After wild day, R & B committee seats Florida and Michigan... kind of

Who could have predicted that obscure intra-party rules would lead to such an entertaining political spectacle and cause such over-the-top protests and audience hissing? It took the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee more than 9 hours to go through the dispute over Florida and Michigan before they voted to seat the entire delegations from both states, giving every delegate half-a-vote. As a result, Clinton nets 24 pledged delegates and the DNC hopes to have finally turned the page, but today's decisions (particularly that regarding Michigan) is undoubtedly a blow to the Clinton campaign .

Early in the meeting, it became obvious that the committee was ready to embrace a compromise on the issue of Florida and cut the delegation's power in half. Despite some tense back-and-forth, in particular when Rep. Wexler took the stand on behalf of Obama and Sen. Nelson on behalf of Clinton, the main issue appeared to be whether the delegation would be split in half before the allocation or whether all delegates would be seated and then granted half-a-vote.

This might seem a trivial dispute but the margin of delegate between the two candidates would be drastically different in the two cases, +19 for Clinton if the latter and +6 if the former. [This is due to the way in which delegates are allocated by district, something we have had ample opportunity to puzzle over in the past few months. For instance, in one of the 4 delegates districts in which Clinton netted 3 delegates and Obama 1, the post-punishment allocation would be 1.5-0.5 if every delegate is given half-a-vote. But if the split occurs as if the votes were not yet known, this district would only have 2 delegates and the two candidates would get one each.

The Obama campaign, being quasi-assured of the nomination, could afford to be generous. After all, its main preoccupation at this point is to avoid party disunity to move on to the general election. Through Wexler, it indicated that it would not oppose the model that would give Clinton a net margin of 19 delegates out of Florida, calling the move a "concession." Harold Ickles was irked by the use of that word.

Naturally, the more complex question concerned Michigan's delegation since only Clinton's name appeared on the ballot and questions lingered as to whether it is appropriate to pretend that the 40% obtained by "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama. The discussion was tense and no consensus emerged, as the Obama campaign insisted that the delegation ought to be split equally between the two candidates and the Clinton campaign insisted that the full delegation ought to be seated without transferring uncommitted over to Obama. In his impassioned defense of Michigan, Senator Levin endorsed the proposal to allocate the delegation 69-59, mid-way between the January 15th vote and a tie (this compromise has been circulating for a while but not that it has no basis in the rules).

After a long lunch period which extended in private conversations between the committee members, two motions were put on the table and approved by the committee. The first, approved 27-0, sits Florida's full delegation and gives each member (including superdelegates) half-a-vote. That gives Clinton a net gain of 19 out of Florida: 52.5 to 33.5 (it also gives 6.5 delegates to Edwards).

Then, the committee somewhat surprisingly approved a motion regarding Michigan, sitting a delegation made up of 69 Clinton delegates and 59 Obama delegates, each with half a vote. This gives Clinton a net gain of 5 delegates out of Michigan. The new magic number to reach a majority: 2,117 delegates.

The crowd was mostly subdued in the morning, occasionally applauding. But the Clinton supporters were very noisy in the evening session, as they booed and hissed the motions that did not grant the Clinton camp its full wish in either state. Even Clinton supporter Alice Hauffman was heckled for supporting the Florida motion. But it is during Michigan's debate that the room became most chaotic, as the crowd was chanting "Denver, Denver, Denver!" implying that Hillary should go all the way to the convention to make her case.

On the floor, Clinton adviser and RBC member Harold Ickes was protesting, "I rise in opposition. I find it inexplicable that this body that is supposedly devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of other than for our affirmative action rules the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process, that is, fair reflection." He later added, "Mrs. Clinton has reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee." And in a strong statement, he declared that, "Hijacking 4 delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity."

The day succeeded in resolving much of the issues on the table with the Florida and Michigan delegations, as it is now likely that most Democratic Party figures (including many high profile Clinton supporters like RBC member Dan Fowler) will consider this issue resolved. This means that the Obama campaign crossing the magic majority number (most everyone believe this will happen sometime next week) will be treated with more legitimacy than if the Michigan and Florida questions were still on the table.

But the Clinton campaign has laid the grounds to argue that they ought to continue their fight to the convention. First, there is the popular vote question as they will now argue that this decision legitimizes using the totals in FL and MI to calculate the popular vote results. The Obama campaign will then insist that the uncommitted votes be counted for Obama in Michigan, which would put their campaign ahead -- though Clinton is hoping to reverse that if she gets a big win in Puerto Rico tomorrow.

Second, the Clinton campaign has not accepted the legitimacy of today's resolution. Ickes's complaints at the end of the meeting were meant to protest the allocation of the Michigan delegation. For the Clinton campaign, it is a travesty that the uncommitted delegates be granted to Obama when he willfully took his name off the ballot and that Clinton delegates be taken away on top of that. Somewhat surprisingly, the Clinton campaign seems to have renounced its objections to the delegations being given only half-a-vote as the vote on Florida's motion was unanimous and as the Clinton campaign's statement tonight declares victory on the Florida front -- choosing to continue the battle only over Michigan:

The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

If the Clinton campaign intends to somehow stay in the game past next week and if the superdelegate tsunami does not overwhelm them, its new fight will be a quest to get the credentials committee to change the Michigan allocation (and apparently not to sit the full delegations in FL and MI?). But considering the way in which Dan Fowler distanced himself from Ickes today and considering that undeclared supers like Donna Brazile are barely containing their allegiance at this point, this would certainly be a very lonely fight for Clinton. As far as even some of her high profile supporters are concerned, the Democratic primary will be over next week.

Perhaps the most stunning spectacle today occurred outside of the meeting hall, as protesters were gathered on the street to register their complaints about the way the Michigan and Florida delegations were being treated. TNR's Eve Fairbanks summarizes the scene of what she describes as an alternative dimension, in which one could see signs like "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and in which Larry Sinclair was welcomed as a hero for distributing tracts about Obama's drug use and gay sex escapades... Inside the meeting, some cries of McCain were heard from the audience at the end of the meeting.

Yet, despite the signs of lingering hard feelings, the DNC took a big step towards turning the page of the delegate dispute and settling the Democratic nomination. Unless Clinton somehow manages to prevent Obama from surpassing 2,117 delegates by next week, it is difficult to see her staying in the race. By mostly removing Florida and Michigan from the realm of the contestable, the RBC meeting took a big step towards launching the general election.

Poll update: When Wyoming becomes a (congressional) battleground

The Rules and Bylaws committee is about to convene, and it is remarkable that the Democratic primaries have made a meeting about party rules must-see political spectacle. It will take a few hours to figure out what decision -- if any -- comes out of the committee, so for now let's start with the day with a look at the latest polls. I never thought the day would come when I would lead a poll update post with a survey from Wyoming, but a Research 2000 poll released yesterday is certainly noteworthy:

• In the open and at-large House seat currently held by Republican Rep. Cubin, Democrat Gary Trauner narrowly leads Republican Cynthia Lummis, 44% to 41%. Among independents, Trauner leads 58% to 32%.

• In the presidential match-up, John McCain is leading Obama 53% to 40% in a state Bush triumphed in 2004 69% to 29%. Obama has the narrowest of leads among independents.

There are many signs that the GOP is in trouble in the Mountain West and that the Republican brand is suffering in many states in which the party is used to dominate. Wyoming is too red a state for Democrats to have a chance at the presidential level, but a Trauner victory would be a shocking development that seems very much in reach. Keep in mind that at-large congressmen positions are often stepping-stones for statewide office, either the governorship or the Senate, so a House victory by Trauner could cost the GOP a Senate seat down the line (see North Dakota, for instance, where the entire congressional delegation is made up of Democrats).

Meanwhile, three general election polls were released yesterday by three different polling institutes:

• In Wisconsin, SUSA found Obama ahead of McCain 48% to 42% in its latest installment of VP match-ups. Obama leads McCain by 17% among independents. When vice-presidents are included, the range varies though there is little surprising that cannot be explained by name recognition.

• In California, the all-important Field Poll finds both Democrats leading McCain by 17%: 52% to 35% for Obama and 53% to 36% for Clinton.

• In Washington, the Elway poll finds Democrats leading as well, 44% to 38% for Obama and 41% to 36% for Clinton. 74% of Clinton supporters would vote for Obama, which is certainly a decent number.
  

No surprises in those match-ups, except perhaps the fact that Obama does not run stronger than Clinton in Washington. After all, the Pacific Northwest is a region in which Obama typically runs better than Clinton. Also, the latter poll suggests that Washington State is not quite as secure for Obama as some have been suggesting. It is true that Obama's appeal will be strong here, but the McCain campaign believes that it, too, can find a way to woo Washington independents. As for California, there have been some polls in recent weeks that have found a single-digit race but most surveys found McCain lagging far behind. This is key, for Democrats cannot afford to waste any time and money defending the Golden State without which they have no electoral path to the White House.

