Republicans than of McConnell's personal vulnerability. GOP Gov. Fletcher is about to lose in a landslide in ten days, and devastating ads like this one are hurting the GOP brand dramatically by reminding voters of the extent of Fletcher's corruption. And Hillary should not be a weight on the ticket if she is the nominee, given recent polls that actually have her ahead in the state!

• Rasmussen has bad news for Clinton

Two weeks ago, Rasmussen had Clinton leading Giuliani by 7 and Thompson by 15 in its national poll. This confirmed the previous polls Rasmussen had taken, as well as other polls by other institutes that showed Clinton inching ahead of Giuliani in national match-ups. But today's Rasmussen numbers are a dramatic turnaround: Giuliani now leads Clinton 46% to 44%, and Clinton is only ahead of Thompson 47% to 45%. Yes, those are only one set of numbers, but the trendline is not good. Though Rasmussen points out that over the past 6 weeks of polling, Clinton leads Giuliani 47% to 44% and Thompson 49% to 41%. The other bottom line: Until last week, the three major Democrats led all twelve match-ups against the four major Republicans in the latest Rasmussen polls. Now, two such "last match-ups" favor the Republicans: Obama-McCain and Clinton-Giuliani.

Fiscal conservatives rallying against Huckabee

The dominant story of the past few weeks in the GOP race has been the Religious Right's crusade against Rudy Giuliani. But an equally interesting dynamic is developing around the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Business conservatives are very hostile to Huckabee and see in him an economic populist guilty of having raised taxes and hurting free trade while governor.

Naturally, Huckabee is still a long shot for the nomination. He is raising in state polls and some national polls, but he has absolutely no money and still remains far behind the frontrunners. But Huckabee is at the very top of vice-presidential prospects -- especially if the presidential nominee is Giuliani. Thus, business conservatives are stepping in to deflate Huckabee's momentum and portray him as unacceptable.

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund recently wrote a very negative piece on Huckabee, making the case that Huckabee is embracing liberal policies. Fund quotes an Arkansas businessman rehashing Huckabee's faults: "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate."

Now, the Club for Growth has jumped in as well. Its very influential president Pat Toomey wrote an op-ed in the National Review exposing Huckabee's "stunning record of big-government liberalism," protectionism and support for unions. He explains that "the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent" and that "state spending increased by 50 percent." Toomey concludes, "In 2006, Republicans paid a steep price for big-government conservatism’s record-setting domestic spending spree. That is a lesson we should take to heart as we consider the choices facing us in 2008."

The most threatening argument was voiced by leading RedState blogger Erick:

While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right — stem cells, judges, etc. The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. Huckabee breaks the coalition more than Giuliani because the socons fear Hillary more than the fiscalcons do.

How much would a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket calm all these concerns? By balancing an economically conservative social moderate with a socially conservative economic moderate, would it save the Republican coalition, or just anger everyone? Recent weeks have taught us that talk of breaking the coalition is mostly empty talk, and that social conservatives are not ready to bolt out of the GOP -- just as fiscal conservatives probably are not. Thus, a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket would outwardly satisfy everyone. But in an election where the GOP base is already depressed and disillusioned, it might drive everyone's enthusiasm even lower -- giving Democrats an invaluable motiation advantage.

What is up with Virginia?

Survey USA just released presidential numbers from Virginia, and the numbers are more than encouraging for Clinton:

• She only trails against John McCain -- and does so by a lot: 52% to 42%.
• She wins all her other match-ups, 47%-46% against Giuliani, 51% to 43% against Thompson, 51% to 41% againt Romney, 52% to 38% against Huckabee, 54% to 35% against Ron Paul.
  

Survey USA's new Virginia poll is the third poll in two months that has Hillary Clinton leading Rudy Giuliani and most other major Republicans in the traditionally GOP state. This is last month's SurveyUSA poll, in which Edwards also leads Republicans. And this is the September Rasmussen poll that has Clinton up on Rudy.

Virginia is supposed to be turning purple for sure -- witness the back-to-back victories of Gov. Kaine and Sen. Webb in 2005 and 2006, but it is still a Southern state that has voted reliably Republican. The last time a Dem carried Virginia was Johnson in 1964, very different circumstances. And of all the people who are supposed to be putting it in play now, Hillary Clinton is not supposed to be one of them. Interesting that there has been no evidence up till now that Hillary Clinton is radioactive material in the South -- polls have found her leading in Kentucky, Arkansas, tied in Tennessee, competitive in Alabama, leading in Virginia. Edwards and Obama also posted good numbers in many of these polls, proving that Democrats will likely be very competitive in states in which Gore and Kerry did not even try. And most interestingly, these Southern states are polling more consistently in favor of Democrats than are Ohio and Florida!!!

And a word also on John McCain, who is very consistently the strongest Republican candidate. The numbers out of Virginia indicate that is not a factor of name recognition (Rudy is very well-known as well), but of personal popularity -- that is the only way of explaining why he outpolls Giuliani by 10 and all other Republicans by 20.

