Democrats battle over health care, as a new poll shows Clinton competitive in Alabama

The hostage situation in Clinton's Rochester, NH office appears to have been resolved as the police reportedly now has the hostage-taker in custody. No one appears to have gotten injured. This incident has also led to the disruption of the DNC meeting in Virginia at which presidential candidates were scheduled to speak.

• Health care battle

The Democratic race this week centered on substantive discussion rather than process issues -- for once. Following up her strategy at the Las Vegas debate where she had unexpectedly attacked Obama on health care, Clinton had been relentlessly criticisizing Obama this week for his health care plan which, she says, does not cover everyone, whereas hers (and Edwards's, since Clinton and Edwards have very similar health care plans) does.

Today, the Clinton campaign demanded that Obama pull out an ad it has been running in New Hampshire, claiming that the ad is misleading in claiming his health care plan will "cover everyone." In response, the Obama campaign has been pointing out that the Clinton campaign is getting desperate, and they criticized in turn the "mandates" proposed by the Clinton/Edwards plans.

But it appears Obama is under intense heat at the moment for being too cautious, and the Clinton campaign is widely using Paul Krugman's latest NYT column that demolishes Obama on the health care issue. The first two paragraphs set the tone:

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.

Clinton's camp seems to have sensed this is the moment to push an advantage on an issue that they have been playing since Las Vegas and gain an advantage both substantively (on an issue that Democratic voters follow closely) and on process (knock down Obama's reputation as a hopeful idealist and show him to be to willing to compromise). These are definitely not the cliches of the two candidates -- but there is plenty of evidence after all that Obama is as much of a triangulator as Clinton (for example on Iran).

• More New Hampshire polls

Fox News is the third institute today to release a New Hampshire poll, after the ARG and Rasmussen surveys out this morning:

• On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton gets 30%, followed by Obama at 23% and Edwards at 17%. Richardson runs strong, at 12%.
• Among Republicans, it's Romney at 29%, McCain at 21%, Giuliani at 19% and Huckabee only obtains 7%. Fred Thompson manages to rise to... 4%!

Fox News agrees with the trendline most other polls have seen in the Democratic race: Clinton is sliding. A quick look at the Pollster.com listings tells us this is the first time since July she has not had a double-digits lead (in an ARG poll that had Obama and Clinton tied!). The decrease of Clinton's lead basically means that she will not be able to use New Hampshire as a firewall: An Iowa loss would immediately put her in major danger of losing New Hampshire as well. This was not the case a few weeks ago. On the Republican side, Fox News does not pick up the Huckabee surge -- and gives very good news to McCain who needs to win here (even a strong second-place finish would work under special circumstances if the field is very muddied and confused).

• Clinton competitive in... Alabama

And the trend continues in a new SUSA poll of Alabama: More and more states that were not in play in past cycles appear very competitive. And as has already been noted over and over again, Hillary Clinton runs much stronger than Obama in very red or Southern states (the same is not true in other regions of the country):

• Only McCain manages a convincing lead against Hillary, 52% to 42%. Giuliani only leads her 50% to 45%, while Huckabee is a point ahead (47-46) and Clinton ties Romney at 47%.
• Obama lags behind. He is crushed by Giuliani (55% to 38%), McCain (56% to 35%), Romney (51% to 41%), and Huckabee (48% to 41%).

This is truly a remarkable phenomenon. It appears that Clinton is so polarizing that she automatically federates all Democratic votes in these Southern states, even those that typically do not vote for Democrats anymore in federal races. This is not to say that the Democratic nominee will have much of a chance of carrying the state, but these are still remarkably strange results. Remember: Bush won Alabama 63% to 37%.

ARG releases its monthly wave of early-state polls: Huckabee rises, and Iowa tied for both parties

It's that time of the month when ARG gets every political junkie excited and releases its wave of 6 early state polls from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Let's go straight to the numbers, party by party.

Democrats: Obama edges out Clintin in IA, but she remains solid in NH and SC.

• In Iowa, Barack Obama is now ahead 27% to Hillary's 25%. Edwards is behind at 23%. In the second tier, there is some major movement as well: Biden, who has been rising for months, now reaches 8%, while Richardson collapses to 4% (12% last month).
• This is a major slide by Clinton, and a big improvement for Obama. Two weeks ago, Clinton led 27% to 21% for Obama and 20% for Edwards. A month ago, it was Clinton at 32%, Obama at 22% and Edwards at 15%. The pattern is clear.


• In New Hampshire, Clinton remains ahead -- though she slides a bit here too. She leads 34%to Obama's 23%. Edwards is at 17%. Richardson is not far behind, at 10%.
• A month ago, it was Clinton at 40%, Obama at 22% and Edwards at 10% -- so the race is tightening, as the Clinton-Edwards gap has been cut by half.


• In South Carolina, however, Clinton manages to expand her lead. She reaches 45% (her all-time high in the state, versus 21% for Obama and 12% for Edwards. Biden is at 6%.

The numbers are very much in line with everything we have seen in the past few weeks. Clinton's lead has shrunk in New Hampshire, and it is not clear now whether she would be able to sustain that lead if she lost Iowa to Obama -- the state will likely not hold very well as a firewall. Iowa remains as tight as it has ever been, and Clinton, who had finally managed to build up a lead in September and October has now pretty much completely lost it. Joe Biden predicted yesterday that one of the top-three would not make it into the top three at Iowa... and he might very well be right given the nature of Iowa dynamics.

Could it all come down to South Carolina then, for Clinton? Don't forget that South Carolina Democrats vote on the 29th, not the 19th, which would actually a blessing for Clinton if she loses the first two states as she would have time to regroup and launch an all-out campaign (think of what would have happened in the GOP race in 2000 if South Carolina had been 3 days after McCain's New Hampshire triumph?). But we are not there yet, and it's really useless to speculate about the race given that all eyes are - and will remain - on Iowa.


Republicans: Huckabee is up everywhere, Romney still looks strong

• In Iowa, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are stastically tied: 28% to 27%. At least this will prevent the media for touting a second poll with Huckabee ahead. Everone else is far behind, and Thompson does surprisingly well at 14%. Rudy Giuliani and mcCain are tied at 9%.
• These numbers are similar to the ones ARG released two ago, when Romney was up 26-24 on Huckabee. But in a troubling sign for Romney, only 56% of his supporters are definite versus 89% of Huckabee's!


• In New Hampshire, however, Mitt Romney barely breaks a sweat: He is ahead 36% to Rudy Giuliani's 22%. Huckabee is in double-digits for the first time at 13%, with McCain dropping to 11%. And in a shocking display weakness that we have grown accustomed to, Thompson gets 3%!
• A month ago, Romney was ahead 30% to 23% on Giuliani. The big difference now is McCain's drop from 17%, and Huckabee's rise from 11%.


• Rasmussen also released a NH poll this morning, and has sensibly similar findings: Romney at 34%, Rudy and McCain tied at 15% with Mike Huckabee only one point behind at 14%. Ron Paul has 8%, and Thompson 3%
• In both the Rasmussen and the ARG surveys, Mitt Romney's total reaches the highest level of support he has ever received from these polls.


• Finally, there is South Carolina. ARG finds Romney dropping at Huckabee's expense in what has essentially become a complete toss-up: Rudy Giuliani has 23%, Mitt Romney has 21%, Mike Huckabee has 18%, Thompson is at 13% and McCain at 10%.
• A month ago, Mike Huckabee only had 5% -- a shocking surge for a man whose campaign is based in Iowa at this point.

All in all, this confirms everything we have seen: The GOP race is very much up for grabs. If Romney wins Iowa, he will probably be unstoppable, as he will roll through victories in New Hampshire, Michigan, and probably South Carolina. If Huckabee wins in Iowa, that would throw everything wide open and Giuliani would see his chances increase to carry New Hampshire. At this point, Romney's lead is expanding in that state which should give him hope to carry New Hampshire even if he loses Iowa. But that still seems a bit unlikely to me. His support is typically soften and could dissipate overnight -- much like Howard Dean's in 2004.

Just like in the Democratic race, the Iowa contest will be more crucial than we anticipated.

Obama meets Mike Bloomberg... but loses Massachusetts to McCain

• Obama and Bloomberg

A story breaking late night, and reported by Marc Ambinder: Barack Obama is having breakfast in New York tomorrow morning at 7:45am with Mike Bloomberg. So what, you ask? This is sure to spark some massive speculation: Would Bloomberg possibly endorse Obama? Would they take about the possibility of a vice-presidential spot?

Neither option is likely. After all, Bloomberg is still leaving the door open to a presidential run of his own: he is getting briefed on foreign policy, and met with Chuck Hagel this week, the senator most often mentioned as a possible VP pick for him (Hagel also ripped the Bush White House today). And if Bloomberg did not run and Obama became the nominee, it is likely he would look for someone with more gravitas on foreign policy matters -- an area in which Obama will likely be accused of having too little experience.