GE news: McCain commits gaffe and reacts angrily, and an abortion referendum in CO

John McCain is getting in a habit of committing unforced errors on the issue he is supposed to have the most control in -- the Iraq war and national security. After the 100 year statement (whatever the context, it was an obvious political mistake) and the repeated confusion between Shiite and Sunni, McCain is drawing fire for a statement he made on Thursday to a panel of journalists (video here):

In comments to reporters on Thursday, McCain asserted that "I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks.

Unfortunately for McCain, the troops have not been drawn down to pre-surge levels, as there are 155,000 troops now deployed in Iraq versus 130,000 before the surge. The Washington Post notes that the day in which McCain made these comments was very deadly in Mosul, drawing attention to that part of McCain's statement as well.

Predictably in this era of war rooms and quick attacks, the Obama campaign wasted no time to blast away, sending out John Kerry to criticize McCain's statement. That alone is a significant development, as it means Democrats no longer fear Kerry has been made radioactive by the 2004 campaign. But what is more puzzling is the reaction of the McCain campaign. The Senator's statement was at best an imprecision and at worst a mistake, but instead of acknowledging it to try and move on, the campaign has chosen to attack the Obama campaign right back and prolong the debate over McCain's original statement. His spokesperson said today, "Talk about a political stunt, it's sending out campaign surrogates to parse words about a topic Barack Obama has no experience with."

The reason this seems like a puzzling response to me is that McCain's statement was clearly wrong and there is nothing the campaign can gain by arguing over it. McCain's error was factual, not something that is up to normative or ideological debate, it is strange that the campaign chose to not simply recognize its mistake. It feels like the campaign's response was impulsive and rash rather than thought-out calmly, as all decisions should be. This, of course, is something that is often associated with McCain's temperament and something he should be careful to guard himself against, particularly on the issue of the war on which the number of imprecise statements that McCain is making is starting to mount.

Sure, it is hard to believe that McCain actually meant that combat in Iraq would last 100 years and even that he actually believed that the troop level had already been drawn down, but he should realize that soundbites are often all that matter in modern campaigns and that he has absolutely no room to maneuver around his support for the Iraq War given how unpopular the war is.

In the careful exercise McCain needs to accomplish to balance his general election chances with his support for the war, the Arizona Senator is doing himself no favors. And his angry response is allowing Obama to continue to press the subject, this time including McCain's dismissive retort in his own criticism:

Anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own view, but not your own facts.... And today, Senator McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to "nitpicking." Well I don't think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking.

In another development that will influence the general election, a Colorado constitutional amendment seeking to define a fertilized human egg as a person made its way to the November ballot yesterday, as the supporters' petition was certified with more than 100,000 valid signatures. This could be all social conservatives need to be energized about coming to the polls on Election Day in one of the most important battleground states of the fall campaign.

Republicans are worried that evangelical turnout will be depressed this year in a context of declining enthusiasm among all segments of the GOP base. In that context, news like this one are clearly welcome -- and so is the possibility that an anti-gay marriage amendment would be on the California ballot. However, it is important to not overstate the impact these amendments might have. Despite a lot of talk of 2004 anti-gay amendments helping Bush win re-election, this is not a universally accepted thesis -- and that was in the case of very high-profile amendments in a year in which gay marriage was a very heated topic of conversation. Furthermore, McCain is not comfortable talking about issues like abortion, as is exemplified by the fact that he barely touched upon it in the GOP primaries despite the fact that his record was clearly pro-life (unlike Romney's and Giuliani's). This means that the McCain campaign will be less shrewd than the Bush campaign was in using opportunities like the Colorado referendum.

Obama's VP and the Left's nightmares

As conversations about McCain's and Obama's choices are picking-up, a certain number of people from both parties are worried that their nominee might select a running mate that is too far from the party's base. After all, a vice-president is not only a heartbeat away from the presidency, but he also becomes the favorite to become the party's next candidate. While the Right is worrying about McCain choosing Charlie Crist and Tom Ridge, the Left's worst-case scenario is even more nightmarish, since a Republican is commonly mentioned as a possible pick for Obama, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel.

While Hagel has repeatedly expressed admiration for Obama, he has not endorsed the Illinois Senator. But his comments have been increasingly critical of John McCain, despite the friendship that has long united the two men. Hagel was long mentioned as a possible candidate on a bipartisan ticket sponsored by Unity08 and rumors circulated for months that Hagel and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg were in talks about a possible ticket. Given that postpartisanship is at the center of Obama's message, speculation that an Obama-Hagel ticket is a possibility emerged as soon as Bloomberg nixed a presidential run of his own back in February.

In a sign that this is indeed a possibility, it was revealed yesterday that Hagel's wife Lilibet had donated to Obama's campaign. Hagel's aides were quick to point out that this was Lilibet's individual choice and that it did not speak for Hagel's choice, but it is certainly a powerful symbol.

While Hagel is as strong a critic of the Iraq War as Senate Republicans have to offer, he remains a very conservative politician; pro-life, strongly pro-free trade and skeptical of government programs (he voted against SCHIP's expansion in the fall). Former Nebraska congressman McCollister called him "except on Iraq, the most conservative member of the United States Senate."

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is already awakening concern in some Democratic circles. After all, Webb is a former Republican who has only recently converted to the Democratic Party, mostly because of the Iraq War. Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, he was very critical of John Kerry in the 2004 election, hitting the former candidate over his opposition to the Vietnam War. A piece written by Kathy G. on the Atlantic's blog summarizes these worries that Webb is too fundamentally conservative to be given the second slot of a Democratic ticket, particularly in a year in which the party and progressive ideals have such an advantage:

What I worry about is the fact that Webb basically became a Democrat the day before yesterday, and he has a long history of holding some pretty wingnutty opinions and making some fairly outrageous and offensive statements. To quote a Rolling Stone profile of the man, just a few years ago he was saying that "Liberals were 'cultural Marxists,' and 'the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood' were a fifth column waging war on American traditions." In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was "state-sponsored racism"; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. ...

Troublingly, he gave this glowing endorsement to Mark Moyar's uber-wingnutty "revisionist" history of the Vietnam War, Triumph Forsaken, which was published in October 2006... As Rick Perlstein has demonstrated in a devastating review, the Moyar book is dreadful piece of far-right propaganda posing as history. What it basically is, is a book-length elaboration of the "stab-in-the-back" myth: i.e., Moyar argues that the Vietnam War was winnable, and that only the treachery of liberal elites in the media and the government prevented America from achieving "victory."

Kathy G. then goes into the most troubling aspect of Webb's record: Gender issues. As had been revealed in the 2006 Senate race, Webb had authored a scathing essay in the 1970s seeking to block women from military academies because they are not biologically suited for combat. His writing became a very influential document in the fight for gender equality within the army and many women testify that Webb made it very hard for them to advance their cause, including that of fighting sexual harassment. Kathy G. notes that Webb's poor record on gender issues extends to the 1980s and 1990s and a series of ill-phrased statements. Given that Obama might conceivably have to face some leftover resentment in some quarters that he defeated Clinton's bid to be the first female president, this would not be a good controversy to rehearse in the coming months.

Finally, former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn is the last nightmare choice for those who are not fully sold on the benefits of postpartisanship. Like Hagel and Bloomberg, Nunn was one of the main names mentioned in association with Unity08's project and his national security credentials could strengthen Obama in the area in which attacks on his experience could hurt him the most. But Nunn is also remembered as one of the most moderate voices of the Democratic Party of the early 1990s, a Senator who engaged in fights with what he perceived as the Clinton Administration's excessive liberalism.

Most problematic is Nunn's record on gay rights, as he was one of the main opponents of Clinton's plan to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving within the military, often in very gay-baiting terms. As a critic within Clinton's party, he is one of those most responsible for derailing the original plans. While it is true that past Democratic candidates were not the most sympathetic to gay rights demand (see Kerry, John and the Missouri anti-gay marriage amendment), it could prove a distraction for Obama to have to repeatedly address gay rights, as he had to do already in the fall.

However, it is a curious fact -- and one that is appropriate to Obama -- that an anti-war stance is all three men's main progressive credential (and, in the case of Hagel and Webb, the very/only reason they looked towards the Democratic Party in the first place). In fact, it is Sam Nunn's vote against the Gulf War 18 years ago derailed his own presidential ambitions. Given the central role the Iraq War will play in the fall, it could be a powerful symbol for Obama to have as a running-mate a man with very strong anti-war and national security credentials, a combination all three of these men share (though it did not help John Kerry).