• New Hampshire primary

Rasmussen also has a new poll from the New Hampshire Democratic primary. It has Clinton leading 38% to Obama's 22%, followed by Edwards at 14%. Richardson, who is stalling after a fast rise to double-digits, is tied with... Kucinich at 7%. These numbers are actually encouraging for Obama, as he was led by much more in the last Rasmussen poll from New Hampshire. Without reading too much into one set of number, Clinton had ben increasing her NH lead by the poll from a weak single-digits edge in early summer to massive leads in the past two months. Obama has stopped the bleeding and is still very much in a position to overtake her if things go well in Iowa. 16 New Hampshire points is no insurmountable lead.

Giuliani neutralizing the wrath of the Religious Right

More stunning than the Religious Right's determination to oppose Rudy Giuliani at all costs has been the speed with which the Giuliani campaign has managed to push back against that threat. The issue was both Giuliani's acceptability to conservatives (as it would remind voters of his moderate views on social issus) and his electability (for he would have trouble winning the general election if evangelicals abandon him). But it appears the tide has been turning.

First came the positive comments of Family Research Council Tony Perkins last week. Perkins was among the most vocal anti-Rudy conservative leaders, but he said he was satisfied with Rudy's new position on gay rights. Then, a prominent South Carolina religious figure who had endorsed Romney backtracked and announced he was staying out of politics -- apparently because of the controversy that his endorsement provoked among South Carolina pastors. And today, conservative attorney James Bopp, who is working hard to rally conservatives behind Mitt Romney, acknowledged the third-party threat was not very serious: "I don't think the idea of a third party is being seriously considered by anyone." And why is that? "I'm not prepared to surrender in the war on terror and have terror attacks on major cities in the U.S."

But the most stunning story is Sam Brownback's very public flirtation with Rudy Giuliani. After withdrawing from the race last week, Brownback agreed to meet with Giuliani -- prompting speculation that he might endorse the former Mayor. This is truly shocking given that Brownback wants to be a leader of the social conservative movement, and that getting behind Rudy would hurt his credibility with the Religious Right given their hostility towards Guiliani. But Brownback does not seem to care. He had big fights with Romney throughout the campaign, so we have to keep that in mind. After meeting Rudy, Brownback absolved him of the sin of pro-choiceness: "I understand the mayor’s position. Whether it’s funding [or] appointments on the court, I’m much more comfortable with that.”

A Brownback endorsement would be a major get for Rudy Giuliani. It would certainly not ensure that social conservative rallied behind his candidacy, but it would give him significant cover. How much could the Religious Right rally its troops with Giuliani campaigning alongside one of the major figures of social conservatism? Giuliani is not after winning the Religious Right vote, he just wants to neutralize them to make sure they don't openly oppose him. And he seems close to achieving that goal, just as he seems to have gotten it from the NRA -- an unthinkable result a few weeks ago.

Morning polls: Clinton solid in New Jersey, Oregon

• Romney still ahead in New Hampshire
  

A day after the St. Anselm College poll had Mitt Romney up 10 in New Hampshire, Rasmussen comes up with a poll with similar results: Romney leads with 28%, following with Rudy Giuliani's 19% and John McCain's 16%. Mike Huckabee confirms his strength in early states by polling at 10%, far ahead of Fred Thompson's 6%.

The most instructive number here is almost Thompson's. Yesterday, he came in behind Ron Paul! Does Thompson really expect to pass on Iowa and New Hampshire (as NH newspapers have accused him of doing) and suddenly strike in South Carolina? This strikes me as even more problematic a strategy than Giuliani's "January survival." At least Giuliani can hope to come in second in both Iowa and New Hampshire, keeping himself alive to fight another day. If Thompson comes in third-fourth in Iowa, and then third to fifth in New Hampshire, how much will he have left in him to carry on to the South?

• New Jersey likes Clinton and Giuliani
  

Rutgers's new poll of New Jersey confirms what we have seen repeatedly from the tri-state area. Rudy Giuliani would make it much more competitive than usual, and only Clinton, also from the area, would meet his home-base appeal. And of NY, CT, and NJ, the latter has often been the most difficult for Clinton, as Giuliani has often tied even her in the Garden State. This new poll at least brings good news for Democrats, as Hillary Clinton leads Giuliani 49% to 39%. On the other hand, Giuliani leads Barack Obama 44% to 41%. Both Giuliani and Clinton crush their field's primary, which is to be expected there, so I will pass on reporting the numbers.

• Clinton ahead in Oregon
  

SUSA's daily poll today is of Oregon, a very tight swing state that has not always been easy for Democrats. But Clinton appears solid in this round of numbers:

• She leads Giuliani 50%-45% and McCain 49-44%. While both leads are small, she at least reaches or gets close to the 50% threshold.
• She has much bigger leads against other GOPers: 54% to 40% against Thompson, 57% to 37% against Romney, and 56% to 36% against Huckabee.
  