Nonetheless, the story is already the lead on Drudge and will be the talk of the political world tomorrow. Bloomberg's every action are provoking a massive media hysteria, so no reason that this one should not -- and any attention this meeting get will be good for Obama, who is apparently unafraid of competing with Clinton on her own turf. The speculation that Bloomberg might be looking to associate with the Illinois Senator can only lead to positive buzz for Obama.

• John McCain competitive in Massachusetts

A new Massachusetts poll released by SUSA has Democrats losing one of the eight tried match-ups, and it is not Mitt Romney - the state's former governor - that accomplishes that feat for Republicans:

• John McCain comes out ahead Obama 47% to 44%. He is also competitive against Hillary Clinton, whom he trails 50% to 45%.
• Rudy Giuliani comes close to Obama, trailing 46% to 44%, but he is clearly distanced by Clinton, 54% to 40%.
• The other two Republicans are crushed: Clinton leads Romney 59% to 35% and Huckabee 61% to 31%, while Obama leads Romney 54% to 37% and Huckabee 57% to 27%.

McCain's electability has been demonstrated over and over again by SUSA polls, but this is clearly one of his strongest showings: To be this competitive in one of the coutry's most Democratic state is a very impressive showing. Also, this really does not speak well of Mitt Romney, who runs significantly weaker than both Giuliani and McCain. What kind of impression did he leave his state's voters?

Rudy Giuliani hit on ethics, as all eyes are back on his personal life

Yesterday's YouTube debate attracted 4.5 million viewers on CNN, which is the record for any debate held on cable television. The Las Vegas debate Democrats held two weeks ago got a little more than 4 million viewers. So there is good reason to believe that a significant portion of Republican primary voters either watched the debate or will hear about it -- and that is probably good news for Mike Huckabee who the media collectively annointed the winner of the debate.

The focus of the Republican race today was on Rudy Giuliani, who scrambled to explain yesterday's Politico story that documented that he has "billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons." Many of the receipts and documents that were billed to the city concerned travels to Southhampton where Judith Nathan had an apartment, and they reveal numerous Long Island visits throughout the summers of 99, 00 and 01.

Asked about this during the debate yesterday, Giuliani simply said it was "not true" without specifying what exactly he was denying -- and he justified this with "security" costs. The issue, however, does not appear to be Giuliani's use of funds, but that they were billed to obscure agencies instead around the city like the Office for People with Disabilities ($10,054), the Procurement Policy Board ($29.757) adn the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office ($400,000).

This has the potential to be disastrous for Giuliani. First, there are the obvious reasons that would hurt any candidate -- personal use of government funds never looks good on a resume. But Giuliani is particularly vulnerable to such stories because the last thing he wants is Republican voters to be reminded his rocky personal life a month from the start of voting. He has admirably managed to calm qualms about his divorces and his estrangement from his children, all issues that people predicted would not sit well at all with primary voters. But he certainly could be vulnerable if more attention is devoted to his personal life -- just as Romney would hate if a story broke that involved his being a Mormon.

As is expected, the New York tabloids pounced on the story, with the New York Post article's headline reading "Rudy's Hidden Love-Nest $$, Billed City 500G+ For Trips to Judi's."

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign got some good news. In the heels of yesterday's debate in which Romney sought to present himself as the most conservative of the major candidates, he was endorsed today by David Keene. , the president of the American Conserative union. Keene emphasized that the conservative movement should unite behind Romney -- certainly the message that Romney has been insisting on for months and that has been undermined recently by Huckabee's surge.

Update: Giuliani went on CBS tonight to talk to Katie Couric about these allegations. He denied any wrongdoing and called this a "dirty trick." Full transcript and video here.

Congressional Republicans lose a candidate in New Jersey and gain one in Louisiana

• Kennedy running in LA-Sen
  

Louisiana's state Treasurer John Kennedy finally jumped in the Louisiana Senate race. He switched parties at the end of August, which was basically a confirmation that he was intending to challenge Senator Mary Landrieu. Since then, he won re-election for his seat in October (without facing any opposition though he ran ads seeking to prepare the ground for his Senate run).

In officially declaring his candidacy, Kennedy also released the results of a poll he commissioned with Zogby. The poll shows him in the lead, 45% against 38% for Landrieu. This is the first poll I believe we are seeing of the Louisiana race. Take it with a grain of salt for two reasons: (1) It is an internal poll, and (2) Louisiana has become notoriously difficult to poll since Katrina, and very few surveys are released from the state. However, there is no question that a 38% showing for an incumbent is bad news no matter the circumstances. 50% is the threshold under which an incumbent can expect a very tough race -- and not breaking 40% is obviously a sign that things could go wrong very fast.

The race is currently ranked 5th on my Senate rankings as a "toss-up." There have been conflicting signs as to how this race might play out: GOP Bobby Jindal and Democrat Mitch Landrieu (Mary's brother) overwhelmingly won Governor and LG in October; last week, the runoff for the state legislature yielded conflicting messages once again, as Democrats held to majorities in both the House and the Senate but endured losses in both. Kennedy appears to have a very good at picking-up this seat, but we shall see how the race develops -- and how other polls see the race.

• Allen out in NJ-03

Meanwhile, the GOP is continuing to have recruiting trouble in open races. Republicans were touting the candidacy of state Senator Diane Allen in NJ-03, left open by Rep. Saxton's retirement. But Diane Allen bowed out today, saying she would not run for the seat. Now, Democrats have their highly touted recruit running (state Senator John Adler, who was already a candidate before Saxton announced his retirement), but the GOP will have to scramble to find a candidate who can keep the seat in Republican hands.

NJ-03 is starting to resemble IL-11, a competitive district where the filing deadline has already passed. There, Democrats also got their first choice in (the senate Majority Leader) while the GOP's favored candidate decided to stay out. It goes without saying that Democrats could make some major gains next November if they pick-up these districts that keep opening up and where the GOP is struggling to get its act together.

Morning polls: Clinton holds on to shrinking leads in Iowa, New Hampshire

• Clinton first in what is essentially a tied race

Rasmussen just came out with a new poll from Iowa, and it has the three major candidates within 3 points of one another! Any way you turn the numbers, it is a complete toss-up.

• Hillary Clinton is at 27%, followed by Barack Obama at 25% and John Edwards at 24%. Richardson also gets in the double-digits at 10%, with Biden at 4%.
But in what is a very worrisome statistic for Clinton and a great one for Edwards, he is the top second choice of Iowa Democrats (28%). Obama is next at 18%, Clinton at 16% and Richardson at 15%. We know how important these numbers are in Iowa since many voters will have to caucus for a second choice.
• Rasmussen proposes many combinations that all go to see that the race could go for any of these 3 candidates: Among voters who are definitely supporting their candidate, Clinton holds at 27%, Obama at 25% while Edwards is a bit weaker at 22%; Edwards takes the lead among those who have caucused before, and Obama is slightly ahead among those who are certain they will go to vote on January 3rd.

Two weeks ago, Rasmussen's Iowa poll had Clinton ahead with 29% followed by Edwards's 25% and Obama's 24%. That result was a drop from Clinton's 33-22 lead in the October survey. Clearly, the Iowa race has tightened considerably in the past few weeks. The one reason why Clinton must be happy that she held on to a slight lead here is that this will prevent the narrative of Clinton's collapse of continuing to spread as it started to after last week's Washington Post poll.

• Clinton, Romney ahead in New Hampshire

A new Suffolk University poll was just released today and it has Clinton and Romney ahead in double-digits:

• Among Democrats, Clinton gets 34% of the vote, ahead of Obama's 22%. The last Suffolk poll had Clinton up 18%, but it was taken in June, so it is useless to use this to judge trendlines.
• Among Republicans, Romney is ahead significantly, 34% to 20% for Rudy Giuliani. McCain is weaker than usual at 13%, with Ron Paul at 8% and Huckabee at 7%. Fred Thompson managed to beat his record of New Hampshire... dropping down at 2%!

Needless to say that Thompson would be out of the race overnight if he gets 2% on January 8th! Romney should be satisfied to see he is holding to such a big lead with a little more than a month to go before voting; is 14% a big enough edge for him to stay on top it if he loses Iowa? His one advantage is that his loss would mean a Huckabee victory, and thus even if Romney goes down it is unclear whether Giuliani would get any boost and overtake him -- so it will not be the same scenario as Kerry's surge in 2004.

As for Democrats, this is in the smaller end of the Clinton leads, and she used to be up by much more in New Hampshire. The same question holds for her that I just asked for Romney: Is a double-digit lead large enough for her to come out with a win here even if she loses in Iowa?

• Young still in danger in Alaska

However unlikely it appeared a few months ago that Alaska's at large seat would become a top battleground, it appears that Don Young's involvement in the corruption scandal that is rocking the state is putting him in big trouble in next year's election. A new poll out today has him trailing his two Democratic challengers: 45% to 37% against Diana Benson, and 50% to 35% against Ethan Berkowitz.

This is an internal poll conducted for Diane Benson's campaign -- and it is interesting that Benson, the 2006 nominee for the seat, chose to release it given that she runs a bit weaker than Berkowitz. With most commentators paying more attention to Berkowitz, Benson is trying to show that she is also in a great position to beat Young and she should be given a chance. And as always with internal polls, take them with a great of salt, as they are not necessarily indicative of what independent polls might find. But this is the second poll that has Young trailing, so we have to look at this seat as a top pick-up opportunity for Democrats.