Thursday poll: The Michigan question, continued, and Mississippi's racial puzzle

A number of state polls were released today, none more important than EPIC-MRA's Michigan poll. EPIC is the state's best pollster, and its numbers confirm the analysis I wrote 24 hours ago of the "Michigan question." No matter how unlikely a development given how hard the economic crisis has hit in Michigan, it does look like the state has joined Ohio and Pennsylvania as the holy trio of this year's battleground states:

• This poll shows McCain narrowly ahead of Obama 44% to 40%. He is largely leading among independents, 41% to 28%.
  
• However, in a match-up between an Obama/Clinton ticket and a McCain/Romney ticket, the Democrats shoot up to lead 51% to 44%.
  

There is nothing in these polls that suggests that Democrats are in terrible trouble in Michigan, but it is hard to deny that, considering the strong numbers Obama is posting in states like Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon and Washington, Democrats were allowed to expect better results out of Michigan.

The second important poll of the day is a national survey by Pew, whose polls are always noteworthy because of the detailed crosstabs and analysis that the institute provides:

• Clinton is ahead of McCain 48% to 44%, while Obama leads 47% to 44%, down from a 6% lead last month and a 7% lead in February. Obama and McCain are tied among independents, though the former led by 9% last month.
• Also, 44% say that McCain would continue Bush's policies, versus 45% who say that he will not. Obama is viewed as more capable on the economy, while the two are within the margin of error on Iraq.
  

Obama continues to enjoy a very small edge in most national polls, but the election clearly remains a toss-up at this point. It is had to determine who should be the most relieved: Obama that he has survived such a tough primary and weeks of bad press on Wright and Ayers while still looking competitive, or McCain for being largely ignored by the media since February and for running in such an awful year for his party but still looking like he has a road to win.

A series of other polls was released from states that are less central to the fall campaign:

• In Kansas, SUSA found McCain leading 49% to 39%, which is actually a very respectable showing for Obama in a staunchly red state. SUSA also tried some VP match-ups, but Governor Sibelius does not particularly help Obama. The closest he gets is a 2% loss if McCain chooses Pawlenty and he chooses Edwards.
  

• In New York, Rasmussen finds both Democrats crushing McCain, though Obama's margin is a bit inferior to Clinton's. He leads 52% to 33% while she trounces McCain 59% to 29%. Obama's favorability raitng (64%) is superior to Clinton's (55%) and McCain's (44%).

• No surprises in Alabama, where Rasmussen finds McCain leading Clinton 54% to 34% and Obama 60% to 32%.

• Finally, a last Rasmussen poll from Mississippi finds surprisingly tight results: McCain is ahead of Clinton 48% to 38% and leads Obama 50% to 44%. McCain's favorability rating (55%) is superior to Clinton's (33%) and Obama's (44%).
  

Mississippi is a state some Democrats murmur could be competitive in the fall, though it is hard to see where Obama would get the remaining 6%. Mississippi's vote is among the country's most racially polarized, and it should be so even more with a black candidate on the ballot. Obama will need a humongous surge in turnout among black voters (which would not just mean for African-Americans to vote at their level of the population, but for black turnout to be superior to white turnout) and he will also need to poll somewhat better among white voters than past Democratic candidates.

This is a tall order for Obama in any Southern states, but if it looks like he is on the path to making numbers move and results tighten in Mississippi, it could mean that he is in much better shape than expected in other states with a very large black population, especially Georgia and South Carolina. Both states are still safely in the McCain column, but the Obama campaign is planning massive registration efforts and we will soon be able to better assess whether there is any chance that numbers move in the Deep South.

House: The GOP has Staten Island blues

Each passing week brings more troublesome news for House Republicans. It is now the end of May, and we are still talking about recruitment failures, albeit for a race that just opened up a few weeks ago. Vito Fossella's decision to not seek re-election in NY-13 opened up a swing district in what is New York City's only competitive seat. But in the space of two weeks, New York Republicans have suffered a series of setbacks which have transformed NY-13 from a likely hold for Republicans into a lean pick-over for Democrats.

The district is separated between Staten Island and Brooklyn, and the Staten Island parties typically endorse a candidate that is then in a strong position to become the party's nominee in the general election. This year, however, Democrats have been engaged in somewhat of a fight between the party's Brooklyn branch and Staten Island branch, with Stephen Harrison, a Brooklyn lawyer who was already in the race before the Fossella scandal and who was the party's nominee in 2006, drawing 43% of the vote, refusing to drop out despite Staten Island's insistence that the nominee has to be from the island. Yesterday, the island's Democrats endorsed city councilman Mike McMahon, who represents Staten Island and who immediately announced that he had the support of Brooklyn leaders.

McMahon, who was among the DCCC's top choices as soon as news broke that Fossella might retire, is the favorite to win the nomination though he could have a nasty fight on his hand with Harrison. But the situation is much worse among Republicans. First, Staten Island DA Daniel Donovan -- who had recently been reelected borough wide with 68% of the vote -- announced he would not run. Then, it was the turn of Stephen Fiala, the commissioner for jurors. And finally, the GOP's third choice, state Senator Andrew Lanza, also declared that he would forgo a congressional run.

This is not the first time that all potential Republican candidates refuse to run in a district that is held by the GOP and that should be not an impossible hold for the party. After all, Staten Island leans Republican and Bush did carry the district in 2004. Tonight, Staten Island's GOP nominated Frank Power, who is thus likely to be the Republican nominee for this open seat. As described by the Staten Island Advocate, Power serves on a whole bunch of boards; his most important position currently is to serve as Staten Island's representative on the MTA board. One factor that could save Republicans here: Power looks like he might have the ability to self-fund his candidacy, which is a huge factor in a district as expansive as any in the NYC market. But the unbalance between the two parties recruitment success and the fact that the Democratic machine will help McMahon win his primary make the Staten Island Councilman the new favorite to replace Fossella.

More generally, Staten Island's drifting out of Republican hands could prove disastrous for the state GOP as they have relied on having a stronghold in this island, especially since their grip on Long Island has steadily -- and at times dramatically -- eroded. Both Rudy Giuliani and Mke Bloomberg got their winning margin here in 1993 and 2000, though the 1993 campaign is particularly associated with Staten Island since a secession referendum boosted turnout on the island.

In other House news, an internal poll conducted for the campaign of Mary Jo Kilroy in OH-15 finds good news for Democrats:

• Kilroy leads state Senator Steve Stivers 47% to 37% in a district currently held by Republicans.
  

Like any internal poll, this one ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Kilroy lost one of the tightest House races of the 2006 cycle and the retirement of Rep. Pryce made her an early favorite to pick-up the seat. But Stivers's candidacy is one of the NRCC's most successful recruitment coups and it has kept the race on the toss-up list. For now, Kilroy benefits from a higher name recognition and she is clearly boosted by Bush's low approval rating (only 35% in this district).

Senate: Mississippi battleground and Franken troubles

If Democrats end up losing the Senate race in Mississippi, they can blame the Mississippi Supreme Court's unfair decision to allow Governor Barbour to not call a March special election to replace Trent Lott. Indeed, while the state remains staunchly Republican, last month's special election in MS-01 confirmed that the GOP will need the increased turnout of a presidential election to resolve the enthusiasm gap. Furthermore, former Governor Ronnie Musgrove is almost polling like an incumbent right now. He is better-known than newly-appointed Senator Wicker, a rare situation for a challenger to be in.

Rasmussen's new Senate polls from the two Mississippi races confirms that the Musgrove-Wicker showdown will be one of the top contests this cycle, and one that could actually get Democrats close to a 60 seat majority:

• Musgrove edges out Wicker 47% to 46%. Both men have a 49% favorability rating, while 18% are not sure of their impression of Wicker (versus only 9% for Musgrove).
  

• In the state's other Senate race, Senator Cochran is crushing challenger Erik Fleming 58% to 35%, as expected.

• Note that in Rasmussen's poll of the Alabama Senate race, there are also no surprises as GOP Senator Sessions crushes Vivian Figures 62% to 29%.
  

Cochran seat was long watched as there were mounting rumors that the longtime Senator might retire, but it is Trent Lott that unexpectedly jumped out, making the special election for his seat the more interesting ones and essentially giving Cochran a free pass.