All enough for Democrats to not panic about the state (there is much more to worry about in, say, New Jersey), but not enough to put it in the bag, especially if the supposedly more moderate Republicans win the nomination.

• North Carolina Senate
  

Speaking of useless polls, Rasmussen has released a survey of NC Senate... that only matches up Senator Dole with Governor Easley, who is not running. NC has been a recruitment disaster for Dems, and at least the poll shows just how much Democrats are missing on: Easley leads Dole 50% to 42%. His entry could have made this race a top-notch pick-up priority, whereas now it is probably going to not even be really competitive. Maybe the DSCC can give a call to Easley again?

North Carolina and Nebraska Dems looking for a candidate, CA GOP looking to get rid of one

• Recruitment failures in North Carolina and Nebraska
  

Democrats are particularly unhappy with the state of the race in North Carolina. They believe Dole is very vulnerable, but they have been unable to find a strong candidate to oppose her after countless recruitment failures (Gov. Easley the most notable). Now, the only candidate in the race is investment banker Jim Neal. While a poll yesterday found him trailing Dole by only 15% and holding her under 50%, national Democrats are unlikely to pay much attention to a Dole-Neal match-up and want another candidate to jump in. At this point, any elected official would do the trick. And it looks like they might succeed, as state Senator Kay Hagan (who had passed on the race earlier) is reconsidering.

Meanwhile in Nebraska, Democrats are still recovering from Bob Kerrey's refusal to join the open seat race -- and trying to find another candidate. Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey would be their preferred choice, as he appears to be the only one that could make this race competitive (though he would definitely start as an underdog against former Governor Johanns). Today, the Omaha World-Herald reports that Fahey will decide within 30 days, but that he is not enthused at all by run. If Fahey declines, Dems would be left asking Steve Kleeb, a young democrat who ran a competitive House race in 2006. Kleeb would make the race interesting, but would hardly be a match for Johanns.

• Doolittle investigation stepping up

A few days after the first Republican congressman called for Doolittle to retire, the plot thickens in CA-04. The chief administrator of the House has been issued a subpoena of e-mails relating to Doolittle, in a sure sign that the investigation into Doolittle's ties to Abramoff is picking up steam. This would definitely give fodder to the Republican leadership that is trying to get Doolittle to retire. CA-04 is very Republican, so an open seat would favor the GOP. But Doolittle would surely lose his re-election race. Doolittle has said for now he will run again for sure -- but how much longer can he hold on in the face of these revelations?

• New Democrat in IL-06, one less in NM-01
  

Patricia Madrid, the Democratic nominee in NM-01 in 2006 who lost by 861 votes to Heather Wilson, will not run again in 2008. The former state Attorney General was rumored first for the open Senate seat, and then for the open House seat -- but she is staying out of it this cycle. It is unclear how much this hurts Democratic chances, as the party still has a strong candidate (Martin Heinrich) -- but Madrid is definitely the better-known and probably the stronger of the two. At least this means that the Democratic primary will be less divisive than at first thought.

Meanwhile, the DCCC is looking to compete in IL-06 against freshman Republican Peter Roskam. This was one of the most expansive races in 2006, as the DCCC wasted millions in supporting Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth who was running without the support of local activists. Roskam won with 51%. This time, the Democrats are fielding... another veteran, Jill Morgenthaler. This looks for now as a sure recipe for a replay of 2006. Morgenthaler was the Army's press contact during the Abu Graib scandal... not the best way for the DCCC to endear itself to local liberal activists.

Calendar news: Iowa Dems pick date, while Florida Dems hurt themselves

• Iowa on January 3rd

So much for speculation that Iowa Democrats would pick a different day than Iowa Republicans to hold their caucuses. The GOP had already set its date as January 3rd, but Dems looked to be eyeing January 5th. But news broke today that the state party is about to formally decide to hold the caucuses on January 3rd. There is still a small chance that this might be reversed at the actual meeting on Sunday, but it seems unlikely. So Iowa caucuses will be held on the same night for both parties -- certainly a disappointment for political junkies who were excited about two Election Days.

This still leaves South Carolina and Michigan eyeing two primary days, however. More importantly, this could have a major influence on the date of the New Hampshire primary. One of the main reasons why Garder might move the primary to December is that Democratic candidates would only be in the state for 2 days if Iowa voted on the 5th, which would mean that the nation's attention would only be centered on his state for two-three small days. With Iowa finishing it all off on the 3rd, Garder might feel that 5 days is acceptable enough that New Hampshire can be on January 8th. Though there would still be two problems: Michigan's threat to move the day of the NH primary, and the Nevada and Wyoming caucuses.