The Republican debate on CNN reminds us this is a race with no front-runner

We are five weeks from Iowa, and the Republican debate tonight showcased the absence of a front-runner in the GOP race. Compare this spectacle with the Democratic debates of the past few months, where every candidate draws fire on Hillary Clinton, hoping to finally make her slip. There was no such dynamic tonight, as there was no man to take down. Instead, fights erupted between different groups of candidates, reflecting the tensions of the campaign trail.

Mitt Romney was involved in most of these tense exchanges, but it was mostly his own doing: He got engaged in verbal duals with Giuliani (as he did right at the beginning), McCain (on waterboarding) and Huckabee (on illegal immigration). Romney still needs to raise his profile, and he also needs to prove that he is a consistent conservative. His past was brought up numerous times today, for example when Anderson Cooper asked him about a 1994 statement in which he said that he looked forward to the day gays and lesbians serve in the military. Romney is always very uncomfortable in such moments, and it showed as he got stiff and repeated a few times his dubious explanation for his change of position.

To compensate, Romney attempted to out-conservative his opponents; he often did not get the last word (McCain was clearly getting the better of him on the torture issue, partly because of the look of utter contempt on McCain's face as he expressed his "astonishment" that Romney would refuse to ban torture) but he wants to believe voters will reward him for sticking to his guns.

The exchange on immigration with Giuliani will probably be the most quoted of the night, as Romney accused Giuliani of being too soft on the issue and having let New York become a "sanctuary city." Giuliani replied by attacking Romney's own record and brought up a story that Romney had hired illegal immigrants: “I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.” But Fred Thompson used this opening to pounce on Rudy in what was a clear reference to Bernie Kirkik: "I am a little surprised that he says that we’re responsible for the people we hire, I think we’ve all had people that we have hired that, in retrospect, probably was a bad decision."

Rudy Giuliani looked weakened after that initial exchange with Romney. He seemed destabilized by the end of the back-and-forth as his responses quickened. A quick look at conservative blogs suggests they hated Giuliani's answer on whether every word of the Bible is true (for example Erick's post on Red State)-- though I would have trouble judging how that answer plays with primary voters myself. All in all, Giuliani spent much more time than he would like discussing social issues he is uncomfortable dealing with. Giuliani was also put on the defensive over the new explosive story reported by the Politico today about his trips to the Hamptons in 2001; we will surely hear more about this in coming days so I will leave it be for now.

John McCain picked fights as well, and did a good job of looking to be right up there in the top tier. He for example drew out Ron Paul on the Iraq War. He looked at his best on national security issues, and took credit for the surge that he insisted is working. He even managed to silence the public's boos on immigration and got out of that sequence alive. But he often looked too paternal, correcting his opponents, sighing; that could go well with the public if McCain is perceived as above the fray, but it also made it seem at times that McCain's time has passed.

Huckabee, as always, had many clever one-liners, though he also had to fight to defend parts of his record that opponents call liberal, especially on illegal immigration where he explained why he gave tuition breaks to illegal immigrants. Romney attacked him harshly, and this is an issue that is crucial to the Republican base; let's see if Romney picks this up on the trail in Iowa now to use immigration to deflate Huckabee's support. But a large part of the debate centered on social issues which is what Huckabee is best in, and what is opponents are most uncomfortable with -- so this allowed him to shine. After all, he needs to get almost all of the social conservative vote in Iowa if he wants to pull a win there.

As for Thompson, one moment summed up the debate for him. The video his campaign had prepared was the only one that was negative. It attacked Romney and Huckabee's past position on abortion and on taxes. (1) Notice that Thompson did not attack Giuliani, who has a ton of past statements that can be used against him. Explanation: Thompson needs the conservative votes that are going to Romney and Huckabee; he was supposed to be the conservative savior here, not them. (2) Notice that neither Huckabee nor Romney attacked Thompson in their rebuttals to his charge, basically demonstrating how small a factor Thompson has become in the race. There is no need to make him more threatening than he is by drawing him in a fight.

Update: Some post-debate controversy. First up, the gay general who asked the question about gays in the military has been revealed to be part of Hillary Clinton's steering committee, and CNN has already apologized for featuring his question, saying they were not aware of this (the man was also a Kerry supporter in 2004). We should say however that there were some boos against the general while he was speaking -- and those who were booing were not aware of the general's political affiliations, so this certainly does not account for the undignified picture of Republicans (who claim to be the party of the military) booing a retired general.

Second, Anderson Cooper is also getting some heat for asking no question about important issues like health care and choosing instead to ask question after question on things like the confederate flag or the Bible (and there were may of these, the point being that one or two would be acceptable since they do feature in GOP voters' mind, but there was just too much time devoted to them). Now CNN's political ticker has the silliest item up:

The issue of healthcare has sparked some of the most heated debate this campaign season on the Democratic front, but the Republican presidential contenders seemed to all but ignore what is considered a major priority for many voters...
Candidates often find a way to include their talking points and campaign priorities in debate answers regardless of what the question posed to them actually is. Since no question was posed to the candidates about their healthcare reform plans, they all but ignored the issue choosing instead to emphasize their stances on illegal immigration and the war in Iraq.

"Since no question was posed..."? What is this? Why did CNN ask question after question about immigration -- and none about health care if it is such an important issue to voters?! This has got to be the most ridiculous attempt to justify flawed questions (it is also just plain wrong, as Romney brought up health care and how he implemented it in Massachusetts).

Presidential diary: The Michigan mess, and new polls

• Michigan chaos: Obama, Edwards will stay off the ballot

The Michigan primary is now set for January 15th, but there was still some controversy about whose name would be on the ballot. All the candidates but Clinton and Dodd withdrew their names at the beginning of October to punish Michigan for organizing a "rogue primary". But the Michigan House passed a bill last week putting the names of Edwards, Obama, Biden and Kucinich back on the ballot forcefully -- which would have put all 6 candidates in front of voters.

But the state Senate refused to pass the bill today, with the Republican Majority Leader saying the Democrats can't agree on what they want. So this pretty much ends the primary polemic: Only Clinton and Dodd will be on the ballot. This is a small blow to Clinton: She was pretty much guarateed a win here, especially as none of the candidates are allowed to campaign here and challenge Clinton's lead. And defeating Obama and Edwards here on the 15th could have allowed her to recover some momentum if she stumbles in Iowa and New Hampshire. But it is unlikely she would get much coverage of a win against Dodd here; perhaps a small paragraph in the stories written about the GOP race.

• GOP race all over the place

Here is a new poll from South Carolina, and it has the Republican race as scattered as it could be. In the heels of worrying numbers for Romney in Iowa this morning, a new poll has him... leading in South Carolina! This is very rare, as Romney usually is weak in the state and only ARG polls have given him the lead. But he only comes in with 17%, in front of Thompson's 15%, Huckabee's 13%, McCain's 11% and Giuliani's 9%.

The field is very fractured, and will essentially be completely reshuffled by January 19th based on Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan results. It does seem that no candidate will be able to build any kind of advantage in the state, which will give a huge boost to whoever manages to win the earlier states. The tragic news for Romney is that he is suddenly rising in South Carolina just when his lead in Iowa (which had held steady for months and months) is being challenged.

• New York is Clinton country

SUSA came out with a new poll from New York today, and has Clinton crushing all her GOP rivals, including Rudy Giuliani. But Rudy manages to tie Obama:

• Hillary leads both Giuliani and McCain 56% to 37%; against Romney, Hillary is ahead 62% to 31% and dominates Huckabee 65% to 27%.
• Obama runs weaker, and cannot muster a lead against Giuliani, as the two are tied at 46%. Obama leads McCain 49% to 43%, though he manages crushing leads against Romney 55% to 34% and Huckabee 58% to 29%.

Giuliani has long argued that he would put the coastal states (NY, CT, NJ) in play, and polls have confirmed that he might though he would have trouble if Democrats nominate Clinton. What is interesting though is that McCain runs roughly equal with Rudy, suggesting that Rudy does not have a particular advantage in the state, but it is his supposed moderate profile that is playing well with Northeastern voters. Democrats do not appear to have much to worry about in NY, even in case of a Obama-Giuliani match-up. This is Rudy's home-state, and Obama will only have room to grow here once he introduces himself to voters.

More evidence of a Huckabee surge: First poll has him leading in Iowa!

Huckabee has taken the lead in an Iowa poll for the first time -- and this is also the first survey I have seen since the spring in which Mitt Romney is not leading the caucuses. Rasmussen has come out with a new poll from the state and it shows a stunning turn-around:

• Mike Huckabee comes in at 28%, followed by Romney at 25%. Giuliani is far behind at 12%.
• The previous Rasmussen poll was taken two small weeks ago, and it had Romney far far ahead at 29% versus 16% for Huckabee.
• At least some good news for Romney is that 25% fo voters who might change their mind name him as their second-choice, versus 17% for Huckabee. But 53% of Huckabee voters say they are definitely voting for him, versus 48% for Romney.