Meanwhile, Al Franken continues to be in trouble in the Minnesota Senate race continues. After the controversy over Franken's tax return that the GOP is already looking to exploit mercilessly in the months ahead, it is now Franken's past writings that are coming back to haunt him as an essay Franken wrote in Playboy in 2000 has now been unearthed. Democratic congressmen are now openly worrying that Franken could drag them down because of past writings from his satirical/comical days. Rep. Betty McCollum is now criticizing the essay as "indefensible" and "pornographic," worried that it will hurt the state's entire Democratic slate. Explaining that her phone is ringing "off the hook," McCollum revealed that she was not sure whether she would support Franken in the general election!

The Politico quotes a Democratic operative as saying that, "We’re looking at having these pornographic writings tagged onto Democrats. That doesn’t seem to be a good strategy to expand our majorities in the House." Ouch. This is certainly not enough to sink Franken's candidacy -- after all, Minnesota did elect Jesse Ventura in the 1990s and Jim Webb survived revelations about graphic writings in Virginia in 2006 -- but given that his main challenge is to demonstrate that he is a "serious" candidate, Porn-O-Rama is strengthening doubts that were already lingering about the Democrat.

After a year of admiring articles praising him for a successful transition from comic to politician, the tide appears to have turned. Yet, the DFL's convention is in a month, and it is difficult to see how Franken could not be chosen ever since rival Mike Ciresi abruptly dropped out of the race. Also, it is important to keep things in perspective: Despite the increasing criticism Franken is facing, he is holding his own in polls. The latest survey found him trailing by only 2%.

Update: Late-night Senate news from Texas in the form of a poll.

• GOP firm Baselice & Associates finds Senator Cornyn leading Rick Noriega 49% to 34%.
  

While the incumbent is under 50%, that is a much more reassuring margin than the back-to-back 47% to 43% leads he posted in Rasmussen and Research 2000 earlier in May. Despite those numbers, I had left the race in 12th position in my latest Senate rankings to reflect the enormity of the task that lies ahead of Noriega. He must not only rely on an environment that is toxic to Republicans but soften up Cornyn much more than he is now to score what would be a big upset.

Gay marriage politics, as New York joins the party

Two weeks after the California Supreme Court injected gay marriage back in the national discussion by legalizing gay marriage, New York State joined the party last night when recently promoted Governor Paterson issued a directive instructing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere (read: California, Massachusetts, Canada and a few European countries). In other words, a couple married in Boston will be allowed to file a joint tax return in New York even though they are not able to get wed in the Empire State, making it the only state which does not allow gay marriage but recognizes those of other states.

Eliot Spitzer and now David Paterson are both favorable to gay marriage, but the state Senate, still controlled by Republicans by the tiniest of margins, blocked the legislation introduced by Spitzer intended to legalize it. Without the backing of the legislature, issuing a directive to recognize out-of-state marriages is the only move Paterson could have made.

This development changes the national debate a bit, since an important reason given by advocates of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage at the state level is that states who are against gay marriage might be forced to recognize those performed in "hippie" states with loose morals like Massachusetts and now California. That is also one of the main rationales for the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton. But here is now the first state that recognizes out-of-state marriages, and does so voluntarily, without any court injunction (in fact the New York court system already ruled against cases that demanded the legalization of gay marriage).

These recent developments are creating two widely diverging state of affairs within the same country. On the one hand are states that are coastal states that are taking a very progressive position and in which gay couples now have most if not all of the rights reserved to straight couples. On the other hand are states like Virginia and many of the places that passed gay marriage amendments where gay rights are worsening, as many of the rights that gay couples were able to claim until recently were undermined by the amendments that were supposedly concerned with gay marriage but that banned all sorts of other arrangements, making it impossible for couples in states with "super-hate amendments" to have any sort of rights.

Electorally (this is, after all, an electoral blog), this creates a curious situation: If gay rights become so differentiated regionally, will the issue have as much of an impact in states that now have strong constitutional provisions against gay marriage and that are thus not at risk of having their supreme courts rule in favor of it? The only way in which gay marriage could be introduced in places like that is if the federal Supreme Court intervenes and, given the court's composition, that is unlikely to happen before many decades.

In brief, the GOP might have overplayed their hand. The reason abortion remains so powerful an issue is that it is still legal everywhere, even though Republicans had many chances to actually do something about it (given how many Justices they appointed over the past thirty years, the road to an anti-Roe majority was open to them). But with constitutional amendments taking the issue off the table in many states, gay marriage is unlikely to replace abortion as the wedge issue the GOP will use to hammer Democrats. Not to mention that the amendment's defeat in Arizona in 2006 showed that the tide might be turning.

As for the more progressive states, the shift in public opinion is even more obvious as gay rights are now increasingly removed from the realm of issues the GOP will even think of exploiting given that it is they who would come to look regressive. The latest Field Poll, California's most trusted and reputable pollster, found this week that a majority of Californians now favor gay marriage: 51% versus 42%. That's a stunning turnaround from past years, as it was 30% support in 1985, 37% in 1997 and 44% in 2006. Among the 18-29 year old age group, 68% support gay marriage, suggesting that its recent emphasis on social issues contributed to the GOP's losing its grip on an entire generation.

The Field Poll also finds that a majority of Californians would oppose a gay marriage amendment if it makes its way to the November ballot, striking a blow to Republican hopes that they can overturn the Supreme Court's decision at the ballot and confirming that the referendum is not likely to influence the presidential election or threaten Obama with the loss of California's 55 electoral votes.

Update: As a new New York Times article reveals, it looks like David Paterson will be remembered as a key player in the gay rights movement given the obstinacy with which he advocated these issues since the 1980s.

Preparing for Puerto Rico, and the Michigan question

This Sunday, Puerto Rico will finally have a day in the national political spotlight by holding its Democratic primary. Of course, the contest is less important than Puerto Ricans were hoping just a few weeks ago. After all, countless scenarios were devised in which the island's vote was to be the last-minute decider, perhaps even allowing Clinton to regain the delegate lead; indeed, we believed for a long time that Puerto Rico would allocate its delegate on a winner-take-all basis before plans were clarified in favor of proportional allocation.

Hillary Clinton is widely held as the favorite of this contest given her lead among Hispanics. After all, it is because of the Latino vote that Clinton survived for so long, as they allowed her to win Texas and handily defeat Obama in California. But Puerto Rico voters are a very different voting group than Hispanics living in America and whose set of concerns and economic condition is very different, so it is important to not overstate Clinton's natural advantage. That said, the only poll released until today had Clinton leading by 13% (that was back in April). Today, we got another poll:

• This survey, conducted by Quinlan Rosner Research for Univision, shows her leading 51% to 38% in this race that will allocate 55 delegates. Among the most likely voters, Clinton leads 59% to 40%.
  

To overtake Obama in the popular vote (well, in a count that the press could hold as legitimate), Clinton will need a big win and a huge turnout. But Puerto Rico's vote now seems like an afterthought, which probably frustrates the press corps more than any one else.

Meanwhile, two general election polls were released by SUSA's ongoing series of testing vice-presidential match-ups:

• In Iowa, Obama leads McCain 47% to 38%. When VPs are added, John Edwards helps the ticket the most but Republicans lead in a number of scenarios. These are based mostly on name recognition so I will not spend more time detailing them.
  

• In Michigan, meanwhile, McCain is ahead 41% to 37%. Obama only gets 60% of the Democratic vote.
  
• SUSA only polled Mitt Romney as a Republican VP, as the former Massachusetts Governor can call Michigan as something of a homestate (which he won on January 15th, prolonging his candidacy). The McCain-Romney team lead all Democratic tickets, from a range of +3 if the Dem VP is Edwards to +19 if it is Webb or Kaine, two Virginians who are largely unknown in Michigan.

The Michigan question has to be troubling Democrats, as there have now been a series of polls showing the Arizona Senator edging the probable Democratic nominee. While the state featured tight contests in 2000 and 2004 (Al Gore and John Kerry both carried the state by less than 5%), the Democratic nominees posted a small lead throughout the campaign and Michigan was generally rated as a "lean Democratic" state. But with McCain's increasingly undeniable strength in the state, the likelihood of Michigan's 17 electoral votes being at the very center of the general election campaign -- replacing Florida as the third member of the holy trio, alongside Ohio and Pennsylvania.

This is obviously a dangerous development for Democrats, as two of the three largest battleground states would then be blue states -- and both are must-win states for them to recapture the White House. Michigan is too much a part of the Democratic electoral college base for the party to afford seeing the state joining the rank of toss-ups.

The delegate mess in which the Democratic Party is still stuck will not help Obama's cause, though the roots of the problem are obviously deeper. Michigan might be one of the only states in which voters partly blame Democrats for their worsening economic condition, as Governor Granholm's approval ratings have plummeted in the past few years. Furthermore, this is a state in which Obama's weakness among blue-collar voters could hurt him if he does not recapture that electorate by the fall, as the union vote is an important one (albeit a declining force) in the state.

