Campaign Diaries

Changes

2008-06-25T15:09:00.003-04:00

Sorry for the many problems I have been having... and stick along!

Campaigns refine strategy: Obama expands map, McCain targets Reagan Democrats

2008-06-25T10:00:00.000-04:00

As both presidential campaigns have started airing their first ads and hiring staffers in various battlegrounds, the time has come for more definite decisions on what states ought to be contested and what constituencies ought to be targeted. Last week, Obama started to air his first general election ad in a series of 18 states (14 of which were won by Bush in 2004) that included Indiana, North Dakota and Alaska. This week, Obama's campaign manager confirmed to Politico that they are intending to contest all of these 14 states and extended the list of states the campaign is looking at to... Wyoming and Texas.

Steve Hildebrand suggested that, while the campaign is unlikely to air advertisement here, they are thinking about the possibility of sending paid staffers to organize in such states in order to help down-the-ballot candidates. Indeed, the difficulty of Democrats to win congressional races in Wyoming or Texas in a presidential year is that they are dragged down by the top of the ticket. But Obama has enough money to take care of his own business and afford to also ease the way for red state Democrats.

Of course, Obama can expect something in return: Red state Democrats are notoriously weary of supporting their party's presidential nominee but for Obama to make sure he is not a drag could make them more supportive in return. Given that we are seeing a few Democratic representatives decline to endorse Obama (as they had refused to endorse Kerry) and that the special election in MS-01 last May had Travis Childers struggling to explain that he had no connection to Obama, this would be a welcome development.

Now, we are also getting a better idea of McCain's strategy. As I have noted many times before, the Republican's biggest challenge is the shift in partisan breakdown. With the LA Times poll, the Newsweek survey and countless SUSA state polls all showing a dramatic improvement for Democrats since 2004 and as much as a 15% partisan ID edge for Obama's party, all Obama needs to do to win this election is secure the vote of registered Democrats and not fall too far behind independents.

In other words, if all three partisan groups vote roughly according to the 2004 patterns, the 3% Bush victory would transform itself into an Obama blowout -- all thanks to the changes in partisan affiliation over the last four years.

McCain then must convince registered Democrats to vote for him -- and I insist on the word "must," as this is not simply a strategy meant to put his opponent on the defensive (as is, for instance, Obama's appeal to moderate Republicans) but a matter of absolute survival. The Arizona Senator is perhaps the only GOPer who can even entertain any hope of succeeding at such an effort, though the latest national polls suggest that the road is getting tougher. Now, McCain's general election ad buy gives us an idea of how McCain intends to appeal to registered Democrats.

Marc Ambinder details McCain's latest ad buys to find that McCain is targeting former Reagan Democrats and working-class voters, groups among which Obama was very weak throughout the primary. In Pennsylvania, for instance, McCain is not spending in the Philadelphia market but in the state's blue-collar regions. The same pattern holds in Ohio. The Appalachia region in a number of states will also be targeted heavily by McCain given that these are all are areas in which Hillary Clinton crushed Barack Obama, sometimes by gigantic margins.

By rolling out proposals like offshore drilling and by insisting that Obama is a country club elitist, Republicans are hoping to drive a wedge between the beer track and the wine track constituencies of the Democratic Party and thus offset Obama's advantage in partisan identification. And the high stakes of the success of inspiring distrust among Democrats about their candidate guarantees that the tactics will only get more ugly as we get closer to the election.

More generally, it is striking that the list of McCain's buys is more traditional, with no unexpected expense popping up. And also telling is McCain's heavy spending in Minnesota, since the Obama campaign did not include that state in the list of states it is running its ad. McCain looks committed to keeping that state competitive -- perhaps a reflection of the likelihood that he will select Gov. Pawlenty as his running-mate or perhaps just a reflection of McCain's confidence that he will appeal to Midwestern independents.

The last throes of New York's Republican Party

2008-06-24T23:46:00.007-04:00

Few storyline have been more powerful this election year than the death march of New York's once-dominant Republican Party. The state's GOP was already reduced to a very weak position in 2006, when Democrats conquered the governorship, 3 House seats and got close to seizing the state Senate. That the party would playing for its survival in 2008 has long been obvious: a special election victory left Democrats one seat away from the state Senate and NY-25, NY-26 and NY-29 are on everyone's list of vulnerable Republican-held House seats. In fact, NY-25 is arguably the district that is the most likely to switch parties in the country.

The Vito Fossella saga in NY-13 only worsened the situation for New York Republicans, as the Staten Island congressman's arrest on DWI charges and subsequent announcement that he would not run for re-election left the GOP scrambling to keep their last NYC seat. The party's contrasting recruitment fortunes looked to have ensured Democratic take-over when the race took an even more tragic turn this week-end with news that the candidate endorsed by Republicans -- Francis Powers -- had passed away, leaving the GOP with no one to run in this district.

Over the past two days, Staten Island Republicans have tried their best to find a replacement for Powers, a relatively unknown figure whose main advantage was his pledge to donate $500,000 to his own campaign. A series of high-profile Republicans (District Attorney Donovan, state Senator Lanza and city councilman Odda) who had already declined to run last month refused once again, leading the GOP down its second walk of shame in as many month. It will take a few more days for Republicans to sort out the mess. The most often mentioned candidates are NY1 reporter Lisa Giovinazzo and state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Maltese (who would have to resign before taking the first step of a political campaign). Former Assemblyman Matt Mirones, who might be able to self-fund his candidacy, is also being mentioned.

Complicating the GOP's efforts is that they would have to start the entire petition process anew if Powers had not finished collecting the 1250 signatures needed to get on the ballot. If he had, the GOP can just replace his slot but if he hasn't time is pressing before the July 10th deadline. In fact, it looks like Republicans are so worried about this seat that speculation is now rising that the GOP might endorse the Democratic candidate Mike McMahon! That's right, Republicans might simply give up on a seat that was barely on the radar screen two months ago... and while they would presumably ask for something in exchange, the loss of a seat Democrats would be almost assured of keeping for a long time would be an awfully high price to pay.

As if the possible loss of four out of six House seats was not enough, Republicans are now contemplating the almost assured loss of the state Senate, their last bastion in New York politics. Democrats have been waging an intense war to reclaim the chamber for many cycles now, but the resilience of entrenched Republican incumbent who have been serving for decades in districts that are now blue has prevented Democrats from making as solid gains as they might have expected. But as a number of these long-time state Senators was considering retiring this cycle and last, it took the insistence of Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to convince them to say on board and fight to keep the majority.

Even with Bruno's success at keeping incumbents from retiring, his rule was hanging by a thread and Democrats were looking to pick up the remaining seat in November. But the news yesterday that Joe Bruno was retiring was as unexpected as it is consequential. Perhaps moved by corruption probes and perhaps unwilling to stay in the probable minority, Bruno announced he was calling it quits and he is already being replaced as the Majority Leader.

This makes it that much more difficult for Republicans to survive. Not only will they have to defend Bruno's old district (and given how much difficulty the party has defending anything in New York, no retention is assured) but the party has lost its one statewide leader and the one who kept the party motivated and focused on the prize. With Bruno's departure, it is very possible that a number of other state Senators representing very difficult districts for the Republicans to hold but who had only stayed at Bruno's urging will join him and announce their retirement in the coming days, leading to a game of musical chairs and opening the door for Democrats to complete their take-over.

Come 2009, Democrats could control all levels of New York's political world, including as many as 27 of its 29 House seats. It is ironic that the office that seems to be the most competitive is also the highest in the state, as the 2010 gubernatorial race already looks to be heating up as one of the hottest in the country. David Paterson is emerging as a popular governor and the names of Andrew Cuomo, Mike Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are are being thrown in the mix (remember when the three latter politicians were supposed to face-off in this year's presidential race?). But for now, Democrats are surely happy at the turn of events and the increasing likelihood that they will take over NY-13 and the state Senate.

Tuesday polls: Stunning toss-up in Indiana, as Obama leads in MI and CO's Udall continues to inch ahead (Updated with new LA Times poll!)

2008-06-24T17:00:00.004-04:00

Update: Well, well, well, that Newsweek poll has company! A new LA Times/Bloomberg poll finds a 12% lead for Obama, 49% to 37%. In a four-way race including Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, Obama is ahead 48% to 33%. The key, once again, is the poll's partisan breakdown: 39% of voters identify themselves as Democrats versus only 22% as Republicans. That is simply too big a difference for McCain to hope to survive.

Original post: After yesterday's wave of good poll news for Obama that showed the Democrat gaining in swing states like New Hampshire and in traditionally red state like Alaska, today's shocker comes in the form of a SUSA poll from Indiana -- not the first state you think of when you wonder where the next exciting presidential poll will come from:

In a state in which George Bush crushed Al Gore and John Kerry, SUSA finds a toss-up race, with Obama edging out McCain 48% to 47%.
No surprise as to the reason: There is a 16% swing from the partisan breakdown of 2004. That year, 46% of voters were Republicans and 32% were Democrats. In this poll, 38% of respondents identify themselves as Democrats and 36% as Republicans.

It is increasingly evident how big an obstacle to McCain's election this shift in partisan breakdown, about which I have written numerous times before, has become. It is what explains Obama's 15% lead i a recent Newsweek poll, and what also accounts for Obama's gains in a number of red states like Indiana. Keep in mind that the Illinois Senator has chosen to run his first ad of the general election in this state which should not be dismissed: While it doesn't cost him that much to run ads in similarly red Montana and Nebraska, Indiana does have an expensive media market (Indianapolis) and the Obama campaign has to be at least somewhat confident that they can tighten the race here and force McCain to play defense.

The day's second good news for Obama comes from Michigan:

PPP finds Obama to be ahead 47% to 38%, with 78% of Democrats supporting him versus 74% of Republicans supporting McCain.

This will not come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog who know that I tend to view Michigan as more dangerous for Obama than Pennsylvania, but this is the biggest lead Obama has ever posted in a Michigan poll. The state is likely to remain competitive to the end, just as it did in the past two elections, but it would be a huge boost to Obama if the state at least comes back to its Democratic leanings. We will have to wait for confirmation from other polls to see whether PPP marks Michigan's return to its more traditional role of a lean-blue state or whether it overstates Obama's support.

The third and last presidential poll of the day comes from New Mexico:

Obama narrowly leads McCain 49% to 46% in the latest SUSA poll, based on a 54% gender gap and the support of 63% of Hispanics. The two were tied at 44% last month.

Yesterday's Rasmussen poll of the race found an 8% lead for Obama, in what is one of two Gore states to have switched over to Bush in 2004. Polls here remain tight, though Democrats are hoping that claiming an early edge New Mexico and Iowa will put them within striking distance of the White House (6 evs) before contesting more difficult red states. The fact remains that while Obama is putting states like Indiana and Alaska in play he has not been able to open a consistent and clear lead in states that ought to swing to his side more easily if he has a national advantage. And that's what keeps this race so suspenseful.

Finally, four down-the-ballot polls:

In Colorado's senatorial race, Democrat Tom Udall has opened a 9% lead (46-37) against Republican Bob Schaffer according to an internal poll released by the DSCC.

In Indiana's gubernatorial race, Gov. Daniels leads Democratic challenger Long Thompson 50% to 45% (in the SUSA poll).

In Nebraska's senatorial race, former Gov. Mike Johanns crushes Scott kleeb 60% to 33% in Rasmussen's latest poll. He ld 55% to 40% last month. Johanns's favorability rating stands at 63%, versus 50% for Kleeb.

Finally, PPP accompanied its presidential poll with the uninteresting finding that Carl Levin is leading 54% to 32% in his uninteresting match-up against Republican Jack Hoogendyck.

Long Thompson was unexplicably trailing big in the last 2 polls of the race, though this survey is a return to what we have seen most of the year: Mitch Daniels is a vulnerable incumbent though he has somewhat recovered in the past year, making this race unpredictable. As for the Nebraska race, it remains the Democrat's big disappointment of the year as Bob Kerrey's running would have made this one of the hottest pick-up opportunities of the year rather than a blowout which Kleeb has little chance of tightening. In fact, the Democrat himself probably views this as a resume-boosting name ID-enhancing run.

As for the Colorado poll, it is an internal survey but this is the second poll after Rasmussen's that shows Udall extending his lead a bit. Democrats have long been hoping that Udall will repeat the gubernatorial scenario of Gov. Ritter in 2006, when the Democrat unexpectedly opened a huge lead in what was expected to be a close open seat race and he never looked back. The environment is still as bad for the GOP and the state has only trended more blue in the past two years but Udall has been unable to inch ahead of Schaffer. If these latest polls are confirmed, however, it will be a very positive development for Democrats.

VP watch: Biden, Sebelius and Crist campaigning more or less overtly

2008-06-24T10:00:00.009-04:00

It is still early in the veepstake game. Barack Obama only wrapped up the nomination three weeks ago and the two candidates are giving themselves more than a month to pick a running-mate. In fact, Marc Ambinder reports that neither campaign has yet winnowed down the field of potential picks to those who will be asked to submit vetting documents: medical and tax records, answers to embarrassing questions.

Since both Obama and McCain are likely to make that first cut soon, this is a particularly important time for those politicians who want to be seriously considered and who want to be vetted. Except for those politicians who are look certain to be vetted (say, Pawlenty and Sebelius), every statement and action from a potential VP is doubly important right now. A successful attack on the opposite party can attract your candidate's attention, for instance.

But is there such a thing as too overt campaigning for the vice-presidential slot? Mitt Romney will find out soon enough, as he has done little since the day he dropped out other than do whatever the McCain team could have asked him to do. On the Democratic side, Joe Biden has been demonstrating how effective an attack dog he would be by offering scathing reviews of McCain's foreign policy positions, months after he ridiculed Giuliani when he said that his sentences consisted of "a noun, a verb and 9-11."

On Sunday, Biden declared on NBC's Meet the Press that he would accept the nomination if it was offered to him by Obama. "The answer I’ve got to say is yes," he said. This does not seem a particularly forceful statement, but it is nonetheless a break from the tradition that potential veep picks remain discreet and never offer definite answers about anything. In fact, is the art of artfully changing the subject one of the tests VPs need to pass?

More seriously, Joe Biden would make a lot of sense as the Democrat's running mate. He gained a lot of positive reviews for his campaigning last year, and he has been among the most effective attack dogs over the past few months, displaying his willingness to do what VPs are meant to do while on the trail. Biden is also among the most experienced Democrats when it comes to foreign policy, ensuring that he would be effective on the topics McCain would love to focus the campaign on. The downside, of course, is Biden's tendency to speak too quickly and the last thing Obama needs in the coming months is to waste time addressing a Biden gaffe.

More discreetly campaigning is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, whom Ben Smith points out referred to herself as an "Ohio girl" and praised Obama's "Kansas values" on Saturday. This is a clever way for Sebelius to highlight the strength she would bring to the ticket. Obama's Kansas roots are an essential part of the biography the Democrat is introducing to voters this months, with the expression "Kansas values" featuring in Obama's first general election ad. Who better than that state's Governor can tout that message and strengthen Obama's appeal in the heartland?

While some of the governor's doubters contend that she would not help the ticket in any particular state, Sebelius seems to be aware of that weakness and seeking to address it. By calling herself an "Ohio girl," she is signifying that her appeal would extend across the Midwest and that her success in convincing conservative voters in red Kansas bodes well for the reception she would receive in states that are more obviously on the list of battlegrounds -- starting with Ohio.

On the Republican side, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been attracting a lot of attention of his own, starting with his surprising decision last week back McCain's proposal to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. That has long an idea vigorously opposed by Florida politicians, and one Crist had consistently rejected. While there have been some indications over the past few days that McCain's move might not be as unpopular in Florida as it was first thought, Crist's willingness to quickly rally behind his party's nominee on an issue so central to his own career betrayed his eagerness to be considered for the vice-presidential slot.

As I have often pointed out, Crist's biggest weakness is the insistent rumors about his sexual orientation. Will McCain risk a bombshell revelation over the next few months that would anger social conservatives and potentially keep them at home? Crist's denials have franklydone nothing to squash speculation ("No, man. No. I love women. I mean, they're wonderful.") and the issue has now made its way to an interview Crist conducted with New York Times magazine. This is the end of the interview:

Your personal life is not that of a typical Republican candidate. For starters, I hear you’re not a property owner. It is true. I do not own property. I just never found a need for it. Now I have the Governor’s Mansion, and I rent a condo in St. Petersburg.
You were married nearly 30 years ago, but the marriage lasted less than a year. Do you prefer living alone? I got married and divorced because it didn’t work out. I haven’t found the right one since. It’s really that simple.
You can’t find one woman in all of Florida? Maybe I have. Stay tuned.

Note the use of "the right one" in that second answer and the non-committal suggestion that Crist might soon no longer be a bachelor. Talk about doing what it takes to be included in the list of the vetted? I also included the first question as a reminder that Crist faces the distrust of business conservatives as well, many of whom regard him as a more of a Democrat than a Republican and are angered by what they perceive as excessive moderation. The National Review profiled him last month, coming close to vetoing Crist (not that McCain owes much to the National Review or similar groups).

Most recent VP headlines:

June 20: James Jones chooses McCain, Frank warns against Nunn
June 16: Jindal's exorcism problem and (more-or-less credible) Democratic denials
June 13: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd heading out of veepstakes
June 11: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines as Obama's vetter resigns
All coverage for Democrats and Republicans

Monday polls: Why can't every day have more polls from Utah than from Pennsylvania?

2008-06-23T20:03:00.013-04:00

A number of presidential polls were released over the past 24 hours, including (strangely enough) two polls from Utah. While Barack Obama might be putting a lot of red states in play this year, Utah, which gave George Bush 72% of the vote in 2004, is not one of them. In both polls, however, there is a narrow tightening compared to the 2004 margin:

Deseret finds McCain crushing Obama 57% to 29%.
Rasmussen's poll shows it a bit narrower, with McCain leading 52% to 33%.

While Utah might not be high up on Obama's priority list, a traditionally staunchly red state that is looking like a surprising bright spot for Democrats this year is Alaska. There have been a number of presidential polls finding a tight race, including Rasmussen's latest survey showing McCain leading Obama by 4% last week. Add to it now another poll, commissioned and leaked by the DSCC:

McCain and Obama are in a toss-up, with the Republican edging out the Democrat 44% to 42% with 3% for Bob Barr.
This poll was actually mentioned in the Washington Post a few days ago but came to my attention only now.