• Democrats hurting in Florida

Republicans have been eager to seize on the controversy between the DNC and Florida Democrats (who are threatening to sue the national party if it strips it of delegates) to encourage Florida Dems to switch parties. While the RNC will also sanction Florida, it will not be the same scale. Today, a new Quinnipiac poll suggests that Democrats might indeed be hurting: a full 22% of voters say the calendar controversy is making them less likely to vote for the Democratic nominee next year! And this reflects itself in the general election match-ups:

• Clinton now trails Giuliani 46-43. In the last Quinnipiac poll a few weeks ago, she led by the same margin. She only leads by a point against McCain (44-43), by 5 against Thompson (46-41), by 9 against Romney (49-37).
• Giuliani does well against the other Dems, beating Obama 47-40 (it was 42-39 last month) and Edwards 44-41.
• Obama also ties McCain at 42, defeats Thompson 43-39 and Romney 44-37. Edwards beats McCain 42-40, Thompon 47-36 and Romney 48-34.

Florida and Ohio are two states Democrats are dying to win -- and they are the two red states from 2004 that are moving the least in Democrats's direction in polls! Virginia, Iowa, Missouri... all are more consistently blue now than Ohio and Florida are, which is rather strange. And it certainly seems that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with the calendar controversy.

Morning polls: Everything as usual in New Hampshire

• Romney, Clinton ahead in New Hampshire

I believe we have not seen a New Hampshire primary poll for a little while, so it's good to see some confirmation that nothing has changed and that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney still have the edge in this St. Anselm College poll:

• Among Democrats, Hillary leads 43% to Obama's 22% and Edwards's 14%.
• Romney leads the Republican pack with 32.5% versus Giuliani's 22%. McCain comes in third at 15% followed not by Thompson but by... Ron Paul who gets 7.5%!

Hillary Clinton's lead is of course particularly strong. Before people compare her to Howard Dean, consider that her support is more entrenched. People know Clinton in a way they did not know Dean, and her campaign is so much more organized she is not likely to let her lead evaporate in a day. Furthermore, as I have shown time and time again, Obama used to be much closer throughout the year and started a slide that left him systematically 20 points behind earlier this summer. So his being so far behind is not a reflection of low name recognition, for that wouldn't explain the negative trendline.

On the Republican side, this is what Romney absolutely needs -- and it could very well get him the nomination. He is still leading in Iowa convincingly, and if he stays semi-this-strong in NH until then a caucus victory would ensure he carries the momentum to NH and wins there. If NH votes before Iowa, well, then Romney would have to work harder since his NH lead is usually weaker and less consistent. But if it pulled it off, even in December, it would give him a ton of press at an ideal time and raise his name recognition dramatically, guaranteeing that he can compete everywhere in January. As for the other candidates -- Giuliani MUST place second in both IA and NH if he wants his "surviving January strategy to work," Thompson would be out of the race in a heartbeat if he is fifth in NH, and McCain is lurking behind.

• Hillary has no trouble in Minnesota

The latest SUSA poll is one of Minnesota's general election, and Hillary Clinton has nothing to worry about:

• As most of the polls we have seen, McCain is the strongest, but he still trails 50% to 43%. Clinton leads Giuliani 50% to 41%.
• Clinton stunningly crushes the other Republicans 57% to 37% against Thompson, 57% to 34% against Romney, 60% to 30% against Huckabee and 61% to 28% against Ron Paul.

Remember, Minnesota is not a strong blue state anymore. Bush competed here very heavily and Minnesota remained a very close swing state throughout the election. For Clinton to get as high as 57% even major Republicans, even if they are not well-known, is stunning and might testify to Minnesota's turning away from Republicans that started massively in 2006 (when Klochubar won a Senate open seat that was supposed to be very competitive against the best the GOP had to offer by 20 points). Senator Coleman better watch out.

• Hillary has national leads

The Cook Political Study/RT Strategies released a national general election poll yesterday that shows slightly Hillary Clinton expanding her lead. She leads Giuliani 43% to 39%, and Thompson 46% to 37%. In an interesting phenomenon also observed in the other day's LA Times poll, Hillary Clinton rallies her base slightly better than Giuliani does -- people have to remember that being such a "polarizing, divisive" figure also has its benefits.

Also, their leads might be within the margin of errors sometimes, but the consistency with which Democrats now lead all Republicans in trial heats is remarkable. Whether the LA Times poll, this poll, the last Rasmussen poll, Clinton is opening up a gap between her and Giuliani.

Democrats looking for some good news in congressional races

The tide has turned in recent weeks in congressional races, with a series of good news for Republicans: The Republicans have done good recruiting in New Mexico, while Democrats are not doing well there or in North Carolina. Bob Kerrey is not running in Nebraska, Allen is far behind Collins in Maine, Davis is not running in Virginia Senate and seemed to fall back to the House race, etc...