Down-the-ballot: Idaho field set, GOP loses candidate in MA

Yesterday was primary day in Idaho, and the field is set for the open Senate race: Larry LaRocco easily won the Democratic nomination and Jim Risch crushed a large slate of opponents to capture the GOP nomination with 66% of the vote. Both results were expected, but given how many shocking turns the race took since the Larry Craig scandal exploded last summer, it is still noteworthy that Craig did not attempt a last minute coup to get himself on the ballot.

This sets up a rematch of the 2006 race for lieutenant governor, which Risch won 58% to 39%. LaRocco has an outside chance of scoring the upset, but Risch is heavily favored to become Idaho's new junior Senator, even with the strong winds pushing Senate Democrats nationally. The race is ranked 15th in my latest Senate rankings.

A more interesting last night came from Idaho's first congressional district. Bill Sali, first elected in 2006 in a very close general election contest after winning a crowded primary with 26% of the voted, was held under 60% of the vote in this primary, testifying to the hard feelings that still linger in the state about Sali's 2006 victory. The state GOP is notoriously hostile to Sali, who is one of the most conservative House members, so much so that even Idaho Republicans are uncomfortable with him. In fact, Democrats even ran an ad in 2006 about "what Republicans are saying about Bill Sali," quoting numerous high-profile figures like the Idaho House speaker. Sali barely prevailed at the end of the day, saved by the fact that ID-01 is one of the most conservative districts in the country.

Any incumbent who finishes with an unexpectedly low total in his primary has to be considered at least somewhat endangered in the fall, so Democrats will take a closer look at ID-01 now to determine whether they can make a play for the district. The Democratic nominee will be businessman Walt Minnick, who is mounting as strong a campaign as any Democrat can hope for in Idaho. As of May, Minnick had more cash-on-hand than Sali, testifying to the fact that his challenge should be taken seriously, though the incumbent starts heavily favored. He survived in 2006 when the seat was open and he had much of the state's Republican establishment against him, and conditions are much better for him this year.

In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the NRSC suffered a dramatic blow. It is one thing for Senate Republicans to have trouble fundraising and recruiting given how dismal the national environment is for the GOP, but what happened to Jim Ogonowski is plain incompetence. Ogonowski was recruited by national Republicans to run against Senator John Kerry, whose approval ratings have not been that high since his failed presidential run in 2004. Ogonowski, you might remember, lost a surprisingly tight special election in the fall for a Democratic-leaning district, and Republicans believed he had the right profile to at least force Kerry on the defensive.

This race was of course always a long shot for the GOP but given how few Democratic-held states they are contesting (well, only Louisiana really) they were at least content to be at least fielding a credible candidate in MA. But the deadline to submit petitions passed yesterday and Ogonowski fell short 82 signatures short of the number needed to qualify for the primary ballot! Even if he had that many more, he would probably not have qualified as a petition needs a cushion of signatures as a number of them are usually tossed out.

The Ogonowski campaign insists that they have filed more signatures that haven't been processed yet, but it is unlikely that they will pass the numbers they need, particularly as fellow Republican candidate Jeff Beatty, who will now probably the party's nominee against John Kerry, is taking advantage of Ogonowski's predicament to file complaints about his rival forging signatures. This will at least guarantee that Ognowski's petition will be carefully checked.

This is not a tragic blow to Republicans given that they were unlikely to truly put Kerry's seat in play (the only poll of the race had Kerry leading by 25%). But it is the accumulation of small failures -- whether in recruitment, fundraising or simply errors in the running of campaigns -- that are putting Senate Republicans in so much trouble.

Rules and Bylaws Committee: One more attempt to resolve FL and MI

On May 31st, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meets to address challenges to its treatment of Florida and Michigan's delegations and discuss possible resolutions. Such questions will soon be referred to the convention's credential committee, and it was widely expected that the DNC would simply refer any decision to that not-yet-operational committee. Instead, the RBC accepted to listen to Florida and Michigan's petitions. On Saturday morning, the RBC will listen both the state parties and those who brought the challenge forward (Senator Levin, who has long fought the primary calendar, will speak on Michigan's behalf); the two campaigns will also present their demands and their positions.

The two questions that need to be addressed are: First, should Florida and Michigan superdelegates be seated independently of what is decided about the pledged delegation? Second, what shall be done with the pledged delegates and how much weight should be given to the January 15th and January 29th votes?

The Clinton campaign has a lot riding on this meeting. Not only do they need to score a big net gain of delegates to keep the race close enough that they survive the first week of June but they want to legitimize their efforts to count Florida and Michigan in the popular vote. The campaign insists they are ahead in the popular vote counting the FL and MI results, and it will be more difficult for the Obama campaign to retort that totals from these two states should not be counted if they agree to allocate some delegates based on their results at the RBC.

Both candidates have their supporters on the committee which makes it virtually impossible that Clinton would get her full wish: That both delegations be fully seated, be given full voting rights and that they be allocated according to the January votes. The Obama campaign -- whose position right now is to split the delegations equally -- has signaled its willingness to meet "halfway," which could mean granting Hillary half of the pledged delegate leads she earned in January. Today, Clinton's options were reduced further and Obama's position was strengthened when the Democratic Party's lawyers issued a legal memo explaining the DNC could not fully seat the delegations and that it had to settle for reducing its voting rights by half -- which is roughly the punishment the RNC imposed on Florida and Michigan, though that did not prevent McCain from sealing his nomination in the Sunshine state.

Note that even if Clinton did get her full wish granted it would leave her far from her rival, and far from the nomination. That is why I wrote that Clinton is trying to keep it close enough to survive the first week of June rather than overtake Obama's lead. If she had gotten the DNC to recognize some delegations back in January or February, she would have kept closer contact with Obama and might not have spent the next 4 months on the defensive, having to justify why she is staying in and defend her turf. That obviously did not happen, and Clinton is now simply trying to prolong the game.

Obama is very close to 2,026 right now and they are looking to secure enough superdelegates in the days following June 3rd to surpass that number. Having hundreds of new delegates thrown in the game as well as more uncommitted superdelegates will raise the number needed to secure the nomination, giving Clinton hope of keeping the nomination fight alone past the endorsement wave that will likely follow June 3rd and strengthening her VP claims.

In the midst of this showdown between the Obama and Clinton machines, it is important to remember that the DNC has a very different set of concerns: How to balance the need to represent Michigan and Florida at the convention with the fact that they broke the rules? The Democratic world is worried that, if Florida and Michigan's delegations are recognized, there will be no way to keep any order in the primary calendar and no incentive for states to recognize the rules. Even an RNC-style half-punishment could no be enough, given how important FL and MI were in the GOP nomination fight.

Update: Florida Democrats were hoping to force the DNC to seat their delegates by going through the courts, but a Florida judge just tossed out the lawsuit saying that parties have the right to make their own rules.

Changing electoral maps, from Appalachia to the West

Barack Obama is now traveling to general election battleground states with increasing frequency, and his exchanges with John McCain are starting to generate as much press as his disputes with Hillary Clinton. Today's topics included the RNC blasting Obama for falsely claiming that his uncle liberated Auschwitz and McCain's proposal that Obama and him travel to Iraq together, a proposal Obama quickly rejected as nothing but "a stunt."

Still recovering from months of delegate calculations, proportional allocations, even-and-odd delegate districts and Excel spreadsheets, the Obama campaign is now turning to an altogether different sort of calculation: the electoral college. Here, there is no proportionality as it is (almost) all winner-take-all. And there is less of an opportunity to change the message depending on which states votes, since they all vote at the same time.

As I have been exploring in recent weeks, Obama's electoral map differs from that of Al Gore and John Kerry, which placed heavy emphasis on Eastern states in general, and Ohio and Florida in particular. Hillary Clinton would have relied on a similar map, and polls suggested that she was in a position to be more successful than her predecessors in both these states. But there is ample evidence that states might not be Obama's safest bets and that he should look elsewhere for his top-tier opportunities.

Naturally, Obama will have enough resources that he will compete in all states in which he could have a chance. The same could not be said of Kerry and Gore, and this is the Democrats' main advantage this election year. Gore, for instance, sacrificed Ohio; Kerry gave up on places like Missouri and focused on Ohio. But it would not be correct to conclude that Obama will not have to prioritize an electoral map. For one, he has limited time and he will have to choose the combination of states that he believes will get him to 270. Second, the way in which he frames his messages will have to be targeted at specific constituencies: Will Obama aim at capturing working-class white voters or more upscale independent-minded voters? Trying to keep a balance in the themes that are emphasized can end up satisfying no one. As long as he does not need a majority of both to win the election, Obama could be better-advised to pick a path and largely stick to it.