The Alaska Republican Party is in a particularly bad shape, with many of its major figures entangled in a corruption scandal that is threatening to end the careers of Rep. Young and Sen. Stevens in the coming months. That dismal predicament is spilling over to the presidential race, as Alaska voters are clearly not as eager as usual to support a Republican candidate. And the positive effect is mutual: Down-the-ballot Democrats running in a red state in a presidential year have to fight counter-current and escape negative coattails, so for Obama to truly contest Alaska (and he has an ad buy there) will help Democrats in the Senate and House races.

Other major polls released today include:

Rasmussen's latest survey from Pennsylvania, that finds Obama leading 46% to 42%, up from a 2% lead last month but down from an 8% lead in early April.
Obama's favorability rating (58%) is comparable to McCain's (57%) though Obama has higher very favorable and very unfavorable numbers.

In Oregon, the latest SUSA poll finds Obama dropping from a 9% lead to a 3% lead, 48% to 45%. The partisan ID is comparable to 2004's in this poll, whereas SUSA usually shows a swing towards the Democrats.

Finally, Obama gets good news from New Mexico in the latest Rasmussen poll. He leads 47% to 39%, holding on to his May lead.

It's difficult to know what to think of New Mexico as Rasmussen and SUSA are the only institute to release polls from the state. If Obama can manage to win back New Mexico and Iowa (the only two Gore states won by Bush in 2004), he will only be 5 electoral votes from a tie, making those early leads in both NM and IA particularly important. Much of the outcome of the race in New Mexico will depend on the Hispanic vote, but it's worth noting that the state was among the closest in the country in both 2004 and 2000.

As for Pennsylvania, I moved the state to the Lean Democratic column in my second presidential ratings last week. That was not meant to imply that the race is no longer competitive -- indeed every sign, including this poll, suggest that it will -- but that it is possible to say that Obama has a slight edge there based on a narrow but consistent lead in polls, massive gains by his party in registration results and the state's move towards safer blue in 2006. But there is no question that McCain will play very heavily in the Keystone state, and Republicans are no doubt aware that the margin here was tighter than in Ohio back in 2004. Pennsylvania is as close to a must-win as Democrats have in the list of swing states, as it would be difficult for Democrats to overcome the loss of these 21 electoral votes. And would the loss of PA not seal that of Ohio and perhaps of Michigan?

Finally, we got down-the-ballot polls today:

In New Mexico, Rasmussen finds that Tom Udall is still increasing his lead over Republican Steve Pearce, now trouncing him 58% to 30%. Udall's favorability rating is 66%, compared to 54% for Pearce.

In TX-32, an internal poll for the Democratic challenger's campaign finds Eric Roberson trailing Rep. Pete Sessions 52% to 43%.

Steve Pearce might have hoped for a bounce off his primary victory, but this race appears to be increasingly in the bag for Democrats. Combine it with Virginia and New Hampshire, and that's a very likely base of 3 gains for Senate Democrats. But I am very skeptical of the TX-32 survey -- as we should often remember to be with internal polls. Roberson is an unknown candidate with little money in a district that has been gerrymandered to insure Republican victory and in which Bush got 60% of the vote in 2004. In fact, Democratic Rep. Frost was shoved into this district by Tom DeLay and lost to Sessions in 2004 by 10% despite being as high-profile a Democrat as the party can hope for here. So don't cross your fingers for TX-32. For now, there is very little to see.

May fundraising: Obama and McCain raise similar amount while RNC crushes DNC, but Democrats shouldn't worry

2008-06-23T16:00:00.007-04:00

Fundraising has received renewed attention ever since Barack Obama announced he would opt out of the public financing system last week. Over the past few days, two news items have attracted attention: (1) Obama and McCain raising roughly the same amount of money in May and (2) the RNC’s continued financial dominance over the DNC.

The first item has understandably led to more headlines, with some using it to question Obama’s decision to renounce public financing. But Democrats should not be worried about that bit of news. In fact, it is the second story that could prove more problematic -- though it confirms that the Illinois Senator’s decision to free himself from spending limits was strategically necessary.

First, then, came the two campaign’s financial disclosures for during the month of May. McCain announced he had raised $21.5 million, his best fundraising month yet and leaving him with a respectable $31 million in the bank to use until his early-September convention. Obama, meanwhile, raised $23.3 million, a strong sum as well but one that pales in comparison to the Democrat’s totals for March ($40 million) and April ($32 million). More surprisingly, this means that Obama has as much cash left in the bank as of the end of May to use in the primary season, $33 million (Obama has also already raised about $10 million to use in the general election, between September and November).

Why has Obama’s fundraising declined, and does this mean that his decision to opt out of public fundraising was a bad one? McCain devoted a lot of the month of May to fundraising. He certainly needed it and his respectable cash-on-hand totals are his reward, as he will surely have enough money to stay on air through the next few months. On the other hand, the Obama campaign was in surreal situation: They had effectively clinched the nomination on May 6^th by winning big in North Carolina but Hillary Clinton was staying in the race, making it impossible for Obama to switch to the general election (and ask for contributions accordingly) without making unity efforts more difficult. This means that Obama held off on major fundraising efforts designed in the perspective of facing McCain, and donation pitches framed as part of the primary campaign surely had a reduced effect since the race against Clinton no longer seemed competitive at the time.

In June, the Obama campaign has been in full fundraising mode this month. Not only did the days following June 3^rd surely boost his totals but the campaign launched a fundraising drive after its public financing decision to emphasize its determination to shatter records. After all, the campaign is aware that it has to make the choice to opt out of the system a worthy one. Also don’t forget that Obama will now start to tap into the vast network of Clinton fundraisers, and while some of them might be too bitter to donate to his campaign Hillary herself has encouraged her top donors to contribute to her former rival and is arranging a meeting between the Illinois Senators and her best fundraisers. That should lead to some very tangible benefits.

And all in all, the fact remains that McCain will be limited to $84 million between September and November -- a total Obama is sure to surpass even if he remains at such "low" totals as $23 million. And it goes without saying that the mere fact that $23 million is considering a disappointing result is a reflection of how much Obama has raised the bar.

Much more worrisome to Democrats is the financial disclosures of the national parties for the month of May. The RNC raised more than $24 million while the DNC raised less than $4 million. The disparity in cash-in-hand is huge: $53.5 million to $4 million. Most of this money will be used in the presidential race (though the RNC might be forced to somewhat help the RNCC), creating a big disadvantage for the Obama campaign to overcome. There are a number of reasons to this (the RNC is historically a very strong fundraising machine, while the DNC is hurt by the fact that Democrats are enthusiastic by Obama and donating their money directly to him), but the result is clear: Combined with McCain’s totals, Republicans will have enough money to operate a decent campaign over the next 5 months.

In fact, the difference between the RNC and DNC should make the Obama campaign much more confident that its decision was strategically necessary. If the Illinois Senator had opted in public financing, both he and McCain would have been limited to $84 million from September to November. But the fact that the RNC would have had millions more to spend would have put the Democrat in a huge financial hole, without even considering what effect 527s might have. With Obama opting out, however, he will have a lot more than McCain to spend during those few months and, given that some are predicting a $300 million budget, he looks almost certain to crush the McCain + RNC total as well.

(The non-presidential story in those fundraising numbers is of course the continued disparity between the NRCC and the DCCC. While the Republican branch managed to stay fairly close in May receipts, $6 million to $5 million, it remains at a stunning financial disadvantage: The DCCC has $47 million of cash-in-hand and the NRCC only has $6 million. This will have a huge impact in the fall given how much many House challengers depend on the national committees. The Senate's picture is less severe, with the DSCC having $17 million more.)

Update: Ben Smith reports that the Obama campaign is worried about the RNC/DNC disparity and has released this chart to pressure Clinton supporters into donating to the DNC:

OR-heavy down-ballot thread: Sen. Smith touts Dem endorsements and GOP House candidate hit by abortion scandal

2008-06-23T09:30:00.000-04:00

Running for re-election in liberal-leaning Oregon, Gordon Smith has long known that he will have to fight hard to win re-election. Though Democrats threw him a lifeline by failing to recruit one of their strongest candidates, their nominee Jeff Merkley is solid enough to keep the race competitive. Smith has been preparing for more than a year by moving towards the center on enough issues to coherently argue that he is no Bush lackey, particularly on the Iraq War: Smith was one of the first Republicans to break with the Administration and start critiquing the war effort -- though his new ad is disingenuously forcing that trait by describing him as "one of the first to stand up to George Bush and other Republicans to end this war."

This latest ad features a Democratic state representative and a Democratic state Senator endorsing the Republican Senator, praising him for his bipartisanship:

Keep in mind that while Bush is certainly very unpopular in Oregon, this is not the bluest state in the country we are talking about. The extent to which Smith is trying to shake off the GOP label and claim the bipartisan mantle is remarkable and revealing of how much trouble Republican incumbents are in this year solely because of their party's dismal ratings. And the fact that elected Democratic officials are willing to participate in his advertisement efforts speaks to the fact that the Oregon Democratic Party has not really gotten its act together. Smith has led in all polls of the race, though his advantage is within single-digits and he comes in under 50% -- a sure sign of vulnerability. Given Al Franken's troubles in MN, the DSCC is sure to devote as much resources to this race as necessary.

Meanwhile, Oregon Republicans are letting the open seat of OR-05 slip out of their hands despite it being one of only two competitive Democratic-held open seats. You might remember that, back in May, Mike Erickson was viciously attacked by his primary opponent Kevin Manni for having paid his girlfriend's abortion years ago. Right to Life blasted Erickson immediately, but all that drama unfolded too late to damage Erickson in a state in which most voters sent their ballot in early via mail. Erickson prevailed in the primary, leading Democrats to rejoice that the GOP had nominated a candidate too damaged to be competitive in the general and some Republicans are refusing to support Erickson.

Now, the woman whose abortion Erickson allegedly paid for has been contacted by the Oregonian and she confirms Mannix's story. She reveals being particularly angered by Erickson's denying the story and his attempts at campaigning as a pro-lifer: "Tawnya, a registered Republican, said she received a campaign flier with a photo of Erickson next to a baby, touting his endorsement by the anti-abortion group Oregon Right to Life. The mailer made him out to be "some sort of safe haven for babies, and honestly, it made me sick," she said." Erickson denies the story entirely -- but this isn't going to help his already rocky relationship with local conservative activists.

In other -- tragic -- House news, the candidate endorsed by the Staten Island GOP to run for Vito Fossella's House seat in NY-13 passed away yesterday. The Republican Party turned to Powers on May 29th after a slate of potential GOP candidates declined to run for this Republican-held seat, in a reflection of the long odds the party faces in keeping its last New York City seat. The GOP will now presumably reconvene to endorse another candidate, and the names of some candidates who had previously declined to run (starting with state Sen. Lanza) are being mentioned again. Democratic candidate Michael McMahon was already favored to win this seat that has now gone through months of unexpected and at times tragic news.

Moving on to the Senate, South Carolina was never on anyone's list of vulnerable Senate seats, but a party always likes to have some sort of credible challenger in case the incumbent has a meltdown, commits a huge blunder or has some senior moment (see Kentucky in 2004 and Virginia in 2006). Well, it turns out that SC Democrats might have nominated... a Republican to take on Senator Lindsay Graham. Bob Conley has had a long relationship with the GOP and, while he claims to have left the party back in 2000 or 2001, he won a spot on the Republican Party's Horry County executive committee in February 2007. While he pledged to be a Democrat when filing his candidacy papers and thus resigned from the GOP, this shouldn't push the DSCC to attempt anything in SC even if Graham suffers the worst scandals over the next few months.

Finally, the roll call of the House vote on the FISA bill is now up, and 128 Democrats voted nay versus 105 who voted yea, including many of their prized pick-ups of 2006 (Altmire, Gillibrand, Arcuri, Boyda, Sestak, Pennsylvania's Murphy), many of whom represent more or less conservative districts. Of the two Udalls who are looking to upgrade to the Senate, New Mexico's voted Nay and Colorado's voted yea. The former is more of a shoo-in than the latter. As Glenn Greenwald reports, there is some massive fundraising going on to punish Democrats supporting the bill and the sight of activists is set on Rep. Barrow of GA-12 (one of the most conservative Dems in the House, even though he represents a district won by Kerry). Remember that a heated primary is being held in that district, but Obama chose to cut an ad for Barrow last week.

Third party news: Ralph Nader works to get on the ballot, Bob Barr hits McCain

2008-06-22T19:30:00.005-04:00

Every four years, third party candidates must first figure out just how many states they will be able to run in. That problem is only made more pressing when a candidate runs as an independent, forgoing the help (and a secured spot on the ballot of some states) of structured parties. That is the case of Ralph Nader this year. Just like four years ago, Nader is not running as the Green Party's candidate and has to collect signatures and file petitions.

As the memory of 2000 is more distant, it looks like Democrats are not as determined to make life difficult for Nader as they did in 2004. That year, Nader encountered countless numbers of challenges to his petitions, forcing him off the ballot in many states -- starting with Ohio and Pennsylvania. This year, there are much fewer challenges to Nader's efforts and the repeat candidate has been submitting a number of successful petitions, including in at least 2 states in which he had failed to qualify in 2004: Hawaii and Arizona. Nader also looks to have qualified to be on the ballot in Colorado -- where he got 1% in 2004 but 5% in 2000 -- and is talking up his success in Illinois.

Without the support of the Green Party and given that Democrats seem to be more enthused by their candidate than they were eight years ago, Ralph Nader is unlikely to draw the type of support he did in 2000 -- though the latest poll to include his name found him at 4%, compared to 2% for Bob Barr. But there is no doubt that Republicans are more worried by Barr's presence than Democrats are by Nader's.

Just as Nader is primarily aiming his fire at Obama, Barr is first and foremost hitting McCain, as both try to appeal respectively to disaffected liberals and conservatives. Speaking to the Washington Post, Barr blasted McCain on a host of issues, including the Iraq War and domestic policy, about which "Sen. McCain really has put forward nothing that would indicate he believes in dramatically shrinking the size and cost of the government." As Ron Paul's success in the GOP primaries indicated, there is a substantial number of voters who are uncomfortable with McCain's candidacy and who want an end to the Iraq War and a more explicit program of small government.

Barr's attempts to channel Ron Paul might not be entirely successful, but as long as he gives the Paulites and similarly disaffected conservatives somewhere to go other than McCain, he could end up boosting Obama's chances. And a new AP article sets the CW that many Republicans are worried enough about this to discuss it publicly -- with the specter raised that the GOP might to do Barr what Dems did to Nader, particularly in Pennsylvania. The AP also notes that Barr will be on the ballot for sure in 30 states, with petition drives being held in 20 others.

What particularly worries some Republicans is that Barr's support could be more localized than Nader's, and have a big impact in a select number of swing states. This includes Western states in which the Libertarian Party has often had a higher share of votes, and Georgia, a state that few people thought about as competitive a few months ago but that the Obama campaign is clearly determined to contest. The Insider Advantage poll of Georgia released late this week that showed McCain ahead by just 1% also found Bob Barr at a high 6%.

FISA bill: Obama's about-face disappoints, in first renounciation of strategy of clear contrasts

2008-06-22T14:04:00.009-04:00

It was just last week that Obama delivered an admirably strong response to Republican accusations that he was stuck in a "September 10th mindset," hitting back that he would not be lectured on September 11th by "the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11." This prompted me to remark that Democrats in 2008 seemed perfectly happy to draw clear contrasts on national security issues, in a clear departure from the the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election.

Well, that didn't last long. On Friday, Barack Obama announced that he would support the FISA bill that dramatically extends the state's surveillance powers. Ever since the New York Times revealed Bush's wiretapping program, Republicans have been clamoring that these are essential tools in the fight against terrorists and that anyone who holds a contrary position is weak on terror (starting with the NYT, accused of treason).

In mid-February, Obama missed a vote on a previous version of the FISA bill but issued a statement announcing he stood with those "who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty." Something evidently changed over the past four months. Might it be that Obama won the Democratic nomination in the interval, and is now starting his drift rightward to contest the general election?

Given the Democratic Party's record in standing up to George Bush over the past 6 years, this would hardly be a surprise if it weren't for Obama's insistence that he would usher in a new era of American politics, an era in which Democrats would no longer automatically cave in when accused of helping terrorists. After all, it is for similar reasons of political expediency that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq resolution in 2002 -- and we know how central a moment that became in Obama's campaign against them. Yet, opposing one of the most controversial programs of the Bush Administration and insisting on the importance of court-issued warrants became too much to ask of the Illinois Senator.

Particularly frustrating is Obama's revisionist attempts to change the terms of the debate. Just as Hillary Clinton argued that the 2002 vote was not about taking the country to war but about prolonging the diplomatic effort, Obama is reducing opposition to Bush's program to criticism that it was illegal. "Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over," Obama wrote in a letter released on Friday.

So was the only problem with Bush's surveillance program that it was illegal? Are we forgetting that the first issue here is the expansion of executive authority and the strengthening of the police state -- policies that are questionable whether or not they are authorized by law? By accepting the FISA bill and by calling it a "compromise," Obama and a depressingly high number of Democrats are essentially saying that the way to address the executive branch's illegal actions is to make those acts legal... and the problem will be resolved!

What will not be resolved, however, is the fact that this bill grants extensive and excessive powers to government and limits civil liberties. Sen. Feingold, one of the bill's main opponents, blasted this latest bill in a statement for "fail[ing] to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." This deal "is not a compromise; it is a capitulation," Feingold laments, joined by other Democratic lawmakers like Senator Chris Dodd and Rep. Holt.

A second bit of revisionism is Obama's acting as if retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies is the only part of the FISA bill that is controversial and worthy to fight. He promised to fight on the Senate floor to remove the provisions granting immunity to telecommunication companies, though he indicated that he would still vote in favor of the overall package if his efforts fail (as they are likely to). MoveOn is particularly furious and is insisting that Obama keep the promise he made this past October that he would filibuster any bill granting immunity.

But as is obvious from Russ Feingold's statements and the anger of many liberal activists, the reasons to oppose the FISA deal go far beyond the immunity question and into the problem of insufficient judicial oversight and the extension of the surveillance state. Obama's using his renewed opposition to the immunity issue to mask his about-face on the rest of the bill is particularly frustrating given that it is the parts strengthening executive authority that are the bill's most problematic provisions.