News this afternoon could potentially open the door to congressional Democrats smiling again. First off, speculation increased that Tom Davis of Virginia was preparing to announce a retirement from the House, as both Roll Call and Robert Novak hinted that such an announcement could be imminent. For the man who two months ago was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for the Senate seat he had been waiting for for years, it is certainly not easy to suddenly find yourself in the House again... Davis retiring would automatically make his race one of the very very top pick-up opportunities for Democrats.

Also noteworthy tonight is the first poll from North Carolina testing Jim Neal. The result is as good as it could possibly have been given that Neal is a total unknown statewide: Elizabeth Dole leads her Democratic challenger 47% to 32%. A 15% gap only is as good news as Democrats can get given the match-up, and the fact that Dole is under 50% does mean that she is very vulnerable. Neal could possibly move those numbers his direction a bit, but he is obviously starting far far behind... and we shall see how much national Democrats are willing to help him. That Chuck Shumer did not manage to get any elected official in this state is really unfathomable.

Finally, Democrats leaked a poll taken over the summer in Tom Feeney's Florida district. Only 23% of voters say Feeney deserves re-election. His approval rating is at 36%. And while he led a match-up with Democrat Kosmas by 20 points, the Democrat was known by only 19% of voters -- with the DCCC putting this list on its targeted seats list, you can expect Kosmas's lack of name-ID to drop and this race to be very competitive.

Calendar gets even more messy

If this is even thinkable at all, the primary calendar is getting more messy. Michigan Democrats now have a new plan: Make their contest a caucus, and move it to whatever day New Hampshire holds its primary. This is pushed in particular by Senator Levin, who has always been particularly eager to destroy Iowa and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation role.

The problem with this plan is that the NH primary will be scheduled quasi at the last minute by Secretary of State Gardner. He does have to schedule it early enough for the ballots to be ready and polling places to prepare... which would probably be a four-week span. So Michigan will have trouble scheduling itself the same day as NH, but it can venture a guess and see what happens. If anything, this development increases the odds that Garder will wait until the second week of November and announce a December primary. He even told the Politico today it could go as early as December 4th!

Meanwhile, the RNC added a twist by sanctioning all 5 early voting states, i.e. including NH and SC. The DNC is not sanctioning these two but granting them exceptions instead. This has prompted an angry reaction from Republicans from those two states, in particular from NH Senator Gregg. Gregg just announced he would no longer participate in a fundraiser for the NH Republican Party because the RNC Chairman who punished the state was also scheduled to appear.

For those trying to keep track, we now have three states (IA, MI, SC) in which Democrats and Republicans could hold different voting dates. Here is where thing stand now:

• New Hampshire: Primary on Dec. 4th, Dec. 11th, or January 8th. If Gardner goes for December, the state parties might dump the primary and go for January caucuses which they can control.
• Iowa: GOP set on January 3rd. Democrats likely on January 5th.
• Michigan: GOP primary on January 15th. Democrats could stay there, or jump to an earlier (December?) caucus.
  
• Nevada: GOP and Democratic caucus on January 19th.
  
• South Carolina: GOP primary on January 19th. Democratic primary on January 26th.

As for how this all affects the primaries, it is now impossible to predict anything. The bottom line is that the earliest the voting starts the better for the frontrunners, so for Hillary Clinton in particular. In the Republican race, it is unclear who this would favor since Romney's NH lead is particularly fragile, and Romney probably wants to start things off on January 3rd with Iowa.

Presidential Diary: Why does Steven Colbert draw more votes form Republicans?

• Clinton strong in Wisconsin

SurveyUSA came out with a new poll from Wisconsin today. Wisconsin voted against Bush twice, but by the narrowest of margins. Bush led in the state for much of the campaign in 2004 -- so this is definitely not a sure bet for Democrats next year. But Clinton appears strong for now:

• Clinton only leads McCain by 1% (46-45), this is the closest margin.
• She leads Rudy Giuliani 48% to 41%, Thompson 53% to 41%, Romney 52% to 38%, Huckabee 54% to 35%, and Ron Paul 54% to 33%. The Paul-Clinton match-up is always useful because it provides an idea of the "safe GOP" vote no matter what.
  

Clinton has improved her position since last month's poll -- in which she actually ran a bit better than Obama and Edwards. And once again, we discover with this poll that John McCain is by far the strongest Republican in the general election. This is a very consistent result in SUSA polls this past week.

• Union endorsements coming

It seems that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are about to get some good news. Edwards -- who has already been endorsed by many state SEIUs (Iowa, California most notably) -- appears ready to receive the support of the New Hampshire SEIU. This is significant because only local SEIUs that are helping Edwards would then be allowed to come in Iowa and New Hampshire to help out Edwards -- which could certainly be a boost for his campaign.

Clinton could compensate this with the help of the AFSCME, a major union with 1.4 million members, that could endorse Clinton nationally as early as next week. Newsweek's Howard Fineman explains why this is a result of the Clintons power machine, since the AFSCME president has ties with Bill Clinton going back to 1992. Clinton has done a remarkably good job at getting union endorsements when John Edwards has done such an extensive job at courting them. At the end of the day, unions seem to believe Clinton's nomination is too inevitable to be bet against, and Edwards is suffering from his third-place in the polls.