Finally, there is the very simple problem that, no matter how much Obama is campaigning there, Appalachia is not warming up to him at all. Obama outpsent Clinton in Ohio, in Pennsylvania and in North Carolina. By the time Kentucky and West Virginia voted, the nomination's competitive stage had long been over. Yet, Obama got trounced in all the Appalachian counties in these states -- including in the all-important states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Obama can spend as much money in WV and KY as he wants, but both states look to be as safe as it gets for John McCain. A new Rasmussen poll of Kentucky released yesterday shows Clinton leading McCain 51% to 42% in this red state (confirming that the Kentucky GOP is in bad shape, which we started seeing in the fall) but Obama is crushed 57% to 32%! That's a huge differential between the two Democrats. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Obama will have to make up in urban and suburban areas his weakness in rural counties.

While this does not mean that Obama will give up on OH and PA -- he certainly needs the latter if he wants to get to the White House and he certainly has the potential to boost Democratic turnout and appeal to Republican-voting upscale voters in places like Philadelphia or the Ohio suburbs -- it does suggest that Obama will make an effort to turn to the Mountain West and replace the emphasis on the East and the Midwest with an all-out effort in Colorado (9 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and Nevada (5 electoral votes). With all the Kerry states, these 19 electoral votes would get Obama to an electoral tie; add Iowa, the only 2004 Bush state that polls now suggest is leaning Democratic, and it is an electoral majority for the Illinois Senator.

Furthermore, Obama seeks to replace the Florida-Ohio strategy (which could lead to a more disastrous result this year than in cycles past) by replacing their 47 electoral votes with those of states that have not been in the map at all in past cycles, states like Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska and perhaps even an electoral vote in Nebraska! Note that polls do not show that Obama would be stronger than Clinton in North Carolina, but it seems safe to say that he will make a bigger play for that state than she would have.

In brief, Obama's changing the map is due to his relative weakness in the states that past Democratic nominees have put the emphasis on and his relative strength in places which they gave up on.

What makes the 2008 election particularly unpredictable is that McCain also changes the electoral map for Republicans, as his strengths and weaknesses are different from those of Bush
and those other Republicans would have brought to the table. Unlike his former nomination rivals, McCain can keep the Hispanic vote competitive and thus contest the 3 Western states (CO, NV and NM). Unlike Republicans who would have had more difficulty differentiating themselves from Bush, McCain can hope to convince independents who have given up on the GOP to still vote for him, allowing him to compete for independents in places like New Hampshire, upstate Virginia, Oregon and Washington.

And unlike Bush's strategy of turning out the base by polarizing the electorate, the trust McCain inspires among moderate Democrats could be higher than the one among conservative Republicans, which explains why McCain is confident that it can take advantage of Obama's weakness with blue-collar votes in the must-win Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. He just started airing ads in those two states, focused on economic issues. Polls have shown McCain to be surprisingly competitive in Michigan in particular, making it that much more important for Democrats to find a resolution to the delegate mess.

In other words, Obama and McCain both believe that their strengths make it imperative for them to focus on the Mountain West and on states like Virginia and New Hampshire; meanwhile, McCain will make sure to put in play Michigan and Pennsylvania because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and Obama will attempt a push in the deep South because to see whether he can boost black turnout. All of this at the expense of Florida and Ohio.

Senate shocker: Lunsford could make it a race in Kentucky

And just like that, Kentucky is back in the continually growing group of competitive Senate seats. A week after Bruce Lunsford won the Democratic primary to take on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Rasmussen released a poll that challenges the conventional wisdom of this race:

• Lunsford leads McConnell 49% to 44%, despite McConnell's satisfying favorability rating, at 52%.

Many of you might remember the series of polls released in the fall that showed McConnell surprisingly vulnerable to challenges by a number of Democrats, starting with Rep. Chandler, state Attorney General Stumbo and state Auditor Crit Luallen. But as all of them declined to run, McConnell's suddenly appeared much more safe. The DSCC encouraged Lunsford to run, but he was generally deemed a second-to-third tier candidate. But perhaps Lunsford can use to his benefit what until now were challenges to overcome; the fact that he has donated money to McConnell in the past and that he supported Republican Ernie Fletcher's election bid in 2003 are certainly proof of Lunsford's shady Democratic credentials and conservative roots and those can help him get elected in a state like Kentucky.

Also, Lunsford will self-fund some of his candidacy (which is one of the main reasons the DSCC pushed him to run and helped him in the primary). McConnell has a war chest of almost $8 million already, and he aired his first ads in the fall to address some of his vulnerabilities. Lunsford's ability to pay for some ads from his own pockets will be critical for Democrats to exploit their opening here.

In response, the McConnell campaign released an internal poll showing the Senator ahead, a poll also taken after the primary to account for any bounce received by the Democrat:

• In this poll, McConnell is leading Lunsford 50% to 39%, and enjoys 57% approval rating.

This is certainly more reassuring numbers than those released by Rasmussen, but there is a reason the campaign chose not to release them until Rasmussen put them on the defensive: It's not a very good result either. For the Senate Minority Leader and longtime fixture of Kentucky politics to be on the brink of vulnerability (the 50% threshold) is cause for worry, especially when running against a candidate who does not have the popularity or recognition that Chandler or Stumbo might have had. Add to this the fact that internal polls are always to be taken with a grain of salt, and McConnell's effort to lower Republican concerns cannot be regarded as fully successful.

With the Democrats expanding the Senate map in every direction, Republicans believed it had made Kentucky safe. But the Rasmussen poll (combined with the GOP's internal poll that confirms that this will be a tight race to the finish) dashes those hopes. It also strengthens the Democrats' argument that they have a path to a 60-seat Senate majority this year. Let's review the list of Republican-held seats in which a recent poll has shown the Democrat ahead: VA, CO, NH, NM, AK, MN (not since February), MS, NC and now KY. In addition, Merkley and Noriega are polling within 5 points in Oregon and Texas. That's 11 races right there, and we aren't even counting states in which the GOP looks good for now but in which the DSCC is determined to make a move (Maine, and Oklahoma).

Also today, a new Rasmussen poll from Minnesota confirms that the Coleman-Franken showdown will be one of the most entertaining and tightest of the year:

• Coleman now leads his Democratic challenger 47% to 45%, down from a 7% lead last month. The two men have comparable favorability ratings.

Franken has had a particularly rough few months, as the GOP and the press have relentlessly hammered him for his tax problems. A wave of polls showed him ahead in February but he lost ground since then, but this poll suggests that he might be recovering now. We will wait for other polls to confirm any trends.

Meanwhile, in Montana, a new Mason-Dixon Senate poll, the first of the state's Senate race, confirms that Democratic Senator Baucus is safe even though his state is likely to vote for McCain in the fall. He leads his challengers by 35% or more, with at least 60% of the vote. In better news for Republicans, M-D also found GOP Rep. Rehlberg, who represents the entire state, to be in good shape for his re-election battle despite some Democrats believing that they can put his seat in play. He leads probable Dem nominee Jim Hunt 52% to 20%, flirting with the 50% line but it will be difficult for Hunt, who is largely unknown, to catch up.

Bob Barr gets Libertarian nomination

Nearly two months after announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination, Bob Barr got the nod at the party's convention in Denver this week-end. It took him six rounds of balloting to defeat his rivals, the last of which was research scientist Mary Ruwart.

Now, Barr moves on the to the general election where he will make his way on the ballot in many states without much effort. The Libertarian Party automatically qualifies for the ballot in many places due to past electoral results, so Barr will not be in the situation Ralph Nader was in four years ago. Nader, who was running as an independent (not as the Green candidate) spent most of his spring and summer collecting signatures and then fighting the Democrats' efforts to kick him off the ballot.

With Barr's likely presence on many ballots, the question becomes what effect he will have on the two-party contest. Will he reach beyond voters who shun the Democrats and Republicans, and can he play spoiler for one of the two candidates? As I explained in April, Barr broke with the GOP in 2006 by emphasizing issues that should endear him to Democrats -- opposition to the war in Iraq and to torture, support for the ACLU. The Ron Paul phenomenon showed that there is a way in which a libertarian can attract young and disaffected voters, the very same group that Barack Obama believes he can bring in the process.