Huckabee's lead over Romney is within the margin of error, but the fact that he had an incredible surge (-13 to +3, for a 16 point swing) is not. And it is confirmed by yesterday's numbers as well, in which he surged to 2 points behind Romney.

As I said yesterday in my assessment of what this might mean to the GOP race, Huckabee and Romney are now going to fight it out for the right to be Giuliani's alternative -- and Romney better win this in Iowa if he wants to have any chance of being the GOP nominee. He might be the most likely to win the nomination, but that depends on his result here. And don't forget: No one had managed to challenge Romney since the spring so much that Thompson, Giuliani and McCain had chosen to not compete in the Ames straw poll rather than face a humiliating defeat.

And in another sign that things are changing fast in the Republican race, Mike Huckabee is starting to pick up some major endorsements. Today, Florida's state Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster announced he would support Huckabee, praising him for his leadership in Arkansas. One of the main obstacles to Huckabee had been the reluctance of people who should be enthusiastic about him to support him given the sense that he had no chance of winning the nomination. With his Iowa surge, that is likely to change very soon -- Huckabee has embarked on a stunning momentum cycle that could take him even further up.

One possible explanation of Romney's decline is given by a new New York Times article that says that Romney's Mormon faith is proving to hard to overcome and is tremendously helping Huckabee: "Mr. Huckabee’s rise in Iowa as been fueled by evangelical Christians, who believe Mormonism runs counter to Christian orthodoxy." One Huckabee supporter asks whether Mr. Romney’s prayers would “even get through.” To be fair, Huckabee is also probably the most consistent social conservative among the top candidates, and the one who speaks the most naturally about his faith and how it would influence his presidency.

Senate news: No more challenger in Tennessee, but there is Mississippi to compensate

• Tennessee Democrat drops out
  

Mike McWherter, the leading Democratic challenger for the Senate seat of Lamar Alexander, just withdrew from the race, explaining his move with family considerations. Democrats never had much hope for this race, though they were at least confident that McWhether would self-fund his candidacy given his personal wealth. I had ranked the seat 17th most vulnerable in my most recent rankings, but at least the Democrats had a candidate that would have been able to take advantage of a macaca-like moment by the incumbent.

So this is not major congressional news, but insofar as the DSCC prides itself of "expanding the map" and putting many seats in play, it ought to be mentioned that they have not gotten very far in Tennessee.

• Mississippi Update

News is obviously unfolding fast in Mississippi, and the consensus this Tuesday morning appears to be that Democrats would try and challenge Barbour in court if Lott resigns in 2007 and Barbour schedules the special election next November. Jim Hood, the current state Attorney General, is siding with the argument that a special election would be necessary within 100 days and is not ruling out legal action. This could turn into chaos pretty fast.

As for the candidates, the WaPo's Fix reports that Schumer has already spoken to Mike Moore, who released a statement in the evening: "As for me, I appreciate all the calls I have received from friends, colleagues, and supporters today encouraging me to run. I will make my decision soon." Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove had already said yesterday he was interested and would take a decision soon as well. The Fix also says the current AG Jim Hood will not run, further restricting the list of potential candidates on the Democratic side.

Huckabee surging in yet another poll: A shake-up in the GOP nomination race?

On the heels of this morning's Iowa poll that had Huckabee tying Romney for the lead, we now get a new Insider Advantage poll of Florida that has Huckabee surging to second place:

• Giuliani leads with 26%, followed by Huckabee at 17%, McCain at 13%, Romney at 12% and Thompson at 9%.
• A month ago, Huckabee only had 5% and was fifth, behind Giuliani's 29%, Thompson's 19%, Romney's 16% and McCain's 10%.

The reason Huckabee's chances were minimized until today was: Where does he go even if he wins Iowa? He had little support other places, and no organization. This poll suggests that is changing, and Huckabee could be propelled at the top if he prevails in the caucuses and brings Romney down. And this is true even if another poll out today from Florida (this one from CNN, with a bigger margin of error) has very different numbers: Giuliani at 38%, Romney at 17% and Huckabee at 9%. Huckabee used to be a blip in the polls, now he is in the same range as Romney and the others, an ideal position from which to surge ahead if he gets momentum.

Romney emerged as a strong contender in the spring because he was believed to be the most acceptable to conservatives given the other options (McCain and Giuliani). But we always knew Romney's position was fragile, and that many conservatives would love going for someone else. Thompson got in late and never caught on, but now Huckabee is on fire and is threatening Romney's entire strategy. And if he does appear viable, Huckabee could start getting many social conservative endorsements from people who were reluctant to support him at first because he did not seem to have a chance to win the nomination.

Now, Romney and Huckabee appear to be fighting in Iowa for the right to be Giuliani's conservative opponent, as there is only room for one of them. Giuliani is for now rooting for a Huckabee victory, since he would then have a good chance of capturing New Hampshire and killing Huckabee off before he gets a chance to find his footing, while a Romney win in Iowa would make it probable that the former MA governor also gets New Hampshire. But Giuliani should be careful: Given Huckabee's insane momentum, he could very well pull a Kerry and surge ahead of the pack in New Hampshire.

The problem now for Huckabee: He is becoming a target, and he will face a lot of scrutiny throughout December. The Club for Growth regards him as its number one enemy, and will look to bring Huckabee back down before it is too late; if Huckabee falls victim to attacks in the next few weeks, we'll know he peaked a little too early.

• California strongly Democratic

Many states have been looking much tighter this year than in previous cycles, but California is not one of them. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama maintain double-digit leads, consistent with the margins Gore and Kerry enjoyed against Bush:

• Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 52% to 41%. It's 53% to 41% against McCain, 57% to 34% against Romney, and 58% to 31% against Huckabee.
• Obama's numbers are roughly similar: 49% to 42% against Giuliani, 52% to 39% against McCain, 57% to 32% against Obama, and 58% to 29% against Huckabee.

Giuliani polls marginally better than the other GOPers, but his edge over McCain remains within the margin of error, and he only breaks within 8% against Obama. The question, of course, is whether Democrats can expect to get all 55 electoral votes that are supposed to go with a California win... The initiative to divide the ECs by district has been revived, and if passed it would give the GOP about 20 of the 55 electoral votes. That would make the double digit leads Democrats are enjoying pretty much useless.

Presidential diary: A new Iowa poll, and the benefits of self-funding!

• Iowa still all tied up... for both parties!

It is only when we don't get Iowa polls that we realize how much we need them. And today, we are treated with a new poll that has things all tied up, the poll comes from Strategic Vision, a GOP-leaning firm:

• On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are tied at 29%, and Edwards is at 23% -- needless to say, the three remain within the margin of error.
• On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is now in a statistical tie with Mike Huckabee, 26% to 24%. Giuliani is at 14%, Thompson at 10%, and McCain at 7%.

First up, these numbers confirm that Huckabee has become a contender for an Iowa win that would likely be fatal to Romney's chances. In the last Strategic Vision poll released only two weeks ago, Romney was up 30% to 19%. Huckabee has erased a double-digit deficit in two weeks -- and this is confirmed by other polls. Mitt Romney will have to find a way to fight back, but his job will be very difficult as Giuliani and Thompson will also likely take aim at him, hoping to bring him down. For the smaller Iowa candidates who are no longer hoping for a win, a Romney loss would be as good as they could possibly hope for, especially if Huckabee -- who does not have much organization anywhere else -- is the one to bring him down.

As for Democrats, well, the story has been the same for months now: Iowa is the only state in which Clinton does not have any kind of lead and, conveniently for Edwards and Obama, it is also the first voting state. The last Strategic Vision poll had Clinton at 29% and Obama at 27%, with Edwards at 20%. At this point Clinton has to be comforted to see she has not fallen down further given predictions of impending doom for her campaign in the state, and the Obama campaign will be very satisfied to see it is now consistently coming ahead of Edwards -- it was not the case until recently.

• Gallup has Democrats leading

Gallup came out with a new general election poll, and it looks good for Democrats as Clinton and Obama lead 7 match-ups against Republicans, the eight one being tied:

• Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 49% to 44% and John McCain 50% to 44%. She has massive leads against Mitt Romney (54% to 38%) and Fred Thompson 53% to 40%.
• Barack Obama only ties Giuliani at 45%, but he leads against McCain 47% to 44%, against Romney 52% to 35% and against Thompson 51% to 38%.

The Thompson-Clinton match-up is the only one that has significantly changed since the July poll in which Thompson was only led 48% to 45% -- which suggests Thompson's decline as much as anything else.

• Giuliani increases NH spending... and Romney ups him

With one month to go, the benefits of Romney self-funding his campaign are becoming increasingly apparent. His rivals had always complained that Romney would just spend more money compared to them, and that whenever they came out with an ad Romney would just donate to himself to ensure he had an ad to answer. And that seems to have happened in New Hampshire. Marc Ambinder reports that Giuliani has boosted his spending 60% this week: His campaign is now spending $319,000 on the Boston market alone (which reaches New Hampshire) and $173,965 in the Manchester market. But Romney is now at $705,100 (Boston) and $464,040 (Manchester) in those two markets.