• Rasmussen polls Colbert

Steven Colbert is talking lately about a satirical run at the White House, and Rasmussen just polled possible three-way races. This is a really sill poll that I would not report if it wasn't for a very strange result: Colbert's entry in the race makes Clinton's victory margin bigger, implying that Colbert draws more votes from Republicans! How is that possible, given Colbert's liberal-lean and the fact that most of his votes are from 18-29 year olds ? In one match-up, Clinton gets 45% to Giuliani's 35% and Colbert's 13%.

Rasmussen notes that Colbert gets 28% of 18-29 year olds in this match-up, more than Giuliani does! Same in the race with Thompson. It thus appears that young Republicans are abandoning their party for Colbert. Is this a reflection on the fact that they do not want to vote for the Republican after 8 years of Bush, but are weary of voting for a Democrat, so they jump on whoever runs as a three-way candidate? For it is striking how Colbert gets the same range of numbers than Bloomberg did when he was tried, or that a "third-party religious candidate" is polling. All three-way races, whoever the third party candidate, shows an increased lead for Democrats.

If true, this hypothesis suggests just how frustrated Republican voters are, and their lack of enthusiasm. The GOP will have to remedy this big time if they want to win in 2008.

Huge blow to Senate Democrats: Bob Kerrey not running for Senate

We had been waiting for his decision for months. We now have it, and it is not what Democrats wanted to hear: Former Senator Bob Kerrey announced he will not run for the Nebraska open seat next year.

Kerrey had hinted much of the past few months that he might jump in if Senator Hagel retires -- only to start hesitating once the time came to make a decision. Republicans have their strongest candidate in the race: Former governor Johanns, a popular figure who resigned from the Bush Cabinet to make this race.

Kerrey has never lost a statewide race in Nebraska, winning many terms both as governor and senator, and he would have started at worse in a toss-up against Johanns. The prospect of him running had Democrats salivating at the thought of picking up the seat unexpectedly, a sure help if they want to approach 60 seats. Are last Senate rankings had Nebraska ranked fourth, at the top of the toss-up list.

The seat is sure to drop in the next rankings. Without Kerrey in the race, Johanns starts as the overwhelming favorite. Democrats still have some hope of getting Omaha Mayor Fahey in the race. He is also popular in the state, and there is no doubt he could mount a very competitive race. But does he have enough to beat a popular Republican in a very very red state in a presidential year? Sounds doubtful, but Nebraska would stay on our radar. A slip-up by Johanns could make it all tied up.

Recent news has not been kind to Senate Democrats: Kerrey's refusal to run, the first Maine poll having Collins up 23 against Allen, GOP candidates emerging in NJ, extremely poor recruitment in North Carolina... The road to 60 seats had opened up a few weeks ago, it appears that it is now closing again.

Presidential Diary: LA Times poll and the McClurkin controversy

• Obama's dilemma

The Obama campaign is coming under very heavy fire for scheduling gospel singer Donnie McClurkin for a concert in support of Obama this week-end in South Carolina. McClurkin holds evangelical views on matters of homosexuality -- in particular that homosexuality is a choice, and gay rights groups are urging Obama to cut ties with McClurkin.

Obama is cut in a bind here: On the one hand the need to not anger gays, a powerful constituency of the Democratic base. The last thing Obama want is a reputation as an anti-gay candidate (Richardson already fills that niche in the Democratic race). On the other, McClurkin is popular among South Carolinian black voters that Obama absolutely needs to attract to his candidacy. Obama issued a statement distancing himself from McClurkin's position and affirming his support for gay rights, but not cancelling McClurkin's appearance.

An attempt at taking a middle ground that is not satisfying gay rights group. Or is this part of Obama's postpartisan and postideological doctrine? There is room for everyone in Obama's America.

• Clinton with big leads against all Republicans, Democrats

The LA Times came out with a new national poll and the results are good for Hillary Clinton in both the primary and the general election. They are also good for Dems in general, as neither Obama nor Clinton lose a single match-up against any Republican:

• In the Democratic primary race, Clinton has a lead as massive as in other surveys out recently, and Edwards has creeped up behind Obama: Clinton has 48% to Obama's 17% and Edwards 13%. Clinton has a much higher score among non-whites (54%) than among whites (45%). Other internals: 55% are sure of their vote. Also, the two groups among which Clinton is strongest -- non-whites and women -- are much more set on their choice than men and whites, which spells trouble for Clinton's rivals.