Yet, there is little doubt that Barr's credentials lie at the Right. He was one of the main proponents of the Clinton impeachment, and the language he uses -- as does Ron Paul -- is one of a disaffected Republican, rather than of an anti-war liberal. There are many traditionally GOP voters who are not willing to vote for the Republican nominee this year because of their disapproval of Bush (it is their lack of enthusiasm that accounts for the 3 special election losses this spring and for some of the Republicans' losses in 06), and while these voters might not go as far as vote for a Democrat, they could take refuge in a third-party candidacy. Barr has a high enough profile that he could attract such disaffected Republican voters.

In particular, Barr could potentially open the door to a tighter than expected contest in Georgia. One of the states with the largest black population, Georgia has been one of the only sates that has been trending Republican even in the past few cycles. In other words, it is not the first Southern state on Obama's list. But Barr was a former Georgia congressman, and he could potentially make a good showing here if he concentrates his fire power in the state. That might not be enough to allow Obama to carry it, but it could force McCain to defend his grounds. Also, the states that are typically the most receptive to libertarian messages are the Western states that will likely feature some of the toughest battles this fall.

None of this means that Barr's getting the nomination is cause for panic for the McCain campaign. The libertarian movement is still obsessed with Ron Paul, who drew 15% in the Oregon GOP primary last week, months after McCain wrapped up the nomination. There are talks to start a gated community -- Paulville -- inspired by Paul's principles. The Texas congressman seems to be looking to force the Republican Party to give him a platform at the convention, and he has certainly earned enough delegates to have a base there. Paul continuing to attract attention will make it difficult for Barr to attract any attention and appeal to voters beyond those who have voted for the Libertarian candidate in the past 2 general elections.

There is however one way in which this week-end's news was clearly a relief for Democrats. Also vying for the Libertarian nomination was Mike Gravel, the former Alaska Senator who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries before quitting the party a few months ago. Given how little credibility the media portrayed Gravel as having, it would have been unlikely that Gravel's presence on the ballot would have affected Obama or that it would have been as much of a threat as Barr could be for McCain, but he would certainly have proved a distraction for Democrats and having two candidates on the Left (Nader and Gravel) could have been tough. Now, Barr will serve as somewhat of a balance to Nader's candidacy.

Week-end polls: In case anyone had illusions about Clinton's June 3rd chances

The first poll of the Montana primary -- not a contest that was expected to ever be surveyed -- suggests that June 3rd should not allow Hillary Clinton to close the primary season on a high note. Mason-Dixon shows Barack Obama leading 52% to 35%, and there is every reason to believe that Clinton's road is as tough in South Dakota.

Naturally, these two primaries award very few delegates (31 combined, versus 55 in Puerto Rico two days earlier). But since Clinton's goal seems to be to find an argument to stay in the race as long as possible, there is no doubt that two harsh defeats on the last Election Night will not bode well for her campaign's rationale in the days following June 3rd, days in which the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are expected to pick their side at an increasing speed. DemCon Watch details this week's updates, and finds that Obama picked up 3 supers to Clinton's one (all were add-on, and Clinton's surprisingly came from Georgia).

Meanwhile, a list of general election polls were released today:

• First, Gallup's national tracking poll is noteworthy for it shows one of the largest differentials between Clinton and Obama's performance that it has recorded since the tracking started a while ago. Today, Obama trails 49% to 44% while Clinton leads 47% to 45%.

• Meanwhile, Mason-Dixon's Montana poll shows possibly tight races, though McCain is predictably starting ahead. He leads Clinton 50% to 39% and Obama 47% to 39%. Bush won 59% to 39% four years ago.

• In neighboring Nebraska, however, Research 2000 crushes Democratic hopes of picking up a few electoral votes with Obama's candidacy. McCain trounces Obama 57% to 29% (leading by wide margins in all congressional districts) and leads Clinton 58% to 28%. A Rasmussen poll and a SUSA poll released in the past few months showed much tighter results.

• Meanwhile, in California, an LA Times poll should send shills down Democrats' spine, as McCain is very close to both Democrats: 47% to 40% against Obama, 43% to 40% against Clinton. Two polls released Friday showed both Dems up double-digits.

• Finally, a North Carolina poll by Civitas has a tight race between McCain and Obama, with the Republican leading 44% to 39%.
  

The California numbers are significant, for if a series of polls in the next few weeks show the potential of a single-digit race, the Democratic nominee will be forced to spend resources to defend this large state with expensive media markets even if the GOP campaign does not attempt anything. Democrats can take no risk in California, as the loss of its 55 electoral votes would leave no road to the White House.

The Western states are also interesting, for it is a central part of Obama's argument of a different electoral map that states that have traditionally not been receptive to Democrats -- places like North Dakota, some congressional districts in Nebraska, Montana -- could warm up to him. Polls are telling a conflicting picture about this, as Obama has polled very strongly in some polls (in Alaska, Nebraska) but more poorly in some. All these states have very few electoral votes, so the loss/gain of one would not necessarily determine the election (though it could, as Al Gore learned in 2000).

In one last polling note, Research 2000 also conducted a survey of the Nebraska Senate race and found Mike Johanns leading Scott Kleeb by a wide 58% to 31%. A Rasmussen poll released last week found Johanns ahead 55% to 40%, a more promising picture for the Democrats. But this merely confirms what we already know: What was a very promising race at some point in the fall is now among the most difficult for Democrats, as Johanns is a very popular and well-known politician of a very Republican state. This is a rare congressional open seat in which the GOP looks to have saved itself through recruiting.

VP talk picks up: Warner and Bloomberg are latest target of speculation

Vice-presidential rumors have been in the air for months, but they have been picking up this past week, as both candidates step up their vice-presidential committees, conduct interviews or just start assembling files on potential running mates.

Obama is at a much earlier stage of the process than McCain is, though it is certainly possible to draw a comprehensive list of names are are being considered, though the Hillary question still looms large. Today, Robert Novak's column mentioning the possibility of Mark Warner being selected launched a round of speculation about the chances of the former Virginia Governor who once seemed like a sure presidential candidate. Novak wrote that, "Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate."

Warner is now running for Virginia's open Senate seat, and he is the overwhelming favorite to win that race (this seat has been ranked the most vulnerable Senate seat for months now). Warner's involvement in the senatorial race was supposed to take him out of vice-presidential chatter. After all, when Warner accepted the candidacy, his name was already circulating as a possible VP pick so he was aware of that possibility, making his choice somewhat of a renunciation of the vice-presidency. After all, if Warner were to drop out of the Senate race right now, it would transform the Democrats' best pick-up opportunity into an at best uncertain endeavor.

This would suggest that the Obama campaign would not dare to consider Warner's candidacy, but if they decide that Warner is what they need on the ticket to carry Virginia, they probably will not have much scruples in undermining the DSCC. Nor will Warner automatically reject an offer that would put him on the path to the presidency in 2012 or 2016. And as if to confirm that Warner's name is truly in consideration, Politico 's article today on the "Virginia trio" (Kaine, Webb and Warner) argues that Warner would be the strongest of the Virginia candidates, and the one that would help Obama carry the state the most. So 13 electoral votes or a Senate seat?

Meanwhile, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues to entertain the most confusion three months after announcing he would not attempt a presidential run. Since then, Bloomberg has been attempting to please all sides, introducing both Obama and McCain at events a few weeks from one another. Despite the fact that there has been more speculation as to the possibility that Obama might tap Bloomberg as his running mate, since the two would reinforce each other's postpartisan message and as there had been reports of talks between Bloomberg's entourage and Obama's, it is the McCain-Bloomberg ticket that currently has the most buzz. The two had breakfast on May 17th, and NYMag is quite certain that they talked about vice-presidential prospects. Marc Ambinder confirms the seriousness of these talks.

McCain selecting Bloomberg has quite obvious drawbacks and advantages. For one, it would seriously undercut Obama's core message of reform and post-partisanship if the politician with the most post-partisan positioning were to rally his rival; McCain would also strengthen his own independent image. Second, it would give McCain much more credibility on the economy, an issue on which McCain has difficulties. Third, Bloomberg has money, lots of it -- and the GOP needs as much as it can get this year. But it could also create problems to have someone as moderate as Bloomberg on the ticket when many conservatives already distrust the Arizona Senator. After all, electing someone to the vice-presidency gives them a heads-up for the next race to the White House. He would also not improve McCain's numbers in any particular state. Finally, Bloomberg is not the most charismatic politician -- to say the least -- and he would not certainly not be an effective attack dog, in what is usually a VP's most urgent role.

Despite denials, Clinton camp increasingly eying VP spot

Hillary Clinton still professes to have her eye on the prize -- the presidential nomination. But her chances have faded irremediably, leading to the question of why she is staying in the race. One of the reasons that is advanced is that she is waging effort to secure the vice-presidential nomination. If the race between the two Democratic candidates had stayed tighter all the way to the June/July, Obama might have been forced to pick her in a last ditch effort to unify the party. But since the primary's competitive part ended on May 6th, Clinton could have quickly lost her strength, which would have given Obama no incentive to choose her as his running-mate.