Washington Monthly has a strong explanation of the issues with the FISA bill, including the extension of the period the NSA can conduct wiretaps without FISA approval and the fact that they can still be used in court evne if they are struck down, as well as disregard for what has come to be defined as probable cause, as algorithms will now come to define who is suspect and what merits surveillance. Kevin Drum explains that,

We're tapping the phones of anyone who fits a hazy and seldom accurate profile that NSA finds vaguely suspicious, a profile that inevitably includes plenty of calls in which one end is a U.S. citizen. But the new FISA bill doesn't require NSA to get a warrant for any of these individuals or groups, it only requires a FISA judge to approve the broad contours of the profiling software. (...) The oversight on this stuff is inherently weak. (...) For all practical purposes, then, the decision about which U.S. citizens to spy on is being vested in a small group of technicians operating in secret and creating criteria that virtually no one else understands.

And Salon's Glenn Greenwald adds:

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. (...)

This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here. (...)

He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it.

And Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin adds:

Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. (...) People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade.(...)

So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.

Sure, Obama's move is shrewd and designed to prevent the GOP from using FISA as an issue against him. Sure, most other Democrats would have done the same and are doing the same, and Hillary Clinton was moving rightward on national security as early as late September, when she was shifting to general-election mode and voted for Kyl-Lieberman. But that doesn't obscure the fact that (1) the FISA bill is a major issue and a dramatic extension of executive authority and the surveillance state and (2) those who are against its provisions have to speak up against Obama's decision and those of other Democrats (and there will be a lot) who support the bill.

It makes no sense to hold criticism on a bill of this importance, on an issue on which Democrats have been fighting for years now. It also makes little sense to silence criticism to win this election. For one, since when have liberals criticizing a Democratic nominee hurt that candidate? If anything, Democratic candidates have purposefully sought such criticism. Unfortunately, Obama changing his mind has prompted many Democrats to conveniently give up a difficult fight. As Greenwald points out:

People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision... Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did.

This bill's acceptance by many in the Democratic Party -- including now Obama -- is nothing but the party's continued willingness to be boxed in into Republican positions out of fear of being portrayed as weak on terror. This is exactly what Obama was supposedly going to rebel against last week, and exactly what we are back to today. Maybe this was necessary for Obama to avoid accusations that he was too soft in his commitment to securing America, but has that not gotten the country into enough trouble from the Patriot Act to the Iraq War and now to wiretapping and surveillance laws? As Hunter points out over on Kos, it is the fact that enough Democrats are supporting this bill to make it a "compromise" that is a true sign of weakness:

FISA was not expiring. FISA was not falling into a legislative black hole. It continued to exist, as the exclusive means for electronic surveillance of the American people, and all it required was a warrant, and all the warrant required was probable cause. That's it. That's what this entire, months-long parade of panic, bluster and torn hair has been about, that it was just too damn difficult for the administration to be asked to show two sentences of probable cause to a judge in a secret hearing before collecting whatever electronic information about you (...)

And if you object to it, then even Barack Obama will hold the threat of imminent Terror over your head as justification for why we should ignore past violations of Constitutional rights and declare a massive, flag-waving, star-spangled do over that simply declares there's no more problem.

As for electoral consequences, none of this is likely to hurt Obama, of course. The enthusiasm of liberal activists and groups like MoveOn will not fade based on this, especially since most Democratic presidential candidates behave this way once they have wrapped up the nomination (see John Kerry and the Missouri anti-gay amendment). But it does call into question what sort of campaign we will see over the next few months: Will Obama keep firm on his determination to draw clear contrasts with the Republican Party? Or will he minimize differences on issues relating to national security to concentrate on the Iraq War?

Saturday polls: Obama opens lead in NH, and why so many polls from WA?

2008-06-21T18:13:00.001-04:00

After yesterday's Newsweek poll showing Obama enjoying a dramatic bounce, the USA Today/Gallup poll looks to be more in line with what we have been seeing from other institutes:

Obama is leading McCain 50% to 44%, which is the margin the latest NBC and CBS polls found as well.
Obama enjoys the support of a high 84% of registered Democrats, and has a 12% lead among independents.

The Newsweek poll had similar internal numbers for the different partisan groups, confirming the analysis I offered yesterday that partisan breakdown would be the key measure of this election. While Newsweek's poll found a stunningly strong breakdown for Democrats (55% of respondents described themselves as such versus 36% of Republicans), it is not out of line with SUSA's repeated findings of a massive swing towards Obama's party compared to the 2004 exit polls.

Meanwhile, a number of state polls were also released in the past 48 hours, some of them from crucial swing states:

In New Hampshire, Obama has opened a big lead according to Rasmussen's latest poll. He is ahead 50% to 39%, up from a 5% lead last month.

In Nevada, Rasmussen finds McCain holding on to a lead, 45% to 42%. This is down from a 6% lead last month.
Obama's favorability rating is only at 50%, versus 58% for McCain.

In Iowa, SUSA finds Obama leading 49% to 45%, somewhat of a disappointing result given that some Democrats believe Obama is in a position to put this Bush state away early.
Update: A commenter makes the good point that I should have thought about that polls from Iowa when the state is flooded cannot possibly be reliable.

In California, nothing much has changed since 2004 according to SUSA's latest poll. Obama is ahead 53% to 41%, including a 65% to 26% lead among Hispanics and a 42% gender gap.

Finally, SUSA released a poll from Washington, again. It shows Obama leading McCain 55% to 40%, which is the margin he has enjoyed in most other polls from the state.

Washington is vying for the title of the most-polled state this cycle. SUSA is releasing a poll from the state every two weeks, and we now have a lot of data points confirming that Obama has successfully put the state away. However much McCain wanted to contest it, the state's move back to the safe-blue column (which had already helped Kerry in 2004) is continuing. Do we really need this many polls from the state to confirm that?

The polls from Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa are certainly more interesting for it is in these states that the election should be decided. While Ohio and Florida certainly hold more electoral votes, Obama will need an alternative path if those 47 electoral votes stay in McCain's column, one made up of smaller states like NV, NH and IA. Keeping New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes might not seem to be that important a priority, but the state is among the only vulnerable Kerry states from 2004. And it would enable Obama to win the election by pulling out Iowa and Nevada and just one other (say, New Mexico). Polls in Iowa have been favorable to the Democrat over the past few months, though Republicans must be relieved that they are still in a position to contest that one. And Nevada polls have been showing a very narrow advantage for the GOP candidate.

State of the race: Obama's biggest lead yet is reminder of the shifts in partisan breakdown and of the long odds McCain faces

2008-06-20T22:50:00.005-04:00

A new national poll released by Newsweek this evening ensured that the media finally have a data point to cite when insisting that Barack Obama is enjoying a post-nomination bounce:

Barack Obama leads John McCain by 15 percent, 51% to 36%. This includes 80% of the vote of registered Democrats and a 12% lead among independents.
The poll does note that, while John Kerry led George Bush by only 6% at this stage four years ago, Michael Dukakis was ahead of George H. W. Bush by double-digits at the end of June of 1988.

There are no other national polls even coming close to Newsweek's finding, which for now is more of an outlier. And it would be entirely point out that large leads 5 months before to the election mean nothing. But what does mean something, what is truly fascinating and is not an outlier, in this survey is the sample's partisan breakdown: 55% of respondents identify themselves as Democrats and 36% as Republicans.

Under normal conditions, such a breakdown would be too unrealistic to taint the poll's results. Not in 2008. All pollsters are finding a shift in voters' allegiance towards the Democratic Party, though the size of that shift varies in different surveys. This will be the key measure to look at in the coming months. While a 19% advantage for Democrats might seem excessive, most of SUSA's state polls are finding a swing of 10 to 15% compared to 2004's exit poll.

If Newsweek's and SUSA's findings are at all correct, it means that Democrats have gained such a gigantic advantage in partisan affiliation that it will be nearly impossible for McCain to win this election. Voters' partisan identification will not change over the next 6 months, and they reveal the enormity of the task of hand for McCain to put together a winning coalition: He has to maintain Bush's margin among registered Republicans while significantly distancing Obama among independents and also capture a substantial share of the Democratic vote.

If McCain fails to do live up to any of the part of this equation, he will be buried by 2008's overwhelmingly anti-GOP environment.

The good news for the Republican candidate: He has been able to put the pieces together in most polls that had been released up to this week, enjoying cross-over Democratic support and a slight lead among independents. This shows that McCain still seems like enough of a maverick to over-perform his party and no doubt poll better than what any other Republican nominee would have been able to.

The bad news for McCain: Obama is now increasing his support among registered Democrats -- and that alone could put the election out of reach. This is the Republicans' key disadvantage this election: Given how much the ranks of registered Democrats have increased, this election will be played out among that constituency more than among independents. (Almost) all Obama has to do is defend his home turf; McCain has to seduce the opposite camp.

That it is Obama who is looking to expand the map to traditionally Republican states like North Dakota, Indiana and Georgia is thus understandable cause for panic for the GOP. Obama does not need the support of cross-over Republicans, but by putting McCain on the defensive he will force the Arizona Senator to protect his base while the vote of registered Democrats remains less contested.

Given the structural obstacles McCain is facing this year, what is surprising is that he is trailing by 15% in only one poll. It is a testament to McCain's electoral strength that he is remaining competitive in most surveys that are being released and that Obama's post-nomination bounce has for now been limited to a few points. But in the end, McCain is dragged down by Bush in 2008 just as much as he was in 2000.

VP watch: James Jones chooses McCain, Frank warns against Nunn

2008-06-20T18:45:00.000-04:00

With the Democratic veepstakes seemingly more open and unpredictable than the Republican ones, it is no surprise that there is more speculation concerning Obama's vice-presidential pick. In fact, the GOP veepstakes have long been celebrated Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota as the favorite, with no real equivalent on the Democratic side. U.S. News is now hearing the same thing from a source that insists that Pawlenty is the "flavor of the week."

This is largely self-sustaining speculation: The more Pawlenty is rumored to be the favorite, the more articles and profiles will be written, the more pundits will mention his name to appear in-the-know and the more Pawlenty will appear to be heading the veepstakes. The main thing Pawlenty has going for him is that he has no obvious flaw. Mitt Romney still has to resolve the Mormon question and is not fully trusted (or liked) by John McCain, though their relationship certainly seems more friendly than it was in January. Charlie Crist has that gay rumor going against him and the conservative base would complain. Bobby Jindal is very young and, well, somewhat creepy. Remains Pawlenty, with whom McCain has a good relationship and who is unlikely to offend any major constituency. Given the rest of the field, that's already a big advantage.

The Democratic veepstakes, meanwhile, gained and lost a player within a few days: last week, the Obama campaign purposefully leaked the name of former General and NATO commander James Jones, whom no one had really thought of as a potential VP pick. But it soon became apparent that Jones was a friend of McCain's and was being mentioned by a Republican as some sort of appointee in a GOP Administration. To dispell whatever speculation might have been left, Jones made a joint appearance with McCain on Wednesday after flying on the Arizona Senator's plane. That should be enough to remove his name from the list of Obama's potential running mates.

Another potential pick that some Democrats (and myself) would love to see removed from Democratic veepstakes is former Senator Sam Nunn, whose deplorable record on gay rights is only the tip of the iceberg of what is a very conservative record of a politician positioned at the DLC-wing of the DLC (note that it would be a surprising pick coming from Obama the post-partisan). While most of the attention is devoted to Nunn's opposition to Clinton's attempts to allow gays to serve in the military, Rep. Barney Frank (one of the only gay representative in the House) pointed out in an interview with Stuart Rothenberg that Nunn had voted against the 1996 Employement Non-Discrimination Act which failed by a single vote.

Frank added that he “would have a hard time voting for the [Democratic] ticket” if it contained Nunn's name. While Frank would probably not follow through on that suggestion, it would make little sense for Obama to pick a VP who would make so many Democrats uncomfortable when he has many other more acceptable conservative Dems he can pick from if that is the direction he wants to take.

Meanwhile, Jim Webb potentially complicated his own selection as he endorsed John McCain's proposal to allow offshore drilling for oil. Barack Obama has said he is against the idea. While it is not necessary for a VP pick to agree with the head of his ticket on every topic, offshore drilling is a clear enough contrast and is likely to play a big enough role in the general election campaign (Republicans are gearing up attacks on Obama for ignoring the rise of fuel prices by refusing to lift the moratorium on drilling) that it could prove embarassing for Obama to have to deal with Webb's contrary position. Webb's statement also highlights what is the main drawback of his pick, namely the fact that he would be unpredictable on the trail with all the risks that presents for a vice-presidential candidate. A running-mate's primary role is to not mess up until November, and Webb could certainly grab a few unwanted headlines.

Most recent VP developments:

June 16: Jindal's exorcism problem and (more-or-less credible) Democratic denials
June 13: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd heading out of veepstakes
June 11: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines as Obama's vetter resigns
June 5: Nunn backtracks on gay rights, Webb campaigns with Obama, Clinton steps back
All coverage for Democrats and Republicans

Down-ballot: House reaches record number of female members, as Carson gets safer and Sununu weaker

2008-06-20T09:45:00.001-04:00

Unwilling to finish serving his term after failing to win his party's nomination in MD-04, Rep. Albert Wynn resigned last month, setting up a special election that was held last Tuesday. In a heavily Democratic district, Wynn's victor Donna Edwards trounced Republican candidate Peter James with 81% of the vote, making her the 75th female member of the House. This breaks the record -- but the proportion remains at a shockingly low 17% (it's 16% in the Senate). Edwards is much more progressive than Wynn, who had been angering the Left with a number of votes that might be necessary for a congressman representing a very conservative area but certainly not for this district's representative.

In IN-07, meanwhile, Rep. Andre Carson feels safer today as state Rep. Jon Elrod announced he would give up on his congressional candidacy and run for re-election instead. The two just faced off in March in a special election to replace Carson's deceased grand-mother. While Elrod was highly-touted by the NRCC and while the GOP believed he could contest this Dem-leaning state that was unexpectedly close these past few cycles, national Republicans were unable to come to his rescue and Elrod went down to defeat by 11%. Still a young politician, Elrod faced even lower-odds of winning in November and understandably did not want to see his political career interrupted.

In another Indiana seat, IN-09, SUSA released the first poll of the fourth match-up in a row between Rep. Baron Hill and Republican Mike Sodrel. Hill won in 2002 and 2006 while Sodrel won in 2006. This time, SUSA finds Hill starting with an edge, ahead 51% to 40%. Sodrel cannot hope to benefit from that too much of this comes from an incumbent's advantage that will fade since his own name recognition is higher than your average challenger's. One of the Republicans' main hope here has been that Hill is more vulnerable in a presidential year, but will Obama's organizing efforts in this state that Kerry made no effort in boost Hill's chances?

A poll in PA-11, however, points to potential trouble for Democratic Rep. Kanjorski, who is running against hardcore immigration opponent Lou Barletta, the Mayor of Hazleton. The poll is an internal survey conducted and released for Barletta, so take it with a grain of salt, but it shows the challenger leading 47% to 42% -- at the very least a sure sign that Kanjorski is endangered. PA-11 is a rare seat not held by a freshman Democrat the GOP is even talking about.

Going on to Senate news, the possibility of Jesse Ventura entering the Minnesota race and making the match-up between Senator Coleman and Al Franken that much more unpredictable is getting more real as former Sen. Dean Barkley (who Ventura appointed to fill Wellstone's seat for 4 months in 2002) is now saying that Ventura really wants to run and is personally leaning towards it. Recent polls have shown that Ventura would clear 20% if he jumped in and would make life more complicated for Franken. Ventura's 1998 gubernatorial primary came in an open seat nad it would be more likely for him to succeed in a race with an incumbent.

Meanwhile, the Kentucky race might be more competive but I sure am still not convinced that Bruce Lunsford is much of a Democrat. One of the chief complaints progressives (and, for that matter, all Democrats) have against him is that he donated money to Mitch McConnell previously. Asked in an interview on Political Base to justify that, Lunsford gives the only answer that could have been worse than arguing he is in fact a die-heart conservative by openly arguing that his opportunism was necessary for him to make profits and maintain good lobbying connections. He even makes an open reference to the K Street project (!):

The bulk of those Republican and McConnell contributions occurred after their 1994 takeover of Congress while I was running a large public company with significant regulatory oversight by the federal government. Everyone knows about the K Street Project in Washington. McConnell operates his own version of that shakedown with folks in business here in Kentucky and he was not shy about his requests for contributions, especially when our industry had critical legislation before the Senate. And I recall him not being pleased that I had contributed more to some of his opponents than him.

Lunsford is clearly aware that he has to defend some of his Democratic credentials a bit (after all, this is a second-tier race for which the support of the netroots could be very helpful to get attention and money) by attacking the Bush Administration, the Iraq War and even Joe Lieberman, though he doesn't deflect the questioner's skepticism that he wouldn't be a Lieberman on domestic issues very effectively. None of this is likely to hurt his chances in the general (it is Kentucky, after all), except insofar as a candidate trying to get noticed needs grassroots enthusiasm.

Finally, Rasmussen released its latest poll from New Hampshire's Senate race, finding Jeanne Shaheen crushing John Sununu 53% to 39%. Last month, Rasmussen found a 50% to 43% margin. This is the same size lead as ARG found a few days ago, and Sununu increasingly looks like a sure bet to be the Santorum of 2008. He has trailed from the very beginning and the race shows no indication that it's on his way to closing. Add this race to NM and CO and the Democrats look to have 3 sure pick-ups.

Obama launches first general-election ad, expands battleground to GOP states as Georgia poll confirms fluidiy of electoral map

2008-06-19T23:45:00.002-04:00

More than two weeks after clinching the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama launched his first general election ad today, a 60-second biographical spot meant to introduce himself to voters:

What: Speaking directly to the camera, Barack Obama mentions his maternal family, his being raised according to Kansas values and his choice to help devastated neighborhoods (Obama has long ceased calling his days in Chicago 'community organizing') rather than take a Wall Street job. He goes on to tout his record in providing health care to wounded troops, cut taxes and move people from welfare to work. These are all issues that could just as easily be featured in the ad of a Republican candidate, which goes along with the non-threatening heartland imagery and non(or anti)-partisan message the ad is meant to convey.

Politico's Jonathan Martin dubs this a "task in reassurance" and there is little doubt that this is exactly the ad's goal. This election is first and foremost a referendum on the Republican Party and the Administration. That means Barack Obama will be elected President in November unless the GOP convinces Americans that Obama is an entirely unacceptable choice -- whether because of his alleged inexperience or because of whatever smears are circulating online and are foolishly repeated on Fox. In 2004, the Bush campaign managed to survive an election that was a referendum on the incumbent by convincing enough voters that Kerry was too risky (read: unpatriotic) a choice. In 2008, McCain will need to drive up negativity even more given how much the Republican brand has sank just in the past four years.