• In the Republican race, it is Giuliani all the way: He gets 32% to Thompson's 15%, McCain's 13%, Romney's 11% and Huckabee's 7%. Interesting internals: Only 36% of respondents are certain of their vote -- underscoring the fluidity of the race. Also, while Giuliani does not lead among religious voters, but he does come in second at a high 23%, two points behind Thompson. He also has bigger leads the less the subgroup attends Church. But this does indicate that some religious voters might not be aware of his positions. But good newss for Giuliani, a full 50% of Republicans voters say they could vote for a candidate supporting gay rights/abortion, with only 38% who said they couldn't. In a 5-way race, Giuliani can come away with a win without those 38%.


• Clinton leads McCain by 10% (48-38), Romney by 15 (49-34), Giuliani by 6 (47-41) and Thompson by 11 (49-38). She outpolls all Republicans among self-described moderates by 20+ points.


• Obama beats Giuliani only by 3 (43-40), McCain by 8 (44-36), Romney by 10 (42-32) and Thompson by 15 (46-31). Notice how there are much more undecided voters when the Democratic candidate is Clinton -- with the surprising finding that the decline in undecideds helps Clinton here!


• One last interesting set of numbers. The pollster asked respondents an open-ended question about why they like/dislike Clinton, with voters giving two replies. The top reason at 17% is "don't trust her/dishonest." Fourth is... "no particular reason" (11%) followed by "she is a woman/not yet time for a woman to be president (9%). Sadly, the latter response was given much more by women than by men! Also on the list "stuck with Bill Clinton affair affair/stayed married."

All in all, a very good poll for Democrats -- especially for Hillary. Giuliani might still be competitive, but the bottom line is that Democrats win all 8 matchups as they are now doing consistently. Gone are the days Hillary lost by 10-11 points systematically.

Rasmussen comes out with flurry of state polls

We brought you the Rasmussen poll from North Carolina this morning that had Hillary Clinton tied with Republicans in a traditionally safe GOP state. Since then, Rasmussen has released three other state general election polls that have mixed news for Democrats.

In Illinois, the Democrats have seen better days. The poll matched up Barack Obama and Clinton against the top Republicans:

• Obama has no trouble in his home-state. He leads Giuliani 56-34 and Thompson 57-32.
• Clinton, on the other hand, is ahead by only 3% against Giuliani: 45-42, within the margin of error. She leads Thompson by a more decent 47-40%.
  

Illinois is certainly a must-win state for Democrats. The difference between Obama and Clinton is certainly explained by the fact that this is Obama's home-state: Obama's favorable rating here is much higher than his national average 66%, while Clinton's is pretty much what it is nationally at 53%.

In Ohio, the numbers are plainly disappointing. Ohio is supposed to be ripe for pick-up and very much down on Republicans. But poll after poll of Ohio show that is has shifted blue much less than other swing states. Republicans are now typically running better here than in Missouri or even Virginia. Any lead is always within the margin of error, but that alone has to be frustrating for Democrats. In this poll:

• John McCain and Rudy Giuliani both have small leads against Hillary, respectively 44-42 and 45-43.
  
• Clinton and Fred Thompson are tied at 44%.
• Hillary leads Mitt Romney 46% to 39%.

Clinton was basically similarly tied with all GOPers in last week's SUSA poll. In Quinnipiac's, however, she has comfortable leads against all Republicans.

In Michigan's poll, finally, Clinton finally gets great news as she leaves no hope to the Republicans:

• She beats Rudy 48% to 39% and beats Thompson 50% to 37%.
• Rasmussen's article says that Clinton beats McCain and Romney by 7, but does not provide any numbers.
• More revealing, Clinton's favorable rating here is 54%, higher than any Republicans. So much for all the electability talk.

Michigan is definitely a must-win state for Democrats, but it has been competitive in both 2000 and 2004. Kerry had to sweat it out here and only won by a few points. It would be great for Dems if Clinton can put it away early and make sure Republicans don't try to compete.

More down the ballot news: Democrats about to avenge Jindal's win

An unusual amount of down-the-ballot races these past two days - especially in gubernatorial contests.

• Fletcher about to be ousted

Our latest rankings of governor races listed Kentucky and Louisiana as the two most vulnerable governships. Republicans kept up their end of that by picking up LA last week, and it is now up to Democrats to return the favor in Kentucky. There has been really no suspense in this race for now. Governor Fletcher has only cracked 40% in one poll up to now.

There is only two more weeks before Election Day, and the latest SUSA poll shows there is close to no hope for the GOP here. Democrat Beshear leads 58% to 38%. This is an increase from two weeks ago, where Beshear led by "only" 16. ˜eedless to say, the saying that an incumbent under 50 is in trouble applies even more strongly when the incumbent is under 40...

• Rematch in Washington

In 2008 races now, the Washington governor race has been set to a rematch of 2004: Dino Rossi, the Republican who lost the race against Democrat Gregoire by 133 votes only after a second recount reversed his lead at the last minute, is about to confirm the conventional wisdom that he will run for again. This would ensure that Washington is extremely competitive in 2008 -- and thus get a lot of attention considering there is a very little number of competitive seats.