As Clinton's fortunes have decreased, her surrogates have increasingly touted the possibility of her taking the vice-presidential spot. Ed Rendell for instance, explained back in March that he would be happier with Clinton at the top but that a joint ticket was the way to go. Now, Time and the New York Times are reporting that Bill Clinton is strongly in support of his wife's inclusion on the ticket and suggested that he and his surrogates are pushing the Obama campaign to engage in talks. It did not take long for both the Obama and Clinton campaigns to deny any such rumor, as both have no interest in such news being disseminated. The Obama campaign wants to keep the vice-presidential search under wraps while Clinton's would lose all credibility if they were seen as openly campaigning for the VP spot. Howard Wolfson insisted that these reports were "100% false," and both campaigns explained that there were absolutely no talk between them about a possible joint ticket.

There is no question, however, that Clinton's surrogates are pushing for her selection even while their candidate is professing to have no such desire whatsoever. Today, her top fundraising official, Hassan Nemazee, declared that "Time is not your friend. A dream ticket would be the best way to ensure both unity and full and active support, financially and politically, for the ticket to be in the strongest position to win in the fall." Senator Diane Feinstein, who does not directly speaks for the campaign but who is one of Hillary's most prominent supporters, added that "I am one that believes that if it works out that Senator Obama is the nominee, the strongest ticket would be Senator Clinton as vice president."

In justifying her stance, Feinstein voiced an argument that comes back often among proponents of a dream ticket: She referred to "the weight of the states he carried versus the states she carried. It's different. And, therefore, if you combine them both, you've got the best electoral path." In other words, a joint ticket would combine Clinton's strength in states she looks solid in (Florida, Arkansas, securing a lot of blue states) with Obama's in the states he typically fares better in (the Northwest, Virginia, Colorado). Merge the two candidates' electoral map and you get an electoral rout in the Democrats' favor.

The only problem, of course, is that vice-presidential boosts don't function quite like that. Clinton's inclusion on the ticket would not necessarily deliver to Obama the states in which she appears stronger than him, for vice-presidential candidates typically only marginally boost their ticket. While Clinton appeals to voters who are uncomfortable with Obama and Obama appeals to voters who are uncomfortable with Clinton, it is unlikely that Clinton is the best candidate Obama can choose who will make him more able to conquer blue-collar voters and Hispanics, just as Obama would not necessarily be Clinton's best choice to address her own vulnerabilities if she were to capture the nomination.

There is also the problem of the clashing nature of Obama's message of change with Clinton's persona, and whether contradictions that would emerge would put the Democratic campaign on the defensive, forced to continually explain itself. Finally, I am not sure that Clinton's selection would send a positive message to female voters, as it would show Hillary yet again stuck in a powerless position, subordinated to a male figure, just as she was in the 1990s. A lot of women who are supporting Clinton in the hope of having the first female president could regard her inclusion on the ticket as more problematic than if she was not included.

In other words, it is one thing to prefer Clinton over Obama; it is quite another to believe Clinton is the strongest nominee Obama could choose. And then there is the animosity between the two candidates, one that took quite a dramatic turn today as a controversy exploded on the New York Post, then on Drudge, then throughout the web, about Clinton's comments regarding RFK's assassination. Asked why she was not dropping out, Clinton explained that it was still too early: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Clinton had made similar comments in the past, and this time a controversy erupted as the Obama campaign responded that this had no place in the political discussion. All sorts of interpretations quickly surfaced -- Clinton's subconsceous is talking, she is being insensitive, especially given US history and the much-reported fears of black people that something might happen to Obama. Given the fact that Clinton was quite clearly addressing the timeline of previous nomination fights in which the nominee was not chosen in May (in 1980, for instance, the fight went to the convention floor but Jimmy Carter had a majority of delegates secured against Ted Kennedy; and Clinton could have named 1984 but the prolonged fight hurt Democrats then so that's not a parallel Clinton wants to make), this controversy does seem overblown to me but it is revealing of how tense both sides have become and how hard it could be to mend fences in the coming months.

Friday polls: Obama polls better in Ohio, dogged by low numbers with registered Dems

As the Democratic primaries are heading towards their conclusion, more polling outlets are releasing general election surveys, leading to a daily drumbeat of interesting results. Today, we ought to start with the two surveys from Ohio and Pennsylvania, among the most important states in the general election:

• SUSA released one of the first surveys from Ohio that is favorable to Obama for a long time. The Illinois Senator leads John McCain 48% to 39%. Note that the sample contains a very high number of registered Democrats (52%), though it's also important to notice that Obama reaches his highest level of support among registered Democrats in any SUSA poll from Ohio: 76%.


• This is a poll meant to test VP support, so there is no match-up with Clinton. I will not detail the VP tests, but the range goes from +2 McCain for Huckabee/Rendell tickets to +18 Obama for Pawlently/Edwards tickets.


• Meanwhile, a Rasmussen poll from Pennsylvania shows Clinton crushing McCain 50% to 39% while Obama is only ahead 45% to 43%. Last month, Obama trailed by 1 and Clinton led by 6.


• Obama's support among registered Democrats is very low: 63%. McCain and him have comparable favorability levels.

A long series of polls -- cumulating in yesterday's Quinnipiac poll that showed Obama trailing McCain while Clinton crushed him -- suggested that Obama had a big problem in Ohio. This SUSA poll does not fully dispell that notion considering the strange partisan breakdown and the fact that the majority of respondents are registered Democrats. But it also should serve as a reminder that, even if Obama might have electoral maps that are more appropriate for him than the emphasis on OH and FL that could work better for Clinton, Ohio at least still remains competitive and the Obama campaign has enough money to compete there forcefully even while focusing on Virginia and Colorado.

As for Pennsylvania, it merely confirms the series of PA/OH/FL polls I mentioned above that show Clinton polling more strongly than Obama in those states. Yesterday's Quinnipiac poll showed similar results. PA is not a state that the Obama campaign can ignore, to say the least. Not only does it lean more Democratic than OH and FL, but losing all three swing states would make it extremely difficult for Obama to climb back to 270 electoral votes. Meanwhile, two other polls from important swing states were released:

• In Nevada, Rasmussen finds Clinton polling surprisingly better than Obama given that Western states are supposed to be more welcoming to him: Clinton is ahead 46% to 41% and McCain leads Obama 46% to 40%. Obama only gets 65% of registered Democrats.


• In New Hampshire, Rasmussen finds both Democrats reversing the April trend and leading McCain. Clinton is leading 51% to 41% and Obama is ahead 48% to 43%. In the all-important (and symbolic, given what happened on January 8th) battle for independents, Obama is ahead of McCain by 11%.

The two Southwestern states (New Mexico and Nevada) and New Hampshire will feautre some of this year's tightest battles, though none of them offer a lot of electoral votes. The Southwstern showdown, however, will be key to future presidential elections, as Democrats need to make gains in the region as their Northeastern strongholds will continue to lose electoral votes.

Note, however, that in both Nevada and Pennsylvania Obama's principal weakness comes from registered Democrats, a phenomenon that we have documented at great length by now but that is nonetheless always surprising to notice. The Illinois Senator will surely rise above numbers like 63-66% support as the party is reunited, but there is no doubt that he will face major difficulties in his efforts to solidify the base. How well he addresses the concerns of registered Democrats reluctant to support him appears to be the key to November.

Finally, three polls were released from states that should safe for one party or the other:

• In Mississippi, a Research 2000 poll found McCain beating both Dems,54% to 39% against Obama and 55% to 36% against Clinton.


• In California, Rasmussen finds both Democrats leading, 52% to 38% for Obama and 55% to 36% for Clinton. McCain's favorability rating is at 46%, Obama's at 57%.


• PPIC also polled California and found Obama with a bigger lead, 54% to 37%, while Clinton's lead was 51% to 39%.


• Finally, Behavior Research Center finds McCain leading in his home-state of Arizona: 50% to 39% against Obama, 51% to 36% against Clinton.

Democrats should be heartened that all four of their leads in California are double-digits. If California polls show any sign of tightening, Democrats would be forced to spend precious time and resources defending these must-win 55 electoral votes. Meanwhile, McCain's numbers in Mississippi and Arizona are underwhelming. Some around the Obama campaign insist that states like Mississippi could be in play as Obama will boost black turnout, but the internals of the Research 2000 polls show that will come at a price: white voters will turn to the GOP more than they usually do. Obama only got 18% of the white vote in this Mississippi poll.