Obama will have achieved a large part of what he needs to do by simply preventing Republicans from demonizing him. Given his massive financial advantage, he will have plenty of resources to do just that by airing this type of positive ad that emphasize the parts of Obama's story that make him look like just any other American politician while also being able to attack McCain.

Where: As interesting as the ad's content is the list of 18 states the commercial will be air in (the size of the media buy is still unknown): Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

This list is the who's who of battleground states, and it gives us a good sense of which states Obama expects to contest in the coming months. Compared to my latest least of competitive states, are noticeable the absence of Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington (and perhaps also California) and the inclusion of Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota.

Obama's confidence in carrying the first set of states is due to a series of polls finding the Illinois Senator improving in what I have been calling the "Dukakis 5." WA, OR and MN appear to be returning to their longtime Democratic roots after flirting with take-overs these past two cycles. As for New Jersey, Bush considerably improved his score in 2004 and McCain believes that his support among independents makes the state a worthy target. But New Jersey is an expansive state since running an ad requires investing in both the Philly and NYC markets and Obama is unlikely to accept such investments without further indication that the state might be competitive. (A similar argument could be made about expensive California.)

As for the more unconventional states that are included in the list, they are truly fascinating: Obama has long argued that Georgia is competitive but now that push is coming to shove and the time has come for the first media buy, it is noteworthy that Obama is actually following through and spending money here. It suggests that this is no longer just spin but that the Democrat's campaign actually believes that its registration drive and the increase in black turnout will make the Southern state Bush won by 17% truly competitive. And don't forget that the Bob Barr factor could play in Georgia more than in other times. Just in time to give us an idea of where Obama is coming from, Insider Advantage released a poll from Georgia finding... a toss-up:

McCain gets 44% to Obama's 43%, with Bob Barr coming in at a high 6%. (A Rasmussen poll taken 10 days ago had McCain leading by 10%).

This is obviously stunning and we eagerly await more polls from this state -- particularly more surveys that include Bob Barr, as he could really influence this election if he draws more from McCain than Obama. The Democrat's targeting Indiana can be described in the same way as Georgia: McCain's lead is narrowing there, just as it is in Georgia, but for Obama to actually take the jump in a state that has a more-expansive-than-most media market (Indianapolis) is remarkable.

As for Alaska, Montana and North Dakota, those are the real stunners of Obama's list, states George Bush won by 25%, 20% and 27% respectively! And DailyKos notes that running ads in Iowa probably enables Obama to reach the Omaha network, where one or two of Nebraska's EVs could potentially be contested. Each of these 3 states represents 3 electoral votes, but Obama is here striking at the core of the Republican base, states that never wavered in its support of Bush in the past two presidential elections. Yet, polls have shown Obama within striking distance in Alaska (there have been less public polls from MT and ND) and the candidate is less affected by racial polarization patterns in these Western states than he is in the Southern red bastions. Boosted by the fact that all three of these states are relatively cheap to advertise in, Obama looks determined to test McCain's vulnerabilities.

At the very least, this expansion of the electoral map will put McCain on the defensive, forcing his campaign to calculate whether it should play defense in Indiana and Alaska or whether it should invest that money in Minnesota and Oregon, states Obama is not even bothering to defend. Remember that the Republican's campaign will only have $85 million to spend once voters start paying the most attention in the fall and there is only so many states that he can spread that money on.

Update: Further provoking Republicans, Obama is assigning the former political director of its Iowa caucus effort to... Indiana, a state that has not voted Democratic since 1964. And the campaign is pledging paid staffers to... Texas!

Thursday polls: McCain leads big in Florida, Udall opens a lead in CO

2008-06-19T18:30:00.000-04:00

The pace of polls certainly looks to have picked up after a big wave of surveys yesterday brought good news to Obama's campaign yesterday. Today's polls serve as a reminder that the presidential race remains close:

Fox News's national poll finds Barack Obama leading John McCain by a narrow 45% to 41%. In a four-way race, Obama's lead is 42% to 39% with 4% for Ralph Nader and 2% for Bob Barr.
Fox News included questions about which candidate "loves America" the most. These questions are silly enough that I see no need to include the results.

In Florida, Rasmussen found John McCain leading 47% to 39%. This is a slight improvement from McCain's 50% to 40% lead last month.
Obama's favorability is negative (46% to 48%) and 33% have a very negative impression of him, versus 21% for McCain (the Republican's overall rating is 50% to 46%).
Asked whether they think offshore drilling would lower oil prices, 61% of Floridians responded in the affirmative.

Finally, Colorado is a toss-up in the latest Rasmussen poll, as Obama leads 43% to 41% -- down from a 48% to 42% lead last month.
Here again Obama has a high very unfavorable rating (31%, against 18% for Obama) and his favorability rating has dropped to 50%.

Colorado is one of Obama's top targets and the fact that he has not trailed once in Rasmussen's 5 polls from the state confirms that he ought to target Colorado's 9 electoral votes. But after yesterday's two Florida surveys showing Obama leading by 4% and 5%, Rasmussen's poll is a reminder that, as long as the election remains tight, we will be seeing a lot of inconsistency in these big swing-states. While yesterday's polls should reassure Democrats that McCain has not locked Florida in his column and that this contest will remain competitive, Obama retains a number of disadvantages in the Sunshine state, which has been trending Republican over the past eight years and which resisted to the Democratic tsunami better than other states back in 2006.

These presidential surveys were accompanied by a fair number of congressional polls:

In Colorado, Rasmussen finds Mark Udall extending his lead over Bob Schaffer. He is now leading 49% to 40%.

In Kentucky, the McConnell campaign released an internal poll showing the incumbent with a 50% to 39% lead against "Democrat" Bruce Lunsford.

In one of the most hotly disputed Dem-held House seats, incumbent Nancy Boyda released an internal poll conducted by Anzalone Lizst that finds Boyda crushing her two potential opponents, 54% to 37% against former Rep. Jim Ryun and 57% to 27% against state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins. It goes without saying that you should take this poll (and any internal poll) with a huge grain of salt.
The poll also finds McCain beating Obama by 7% in a district Bush carried by 20%.

Finally, SUSA released two congressional polls from Washington State. In competitive WA-08, Rep. Dave Reichert is holding off on his Democratic challenger Darcy Burner 51% to 45%. This is a rematch of a 2006 race which Reichert won 51% to 49%.
In WA-02, a district Kerry won by only 4%, Rep. Larsen leads 56% to 38%, confirming that the Democrat is safe in this district the GOP could hope to contest in better conditions.

In Colorado's open gubernatorial race in 2006, Democrat Ritter unexpectedly opened an early lead against his highly-touted Republican opponent and never looked back, easily carrying the election in November after a campaign that was never truly competitive. This was certainly a reflection of how toxic the environment was for the GOP. The same exact pattern held in Minnesota's open Senate race, and Democrats were expecting Mark Udall to enjoy similar success this year. But the race has remained very tight, giving Republicans hope that all is not lost. It is only in the past two months that Udall has opened up a somewhat consistent lead, boosted by the bad press Schaffer has gotten over corruption issues and even ads he ran. Keep an eye on polls over the summer: If Udall maintains a lead, we might be in for a repeat of the CO and MN races from 2006 and the NRSC would probably abandon Schaffer to his fate.

As for Kentucky, this is the second time that McConnell is releasing an internal poll immediately after an independent survey found a competitive race. The first was in late May after Rasmussen found Lunsford leading him by 5%. This one is a response to a SUSA survey released earlier this week with McConnell up 4%. Both of McConnell's internal polls have found the same result -- 50% to 39% -- and it is telling that this is being spun as reassuring numbers by the incumbent. For the Senate Minority Leader to be hovering on the vulnerability threshold of 50% is certainly cause for worry and should encourage the DSCC to look closely in Kentucky's direction.

Obama opts out of public financing, strengthening his ability to carry national campaign

2008-06-19T08:55:00.011-04:00

In a video message released this morning, Barack Obama announced he is opting out of public financing. This makes him the first candidate ever to rely on private donations to finance his general election campaign, and it will give him a giant advantage over John McCain. While the Republican will be limited to spending $85 million between the convention and Election Day, Obama will be able to spend as much money as he raises -- and some estimate that could be as high as $300 million.

The McCain campaign has long been pressuring Obama to respect what they call as his pledge to take public financing if McCain does. Obama had taken no such pledge but had said that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement". To justify his decision today, Obama argued that the RNC's fundraising advantage over the DNC coupled with the possibility that independent groups air attack ads in the next few months would have put him at a disadvantage had he accepted to limit his general election spending. Democrats also argue that the huge size of their small-donor list means that they have found an "alternative" public financing system.

(I for one find that this second point unconvincing because what is appealing about the campaign finance is that it maintains some equity between different candidates' spending and prevents the highest spender to simply buy his way into office. I agree that the sytem is so messed up that it makes little sense to blame Obama, that it makes no sense for the McCain campaign to say they "believe in public financing" when they did not take it for the primary, and that it would have been politically suiscidal for Obama to reject it. But in a hopefully not-too-distant future we can hope for a better European-style campaign finance system that also puts stringent limits on RNC/DNC/outside-group spending and in which candidates do opt in. TPM reports that some reform activists have a similar take on the "alternative system" argument. And Senator Russ Feingold also criticized Obama, saying that the general election system was not broken.)

The McCain campaign believes they have an opportunity to hurt Obama with this issue. They are now insisting that Obama broke his words and are blasting him as just another "typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama." McCain insisted today that this is a "big, big deal." The goal is clear: Hurt Obama's posing as a "change" candidate and the reform image that the Democrat has tried to embody. The problem for McCain's campaign is that... this is a deeply hypocritical reaction. Given the financing problems the Republican candidate has himself, it's difficult for me to understand how he is hoping to claim the reform mantle on this one.

Not only did McCain reverse his position on whether to take public financing in the primary (the period that ends at the conventions at the end of the summer), but he opted out after using the promise of matching funds to secure loans in the fall of 2007. There is a possibility that doing so should have locked McCain in the public financing system and the head of the FEC said as much a few months ago. (more background on this controversy here). Taking advantage of the FEC's lacking a quorum to take action against him and rule on whether he was forced to respect the limits that come with public financing, McCain broke those spending limits. The DNC has filed lawsuits against this but they have little chance of getting anywhere until the Senate resolves its stalemate over FEC nominees. Given this reversal whose very legality is under question, does McCain have any legitimacy to accuse Obama of breaking his word and abandoning the reform mantle?

Even if McCain was clean on the issue and could unproblematically present himself as the reform candidate here, another problem remains: such issues very rarely have any resonance with the electorate, and while the GOP might try to put this in relation with whatever other talking points it has to demonstrate that Obama is just a "typical politician," it's unlikely to do much for them. After all, none of the Clinton campaign's accusations of Obama engaging in negative attacks despite preaching "new politics" hurt the Illinois Senator -- and campaign finance is not something that arouses voter passion.

Ultimately, Obama's prodigious fundraising ability terrifies Republicans, who are worried about being swamped under the Senator's machine. Opting out of public finance allows Obama to outspend McCain in key swing states, but it is in more marginally competitive races that the difference could be the most significant. Indeed, both campaigns need to spend a large portion of their resources in states like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. Once all of that is accounted for, how much more of his $84 million will McCain retain to invest in New Jersey, Connecticut and California and to defend states like Alaska and Georgia? Obama, on the other hand, will have millions to run ads and send staffers to states that are not high-priority. That will allow him to develop an alternative electoral map in states like Nevada, Colorado and Virginia while also contesting Ohio and Florida and testing GOP vulnerabilities in third-tier statses.

Second electoral ratings: Five changes all favor Obama

2008-06-18T19:50:00.004-04:00

Two weeks have passed since my first electoral ratings found a tight electoral college race, with 15 states making up the initial batch of battleground states. Since then, the general election has been heating up and the candidates have engaged in tense back-and-forth on issues ranging from energy policy to terrorism. There have also been a number of polls released in the interval, not all of which have confirmed the conventional wisdom.

I will attempt to update ratings every two weeks (and every week once we get closer to the election) to maintain a continuous history. As I wrote last time, these are based on a mixture of polling data, considerations of which states parties are likely to invest in, the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and voting and registration patterns of each state since 2004. Thus, a low double-digits in a poll is not synonymous with likely category, and it will not descend to the "lean" group as soon as a poll shows a single-digit margin. (For electoral ratings that are based on stricter formulas, check the always-excellent Electoral-Vote and FiveThirtyEight.)

For instance, a recent AR poll might have shown a 9% lead for McCain, but the state remains in the "safe" category for now. Not only is one survey not enough to shift a state, but not all 9% leads are equal: Obama's very high unfavorability numbers in that AR poll suggest that he might have reached a ceiling he can only rise in case of a huge boost in black turnout. Until we see whether Obama is committed to such an effort in this particular state, there is no point in upgrading Arkansas to a more competitive category.

Without further delay, here are the second 2008 electoral college ratings (states whose ratings have been changed are in bold). Remember that states that are in the "lean" category are still considered to be very competitive and certain to be hotly contested, but it is possible to say that one candidate has a slight edge at this time.

Safe McCain: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska (at large + 3rd congressional district), Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming (87 EVs)

Likely McCain: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (1st and 2nd congressional districts), North Dakota, Texas (87 EVs)

Lean McCain: Florida, North Carolina (42 EVs)

Toss-up: Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia (84 EV)

Lean Obama: Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (55 EVs)

Likely Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, Washington (97 EVs)

Safe Obama: DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont (86 EVs)

This gives us the following map (courtesy of the Washington Post's interactive feature, though I was not able to color lean states a lighter shade) and totals:

Safe + Likely Obama: 183 electoral votes
Safe + Likely + Lean Obama: 238
Toss-up: 84
Safe + Likely + Lean McCain: 216
Safe + Likely McCain: 174

I will naturally not attempt to provide an explanation for every single one of these ratings and will concentrate instead on the four that have shifted over the past two weeks.

Arizona, Safe McCain to Likely McCain: Perhaps this is a case of an over-eager media looking for a story, but it is hard not to notice the abundance of articles questioning whether John McCain is a sure bet in his home-state, including recent pieces in The Christian Science Monitor and in CQ. The Senator's surprisingly low percentage in the state primary (he beat Mitt Romney by 12%) raised red flags as to his rocky relationship with Arizona's conservative base. The latest poll has an 11% margin and Obama could spell real trouble for McCain if he solidifies the Hispanic vote. The Republican remains heavily favored, if only because Obama is unlikely to push too hard. If he does lose here, however, would that push him towards the retirement in 2010?

Missouri, Lean McCain to Toss-up: The polls showing a tight race between the two candidates were available two weeks ago and were only confirmed by two surveys released since that showed Obama barely edging out McCain. What changed was my confidence that the Obama campaign will not give up on contesting Missouri. In 2004, the Kerry campaign pulled out of the state in October -- though it was certainly never their top priority -- and ended up losing by 7%. This year, the Obama campaign will certainly have enough money to not have to pull out and given their determination to not have to rely on Ohio and Florida they will make sure to push hard in other states that are ripe for pick-up. The fact that Missouri's gubernatorial race right now is an open seat in which the Democratic candidate is polling 20% ahead also tells us a lot about the dismal environment the GOP is facing.

Wisconsin, Toss-up to Lean Obama: Barack Obama is polling well in the "Dukakis five," states with traditional Democratic roots that had been more competitive in the past few cycles. By posting strong leads in Washington, Minnesota in particular, he is demonstrating that the shift in voters' partisan breakdown towards an increased identification with the Democratic Party is making it very difficult for the GOP to contest in states that have a slight blue lean in a neutral environment. Obama is posting narrow leads in Wisconsin, though the latest Badger poll showed him up by double-digits. Neither candidate is likely to create much space here in the coming months -- remember that Wisconsin really seemed lost to the Kerry campaign in the summer and fall of 2004 -- but Obama starts off with a slight edge.

Pennsylvania, Toss-up to Lean Obama: There is a reason Obama unveiled John Edwards's and Al Gore's endorsements in Michigan rather than in Pennsylvania: The Keystone State is no longer the main target for Republicans anxious to pick-up a blue state. Kerry's margin here in 2004 was smaller than Bush's in Ohio, but the state has shifted in the past four years. The Democratic tsunami ended up submerging PA Republicans more than it did their OH counterparts and the heated Clinton-Obama showdown gave both Democratic contenders weeks of exposure. Hundred of thousands of new voters registered as Democrats or switched their party registration, providing Obama with an increased base, and it's hard to ignore Quinnipiac's insistence that Obama

However, that Obama starts off with a slight edge does not mean that this state does not remain very competitive. If the Illinois Senator ends up weak among blue-collar voters, it will have a major impact on Pennsylvania and McCain will seize on every opportunity to gain in the state's rural regions. And the suburban areas remain a mystery, as Obama performed unexpectedly weakly in Philly's suburbs on April 22nd. The situation here is similar as the one in Florida: Both states will be hotly contested by both parties but it's hard to not think that they would go in opposing camps if the election were held today (I am aware of today's polls that show Obama slightly ahead in FL though I have not changed my rating. More discussion of FL will come in due course).

Massachusetts, Likely Obama to Safe Obama: This is the exception to my rule that ratings will not shift based on a single poll. This state was one of the biggest disappointments for the Obama campaign on February 5th, and he has been polling stunningly weak general election numbers ever since, barely edging out McCain in a series of SUSA polls. Yet, and while it appears likely that Hillary Clinton's margin of victory would have been far greater than Obama's, the latest poll released by Suffolk does show Obama distancing McCain by 23%. The thought of Massachusetts's general election being competitive is too ludicrous for me to entertain it without a constant stream of evidence, so this state is moving back where it should be -- though we will keep a close eye on it.

History of Campaign Diaries' electoral ratings:

June 18th: +22 Obama (238 for Obama [183 base, 55 lean] and 216 for McCain [174, 42])
June 4th: +20 McCain (207 for Obama [183, 24] and 227 for McCain [174, 53])

A few more late afternoon polls: Obama leads in his second FL poll, but OH is tied

2008-06-18T19:00:00.000-04:00

After weeks of not getting a single poll from OH and FL, here is the third Ohio poll in two days -- and a reminder of how much indecision we should expect in polls as long as the race remains a toss-up:

Unlike PPP's 11% lead yesterday and Quinnipiac's 6% lead earlier today, Obama is slightly behind in Rasmussen's new poll, though well within the MoE: McCain gets 44% to his 43%, the same margin as the May poll. Obama gets 53% favorability rating against a high 47% (including 31% very unfavorable).