Romney is massively outspending Giuliani. And given that their cash on hands total were roughly similar at the end of the third quarter, the only explanation is self-funding. And consider that Romney is spending about $1.2 million a week now in New Hampshire (he really does not have that much room to grow, however, since he has pretty much saturated the Manchester market already).

Two resignations and one retirement

• What will be the timing of Mississippi's special election?

In the aftermath of Trent Lott's completely unexpected resignation this morning, the controversy that has been rocking the state is when the special election should take place. Governor Barbour said today that the special election would be held in November 2008, along with the congressional and presidential elections -- this would allow Lott's replacement to build incumbency for 11 months, which should help Republicans keep the seat in the hands of the senator chosen by Barbour.

But the media soon started reporting that state law holds that a special election has to be called within 90 days of a resignation if it occurs in the year before normally scheduled elections! This would put the special election to fill Lott's seat some time in February or March, much less time for a new senator to build up incumbency. And remember: Lott will resign in 2007 because he wants to avoid the new lobbying rules that only come into effect for lawmakers leaving office "on or after" December 31st.

Yet, Barbour and the state GOP has no intention of giving in on the special election date... And they are basing their on a very subtle technicality. Check out the text of the law:

The election shall be held within ninety (90) days from the time the proclamation is issued and the returns of such election shall be certified to the Governor in the manner set out above for regular elections, unless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election, in which event the Governor's proclamation shall designate the general election day as the time for electing a Senator.

In other words, if the resignation is the year of a statewide election, the special election shall not be within 90 days. Barbour's office is now arguing that, because there was a statewide election held in November 2007, Lott's resignation falls under this "exception category" and Barbour can "designate" the special election to be in November 2008. The Secretary of State (a Democrat) agreed with Barbour on the basis of what he himself called a "technicality."

This appears to respect neither the spirit of the law (designed to insure that a senator does not serve too long without facing voters) nor the text of the law. Consider the use of "the" in The governor "shall designate the general election day..." In other words, if the resignation falls the year of a statewide election, the governor has to call the special election on the day of that statewide election... which implies that the election has to be in the future and that November 2007's election in no way applies here! The state Democratic Party quickly issued a press release calling for Barbour to respect the law... and it will be interesting to see whether this goes to the courts.

• Timing issues also in IL-14

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert is officially resigning tonight. He has been postponing this for weeks to prevent Illinois Governor Blagojevich from setting the special election on February 5th (the day of the presidential primary which should have a huge Democratic turnout given the candidacy of Obama, the state's senator). Hastert is now betting that it is too late for Blagojevitch to set the general election for February 5th since he would then have to set the primary in mid-January, in less than 2 months.

That does appear to be too crampled a calendar, so Hastert seems to have gotten his wish: that the primary be scheduled on February 5th, and the general election some time late February or beginning of March. Hastert explicitly state this was his main consideration in choosing his resignation date: "“By selecting this specific time to resign, it allows Governor Blagojevich the opportunity to announce a special primary to select candidates for my unexpired term on February 5, 2008." Democrats are likely to be unhappy about this, but at least Hastert did not break any laws in the process.

Three of the four main candidates for the seat -- Republicans Jim Oberweis and Chris Lauzen, Democrat Bill Foster -- have already each donated more than $300,000 of their own money to themselves, leaving 2006 Democratic nominee John Laesch as the only non self-funding candidate. Republicans have a significant edge in this district that trends red traditionally, especially now that Democrats will be deprived of the February 5th boost.

• Carlson bows out

The third congressional story of the day is tragic news from Indiana, where Democratic Rep. Julia Carson announced over the week-end that she has terminal lung cancer; Carson had suffered from other illnesses over the past few months and years, and had not cast a vote in the House since mid-September. Carson will finish her term until next November, and will then not run for re-election -- so this seat will be open. Republicans were already preparing to challenge this seat before this tragic news broke out with state Senator Jon Elrod, but the district is fundamentally blue (Kerry won with 57%).

Presidential diary: Kansas swinging, and primaries becoming increasingly heated

• Even Kansas?

Add Kansas to the list of states that are unexpectedly close heading in 2008. Bush won the state 62% to 37% for Kerry in 2004, but things appear very different today in a new SUSA poll:

• McCain is the only Republican to convincingly crush both Clinton (55% to 38%) and Obama (53% to 37%). Giuliani leads both Democrats, but he struggles and his lead is in the low single-digits: 49% to 43% against Clinton, 47% to 42% against Obama.
• The Democrats lead the four other match-ups tested by SUSA. Clinton is up 48% to 44% against Romney, and 49% to 43% against Huckabee; Obama leads Romney 46% to 43% and Huckabee 47% to 41%.

This is also a stunning improvement from last month's numbers in which Clinton even trailed Ron Paul, and it suggests Clinton's competitiveness in Kansas should be confirmed by other polls. But given the consistency of her leads in places like Kentucky (see this recent poll), there is ample evidence to suggest this Kansas poll should be believed.

Of course, Kansas is a small state with 6 electoral votes... but if the GOP candidate has to spend time campaigning in states like Kansas and run ads here, you can be sure the situation must be much worse in states like Missouri or Ohio.

• Primary rhetoric heating up

The two Democratic front-runners are starting to go at it much more directly than we have seen them yet. The two campaigns have been fighting on the experience mantra recently, with Clinton questioning whether Obama's attending elementary school in a foreign country counted as foreign policy experience. And in a new Nightline interview on ABC, Obama went after what Clinton presents as her main claim to experience, her years in the White House:

There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a U.S. senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done.

I do believe we had not heard Clinton's experience challenged so directly before. We have clearly entered a new phase of the campaign in which both campaigns know everything is at stake on January 3rd and Clinton's opponents are not going to give her a second to breath. We have to question, however, why Obama is choosing the experience angle to attack. Even if he undermines Clinton's argument, his own pitch is not at all based on experience, but on the need to change the partisan Washington establishment. For Obama to charge on what is supposed to be his weak subject suggests he is confident Clinton is vulnerable on this one. His criticism is also a bit misleading, for Hillary had a policy position in the Clinton White House, something Michelle Obama does not have (as far as we know!) in Obama's Senate office.

Meanwhile, a similar heating up is occurring in the GOP primary. Yesterday, Mike Huckabee upped his attacks on Mitt Romney, pointing out that he is a much more consistent conservative than the former Massachusetts governor:

Mitt has changed his position. He’s been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent. When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush-Reagan thing.

With the Iowa caucuses fast approaching, Huckabee is looking to overtake Romney's lead -- but that will require Huckabee to cement his position as the leading conservative to hold on to his social conservative base and take some of Romney's voters. And other candidates are also looking to bring Romney down, which could certainly help Huckabee's cause.

Rudy Giuliani seems especially intent to switch his focus from Clinton to Romney as the two campaigns fought all week-end. Giuliani also talked to the Politico in an interview that is all about the need to "take the mask off and take a look at what kind of governor was he.” Giuliani said, "He throws stones at people. And then on that issue he usually has a worse record than whoever he’s throwing stones at." He went on to emphasize Romney's poor record and poor ideas on health care, environment and taxes. Romney naturally fought back, hitting on Giuliani's own record: "When he came in there was a budget gap, but when he left, he left a budget gap twice as big as the one he inherited: over three billion dollars."

These are all arguments we have been hearing for months now, but usually voiced by surrogates and never so directly. With 40 more days before Iowa, the campaigns have little time to topple Romney in the early states... and it will become increasingly difficult for Mitt Romney to sustain all this criticism that is concentrating on him. Romney is in a position Howard Dean was in 4 years ago, though with a few key differences that could save him (such as his ability to spend his own money, the fact that his Iowa lead was prior and stronger to his New Hampshire lead).

Shocker in the Senate: Trent Lott resigns, opens new competitive seat

Some huge news this morning pretty much as soon as Thanksgiving week-end was over: Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi is set to announce his resignation! Lott just got re-elected last year after flirting with the possibility of retiring. He ended up running again, frustrating all those who have been looking to move up Mississippi politics for quite some time now.

So why has Lott suddenly decided to call it quits? He wants to move on to the private sector and become a lobbyist, but doing it now allows him to avoid the restrictions of the lobbying law Democrats passed in the spring and that is going in effect at the end of the year. One of the restrictions it that lawmakers have to wait two years after leaving office to become lobbyists, so Lott can bypass that rule and go in the private sector much faster by resigning now. All in all, a rather shocking reason for an elected official to give up his democratic duties.

Now, Republican Governor Barbour (who was just re-elected a month ago) will appoint Lott's replacement; a special election will be organized in November 2008 to fill the rest of Lott's term up to 2012. The first question is whether Barbour will appoint a caretaker (someone who will not run in 2008) or a Republican who wants to be a full-time Senator. The most likely is certainly the latter, but if the state GOP seems to divided Barbour might have no choice but to let a primary take place and appoint a caretaker until then.