The only poll out of this race lately has it at a complete toss-up, with Gregoire holding to the slightest of leads. This is still a good turnaround since the early days of her administration, where Rossi regularly out polled her by double digits as Washington voters did not believe he had actually lost.

• No censure for Stark

The House continues to waste its time. Today, Republicans were trying to use the controversy over Rep. Stark's comments on the war for their benefit and tried to offer a censure vote. Democrats managed to avoid going to a censure vote by tabling Boehner's proposal 196 to 173. Stark had declared last week, “You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." He had also included Bush in the Axis of Evil a while ago.

Democrats were weak and spineless again on this issue (Pelosi publicly condemned Stark) and refused to help Stark in an obvious GOP attempt to change the subject away from the war. But at least they were not quite as spineless than when they voted to condemn MoveOn last month.

Morning polls: Clinton ties Republicans in North Carolina, leads in Washington

The polls were not as good as usual for Democrats yesterday (particularly in New Mexico), but two new state polls out this morning are a reminder of why Democrats are favored to take the White House next year.

The stunner is North Carolina, not the reddest of Southern state but one that Bush won comfortably with 56% in 2004. The last time a Democrat has carried the state was in 1976. But Rasmussen's numbers are good for Hillary Clinton:

• She trails Giuliani by a statstically insignificant point: 44-43%.
• She ties both Fred Thompson 44-44 and John McCain 43-43.
• Testifying to the fact that she can rise higher, she leads Mitt Romney 46-41.

Put this in the context of past polls that show Clinton doing much better than expected in the South. A poll of Tennessee, for example, showed her leading Giuliani, and there have been plenty of Virginia polls showing her ahead (here is the latest SUSA one). Clinton also makes Arkansas more than competitive (the one poll from there showed her with double-digits leads). It is obvious that if Republicans have to spend time defending NC, VA, or TN, they will have that much less time to devote to Ohio and Florida, and they won't have time at all to put blue states like NJ or WA on the map.

Meanwhile, SUSA came out with a new poll as well. Hillary Clinton leads all Republicans very comfortably in Washington, all except John McCain:

• McCain ties her, and comes out ahead by a point: 47-46.
• This is especially stunning considering no other GOP comes close: 50-43 against Giuliani, 52-42 against Thompson, 54-30 against Romney, 57-34 against Huckabee, and 55-39 against Ron Paul.

Last month, the SUSA polled a much closer Clinton-Giuliani match-up, so the Democrat confirms here that WA is leaning blue. But what is up with those McCain numbers, which confirm everything else we have seen over the past two weeks -- for example yesterday in New Mexico where he was the only one to beat Hillary comfortably, and ran 6 points ahead of Giuliani! McCain has truly recovered from his first-half-of-the-year collapse. He had lost his standing entirely with moderates and independents, but it appears he is now climbing back.

Tom Davis will not run for Senate in Virginia

We had been getting hints for days, and it is now official: Tom Davis will not run for Senate in Virginia. This has two very distinct consequences:

• This is great for Senate Democrats, for it removes the last possible scenarios under which this race might be competitive. Mark Warner has been running away with massive leads in the polls, but the one worry he might have had was that Tom Davis would be able to cut the Democratic edge in Northern Virginia (Davis's home region, as well as an area that looks for moderate Republicans in Davis's mold). Davis's non-entry in the race means that the GOP candidate will be former Governor Jim Gilmore who has little of what it takes to hurt Mark Warner. The Democrat will sweep through Northern Virginia by such margings that Gilmore will have no way to offset that.


• But this is quite terrible news for House Democrats. Tom Davis's district, VA-11, is trending blue. Expecting an open seat, Democrats were already celebrating a near certain pick-up. I myself rated the race "lean takeover" in my September rankings, assuming that the seat would be open. But I downgraded the race in my latest rankings after the first reports that Davis might not be running for Senate after all. Democrats can certainly still mount a strong challenge against Davis, but the Republican remains popular in his district and would be not be easily defeated. Though it remains a sure possibility, it is nowhere as certain as it would have been if Davis had run for Senate.

It is still possible that Davis might opt out of running for re-election and just retire from Congress, going for a lucrative lobbying job. His comments last week that he might want to challenge Jim Webb in 2012 might be an indicate that he will not do so, however, given that it would be easier for him to run then as a representative than as a lobbyist. But we shall see how this plays out in the next few days.

In other House news, Republicans are putting increased pressure on Representative Doolittle of retiring in 2008. Doolittle is entangled in a massive investigation for his links to lobbyist Abramoff. CA-04 is a very Republican district, so it would only be in danger if Doolittle remained the Republican nominee. And poll shave indicated Democrats would be heavily favored to pick-up the seat in that case. These past few days, fellow California Republican Campbell became the first GOP congressman to call on Doolittle to call it quits, and NRCC chairman Tom Cole refused to offer any support for Doolittle: "The NRCC doesn't]have enough money to be generous and I'm going to put money where I think we can win."