Unless (or until) the election becomes a blowout, it is unlikely that Ohio will ever clearly belong in one or the other camp. This is just a reminder that the election at this point in time remains tight in most of the states that will matter. Meanwhile, ARG released a general election poll from Florida that finds a similar result as Quinnipiac's:

Obama is leading 49% to 44%. Both candidates get under 80% from their own party.
In case of an Obama/Nelson-McCain/Crist match-up, the GOP ticket is ahead 43% to 42%.

Earlier today, the Quinnipiac survey was the first ever to find Obama leading McCain in the Sunshine state, meaning that the only surveys finding a Democratic advantage were released today. The GOP still has a slight edge in Florida -- Obama is under-organized here and this is a state that resisted the Democratic tsunami fairly well in 2006 -- but the fact that the Illinois Senator looks stronger than expected is a bad sign for McCain's hopes of putting this one away.

Also this evening, ARG released a survey from New Hampshire, another rarely polled state:

Obama leads 51% to 39%, including a 15% lead among independents.
In the Senate race, Jeanne Shaheen leads Senator Sununu 54% to 40%.
And no surprises in the gubernatorial race, as Governor Lynch crushes his minor opposition 65% to 21%.

It is difficult to know what to make of New Hampshire, a state that both candidates have reason to believe they can do well in. The state's large independent contingent swung dramatically towards the Democrats in 2006, a pattern that should at least somewhat hold this year. But New Hampshire has long been kind to McCain, saving him from the dead in 2008 and grant him an unlikely blowout victory against George Bush in 2000.

McCain won both of these contests based on his strength with independents and he hopes to win them over against Obama -- just as he did in on January 8th. Remember that more than expected independent voters chose to participate in the GOP primary instead of the Democratic one, allowing Clinton to upset Obama and McCain to distance Romney. But ARG's poll suggests that McCain's long relationship with New Hampshire and its independents could snap this year. This is one of the two Kerry states that Republicans believe they can pick-up the most (along with Michigan) and putting it away early would be great news for Obama.

Wednesday polls: Strong day for Obama who leads big in PA, OH, WI and ME and within the margin of error in VA and FL

2008-06-18T13:00:00.007-04:00

Quinnipiac released its eagerly anticipated set of swing state polls, and after two weak showing by Obama in the waves of early April and mid-May, he has improved significantly over the past month by solidifying the support of registered Democrats. Though his lead in all three of these states is inferior to where Clinton stood last month, it still represents a significant shift towards the Illinois Senator:

In Florida, Obama is ahead 47% to 43%. He trailed by 4% in May.
A month ago, he trailed among independents and got 71% of the Democratic vote. In June, he leads indies by 10% and has the support of 82% of Democrats. 19% of those who voted Clinton in the primary would choose McCain, however.

In Ohio, Obama leads 48% to 42% -- no doubt boosted by Bush's dismal approval rating of 22%! He trailed by 4% in May.
He has improved his share of the registered Dem vote from 69% to 80% and trails by 3% among independents. Among Clinton voters, however, he only leads 63% to 25%.

In Pennsylvania, finally, Obama crushes McCain 52% to 40%. He led by 6% in May.
Obama gets 78% of registered Democrats compared to 71% in May. He leads by 11% among independents, though his support among Clinton voters remains tepid (66% versus 24% for McCain).

This seems to be the first Florida poll to ever find Obama ahead of McCain, too early, then, to know whether something is actually changing (this is also the first Florida poll released by any institute since Quinnipiac's last poll a month ago!). But note the uniformity of the bounce in Obama's favor: He has improved by 6%, 6% and 8% in these three states, suggesting about the same size bounce that we witnessed in Rasmussen and Gallup's tracking. The margin has narrowed again in those trackings and that we will have to wait for confirmation that Obama has jumped up in those states from other surveys (PPP yesterday showed Obama up 11% in Ohio). Also, black support in favor of Obama is particularly strong and is what is helping the Democrat create some space: He gets between 90% and 95% of the African-American vote, much stronger than what Kerry got in 2004.

As Quinnipiac points out, no candidate has won the election without at least two of these three states in 48 years, so for Obama to get even two would make the road to the White House very difficult for McCain. However, Michigan now appears to be just as competitive as these 3 states and muddies the equation a bit, as picking up Michigan could help McCain offset the loss of Ohio. Meanwhile, a number of other polls were released today from other crucial states that Obama seems intent on contesting:

First, Zogby's latest national poll shows the Democrat leading 47% to 42%. Other good news for Obama: he leads by 22% among independents. The bad news: He is only ahead 54% to 44% among Hispanics and 54% of respondents say he does not have the experience to be president.

In Virginia, PPP finds Obama edging out McCain 47% to 45%. He gets 78% of Democrats -- a strong showing in a Southern state.

In Wisconsin, SUSA finds Obama ahead 52% to 43% -- up from a 6% lead in May. This includes the support of 91% of registered Democrats (!) and a 23% lead among women.
SUSA also continues to provide completely useless VP pairings: Which poll respondents has ever heard of Carly Fiorina?

In Maine, Obama crushes McCain 55% to 33%, up from a 13% lead last month in a new Rasmussen poll. There's no breakdown by congressional district but with this sort of lead there is no doubt Obama is ahead in both.

In Alaska, finally, Rasmussen continues to find competitive races, with McCain ahead 45% to 41%, down from a 9% lead last month.
McCain and Obama have comparable favorability ratings (58% to 53% rspectively) but the enthusiasm level really varies, both among very favorable opinions (29% Obama and 18% McCain) and very unfavorable (31% Obama). This is a pattern we are seeing in many red states.

Wisconsin's lead confirms other polls we have been seeing and my hypothesis that the "Dukakis 5" states are coming home, slowly removing 5 blue states from the list McCain can contest. The Alaska poll is stunning, of course, though it is unclear how much the campaigns will look in that direction (it is rather far, after all).

And I have resolved to no longer express wonder and amazement when a Virginia poll shows a tie or Obama narrowly ahead, as every poll recently released from the Commonwealth shows that result -- including one released early this week. That the state's 13 electoral votes are in play are a nightmare for McCain as they expand the map in a region the GOP has long not had to defend. With Mark Warner set to destroy Jim Gilmore, there could even be reverse coattails -- as the PPP poll confirms:

This Senate race is no doubt polled so much because Virginia is competitive at the presidential level, but we are still waiting for Colorado to be polled this much. PPP finds Warner crushing 59% to 28% and the worst news for Gilmore is that no one is surprised...

In more interesting Senate news, Susan Collins continues to slip in Maine. The latest Rasmussen poll finds her ahead 49% to 42% -- under 50% and within single-digits for the first time. Last month's poll, finding her ahead by 10%, was already the tightest the race has ever been.
Proving that Collins is in a Chaffee-esque situation of being driven down by her party rather than by her own liabilities, she has a shockingly high 70% favorability rating.

In North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole rebounds in a new Civitas poll: Barely ahead 45% to 43% last month, she is now leading 48% to 38%.

In another congressional poll from that state, this one from NC-08, Larry Kissell is narrowly ahead of Rep. Hayes 45% to 43% in an internal poll conducted by Anzalone Liszt.
This is a district that voted Bush twice (including by 9% in 2004) but Obama leads McCain 50% to 37% (should we take that as a sign that the poll oversamples dems? A 23% swing from where we were 4 years ago is perhaps a bit much).

Maine has long been a disappointment to Dems, as Collins has been ahead by more than 20% in many polls taken since the fall of 2007. But as partisan passions heat up in the coming months it looks like Collins could get dangerously close to being this cycle's Linc Chaffee and suffer from her party's dismal ratings. As Al Franken's situation is worsening in MN, the DSCC would be delighted to get Maine back in the picture. As for NC, Dole is still under 50% in the Civitas poll but this is the second pollster (after Rasmussen) among those that had shown a tied race in May (after Hagan's primary victory) to find that Dole has rebounded. There are clear reasons for that, too: (1) Hagan's primary bounce faded and (2) Dole has been running TV ads over the past few weeks. Still within striking distance for Democrats but no reason to be as euphoric as the DSCC was last month.

Environment and offshore drilling: McCain's subtle distancing act

2008-06-18T09:30:00.000-04:00

Throughout the primary, McCain emphasized conservative positions, moving closer to the president on a number of issues -- including torture and tax cuts. Last week, after the Supreme Court ruled to restore habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, McCain chose to embrace the Bush Administration's legacy and run with it when the ruling had offered him a brilliant opportunity to run as his own man. National security is not an issue on which McCain is tempted to break with Republican orthodoxy.

In fact, there aren't many such issues according to a New York Times piece published yesterday that goes over the similarities and differences between McCain and Bush. The article is accompanied by a useful graphic that recapitulates the piece's findings and discovers that the only issues of disagreement are torture (on which McCain toned down his position this year), federal spending (he is significantly further to the Right than Bush on this one) and matters relating to the environment/energy.

It makes little sense for McCain to campaign on torture given that Barack Obama does not very interested in pursuing Bush's interrogation tactics (though you can bet Democrats would have made an issue out of this had Republicans selected Romney or Giuliani), leaving the environment as an issue on which McCain believes he can show how he is a new kind of Republican. In fact, the Bush Administration has set such a low standard on these matters that it is enough for McCain to say that he believes in global warming without even promising to do anything about it for that to become major news -- and a major break for the past.

In a major speech he gave on Tuesday, McCain sought to explicitly distance himself from the President on these issues and the campaign accompanied this effort by releasing a new ad claiming that McCain "stood up to the President and sounded the alarm on global warming:"

The ad also mentions McCain's commitment to curbing gas emissions. But for every one of McCain's gestures towards the center, he needs to also adapt his position to remain accepted by conservatives. A longtime opponent of ANWAR, McCain reiterated his opposition yesterday but announced that he was now in favor of lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling. This is essential to America gaining energy independence and fight the rise of high gas prices, McCain now argues.

And President Bush wasted no time following McCain on the issue, as the New York Times reports he will now call on Congress to pass such legislation. I am not sure why Bush is repeating McCain's arguments a day after the Arizona Senator (is he trying to prevent McCain from distancing himself from him?), but this will certainly not help McCain create space on the one issue he is planning to continually use to do so.

Overall, the environment is an issue independent voters care about and McCain could strengthen his maverick image if he convinces voters that his approach to the issue is a non-partisan one. After Obama criticized McCain's proposals, the Republican campaign characteristically responded that Obama is constrained by "ideology," whatever that means. This will be a typical of the next few months as both candidates will attempt to demonstrate that they are the true post-partisan "problem-solver" and that the other candidate is a highly partisan posing as a moderate. Who knew that the 2008 campaign would be defined by resembles Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mike Bloomberg the most?

Note that offshore drilling remains very unpopular in coastal states such as Florida, and McCain's new support for lifting the moratorium will not sit well in that crucial battleground state. Surprisingly, Governor Charlie Crist reversed his own position yesterday and endorsed McCain's suggestion whereas any Florida politician is supposed to unequivocally oppose such ideas. And as Jonathan Martin points out, Crist really changed his position on this one as he was adamantly speaking out against offshore drilling just last week. This can mean that (1) the GOP believes that high oil prices effectively change the equation and give them an opening or that (2) Charlie Crist is really really committed to becoming McCain's vice-presidential pick and is thus groveling to be selected.

Just like 2004: Democrats hit on Iraq, Republicans emphasize terrorist threat

2008-06-17T19:37:00.008-04:00

In a replay of the 2004 election, McCain and Obama's campaigns do not see eye to eye on what the dominant national security issue should be. While Republicans want to frame the conversation in terms of the terrorist threat, Democrats know they would be better of by focusing on the Iraq War. Yet, something has changed in the past four years: Democrats today seem more confident than they were four years ago that they can afford to stand their ground when accused of being weak on terror.

Ever since the Supreme Court issued its decision on Guantanamo detainees last week, the right has been taking increasingly hostile positions against the ruling. After 24 hours of indecision, McCain chose to blast the SCOTUS, lamenting "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." McCain's motivations were clear: fire up the base on an issue he can ill-afford to distance himself from Republican orthodoxy and prepare his party's general election offensive against Barack Obama.

In an interview with ABC yesterday, Obama weighed in on an issue that is likely to remain at the forefront the next 5 months by declaring that

It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. And there has been no evidence on their part that we can't. (...) What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

The McCain campaign wasted no time before blasting Obama for his alleged naivety. McCain aide Randy Scheunemann denounced Obama's suggestion that it was a good idea to prosecute the first bombers of the WTC. "These aren’t just your run of the mill drug dealers that are picked up on the South Side of Chicago," he said, reproaching Obama with "ignor[ing] that we are in a war against terrorism." And in what was the most memorable line of attack (one that had obviously been rehearsed and meant to stick), Scheunemann added that Obama's is the "perfect manifestation of a Sept. 10 mindset."

There was never any doubt that the McCain campaign would go after Obama on national security, seeking to portray him as an unacceptable choice that would endanger the country's security. I am a bit surprised by the rapidity with which McCain's entourage seized on Obama's comments today. They were not particularly controversial or unexpected, after all, and the fact that the GOP attempted such sustained fire suggests this particular offensive had been coordinated and planned out much before Obama said anything to ABC. The McCain campaign seems to know exactly what they want: a clear contrast when it comes to civil liberties and the fight against terrorists.

And if there is any doubt in anyone's mind that there is such a contrast, well, McCain will not hesitate to call on Joe Lieberman to explain why the Democrats' decision to give up on protecting American security is pushing him away from his (old?!) party.

What is surprising, however, is that the Obama campaign does not appear to mind! In fact, they seem very happy to draw a stark contrast, and Obama has not shied away from giving his opinion on Boumediene. This would have been unthinkable four years ago: Democrats accepting to be defined as the protector of civil liberties and to publicly defend law enforcement for terrorist? After all, the party even ended up easily caving on the issue of wiretapping. This goes to show how much the collapse of Bush's approval rating and of the Iraq enterprise has hurt Republicans. Democrats now believe that the clearer the contrasts with John McCain the easier it will be for them to stand for change and to paint McCain as a third term for Bush.

The Democrats' preferred issue when it comes to foreign policy, of course, is the war in Iraq and they have been talking about stepping up their effort to portray McCain as a war-mongering hawk ever since his "100 year" comment spread like wildfire. Unfortunately for Dem hopes to paint McCain early, no third-party group really stepped up all these months to define McCain before he had the chance to raise money and organize his campaign. Now, however, MoveOn and AFSCME are about to start running a brutal ad remarkable for its simplicity that hits McCain on the war and specifically on the effect his professed desire to keep soldiers in Iraq for the next century could have on baby Alex:

The ad will run in the important battleground states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin as well as on national cable (CNN and MSNBC). Hotline reports that the ad buy nears $500,000, a sum large enough that this effort can be described as a serious one, not just an attempt to get some free media attention. Better late than never, however. John McCain continues to over-perform his party among independents, suggesting that his moderate image still stands strong. This ad also suggests that Democrats are particularly worried about holding on to the vote of white women (the latest ABC poll shows McCain trouncing Obama in that constituency).

Update: More confirmation that the Obama campaign does not intend to shy away from this one. He personally responded to the McCain campaign's suggestions that he was weak on terror tonight by hitting the GOP right back: "Let's think about this: these are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11... What they're trying to do us what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid," Obama said."

Tuesday polls: Obama pulls ahead in OH and is competitive in NC, while Franken and McConnell are in trouble

2008-06-17T11:12:00.012-04:00

Finally, after weeks of being bombarded by polls from New York, Kansas and Washington State, someone thought to poll the presidential race in Ohio – and it brings welcome news to Obama’s campaign:

Public Policy Polling released its first survey in quite a while and it shows Barack Obama trouncing John McCain 50% to 39%. As usual, Obama is weaker among registered Dems (73%) than McCain is among registered Republicans (83%). Obama is leading by 13% among independents, however. As for potential VP picks, respondents seem more inclined to be swayed by Hillary Clinton than by their governor Ted Strickland.
Update: A commenter points out that this survey was in the field on the 17th and 18th of May. This is very strange indeed, as it represents more than a 3 week delay... Did PPP not even poll Hillary Clinton against McCain then? At the time, most pollsters did.

A long series of polls showing Obama weak in Ohio or at least significantly underperforming Clinton (including PPP's most recent survey released in March, repeated waves of Quinnipiac's polls and Rasmussen's May poll) was interrupted by SUSA's showing Obama comfortably ahead of McCain mid-May. PPP's poll is the first since then. Given how much care the Obama campaign is putting in cultivating alternative electoral maps that do would not require victory in Florida and Ohio, the state's 20 electoral votes almost seem like they would be a bonus that would all but ensure the Democrat's victory -- though with McCain's apparent strength in Michigan, it is essential for Democrats to contest Ohio to offset a potential disaster in Michigan.

The day's other important presidential poll is the much-discussed ABC/Washignton Post national poll:

Barack Obama leads 48% to 42%, a margin that is little moved since ABC's previous poll, suggesting there has been little movement since the Democrat wrapped up his nomination. The WaPo is emphasizing the fact that the two candidates are tied among independents.
Another national poll, released by Cook/RT Strategies, shows Obama leading 44% to 40%.

Last week, after the NBC polled found Obama leading by 6%, I criticized the obsession with pointing out that Kerry had never led in NBC polls in 2004 and that Bush had never beeh ahead by that much either. I pointed out that, in many other polls, Kerry had a clear lead in the early summer and that Bush was repeatedly ahead by 9-11% in September. The ABC poll is a case in point: Now, everyone is pointing out that John Kerry had the same lead in an ABC poll taken at this time four years ago. So which is it? Is an Obama lead significant because Kerry never led or significant because he was the favorite? It is important to look at a pollster's trendlines because of methodology and turnout models, but the pollster-specific comparisons of surveys that are four years apart does not seem to me to be particularly helpful.

What is somewhat significant in recently released national polls is that predictions by strategists from both camps that Obama could open a double-digit lead in the weeks after becoming the nominee have not come true, though the Democrat is consistently ahead. But it is the electoral college, of course, that will determine the winner and two important state polls were released today besides Ohio’s:

In North Carolina, polls are now consistently showing McCain’s leading hovering around the margin of error. The latest Civitas poll finds him barely ahead 45% to 41%, with Bob Barr polling in at 2%. Last month, McCain was up by 5%.

In Minnesota, SUSA finds Obama struggling to pull ahead, coming in at 47% against 46% for McCain. He was ahead by 5% in a poll taken two weeks ago, though that swing is within the margin of error. The big difference is the flip of the indie vote.