If Barbour goes for a Republican who wants to run again, the most likely replacement would be Rep. Pickering, who was long considered Lott and Cochran's heir. Pickering, seemingly frustrated that neither senator had retired, announced his retirement from the House over the summer - could he be convinced to come back? But there is a very deep Republican bench in the state, so Barbour will likely have to deal with other contenders... and we can't exclude a competitive primary in the spring no matter what Barbour does today.

Democrats are likely to pressure former state Attorney General Mike Moore and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove. With either of them, this immediately becomes a competitive seat: Democrats might be completely out for presidential elections in the state, but they have a good bench for statewide races.

The last thing the Republicans wanted is another safe seat to become competitive, for they are already pressed on money and do not have enough time to look at all the difficult contests. Democrats have been expanding the map, and that alone is giving them a huge advantage -- and Lott's decision today helps them create an unmanageable situation for the NRSC. At least, the GOP can be relieved that they will not have to defend an open seat here -- both Moore and Musgrove would have had a much higher chance in that case; now they will probably have to face an incumbent.

Update: The Washington Post's Fix is reporting that Barbour will probably not go for Pickering, making Rep. Roger Wicker the most likely replacement. He also confirms that Mike Moore appears very interested in making a run here.

Assessing the Republican race on this last calm day before the mad rush to Iowa

At this point, the Republican race is turning out to be - contrary to tradition - much more unpredictable than the Democratic contest. At least we know that the latter comes down to Iowa at this point. For the GOP, every candidate has a different idea of what states will matter... and there are at this point 5 candidates with a good shot at getting the nomination -- with Ron Paul yet another candidate to keep an eye on, as he is unlikely to get very far but he could still have a major impact on the race.

Since this has been a rather slow week-end of news, and since it is unlikely such a break on the campaign trail will occur again until the Iowa caucuses, this might be a good moment to quickly review these 5 Republican candidates, their strategies, and what they need to accomplish in the early states. In order of their likelihood to win the nomination:

1. Mitt Romney

Romney is the most likely nominee, though his position is more precarious than it was just a few weeks ago. The former governor's strategy has long been centered on winning Iowa and New Hampshire in quick succession, and thus building unstoppable momentum. The final January calendar helps Romney, since the third contest will be in Michigan, the large state in which Romney is probably the strongest. And polls suggest that he is surging in South Carolina, making his victory there inevitable if he wins IA, NH and Michigan first.

But his campaign is running into trouble in the state that he seemed the strongest in -- Iowa. With Mike Huckabee gaining stunning momentum in recent weeks, Romney has been left struggling to keep his first place. If he loses in Iowa, the story coming out of the caucuses will be his failure, and he will probably lose much of his advantage in later states, starting with New Hampshire. Those conservatives who think that Romney is not sincere in his ideological conversion are also increasingly making life difficult for the former governor by questioning his stance on things like abortion. With Romney ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, he has become the prime target, and it shows as Giuliani has had to face less heresy charges lately than Romney.

And we have to mention the last huge advantage Romney has: money! He has been spending a lot of his own money in the race, and will likely continue doing so as much as is necessary until January. He will blanket every early voting state with ads and pay with his own pocket if need be. And the best part for Romney: He will not have to disclose how much of his own money was spent until January 31st, until it would be too late for anyone to care.

2. Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani is still far ahead in national polls, and he has a clear strategy to the nomination: "Survive" the January contests until February 5th, where he believes he can count on assured victories in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut which could give him a delegate lead no matter what else happens. But the question for Giuliani is how does he survive the first voting states? He needs (1) solid enough showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, which means third and second, (2) a win in Florida, and (3) a muddied race.

The problem is that all of these conditions seem increasingly difficult to meet: (1) He is in low double-digits in Iowa, tied with Fred Thompson, and McCain is threatening to overtake him in New Hampshire; (2) His once mighty Florida lead has melted to a small advantage that could be easily overtaken by another candidate if he has momentum or if Giuliani seems too weak, and (3) if Romney gets in a roll starting in Iowa, the race will be all but muddied come February 5th... So Giuliani's best hope is that Huckabee wins the Iowa caucuses, which would be a huge blow to Romney and would throw the nomination wide open... which would guarantee that Giuliani could take control on February 5th.

Giuliani should be careful though of not becoming too much of a joke when it comes to his ideological contortions. He has escaped feeling the wrath of conservative activists and has managed an almost-flawless transformation from moderate New Yorker to conservative candidate, but he often says things that sound like a caricature of the flip-flopper. Check his recent explanation for why he preferred Richard Nixon even though he voted for McGovern in 1972: "I actually remember saying to myself, 'If I was a person really deciding who should be president right now, I'd probably vote for Nixon, because I think the country would be safer with Nixon."

3. Mike Huckabee

There really is a huge gap between Romney/Giuliani and the rest of the field. Huckabee has clearly the biggest buzz right now due to his rise in national polls and in surveys of Iowa where he is contesting first place to Mitt Romney. His momentum started in August when he placed second in the Ames straw poll. But questions remain: (1) How does Huckabee overcome the hostility of fiscal conservatives who are set against him? (2) Where does Huckabee go even if he does win Iowa? He has much less money than the other candidates, and very little organization in other states. He seems particularly non-existent in New Hampshire, and Michigan is too big a state for him to put together a quick campaign. South Carolina could be an ideal place for him to follow-up due to the large number of value voters, but will his rivals let him get anywhere there when they'll have 16 days after the Iowa caucuses? Huckabee needs to broaden his campaign beyond Iowa fast if he wants a shot at the nomination.

4. Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson was presented as the savior the Republican Party needed throughout the spring and summer -- no one can follow up on such hype. Thompson no longer polls a strong second in most national polls; his original plan was probably to contest Iowa seriously, but that now is out of the question. He consistently comes in sixth around 4% or 5% in New Hampshire. And his lead in South Carolina is gone -- though he still hangs on in the fight for first place. Thompson is still not out of the running, but he needs to concentrate on a Southern strategy that would make him win South Carolina and keep him an option all the way to February 5th. But that does require him to seem viable after IA and NH, so he will have to improve his numbers there; and he also does not appear to have enough good-will and enough resources to contest as many states as he needs in February. Testifying to his frustration, Thompson entered in a rant against Fox News today, blasting them for consistently undermining his candidacy -- and it is true that the media has been harsh on him.

Thompson is now trying to recenter his campaign on appearing the most conservative of the candidates. He was at the forefront of the debate this week-end, criticizing Romney and Giuliani for their record on abortion and gun rights. But to the extent that Thompson recovering in Iowa would come at the expense of Huckabee, it could end up helping Romney more than anything else.

5. John McCain

McCain is ranked fifth here, but his chances are much better today than they were a few weeks ago. He regularly appears to be the strongest general election contender of his party, which he is trying to use as an argument on the campaign trail; he also has recovered in national polls, and is back up in New Hampshire, where he usually polls second in a tie with Giuliani. McCain's problem is that he is entirely dependent on New Hampshire at this point. If he fails to win there, he is practically out of the race and there is nowhere else he can hope to recover. For a McCain NH win, Romney would first have to crash there -- which could very well happen if Romney loses Iowa. That would open up space in New Hampshire for Giuliani and McCain to fight it out... and are voters paying attention to McCain anymore, or has his opportunity passed? And even if he wins here, where does he go next? He might have a shot at the Michigan primary, but he won both NH and MI in 2000 -- it did not get him the nomination. McCain needs to score better than 7 years ago in South Carolina, and that does not seem very likely for now.

Sunday polls: Trying to find interesting governor races

• New Mexico stays close

SUSA released a poll from New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes today. Clinton runs ahead of Obama, and only John McCain manages to win a match-up against her:

• McCain leads Clinton 48% to 45%. But Clinton leads Giuliani 48% to 44%, Romney 52% to 40%, and Huckabee 53% to 39%.
• Obama, on the other hand, is far behind Giuliani (49% to 41%) and McCain (50% to 40%). He is ahead of Romney 49% to 41% and Huckabee, 50% to 38%.

These numbers represent a small improvement for Clinton on last month's numbers when she was narrowly trailing Giuliani. They also contradict my theory that Hillary tends to run stronger than Obama in the Northeast and in the South, and Obama tends to run stronger in the Southwest. Clearly, New Mexico will be as closely fought as 2000 (when Gore won by 300 votes) and 2004 (when Bush won by 6000 votes).

• Indiana Governor in trouble

With Louisiana and Kentucky resolving their governor elections last month, there are not that many competitive gubernatorial contests coming up in the next few months -- only Missouri, Indiana and Washington are ranked competitive in my latest governor rankings. A new poll out today shows that Governor Daniels of Indiana is in big trouble, tied with his two lesser-known challengers, and way under the 50% threshold.

Former congresswoman Jill Long-Thompson and architect Jim Schellinger both get 44% of the vote, and Daniels gets 43% against both challengers -- a bad omen to be led this far out of Election Day. Daniels approval rating stands at 40%. There was a lot of noise about this race earlier in the year and last year, and Democrats pick-ed 3 House seats in Indiana alone last year, demonstrating the unpopularity of the state GOP. But Republicans were arguing that Daniels had recovered some support and was less of a drag, though that apparently is not the case at all.