It is difficult to imagine North Carolina flipping if a state like Virginia does not, underscoring how close to a blow-out victory Obama would get if he keeps NC this close through November. As for Minnesota, so much for my speculations that Obama might be putting away the “Dukakis 5,” though it’s worth pointing out that most other recent MN surveys finding a more comfortable lead for Obama. But it is SUSA’s Senate poll from this state that has got to worry Democrats:

Norm Coleman has opened up a significant lead against Al Franken, 52% to 40%, though this is stable from last month's poll that showed the Democrat trailing 52% to 42%. Franken loses the independent vote 60% to 33%.
If Jesse Ventura jumps in the race (it is the second time this week this match-up is polled), Franken trails 41% to 31% with 23% for Ventura. In a sure sign of trouble for Franken, Mike Ciresi, a Democrat who dropped out of the race in February, polls slightly better than him against Coleman: 50% to 40%.

Also today, Rasmussen released a survey of Alaska's Senate race, finding Ted Stevens surviving 46% to 44% against Mark Begich, who was narrowly ahead 47% to 45% last month. Other surveys have found larger leads for Begich.

Al Franken has been suffering through months of bad press, as controversies over tax disclosures, a 2000 essay in Playboy and a 1995 joke on rape erupted in recent weeks. Yet, polls found little movement in this (very often) polled race. But SUSA's survey is obviously bad news for the Democratic challenger as it goes along the narrative of a sinking campaign. That Franken polls roughly at the same level as a candidate who has not been campaigning for 5 months suggests that he is now underperforming the level of a generic Democrat.

Update: SUSA just released a fascinating new poll from Kentucky:

In the presidential race, John McCain leads Obama 53% to 41%. This is a huge progression from a May poll in which Obama trailed by 24%. Look no further than the vote of registered Democrat, Obama has gone from... 48% to 59%! Still a very low number, but one that is now in line with what you would expect in Kentucky.
In the Senate race, however, Mitch McConnell is only ahead of Bruce Lunsford 50% to 46%!

I for one have long remained unconvinced that Lunsford would be a real threat to McConnell, and given how nightmarish he would be for progressives, it is certainly my top wish among GOP-held seats. But this now the second poll that finds Lunsford to be very competitive and there is no doubt that unseating the Minority Leader would be a huge upset. Given that the DSCC is looking for second and third-tier seats to make competitive to have a shot at 60, this is not the last we will hear of Kentucky.

Gore, Solis Doyle, Iraq: Obama prepares himself for the months ahead

2008-06-16T23:30:00.002-04:00

The exchanges between the two campaigns are already getting heated, but don't forget that Democrats just recently switched to general election mode. While John McCain had ample time to take control of his party in the months that followed February 5th (whether he succeeded, of course, is another question), Barack Obama is still busy taking steps to ensure that Democrats are unified and preparing various other plans for the months ahead.

(1) After keeping a low profile for months (not without silly speculation that he might jump in at any moments), Al Gore made his first high-profile appearance in the presidential campaign today as he endorsed Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan. Gore celebrated Obama as "the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America" and rejected any criticism of the Illinois Senator's (in)experience. Given the elder statesman stature Al Gore has achieved within the party, this was a necessary step for Obama to claim the mantle of Democrats past and proclaim himself the new leader of the party.

Note the importance of the event taking place in Michigan. This is also the state in which Obama organized John Edwards's endorsement on May 14th. The Obama campaign has no doubt noticed that Michigan has unexpectedly emerged as their weakest link, with a number of polls suggesting that Michigan could be the Kerry state in which Obama is the weakest. The importance of the state's blue-collar population reinforces the challenge that awaits Obama. His campaign's decision to stage two of the biggest shows of Democratic unity in this state reveals their belief that it would be enough for the party's base and registered Democrats to come home for Obama to pull ahead in Michigan. Whoever Obama chooses as his running mate, he will surely send politicians like John Edwards who are close to labor to campaign in Michigan.

Speaking of last night's Michigan rally, Obama better find a way to instruct his supporters not to boo when they hear Clinton's name if he wants to sooth over hard feelings. The Washington Post reports that, after Gov. Jennifer Granholm mentioned she had supported Hillary in the primaries and before she was able to move on to the standard line about how she is now fired up to support Obama (what does Obama want more right now than former Clinton supporting women publicly backing him), she "received a deafening chorus of boos..."

(2) Obama's campaign hired Patti Solis Dolye, Clinton's former chief of staff, to serve as the chief of staff of the... VP contender once he or she is chosen. This is one of this week's richest political stories, but also one that is entirely reserved for political junkies. It might be true that the Obama campaign is intending his gesture as an overture towards the Clintonites and it might be true that placing Solis Doyle in such an important position is meant to appeal to Hispanic voters, but which insider works for whom in what post and at what time is not the kind of question that moves undecided voters. If anything, it will prevent Republicans from attacking his campaigns for the lack of high-profile Latinos -- a line of attack campaigns typically attempt to put their opponents on the defensive.

The consequences of Solis Doyle's hire on the Democratic veepstakes, on the other hand, are fascinating. Hillary fired her longtime aide and confidante shortly after Super Tuesday, and their relationship is said to not have survived. We also know that many (and not just in Clinton's entourage) have been blaming Solis Doyle for a series of mistakes and for mismanaging the campaign. The reaction of Clinton insiders to Solis Doyle's new role in the Obama campaign leaves no doubt as to the lingering hard feelings. So does Obama's decision to hire Doyle for this particular position not imply that he has already decided to not give the vice-presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, or is he planning on welcoming his former rival to the ticket with the poisoned gift of an awkward reunification?

(3) Finally, the Obama campaign announced today that the candidate would travel to Iraq and Afghanistan before the general election. The GOP has been taunting Obama for weeks now on why he is not imitating McCain's decision to take a trip there recently. Obama's trip will come later than the foreign travels general election candidates have taken in recent cycles (John McCain also traveled through Europe this spring), but he could not afford living the country when Hillary Clinton was still in the race. With the media's attention now devoted to the general election, Obama is sure to receive a lot of press when he embarks on this journey and this will be a crucial moment for his presidential hopes.

The upside of a well-covered trip is obvious, as it would immediately raise Obama's stature and increase voters' confidence in him on national security. The drawback is as evident: Given that Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, a single misstep or misstatement could cost him dearly as it would feed a concern voters already have about him. This is what happened in the French presidential election last year, as Socialist candidate Ségolène Royale was pilloried for two silly mistakes during a trip to China and then again when she provided the wrong answer to a question about the country's military. As a woman, Royal had more to prove on national security issues and these missteps ended up being devastating. But when her opponent Nicolas Sarkozy blundered the same exact question a few weeks later, no one seemed to care.

Monday polls: Virginia is indeed a toss-up, and is it worth looking at Kansas?

2008-06-16T18:05:00.003-04:00

It is one thing for David Ploufe to insist that the campaign does not need to win Ohio and Florida to get to the White House, it is quite another for pollsters to impose a seeming blackout on polls from these two mega-battleground states. No survey from either has been released since mid-May and in the meantime we got plenty of polls from states like Washington and just today two from New York. A new survey from Virginia released today keeps things interesting:

Rasmussen finds that the presidential race in this traditional red state is a toss-up, with Obama edging McCain 45% to 44%. This is a small swing from last month's survey, in which McCain led by 3%.
While McCain's favorability rating is a bit higher, Obama has a higher proportion of respondents who say they have a very favorable impression of him. However, the familiar pattern of Obama's very unfavorable rating also being much higher holds in this poll.

In New York, two polls confirm the Democrat's overwhelming advantage. The Sienna poll has Obama leading 51% to 33%. He led by 11% last month and 5% two months ago.
The New York Times poll, meanwhile, has Obama leading 51% to 32%.

In Kansas, finally, Rasmussen finds McCain ahead 47% to 37%, down from a 21% lead last month.
Obama has a mediocre favorability rating, however (49% versus 62% for McCain) and very low very unfavorables (31% versus 12% for McCain).

Of these polls, the Virginia survey is naturally the most interesting. While I did not hesitate to include it in the list of toss-ups in my first electoral college ratings, it is always somewhat of a shock when Obama performs so well in a poll from the Commonwealth. This is, after all, a state that has not voted for a Democrat since 1964. Yet, Rasmussen's poll is certainly not a surprise. The latest SUSA poll showed Obama leading by 8% three weeks ago and Obama has made no secret that flipping it will be one of his priorities, so far so that there are 3 potential VP picks that come from the state (Webb, Kaine and Warner). He even organized his first general election campaign stop in Virginia. There is no question that McCain losing this state would make it very hard for him to get to 270 electoral votes.

Meanwhile, a number of down-the-ballot polls found some interesting results as well:

In Virginia, Mark Warner is widening his lead over Jim Gilmore and is now ahead 60% to 33% in Rasmussen's poll! Warner has a 70% favorability rating compared to 46% for Gilmore... and don't forget this is a GOP-held seat!

Dems get more good news in Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu is up 49% to 33% in a new poll. However -- and this is a big one -- this is an internal poll conducted for and released by the Landrieu campaign. But until Kennedy responds with his own poll (and he did release an internal showing him ahead in December), this is positive for Landrieu.

In Kansas, meanwhile, Pat Roberts continues to post surprisingly low numbers for an incumbent that no one is really paying attention to. After 3 polls from 3 different polling groups showing him up 12% against former Rep. Slattery, Rasmussen's latest survey finds the incumbent under 50% and in single-digits, leading 47% to 38%.
Roberts's favorability rating remains high, however, at 60%.

In Nevada, Mason-Dixon polled two House races (both currently held by Republicans) and found good news for both parties. In NV-01, Rep. Porter and Dina Titus in a toss-up with the incumbent up 45% to 42%. Porter's job approval is a dismal 36% to 56%. Note that Titus ran a statewide gubernatorial race in 2006, so she is better-known than your average House challenger.
In NV-02, Rep. Dean Heller has a much strong lead against Democrat Jill Derby in a rematch of their 2006 race. Heller is up 53% to 39%.

In TX-10, a poll taken for the Democratic challenger in a race few people have on their radar screen (and which I confess I have not included in my latest House ratings) shows the incumbent Mike McCaul leading Democrat Larry Doherty 43% to 34%.
As SSP points out, an independent poll from IRV that I managed to miss just last week has Doherty trailing by only 6%, 52% to 46%. Doherty's decision to release a poll today that shows him faring a bit worse is no doubt due to his desire to prove that the IRV survey was not an outlier and that TX-10 is indeed competitive.

Finally, a poll from New York's gubernatorial race of... 2010, which will interest everyone given how chaotic the state political scene has been lately. This is also important because whether Mike Bloomberg decides he should run will determine whether he tries to change the term limits law in NYC in the coming months. The Sienna poll referred to above has Bloomberg ahead 45% to 34% in a match-up against recently promoted Governor Paterson (who is not that much ahead of AG Andrew Cuomo in a primary).

The Kansas Senate race is too me the most interesting poll of this group because it confirms -- and accentuates -- the results of three polls that have been released in close proximity (here, here and here). Looking at the latest Rasmussen polls of the second and third-tier of Senate races, Roberts now looks weaker than Dole and Cornyn and he has repeatedly polled lower than Sen. Collins ever has in Maine (well there was one poll showing her leading by only 10%)! Even Chuck Schumer, when trying to tout his attempts to expand the map, refers to Oklahoma more readily than Kansas. So at one point does the DSCC start looking in Kansas's direction? Given Schumer's determination to test the vulnerability of incumbents, it would not be a surprise if the DSCC conducts a poll and sends in a few staffers.

VP watch: Jindal's exorcism problem and (more-or-less credible) Democratic denials

2008-06-16T10:00:00.002-04:00

Bobby Jindal's inclusion on the exclusive list of guests to McCain's ranch way back when Hillary Clinton was still a candidate caught many by surprise. While the recently elected Louisiana Governor was long mentioned as a possible contender for the vice-presidential nomination, he was perceived as an unlikely pick. But McCain needs youth on the ticket and Jindal's name has remained in the mix. Today, former Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed Jindal on CBS's Face the Nation, declaring that "Jindal would be far and away the best candidate for vice president in the country." Gingrich's blessing points to one of Jindal's main advantages: he has a very conservative profile, particularly when it comes to social issues. A very religious politician, Jindal could help McCain connect with the part of his base that is still proving the most reluctant to enthusiastically line up against him.

Yet, social conservatism is also one of the main drawbacks of a Jindal pick, as there is only so far Republicans can push religious discourse within the political sphere. To contest in places like Pennsylvania's suburbs, the GOP needs to remain somewhat mainstream on social issues and Jindal might prove a distraction on the trail, forcing McCain to talk about religion and social issues much more than he is comfortable doing. I am not just talking about things like Jindal's strong endorsement for teaching intelligent design in the classroom (a position he articulated this morning on CBS) but more... unusual stories like Jindal's attempt to perform an exorcism.

Jindal himself wrote an essay about this in 1994 in the New Oxford Review, a Catholic publication. Jindal explains how he performed a successful exorcism and rid the body of a friend of a demon that possessed her. TPM notes that Jindal seems to have been entirely serious and provides lengthy excerpts of this stunning piece of writing (purchase is required on the website of the Oxford Review). Note that, beyond the sections about exorcism and removing Satan from the body of this poor woman, the essay also proposes a very traditionalist account of man-woman relations, as Jindal describes himself as willing to stay away from a female friend as it would not be fitting for them to be friends without a "deeper commitment."

Does this level of religious zeal and the willingness to discuss it publicly hurt Jindal's chances to be slected on the Republican ticket? And while devout Catholics take offense at the fact that exorcism is strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church?

Meanwhile, the Democratic veepstakes are being shaped by those who are taking themselves out of the running. While any potential running-make is expected to insist that the vice-presidential nomination is the farthest thing from his or her mind, there is only so far they dare take their public denials. Last week, Ted Strickland ruled out joining the ticket in strong enough terms that observers had to take him seriously.

This week-end it was the turn of Mark Warner to issue strong enough declarations to prompt the AP to headline its piece "Warner takes self out of VP mix." Speaking in front of the Virginia Democratic convention, Warner, who is now running for Senate but about whom speculation had dramatically picked up mid-May, told delegates that "Today, in front of this convention, I wanted to make it clear what I am focused on." He also said that, "I have not sought and I will not accept any other opportunity." Given that vice-presidential contenders are probably submitting their vetting documents to the campaigns just about now, this would be a deliberate lie on Warner's part -- much more than the usual half-hearted denial -- suggesting that the former Governor is really out of the veepstakes. This, of course, is a huge relief to the DSCC and Senate Democrats.

John Edwards, however, took the opposite route, walking back from very strong-worded denials that seemed to assure he would not be willing to embark on a repeat of his 2004 experience to tell George Stephanopoulos today that "I'd take anything he asked me to think about seriously." He did add that "obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking" but such weakly-phrased assurances of disinterest we are used to, and they don't sound like they are sure of anything at all.

Finally, former Senator Sam Nunn continues to fuel speculation and his friends are sure doing nothing to suggest that he would not take it. The Boston Globe runs an article today explaining why Nunn might be a good pick and relying on members of Nunn's entourage who are "surprised" that "he seems more prepared to accept a vice presidential offer this year." Given that his name has been mentioned every four years since the late 1980s and that it's hard to imagine that Nunn would have rejected any prior pick, anyone else think Nunn is actively pushing to be chosen? In case there are any doubts, remember this.

Most recent VP developments:

Heading out of the veepstakes: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd
VP watch: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines as Obama's vetter resigns
VP watch: Nunn backtracks on gay rights, Webb campaigns with Obama, Clinton steps back
All coverage for Democrats and Republicans

NV and AR polls: All eyes on the Southwest, and Southern hopes rest on increased turnout

2008-06-15T17:54:00.006-04:00

The hottest battleground of this general election will no doubt be the Southwest, not necessarily because of the 19 electoral votes that are stake there in this election but what the region might represent in the future. A fastest-growing area, the Southwest is bound to pick up congressional seats and thus electoral votes at the start of the next decade, just in time for the next presidential election.

Along with Colorado and New Mexico, Nevada completes the Southwestern trio. Flipping these three states alone would be enough for Obama to get to the White House if he also carries all the states won by Kerry in 2004. Arizona would have surely been added to the list had McCain not won the GOP nomination but the state's Senator should hold on to his home-state despite some murmurs that he has problems with Arizona's conservative base (he did, after all, only receive 48% in the Super Tuesday primary here).

All three states remain too close-too-call. That alone is a Democratic victory in Colorado, which was considered solidly red in 2004 and clearly leaning Republican four years ago, but it is not that much of a change in Nevada and New Mexico, the latter having hosted two of the tightest results in 2000 and 2004. This alone should frustrate Democrats, some of whom are confident that the growing Hispanic population will pave the way for significant gains. In fact, Nevada was already deemed a disappointment four years ago as President Bush won despite being on the wrong side of what was described as the one issue that mattered in state politics, Yucca Mountain.

A new poll released today by respected polling outfit Mason-Dixon finds yet another close race:

John McCain edges out Barack Obama within the margin of error, 44% to 42%.
Among Hispanics -- a constituency among which McCain believes he can reduce the margin a bit -- the Republican is crushed 56% to 28%.

Both parties know the cost of not contesting the Southwest would be disastrous in the long-term, and that alone should guarantee that neither candidate takes a commanding lead in Nevada. Just as in 2004, this one should go down the wire.

In Arkansas, meanwhile, a new Rasmussen poll finds somewhat of a shift:

John McCain leads 48% to 39%. A month ago, however, Obama trailed by 24%, a result Rasmussen interprets as a "Clinton bump" in the state the former candidate used to call home.
Obama has a decent favorability rating but also a very high proportion of respondents (36%) who have a "very unfavorable" impression of him.

Hillary Clinton led by 14% in last month's Rasmussen poll, a 38% gap with Obama's showing. This is one state that Clinton would have been almost assured of carrying while Obama is expected to durably struggle, though a bump of the size Obama has gotten here has to satisfy the Democrat's campaign. Not only do such numbers allow them to claim that the party is now uniting and that former Clinton supporters are lining up behind their nominee but it also represents new data to tout Obama's potential in Southern states, a theme the Illinois Senator has evoked for months now.

It is worth noting, however, what Obama's high unfavorability rating tells us about the state of the general election in Southern states, as Obama's ability to close to gap to a tighter-than-expected margin despite coming in with higher unfavorables is a phenomenon that we have observed in other Southern states as well. This suggests that Obama might be reaching the low 40s (a level Kerry struggled to reach) and trailing by single-digits, but it will be very difficult for him to reach much higher than that as much of the remaining electorate really does not want to vote for him. That is not surprising in states in which the political fault lines are dictated by racial polarization (Kerry did not get 20% of the white vote in Mississippi!).

If Obama has room to grow beyond trailing by high single-digits or low double-digits (such margins would already be great improvements and would guarantee a strong popular vote showing, but they would not get him any closer to the White House), he will not find it in the usual pool of voters and in convincing swing voters but will have to expand the pool of voters and increase turnout among the Democrats' southern base, African-Americans. Any election that depends entirely on unpredictable pattern turnouts is notoriously difficult to poll (see the Iowa caucuses), so keep these factors in mind in the coming months.

Senate: NRSC's move towards giving up VA and NM, plus a variety of polls

2008-06-14T15:27:00.006-04:00

Senator Ensign, the chairman of the NRSC, has been setting a lot of expectations lately. After declaring that his goal for the year was to prevent the Democrats from gaining a filibuster-proof majority (and thus limit the loss to eight seats), Ensign has now shifted to a wiser refrain: It will be good news, he explained, if the GOP only loses three seats in November. But at this same lunch with reporters, Ensign made some news by taking the first step towards giving up on Virginia and New Mexico. "You don’t waste money on races that don’t need it or you can’t win," he said.

An NRSC decision that a race should no longer merits investments would go a long way towards sealing a seat's fate, for both Steve Pearce and Jim Gilmore will need the help of the national party to keep up with the momentum that is carrying their Democratic opponents. In 2006, the NRSC's decision to pull out of Ohio effectively handed the election to Sharrod Brown who coasted to an unexpectedly easy victory over the incumbent Republican.

Another interesting tidbit in Ensign's comments is his list of the 10 most competitive races. Ensign includes North Carolina and Maine and does not even make a stab at spin by putting in New Jersey (though Collins is polling better than Lautenberg at this point). Yet, there is no sign of Mississippi! Despite the fact that (1) Ronnie Musgrove has been leading Senator Wicker in a number of polls, (2) despite predictions of increased black turnout, (3) despite the fact that party affiliations will not be printed on the ballot and (4) despite Travis Childers's victory in MS-01 last month, Mississippi continues to be treated as a long shot by most analysts. This attitude is indeed not exclusive to Ensign. Even Chuck Schumer rated MS a third-tier race in a recent interview. What more does Musgrove need to do to prove that this Southern special election is among the hottest races of the country?

Meanwhile, 5 new Senate polls were released in the past two days, only two of which concern competitive races. Here are these polls, in the order in which the contests are ordered in my latest Senate rankings:

In Minnesota, Norm Coleman edges out Al Franken 48% to 45%, a similar margin than his 2% lead last month.
Rasmussen also polled a three way match-up including former Governor Jesse Ventura. Coleman leads 39% to 32% to Franken and 24% to Ventura, who (as is expected) takes votes from the challenger.

In Oregon, Jeff Merkley got no bounce from his primary victory as he now trails incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith 47% to 38% in the latest Rasmussen poll. Last month, Smith was ahead by 3% -- though Democrats ought to be satisfied that they are keeping Smith under 50%.

In Kansas, Cooper & Secrest Associates released a poll of the Senate race that is the third consecutive survey showing Pat Roberts leading his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Slattery, by 12% and the first one in which he dips under the 50% mark, leading 48% to 36%.

In Iowa, Senator Harkin is leading challenger Christopher Reed 53% to 37% and posting a favorability rating of 59% in a new Rasmussen survey.

In Michigan, finally, no surprises in the latest Rasmussen poll that has Senator Carl Levin leading challenger Jack Hoogendyk 55% to 30%. Hoogendyk is largely unknown but Levin has a strong favorability rating, making him an unlikely target.

Of these 5 races, Minnesota and Oregon are the two interesting ones. Despite the repeated polls showing some potential for Slattery and despite the GOP's (thwarted) determination early this cycle to field a credible challenger to Harkin, these two races have a long way to go before joining the list of competitive races, though the DSCC might hope that Kansas Democrats will be more enthused than usual if Governor Sebelius is tapped on Obama's ticket.

In Minnesota, despite the media firestorm that has recently been surrounding Al Franken years as a comedian and the unexpected difficulties that popped up on his way to the DFL's endorsement, the Democratic challenger is holding strong, suggesting that the race remains a referendum on the incumbent and on the Republican Party. With Minnesota showing signs of moving back to its solidly Democratic roots, Coleman will remain endangered and he should worry if he could not open up a bigger margin after such a favorable month of press coverage. As for the Jesse Ventura question, the former Governor has declared that he will make up his mind at the last minute. The filing deadline is mid-July so we will have to wait a few more weeks to see whether Ventura will wreak havoc in this senatorial race.

Can Obama put away the Dukakis 5?

2008-06-14T11:29:00.001-04:00

In 1988, Michael Dukakis only won 10 states in the general election, but 5 of those -- Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington -- were among the hottest battleground states of the past two presidential elections. Al Gore and John Kerry wasted time and resources defending all of them, and while George Bush only prevailed in one contest in ten attempts (Iowa's 2004 election), many Democratic wins were very close calls (Kerry won WI by 1%, MN by 3% and OR by 4%). A sixth state, West Virginia, remained close in 2000 but appears to have moved solidly in the Republican column since then and its location at the heart of Appalachia does not make it a ripe target for Barack Obama.

But it increasingly looks like Obama could put away the "Dukakis 5," closing the door on McCain's attempt to keep them competitive, winning back Iowa's 7 electoral votes returning these states to their Democratic roots. Iowa appears to be 2004's red state that is leaning the most towards Obama, while Washington had already started migrating back in the comfortably blue column four years ago. Wisconsin is probably the state in which Democrats ought to be the most worried, though a poll I wrote about two days ago showed Obama trouncing McCain -- almost as comfortably as he does in countless polls taken in Washington.

Today, two new Rasmussen polls confirm this trend:

In Minnesota, Rasmussen Obama is ahead 52% to 39% and enjoying a strong favorability rating (60%, including 35% of very favorable opinion while McCain's 54% is made up of only 15% of "very favorable" opinions).

In Oregon, Obama is also dominating, leading 46% to 38%. Here again, his "very favorable" rating is much superior to McCain's -- though the same can be said of "very unfavorable" opinions.
Note that the previous Rasmussen poll had Obama leading by double-digits, so this is technically a slip for the Democrat but there is no question that 8% leads is a strong showing for Obama here.

The Minnesota Star Tribune survey mid-May found Obama leading by 13% in MN though SUSA recently registered a 5% lead. In Oregon, the latest non-Rasmussen poll is SUSA's survey back in April, showing Obama leading by 9%. This is to say that Obama's strength in the Dukakis 5 is suggested by more surveys than this recent Rasmussen wave.

The advantage Obama stands to gain if he can keep up this advantage over the next two to three months cannot be understated. If McCain is widely trailing in these states by Labor Day, he is unlikely to mount strong challenges to Obama, making the Illinois Senator the likely winner of a bloc of 38 electoral votes. It is unlikely the GOP would cede Iowa considering Bush won it in 2004 but consider how much this would shrink the states in which Democrats are playing defense, for there would remain only three Kerry states which McCain could hope to win: Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, a list to which Republicans could perhaps hope to add New Jersey.

So what explains the increased Democratic strength in these states? First, eight years of the Bush Administration have forced a shift of partisan breakdown towards Democrats, getting states that were already leaning blue out of the Republicans' reach. Second, an increasing number of independent voters who are still not identifying themselves as Democrats are increasingly behaving like Democrats -- this was a great boost to the party in 2006, particularly in Minnesota (see Klochubar v. Kennedy). Third, one of Obama's strongest constituencies is Western independent voters, meaning that McCain's appeal to indies is unlikely to penetrate too far in Oregon and Washington.

This is not to say that Obama will be able to put away all or some of these states but only that he has the potential to do so in a way Al Gore and John Kerry never could. John McCain clearly has taken contesting a number of these states to heart and is said to want to push for the Pacific Coast. Minnesota will prove a particularly interesting case, as Gov. Pawlenty has long been rumored to be one of the front-runner's in the Republican veepstakes and as the GOP convention will be held in the Twin Cities. It will be interesting to see whether the latter event (and possibly the former) impact the state of the race.

Heading out of the veepstakes: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd

2008-06-13T22:27:00.001-04:00

The controversy that engulfed Jim Johnson, the head of Obama's VP vetting team, has now all but destroyed the vice-presidential aspirations of Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. An investigation by CondeNast's Portfolio discovered that Dodd, along with Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and two former cabinet members had benefited from below-market rates and lender fees by mortgage company Countrywide Financial in a special "V.I.P." program.

Portfolio notes that this program, and the participation of lawmakers, might breach the law: "Federal employees are prohibited from receiving gifts offered because of their official position, including loans on terms not generally available to the public. Senate rules prohibit members from knowingly receiving gifts worth $100 or more in a calendar year from private entities that, like Countrywide, employ a registered lobbyist." It is unlikely that an investigation might launched or that it would proceed very far if it did, but Dodd and Conrad would be left with a political problem. The mortgage crisis is one of the year's most pressing economic issues, and one that will feature prominently in the campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Illinois Senator has already been hitting his rival over the issue, which is what made his connection to Jim Johnson problematic after the Wall Street Journal made similar allegation against the Democratic operative. Republicans eagerly seized that story to embarrass Obama.

The fact that Johnson offered his resignation within 48 hours and that Obama quickly accepted it highlights the campaign's weariness of being hit on ethics -- especially when it relates to the mortgage industry. And it makes it very unlikely that Obama would turn around within a matter of weeks to overlook what cost him his veep vetter and tap Chris Dodd as his running-mate. Chris Dodd was never in the front-tier of possible picks though his name has sometimes been mentioned. In fact, Joe Biden's stock has always been higher despite the fact that Dodd endorsed Obama shortly after he dropped out of the presidential race while Biden remained neutral throughout the primary.

As a final note, it is ironic that this is what ends up hurting Dodd's chances: the Connecticut Senator is the Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee and as such was said to be benefiting the most when the conversation turned to the mortgage crisis in the fall of 2007.

In other news involving second-tier VP contenders, Colin Powell made it very difficult for John McCain to turn to him by hinting to a Canadian audience that he might vote for Barack Obama. Powell thus joins the list of Republican politicians who are declining to endorse McCain and are leaving the door open to supporting the Democratic candidate (Chuck Hagel is one of the most notable of these Obamacons). This does not guarantee that Powell would refuse to join the GOP ticket if McCain offered it to him, but it suggests that he would refuse to go after Obama, which all but rules him out of the veepstakes given that one of the vice-presidential nominee's chief missions is to serve as the ticket's attack dog.

In many ways, Powell would have made a lot of sense for the Arizona Senator as he would reinforce the Republicans' attempt to contrast Obama's foreign policy inexperience with McCain's national security strength. He would also allow the GOP to somewhat counter the history-making potential of the Democratic ticket. But Powell's advanced age and lack of economic background were obvious drawbacks.

By the way, note how much quieter McCain's vice presidential search has been than Obama's. The presumptive Republican nominee launched his search much earlier than his opponent and he has reached a more advanced stage but much more has leaked about the Democrat's vetting efforts and Capital Hill consultations. This is partly a reflection of Obama drawing more media attention and partly an expression of the McCain campaign's superior ability to keep the process discrete.

McCain denounces Gitmo ruling, choosing once again to embrace Bush on national security (Updated)

2008-06-13T09:30:00.001-04:00

By now, most everyone has heard about the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to restore habeas corpus rights to the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, a ruling that strikes at the core of the Bush Administration's post-9/11 detention policies. Now, federal judges will have to determine whether each Gitmo detainee is being held lawfully, giving the prisoners their first chance to plead their case in a court and forcing the Administration to present some evidence that these men pose a security threat. As the Washington Post notes, even some Republicans have expressed skepticism about the limited amount of information the Administration has released up until now.

John McCain is certainly not one of those Republicans. While he has opposed other Republicans on the issue of torture (an issue that featured prominently in at least one GOP debate during which McCain expressed "astonishment" that Romney would not ban torture), he has been careful not to contest the Administration's doctrine of executive power and the rules surrounding Guantanamo. He recently made headlines by announcing that he would pursue Bush's policy on wiretapping, aligning himself with the president on one of the key controversies of his second term, and this despite statements in 2006 that implied he considered the NSA program unlawful. And yesterday, McCain denounced the Supreme Court ruling, declaring that "it obviously concerns me" because "these are unlawful combatants; they're not American citizens."

McCain's position put him at odds with Republicans such as Arlen Specter, who had sponsored a bill essentially saying what this ruling decided, and also with his opponent Barack Obama. The Democrat declared that "this is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law" and used the opportunity to take a shot at McCain.

Just as he did over wiretapping and also over torture (as he moderated his anti-Administration position this spring), McCain has chosen to not put any room between him and the unpopular Bush presidency on an issue in which he could have easily gained a lot of attention had he chosen to oppose with the Administration. Given his past positions on some of these issues, it would not have been considered sheer opportunism for him to take an even stronger stance against wiretapping, for instance, and use that issue in the coming months to prove that his election would not simply represent a third term for Bush.

Given that the main obstacle to McCain's victory is Bush's dismal approval ratings and the GOP's badly damaged bran, the Senator's campaign knows very well how important it is for them to distance themselves from the president and there are some issues on which they are mounting a conscious effort to create some room between the two Republicans -- particularly on the environment. But will that be enough when the policies that are most emblematic of the Bush years concern national security and foreign policy? While McCain is identified as a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, he had an opportunity to seize non-Iraq issues to create at least the illusion of space -- but he has repeatedly chosen to embrace Bush tighter than he has.

What does this say about McCain's strategy? This is no longer the Republican primary during which McCain renounced some of his previous heretical positions or tried to explain them away in conservative terms (his opposition to Bush's tax cuts and his immigration stance, for instance). But McCain still has problems solidifying the base, as countless reports indicate that activists still distrust him. While that group does not necessarily make up great voting numbers, they sustain any campaign's enthusiasm and volunteer efforts, and this is not a group that contests the Bush Administration's national security policy. Even if some might regret the Iraq invasion, Bush is still credited with "having made us safe since 9/11." Given that McCain still needs to think about keeping his base happy and motivated, he cannot afford to distance himself from the Administration among issues conservatives feel no doubt about.

Second, McCain does not want to run a general election campaign focused on the economy but rather on national security. Indeed, Republicans think that Obama's most glaring vulnerability is his foreign policy inexperience and what they believe voters might consider to be a weak attitude towards the threats of the world. To achieve this, the GOP needs to portray as strong a contrast as possible, both to make its case that McCain would make Americans safe and Obama would weaken the country's security and because choosing to triangulate on matters like executive authority and Gitmo would remove those issues from the table as the press would report that there is a consensus between the candidates, choosing instead to focus on economic policy and on the Iraq War. Imagine how disastrous a formula that would be for the fall debates!

The McCain campaign is caught between three imperatives: it needs to distance itself from the Republican brand without alienating the base and without ceding any ground on what it believes to be its strongest issue, national security. For now, they have not been able to found a balance between those requirements, but that is not particularly surprising given how difficult it is to run as a Republican this year.

Update: In case there was any doubt as to McCain's position, the Senator upped his rhetoric today, calling yesterday's ruling "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Polls: Dems get good presidential day, GOP enjoys good Senate news

2008-06-12T20:57:00.001-04:00

One of the most surprising fixtures of this early campaign season has been the number of Massachusetts polls finding a surprisingly tight race between Barack Obama and John McCain. SUSA's latest poll had the Democrat leading by 5% -- and that was an improvement over previous dismal SUSA findings. Other polls Obama up by 12-13%, certainly a stronger showing, but these surveys also pointed to a surprising Obama weakness in the state by finding him performing much more weakly than Hillary Clinton. Now, however, we finally get a Massachusetts poll in which Obama performs as strongly (even stronger) than he needs to:

Suffolk released its general election survey of the state, finding Obama leading 53% to 30%.

One or two more of those and we will be ready to move MA from "Likely Obama" to "Safe Obama." Of course, Massachusetts isn't the most interesting general election state but it has long been a puzzling one which is why I chose to lead with it. Other important state polls that are making news today are:

In Wisconsin, the renowned Badger poll released a poll finding Obama leading 50% to 37% -- a very impressive margin in one of the tightest races of the past 2 elections.
A key finding: The partisan breakdown has shifted 12% towards Democrats since 2004.

In New Jersey, Quinnipiac found Obama leading but struggling to open a substantial margin. He is ahead 45% to 39%.

In Iowa, the 2004 red state that looks the most susceptible of falling in the Democratic column, Rasmussen finds Obama increasing his lead to a 7% margin, up from 2% last month.
He now enjoys the support of 77% of registered Democrats, versus 71% last month, though McCain has also increased his support among his base.

In the important state of North Carolina, finally, Rasmussen shows a tight race with John McCain barely ahead 45% to 43%. This is actually only a 1% tightening, and the two were tied at 47% two polls ago, but North Carolina is rarely included in the list of top tier states and every poll that shows this tight a race is treated as surprising news.

In Oklahoma, finally, Research 2000 released a poll showing McCain leading by only 14% in a state that Bush won by 32%.

Any sign of North Carolina being a true toss-up this November is indeed a nail in the coffin of John McCain, as it is difficult to imagine the Arizona Senator losing such a traditionally red state and somehow get an electoral college majority. An Obama upset in North Carolina would signal major difficulties for McCain in a number of other (former) Republican strongholds, starting with Virginia. Even ruby red Oklahoma is showing signs of tightening!

As for the other state, it is important to realize that as long as Obama keeps all of the Kerry states he can win a majority by simply pulling in three states that are already tinkering on the brink -- Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado. Substitute the latter by Nevada and you have an electoral tie. That's why the recent surveys showing Obama posting huge leads in traditionally tight blue states like Wisconsin and Washington are very important, as they reduce the number of places in which the Illinois Senator will have to play defense.

Fortunately for Republicans, they got great Senate news today -- and unexpectedly so given the streak of terrible news that has fallen on the congressional GOP:

In North Carolina, Rasmussen finds Elizabeth Dole leading Kay Hagan by fourteen points following Hagan's 1% lead last month.

In Oklahoma, a third-tier race that Dems have made some noise about, Sen. Inhofe leads state Senator Rice 53% to 31% in a Research 2000 poll.