New Hampshire review -- with a detour through Australia

News has been slow the past few days, but other candidates did not have the political week-end off. Australian voters were called to the polls today for parliamentary elections, and Bush lost one of his most loyal allies. Not only did conservative Prime Minister John Howard's coalition lose its majority in the lower house of Parliament, but Howard lost his own re-election race in his district to the Labor Party candidate. The next Prime Minister will be Labor's Kevin Rudd, a man often described as an uncharismatic policy-man but who managed to humiliate the energetic Howard.

Some seats have not been called yet, but right now the Labor Party has 83 seats versus 58 for the conservative coalition. One of the major consequences of this will be Australia's Iraq policy, as Rudd could withdraw the Australian contingent from Iraq. Another key issue is Kyoto, that was never ratified by Howard. Rudd made it a campaign issue and is likely to push for the treaty's ratification which would leave the Bush Administration even more isolated on the international stage on global warming issues.

Meanwhile, the American presidential candidates were back on the campaign trail today -- and they made some news as well.

• New Hampshire heating up: Giuliani's endorsement and Romney's money

Rudy Giuliani got a very useful endorsement from the Mayor of Manchester, Frank Giunta, who had unexpectedly stunned an incumbent Democrat in 2005. Not that any endorsement ever carries that much weigth, but Manchester is the state's biggest city and Giuliani clearly hopes this will help him strengthen his argument. Guinta, who is only 35, compared his experience in Manchester with Rudy's: "I can identify with [Giuliani] on those things that are most important to people, making the city safer and stronger and continuing a vibrant economy."

Meanwhile, we learned the other day of just how much Mitt Romney is spending in New Hampshire. Remember, he rose to the top of the polls in the spring by going on air early much before any rival joined him and getting himself known. Now, reports are indicating that Romney spent $100,000 on ads throughout October, and that became $200,000 at the end of the month. The Politico's Jonathan Martin points out that this means "Romney 'round the clock, at the rate of more than one ad an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

How can Romney possibly have this much money to spend? He has been a great fundraiser... but has not particularly distanced Rudy Giuliani. Then what explains it? Romney is a multi-millionaire and is ready to spend as much money of his as is needed... and it shows. A lot of this is clearly coming from his own pocket, and he has already made some big donations to his own campaign. He has been able to blanket Iowa and New Hampshire with ads thanks to this, and bought his way to poll leads.

But can't this backfire, if the media starts accusing Romney of only surviving thanks to his own money? Will he not give the impression that Romney is weak and unable to fund-raise the money he needs? This is the best part for the Romney campaign: The detailed FEC filings for the fourth quarter (which ends on December 31st) are due on January 31st! That means that Romney has no obligation to disclose how much he has donated to his campaign and how much of his own money the campaign has spent until after all the early states have voted... much too late for anything bad to happen to Romney because of the disclosure. By then, the Romney campaign believes he will either be out of the race anyway because he failed to win Iowa and New Hampshire, or he will have sweeped the January races and already emerged the inevitable nominee.

Morning polls: Clinton leading in yet another Kentucky poll

New support for the hypothesis I tried out the other day that Clinton polls better than her rivals in traditionally red states (whereas the advantage is generally reversed in the Southwest). A new poll from Kentucky released this morning by SUSA shows Hillary Clinton winning all four of her match-ups in a state Bush won by 20% in 2004:

• She is ahead 48% to 47% against McCain, 48% to 44% against Rudy Giuliani, 54% to 39% against Romney and 55% to 36% against Huckabee.
• Obama polls much more poorly, losing 52% to 38% against Giuliani, 44% to 43% against Romney, and a massive 56% to 34% against McCain. He does edge out Huckabee 44% to 42%.

There have been many polls of Kentucky at this point in the past few months, and all have shown a very similar result. The first poll that had Clinton had seemed like an outlier -- but it has since been confirmed, and cannot be easily dismissed. However stunning it might be, Republicans will have to prepare for Kentucky and its eight electoral votes emerging as a very unlikely battleground state in 2008.

A lot of this is due to the local situation in Kentucky, which is more toxic for the GOP than in other places due to the ethical trouble the state party was in that led to the ouster last month of Governor Fletcher. Now, Senator McConnell is feeling the heat -- and Democrats are sure to go after him with everything they have if Republicans continue to appear this strong.

Clinton is strong in red states because she rallies Democrats against her, something Obama cannot do. The reason she runs so well appears precisely to be the polarization of the electorate -- something that is much less prevalent in the Southwest or even the Midwest. And the key test for her will be whether she can break 50% and get that extra few points needed to carry these red states. And she does reach 50% against Romney and Huckabee, testifying to the fact that there is not an anti-Clinton majority here.

• Biden in toss-ups!

In a sign of just how difficult this election is for Republicans, a new Rasmussen poll has Joe Biden able to tie much better-known Republican candidates. He trails Rudy Giuliani only 42% to 40%, and ties Mitt Romney at 39%.That the top GOP candidates cannot muster a clear lead against a little-known distanced in the polls Democrat indicates that the electorate is just unwilling to go for Republicans again. Though the GOP's hope to victory will be to create a foul, and make the alternative unacceptable, which is exactly what Bush did with Kerry in 2004.

House rankings: How many more Republican retirements?

Just when the GOP is starting to catch some small breaks in the Senate, their situation in the House is rapidly deteriorating. As many had predicted, a growing number of Republican representatives do not find the prospect of life in the minority appealing and are calling it quits. Unfortunately for Republicans, a large majority of them represent competitive districts. The latest retirement were particularly shocking because they were completely unexpected -- especially Rep. Ferguson's in NJ-07. Democrats have golden opportunities to pick-up all of these seats, especially if the environment continues to favor them. But this also means Republicans will be forced to play defense and will not be able to contest that many Democratic-held seats, no matter how vulnerable they might be.

The situation is made much worse for Republicans by the awful financial situation they are in. As of the end of October, the NRCC is still a million in debt, while the DCCC has 27 million dollars. That's nearly a 30 million dollar gap, which will have a significant impact on next year's results. The RNC will have to concentrate on the presidential elections and will have a limited ability to help the NRCC out. This means that the DCCC has the ability to play offense in many seats, expand the map, and protect its own seats -- while the Republicans will probably end up having to concede some of their open seat and choose which select Democratic seats they are going after.

As a result, many of the freshmen Democrats who looked very vulnerable last year are likely to survive, though the GOP will no doubt be able to claim some of its very conservative seats back, starting with FL-16 and TX-22; they also got some good news this month when the Democratic challenger in MT-AL withdrew, as unpopular Rep. Cubin retired in Wyoming, and as they made Indiana's 7th district much more competitive. But six of the seven race that are rated more vulnerable this month are Republican, underscoring the steady stream of bad news for the GOP.

Here is the quick run-down of the seats that have seen a rating change over the past month:

• Less vulnerable: CT-2, NY-19, WY-AL
  
• More vulnerable: AK-AL, IL-06, IL-11, IN-07, KY-02, NJ-07, OH-05
  

Outlook: Democrats pick-up 7-12 seats.

The full race-by-race ratings are available here.

The California electoral college initiative looking likely to reach the ballot

I had stayed away from the California initiative that would allocate the state's electoral votes by district since the LA Times reported that the project's backers had pulled the plug on the effort in late September. But it was revealed soon after that the initiative had found new backers and new wealthy Republicans willing to bankroll the petition drive. This initiative will shift about 20 safe Democratic electoral votes to the Republicans -- and made it very difficult for Democrats to win the White House unless the election is a blow-out. Though Democrats like to believe that California voters would reject the proposal without too much suspense, it would still force the Democrats to play defense in a state they can ill afford to waste time and money on.

California Counts, the group organizing the effort, has to collect 433,971 signatures and put the measure on the June ballot. A daunting task, but a very doable one if the effort is well financed. And two days ago, the group said they were confident they would get there, and prided themselves on having already collected about 400,000 signatures. A note of caution: About 1 in 2 signatures is usually disqualified because of some irregularity, so the group has to collect about twice as much the needed number to make sure it gets on the ballot. Democrats are already organizing a counter-offensive and detailing a instances of fraud in signature-gathering.

California Counts is also indicating that they will work to put this on the November ballot if they don't have enough time to gather signatures for the June ballot. They argue that, if adopted, the allocation change could still apply to the 2008 elections. This would likely open up a huge constitutional battle, as Democrats would be sure to agree that the bill cannot be used to determine the allocation of electors for the presidential election held the same day. This battle had already started in Colorado in 2004, when a group linked to Democrats was trying to pass a very similar initiative the day of the general election and Republicans were promising to fight it in court. The initiative did not pass after all, and even if it had it would not have changed the outcome of the election, so we never got a final answer. But imagine how chaotic the election would get if it all came down to a legal battle over whether California's electoral votes should be divided.

The first question, of course, is whether the initiative would pass. The last poll taken on the subject was a SUSA survey from the beginning of November. It found early support for the principle behind the proposal; this confirms numbers from Rasmussen that had a plurality of voters supporting the measure -- though Rasmussen concluded that the measure is still unlikely to be adopted. Indeed, an initiative that does not start way above 50% usually goes down to defeat, as voters tend to gravitate towards a no-vote if they are not initially convinced, and as undecideds usually massively break towards voting no. Democrats are also likely to spend millions explaining how much this would help the GOP -- and California remains strongly Democratic (witness the 2005 defeat of the initiative that would give redistricting to judges because voters feared it would harm the Democratic party).

But on a low-turnout June primary, anything could be possible. Which is precisely what is worrying Democrats.

Friday polls: Nevada looks surprisingly tight

• Is Nevada the purplest state?

A new Nevada poll is possibly the tightest survey I have ever seen. In twelve possible match-ups between the 7 top candidates, no one has a lead of more than three points, and 6 match-ups are within one point. And all are well within the margin of error. Have you ever seen such consistency across twelve general election match-ups?

• Hillary trails Rudy 45% to 44%, ties McCain at 44%, and leads Romney 45% to 44% and Thompson 45% to 43%.
• Obama leads Giuliani 45% to 44%, Romney 46% to 44%, and both McCain and Thompson 46% to 43%.
• Edwards is up 45% to 44% on Giuliani and Romney, up 44% to 43% against McCain, and 45% to 43% against Thompson.
• In the Democratic caucus of January 19th, it's Hillary ahead at 45% followed by Obama at 20% and Edwards at 12%.
• In the Republican race, Giuliani is up with 29% on Romney's 22%. Thompson is at 15%, and McCain at 8%. Ron Paul comes next at 7% (he was at 1% in August).

Nevada has only 5 electoral votes, so its importance in the general election is limited; but it could prove an omen of how things develop in the West. And remember in 2004, Nevada was the last state to be called before Ohio.

As for the caucus numbers, Nevada will play a crucial role this year since it is scheduled to vote on January 19th. It will be the first contest for Democrats after New Hampshire on the 8th (since Michigan will only feature a Clinton-Dodd showdown) and before South Carolina on the 29th. This could be a major opportunity for Clinton to regroup if she stumbles in Iowa (and New Hampshire). In the Republican race, this is the only early state in which Giuliani has a consistent lead... but it is very small, and certainly not solid enough to withstand Romney's surge if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

• New Rasmussen numbers confirm volatility

The new Rasmussen general election numbers confirm the volatility of the general election, as Giuliani and Clinton have been trading leads for a while now. Two weeks ago, it was Clinton up by 6. Today, Rudy has a 46% to 42% lead. Against Thompson, Clinton has a smaller than usual 46% to 44% lead. Clinton's unfavorability rating is back up at 52% in this latest poll, so maybe the constant Clinton-bashing by all candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, is starting to have a toll on the New York Senator as no other candidate is attacked nearly as much as she is (Democratic candidates rarely mention the Republican front-runners, though the latter relentlessly bash Clinton).

Quick rundown of Thanksgiving polls, from Washington and South Carolina

A quick morning post on Thanksgiving, and running down some polls I have not gotten to yet.

• Washington all over the board

Washington did not pose too much problem to Kerry in 2004 -- but a new SUSA poll it could be much tighter this time, depending on what candidate the GOP runs:

• McCain edges out Obama 47% to 46%; Rudy Giuliani also runs close to Obama trailing him 48% to 46%.
• Clinton beats both Republicans more comfortably, 50% to 43% against Rudy and 52% to 43% against McCain.
• Both candidates crush the other Republicans: Clinton gets 57% to 37% against Romney and 57% to 35% against Huckabee.
• Obama leads Romney 49% to 40%, and Huckabee 54% to 34%.

We rarely hear much about Washington on the presidential level, but with 11 electoral votes it is a major prize, and probably a must-win for Democrats. As for discussion of electability between Clinton and Obama, check out my post from yesterday. While I did say Obama typically is stronger in the West, I did not mean the coastal states with a long Democratic tradition, but states at the Southwest (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada...). Clearly the electability talk often does not amount to much.

• Clinton ahead in South Carolina primary

Rasmussen came out with a new poll from South Carolina yesterday, and Clinton maintains the double-digit lead she has been enjoying since the end of the summer. She gets 43% compared to Obama's 33%. Edwards is far behind in the state he won in 2004, at 11%.Among African-American voters, the group Obama and her are fighting over the most dramatically, the two are tied, 46% for Obama to 45%.

Remember, South Carolina is much more important on the Republican side. For Democrats, the primay is at the end of January, the same day as Florida and ten days after Nevada. The winner could get a significant boost -- but the GOP primary in the state is really a win-or-die scenario for many of the candidates.

New Hampshire decides, and the calendar is set: Every contest will be in 2008!

We did not have to wait for long after all! As soon as the Michigan primary date got settled earlier this afternoon, NH's Secretary of State Gardner announced the New Hampshire primary will be held on January 8th!

And everyone breathed a sigh of relief that voting is not starting in December. Remember when Iowa's January 3rd seemed shockingly early? Well Gardner played so much on the possibility of a December primary that January 8th now seems a very reasonable date. This also means that Gardner chose to ignore (1) the Wyoming Republican caucuses of January 5th (everyone, including all candidates, have been ignoring it) and (2) the threat that Michigan Democrats decide to hold a caucus on January 8th.

Thus, here is the almost finalized voting calendar, with a quick take on the situation in the state as it stands today (with no consideration of things like momentum-building):

• January 3rd: Iowa caucuses

GOP: Mitt Romney favored, Mike Huckabee emerging as a threat
Dem: Three way toss-up between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

• January 5th: Wyoming caucuses, only Republicans

I doubt even Wyoming Republicans are paying attention to this contest, that has been entirely ignored by everyone.

• January 8th: New Hampshire primary

GOP: Mitt Romney favored, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani battling it out for second
Dems: Clinton favored, Obama improving

• January 15th: Michigan primary

GOP: Romney, Giuliani on top; McCain could make a run
Dems: Only Clinton and Dodd are on the ballot

• January 19th: South Carolina primary, only Republicans

GOP: Three-way race between Giuliani, Romney and Thompson

• January 19th: Nevada caucuses

GOP: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani on top
Dems: Clinton favored

• January 29th:South Carolina, only Democrats

Dems: Clinton favored, Obama not far behind

• January 29th:Florida

GOP: Giuliani on top, Romney rising
Dems: Clinton overwhelming favorite

• February 5th: Super-biggest-ever-Tsunami Tuesday

Great news for Romney: Michigan stays on January 15th... and we now wait for New Hampshire

Michigan's January 15th primary had been invalidated by a judge on a technical note, and an appeals court had upheld the measure. The parties had appealed to the state Supreme Court, but it appeared that the only way for Michigan to keep its primary on January 15th was for the Legislature to pass a new bill ASAP (i.e. in the next week) correcting the problems identified by the court.

But the Supreme Court today reinstated the primary in a 4-3 decision. And so the date is set. Michigan will vote on January 15th, four days before South Carolina and Nevada -- and thus will be the third state to vote. Some Democrats still want to move the date forward by holding a caucus to bother New Hampshire further... but that seems a bit unlikely (though we will know very soon). But Republicans at least are now a sure thing on the 15th.

This is a great relief for the Romney campaign. Michigan is the best big state for Romney: he is already known here given that his father was Governor. The latest poll out last week has him in a statistical tie with Rudy Giuliani. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney can thus expect to get a boost big enough to insure a Michigan victory... and get a major state under his belt going into South Carolina.

Romney's strategy is predicated on winning as many states as possible in January to build unstoppable momentum, and the Giuliani campaign was hoping that (1) Iowa and New Hampshire would not be important enough states for Romney to look to invincible, and (2) that the early momentum of a dual win would have subsided in the 11 days between New Hampshire and South Carolina.

But this ruins those calculations: (1) Michigan is certainly a major state... and it would be difficult for Giuliani to argue he is "surviving January" if Romney wins here, and (2) there is now a week between NH and MI, and then four days between MI and SC. The Romney momentum of a 3-0 streak would definitely be felt in South Carolina... and beyond. (This is all assuming, of course, that Romney holds on to his Iowa lead, and he is being increasingly challenged in the caucuses).

As for the Democrats -- assuming that the primary is not transformed into a caucus (and don't underestimate Senator Levin's hatred of New Hampshire) -- this will not change too much given that only Clinton and Dodd have kept their name on the Michigan ballot after the DNC punished the state's "rogue" primary. At least Clinton could get some good news if she loses Iowa. There is, however, one huge question mark left: The state Assembly is considering passing a bill that would reinstate Obama, Edwards and all the others on the ballot! No one would campaign here... but maybe it would make a likely Clinton victory worth more.

With Michigan now almost settled, all eyes turn to New Hampshire's Gardner. Will he be satisfied with the week between January 8th and the Michigan primary and finally schedule the New Hampshire primary? He likely won't make a move until Michigan Democrats figure out whether they're going for a caucus, but if all things stay the same there the threat of a December primary appears to have been avoided -- and Gardner would probably end up choosing January 8th.

The calendar chaos is finally settling down; but with 6 weeks to go before voting season begins, we still are not sure what the exact modalities of New Hampshire and Michigan are!