The previous Rasmussen poll was taken right after Hagan's primary victory, and it seemed that the Democratic candidate then enjoyed a short-lived bounce. In fact, there were a number of polls showing a very tight contest between the two North Carolina women mid-May, so Rasmussen's toss-up poll should not be read as a stand-alone outlier. While the evolution is a bit more brutal than expected, the trend lines make sense as it will take more work for Democrats to get Dole truly in trouble. In any case, pulling this race out of the first-tier is essential for Republicans if they want to have a chance of limiting their losses in November. Note that the NC Senate poll is accompanied by a gubernatorial survey that finds the opposite trend:

Democratic Lieutenant Governor Perdue now edges out Charlotte Mayor McCrory 47% to 46%. The Republican posted a 45% to 39% lead last month.

It was clear as soon as McCrory announced his candidacy that this race woud go down to the wire, and nothing that has happened ever since has disproved that.

NBC's much-discussed general election poll and the likely dynamics of the 2008 campaign

2008-06-12T15:30:00.001-04:00

NBC released its national poll last night and it has become the talk of the town ever since. Why? Itis the first (non-tracking) national poll to have been conducted after Obama won the nomination, though it went on the field on June 6th, a full day before Clinton's unity speech.

The poll shows Barack Obama to be ahead 47% to 41%.
The gender gap is large: Obama wins women by 19%, McCain wins men by 20%. Obama is also leading among Hispanics (62% to 28%, which is a very important lead given talk that McCain might be stronger than other Republicans among Latinos) and independents by 5%.
In case of a Clinton-McCain match-up, the Democrat takes the lead 49% to 40%. In a match-up between Obama/Clinton and McCain/Romney, the Dem ticket is ahead 51% to 42%.

Today, the new Hotline poll shows Obama ahead 44% to 42% ina poll taken from the 5th to the 8th. This is actually a decline since his 4% lead in May.
In a disappointing sign for Obama, voters trust McCain more when it comes the war 49% to 41% despite trusting the Democratic Party by 12% more. Similarly, Obama has a 6% edge over the economy despite a 26% edge for his party.

Republicans are expressing part-relief that the bounce is not larger (though, as I noted, the poll was only partly taken after Clinton's concession) and part-worry that Obama might never look back now that he has the lead. There is also a fair amount of talk about the fact that this is a very significant margin because Bush or Kerry supposedly never had leads like this. I just want to debunk this argument. It is true, as First Read points out, that Bush never trailed in NBC polls in 2004 and never had a lead of 6%. But most of us remember that (1) Kerry had opened up a lead in July/early August and (2) Bush had opened up a big lead in September in many polls, up to the first debate in which Kerry bounced back. A CNN/Gallup poll had Bush leading by 14% in September (check their history) and by 7-8% at other points in the month. Other pollsters released survey at the same time (including CBS) that had Bush leading by 8% and 9%. So talk that 2004 never saw a lead by either candidate isn't correct.

Also, the 2004 election was largely defined by Bush, a very clearly defined incumbent about whom opinions were crystallized. It is thus not surprising that numbers remained relatively stable throughout the election and that there were just 2-3 big swings (one in mid-August towards Bush, one end of September towards Kerry). 2008 is not 2004. McCain and Obama are both largely undefined and their numbers will evolve through the cycle. This is certainly not to say that Obama will lose. In fact, he is favored to win. Perhaps he will indeed never trail in national polls again. But that certainly won't be because of any similarity with what happened in 2004.

The national environement is very favorable to Obama and Democrats have been favored to win this election for months -- even years -- now. There have been countless reports that the Democratic Party has gained a huge advantage in partisan breakdown over the past four years. The make-up of SUSA's polls shows a double-digit gain by the party compared to 2004 exit polls, numbers that will be accentuated by the registration drives of the past few months (Gallup just released an analysis with the same finding). As long as Obama holds on to his base and does not fall too much behind among independents, the election should be his. The only reason Republicans are not trailing by double-digits is because McCain is the strongest candidate they could have nominated.

The GOP is very well aware of this fact and it knows that its only chance is to define Barack Obama in very negative terms to make him an unacceptable choice among a significant portion of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (given how excited conservative blogs are getting about Obama's birth certificate, we know where some Republicans plan to take this). And the Hotline poll I referred to above does point some major vulnerability areas for Obama as he significantly underperforms a "generic Democrat" and the trust in the Democratic Party. Until the GOP launches a full-scale effort and until Obama weathers it, it is foolish to confidently assert that the Democratic nominee will never look back. Dukakis, after all, led by 19% in the summer of 1988 until a nasty (and racially driven) campaign derailed him.

The Democrats' advantage this year is that they can do the same thing to McCain and have plenty of money to redefine him. McCain enjoys a loosely defined "maverick image" but it is not firmy anchored and his opponents believe they can undermine by showing his ties with Bush, emphasizing his pro-life record and playing on his hawkish sound bites. The discipline with which the Obama campaign has been conducting this offensive confirms that McCain should expect no mercy.

All of this is a recipe for volatility, in either direction, but with the clear understanding that Obama is favored. Depending on who defines the other camp the best, the election could swing anywhere between an Obama blow-out and a narrow McCain victory.

House: OH's Schmidt is the gift that keeps giving and Halvorson faces ethics trouble

2008-06-12T11:30:00.000-04:00

At this point of the congressional campaign season, races are heating up and candidates are engaging themselves. That means we can cover more than recruitment news and poll numbers and note some developing campaign story lines.

In IL-11, one of the top Democratic pick-up opportunities of the cycle in which it took months after the primary for Republicans to even find a candidate, Debbie Halvorson is having some unexpected trouble, as the GOP is attempting to connect her to developer Tony Resko, made famous by the presidential race and the South Carolina debate. Rezko was a close adviser to Governor Blagojevich at the time Halvorson was the state Senate's Majority Leader and Republicans contend that he might have influenced Halvorson's legislative work.

Now, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is partly supporting the Republicans' accusation as he has written a column detailing Rezko's attempt to convince him to sponsor a reform that was later written in a bill proposed by Halvorson. The Hill notes, "Asked if it might hurt Halvorson’s election hopes, Jackson said principle and 15,000 private-sector jobs mattered more." It is rare for a lawmaker to stand on principle when it comes to ethical matters, so good for Jackson to have the courage to call out a member of his own party. Electorally, of course, this could complicate things for Democrats in a seat they are expected to win. Barack Obama's presence at the head of the ballot complicates things further for Republicans as he should drive turnout in his home state. Whether the GOP can exploit Halvorson's weakness depends on whether the party has the funds to contest any seat in Illinois and whether Republican candidate Ozlinga self-funds his candidacy.

Elsewhere in Illinois, GOP Rep. Kirk of IL-10 has released an internal poll showing him leading by a significant margin:

Kirk is ahead of challenger Dan Seals 53% to 32%, with the margin unchanged since March's poll by the same group that showed him leading 50% to 29%.

This is a rematch of the 2006 race, which Kirk won 53% to 47%. Democrats have high hopes for IL-10, which is one of the only districts won by John Kerry currently represented by a Republican. In this year's political climate and with Obama at the top of the ticket, Kirk has an even bigger target on his back. So is this huge lead believable? Republicans will say that it is, as Kirk (who was mostly taken by surprise two years ago) has been preparing himself for this rematch since the early days of the cycle. In fact, he has raised the most funds of any House Republicans and, while Seals will have enough to keep things interesting, money is a major factor in the district's expensive media market. Yet, this is an internal poll and the results are such that they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Finally, the days final round of news concerns OH-02, the heavily Republican district represented by Jean Schmidt which the GOP has had so much trouble holding on to in a special election in 2005 and in the 2006 general election. Schmidt has been known for outrageous statements (she infamously called Rep. Murtha a coward on the House floor) that have weakened her in her district and have left her open to surprisingly vigorous Democratic challenges. Victoria Wulsin, who lost a nail-biter in 2006, is once again the Democratic nominee and Schmidt voices some stunning accusations against her in a recent fundraising letter:

Wulsin's contempt for the culture of life has even led her to participate in grotesque medical experiments. Wulsin was paid for her work in medical "studies" where victims of AIDS in Africa and China were, without their consent, injected with the malaria virus, all in the name of "scientific inquiry."

If Schmidt actually believed what she was saying, would she content herself with inserting it in a fundraising plea? Does she even realize the seriousness of what she is accusing her opponent of having performed and what effect it could have on the district's electorate? Perhaps not, as injecting human patients with the malaria virus is more than just grotesque. TPM notes that the source of this accusation might be a literature review Wulsin was asked to conduct for an Ohio medical institute and for which she reviewed the data of pre-existing studies -- including some that correspond to Schmidt's description.

If there is more to this than this defense and if there is anything true to Schmidt's accusation, Wulsin will face some serious trouble. But if there is nothing to this, then Schmidt will have to explain herself and can expect another wave of bad publicity. For Democrats, Jean Schmidt is the gift that just keeps giving. Note, however, that 2008 is the first presidential general election in which Schmidt will be on the ballot and that should boost her since OH-02 is heavily Republican.

What worries Republicans: McCain's careless sound bites

2008-06-11T20:52:00.011-04:00

As the presidential campaign shifts into general election mode, battle lines are easier to draw, the two camps are more clearly defined and it is easier to determine what events might upset -- or hearten -- one campaign or the other. This entry inaugurates a new series devoted to cataloging what keeps Republicans and Democrats up at night. Today's installment concerns the GOP and McCain's damaging sound bites: Before McCain can even hope to convince the country to not reject his imperialist designs, he needs to stop harming himself with careless statements.

Ever since he returned to the media spotlight in December 2007, John McCain has been accumulating sound bites that will undoubtedly harm his candidacy in the months ahead. The most famous clips are his "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and his talking about staying in Iraq for 100 years. Today came a third statement. Asked on NPR when he thought troops could start coming home from Iraq, McCain responded that the question was "not that important."

McCain's argument is clear. He is against withdrawing from Iraq because of what he considers a risk of chaos and because leaving troops in the country to maintain a network of permanent bases is part of his design. Longterm presence has always been part of the imperialist design to which McCain has long been sympathetic -- and even more so in recent years as he has drifted closer to the neoconservative position. The "100 years" quote and now the "not that important" statement were both attempts to express this argument: Once Iraq is pacified, troops can stay in Iraq as long as we want them to and they will not be in harm's way. In fact, they will be proud of helping America keeps its influence and empire -- just as soldiers in South Korea face absolutely no risk to their safety. That is why McCain explained that what is important is the casualty level, not the troop level.

This is not an argument that McCain should expect to win easily even if he were to articulate it eloquently. Many believe that the moment has never been so ripe for Americans to repudiate grand imperialist plans and that voters are ready to reject such designs this year, and do so more explicitly than they could have in 2004 as John McCain represents a much purer version of empire-building than even George Bush did.

But the first challenge Republicans are facing is not even voters' increasing hostility towards empire-building. It's simply that McCain keeps messing up his delivery of the issue. Whatever the context, whatever his true meaning and however much Democrats might be distorting McCain's meaning when they imply that he wants the combat phase to last 100 years, the Republican nominee should never utter such statements. Just as the "100 years" quote, McCain declaring that the date of withdrawal is "not important" provides an incredible sound bite for Democrats to use.

There will be many voters who might perhaps support the idea of keeping bases in Iraq and who might perhaps understand what McCain means when he says that the important factor is the reduction of casualties (in other words, voters who are not shocked by the idea of empire-building) but who will be turned off McCain's candidacy when they hear about these two quotes and when they see ads running McCain's these two sound bites on Iraq. And that is enough for Republicans to lose sleep over McCain's tendency to rashly dismiss any talk of a timetable.

It is hard to call McCain's statements a gaffe since the Arizona Senator has not misspoken, nor has he said anything he did not mean to say. And it is only because the war has become so unpopular and the imperialist project has become such a liability that a controversy is arising from his statements. It is a testament to how politically difficult McCain's position is that he needs to express himself carefully and in as complex terms as possible to avoid giving Democrats any opening. Complicating things for McCain is his tendency to commit actual foreign policy gaffes, like his repeated confusion between Shiites and Sunni.

Demonstrating how much Democrats have grown since 2004 and how aware they are of the damage McCain is inflicting itself, the Obama campaign did not waste a second before entering full battle mode as soon as news of the NPR interview spread. Joe Biden, Harry Reid were hitting McCain within hours and the Obama campaign organized a conference call on which John Kerry unleashed harsh criticism (the mere fact that Obama is choosing to call upon Kerry as its national security surrogate is fascinating, of course).

In the era in which a You Tube clip can destroy a mighty frontrunner's candidacy, John McCain might not realize how damaging one sound bite can be, but you can bet many Republicans are losing sleep over it.

House: No family feud in NY-13, VA-11 gets settled

2008-06-11T17:30:00.002-04:00

In a disappointing finish to a farcical storyline, the race in New York's 13th congressional district just got a bit less traumatizing for Republicans. They have caught no break in this contest ever since Vito Fossella was arrested on DWI charges, as they have suffered through the incumbent retiring in disgrace, Democrats fielding one of their best opponents, the strongest Republican contenders declining to run, the Staten Island GOP being forced to settle for a second-tier candidate and that candidate's son announcing that he would run as the Libertarian candidate, making sure that no one would be able to take his father's candidacy seriously.

But yesterday, the Libertarian Party's Manhattan chapter (which also controls Staten Island) voted to give is nod to Susan Overeem. The chapter's spokesman explained that "has the better grasp of what it meant to be a Libertarian." This removes the threat of the ballot being shared by a Francis M. Powers and a Francis H. Powers and will allow the Republican candidate to campaign without having to continually answer the charges voiced by his son (who seemed quite determined to see his father lose). This in itself is a relief for the GOP who will fight hard to avoid extinction in New York State.

Democrats remain favored to this seat. Not only was the recruitment success of the two candidates clearly unbalanced but it will be hard for Republicans to survive in any open seat that is remotely competitive at the presidential level.

Another such district is VA-11, vacated by Rep. Tom Davis and at the top of every Democrat's target list. Northern Virginia has been rapidly trending Democratic and it is responsible for Tim Kaine's election in 2005 an Jim Webb's in 2006. Yet, the strength of the dispute between former Rep. Leslie Byrne and Gerry Connolly, the chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, threatened the Democrats' confidence. Byrne, who occupied this seat from 1992 to 1994 and who lost a close race for Lieutenant Governor in 2005, ran a liberal campaign to remain relevant versus the machine of Connolly, who portrayed himself as a moderate Democrat.

Last night, Virginia voters went to the polls (turnout was only 5%) and gave a resounding victory to Connolly, who thus becomes the Democratic nominee for the general election and the favorite to succeed Tom Davis. He will face Republican businessman Keith Fimian, whose principal strength is that he could self-fund his candidacy in an expensive media market and thus keep the race somewhat competitive. But it would be a big upset surprise if Connolly were to lose. Northern Virginia has been the Democrats' beacon of hope for years and they have been impatiently waiting for Davis to step down to seize this seat.

Democrats dejected that Virginia Democrats lost an opportunity to elect a more progressive politician might be comforted by the primary results in Maine's 1st district, where Chellie Pingree survived a late push by Adam Cote, who ran a more moderate campaign. This seat, left vacant by Tom Allen's senatorial run, is the more Democratic of Maine's two districts which positions Pingree well to defeat Republican Charles Summers and become the first woman to be elected in this district. Note that this primary was essentially a general election and -- to further heighten the stakes -- a probable stepping stone for a Senate candidacy once Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins or Sen. Allen retire (well if Allen wins in November he is unlikely to retire for a while, but you get my point).

Tuesday polls: Why is Washington polled more frequently than OH and FL? (Updated with... 2nd poll from WA!)

2008-06-11T14:30:00.004-04:00

A few surveys were released over the past day but it is worth noting that we have still not gotten a comprehensive set of state polls since Barack Obama clinched the nomination. The most recent polls from FL, OH and PA, for instance, all date back to mid-May. Yet, the trickle of surveys from second-tier races continues. We at least got a new poll from Michigan, which is shaping to be one of the most premier battleground states this year:

In Michigan, Rasmussen finds Obama with his first lead since early February -- though it remains within the margin of error, 45% to 42%. Last month, McCain edged Obama by 1%, a finding confirmed by many other Michigan surveys. Obama also has a slightly lower favorability rating than his rival.

In New York, Quinnipiac finds Obama to be leading 50% to 36%. This remains perhaps tighter than Democrats would like to see in the Empire State, but it is a slight progression for Obama and a significant improvement among white voters.

In Washington, which has long been one of Obama's strongest states, SUSA shows him crushing McCain 56% to 39%.
He gets 89% of registered Democrats (!) and the margin of his lead is entirely due to the shift of the partisan breakdown (40% Dem-28% GOP versus 36-33 in the 2004 exit polls).

Update: Well, it seems I chose the headline of this entry appropriately as we got a second poll from Washington this afternoon. This one (released by Rasmussen) shows Obama leading McCain 53% to 35%, a larger margin than SUSA's poll (and up from 11% last month), confirming that the state's 10 electoral votes are more solidly in the blue column than they were in 2000 and 2004.

In Georgia, finally, a new Rasmussen poll finds McCain leading by a substantial though certainly not overwhelming margin, 51% to 41%.

Michigan is shaping up as one of the blue states that Obama is the most endangered in and the biggest along with Pennsylvania. Obama's hope to have a second path to the White House that would accomodate losing Ohio and Florida, a path that wins the Southwest and perhaps Virginia, would only be valid if he can hold on to the 38 electoral votes that come in PA and MI, and up to today it is the latter states that has looked more troubling for the Illinois Senator. Democrats hope that Obama will regain his footing as the conversation turns to the economy and we will be monitoring Michigan numbers very closely.

That Obama has a stronger lead in Washington than he does in New York State confirms the Illinois Senator's strength in the West. This is often coupled with a relative weakness in states East of the Mississippi (starting with the Appalachia region) but as long as Obama holds on in the Northeast and strongly contests Ohio there is a lot of potential for him in Western states. Georgia, meanwhile, is an interesting state as it is part of the "second-tier" of Southern states (along with SC and MS) that some Democrats believe will get competitive once Obama conducts a massive registration drive and drives up black turnout. The numbers are not there right now for Obama to pull this off, and we will know whether he can make those states competitive as much from registration data as from surveys.

Meanwhile, four down-the-ballot polls find no surprises -- though some of these findings are important:

In New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg is ahead 48% to 39% against former Rep. Zimmer in a new Quinnipiac poll. Independents favor the challenger by 8%.

Washington's gubernatorial race is still a toss-up, with Christine Gregoire edging Dino Rossi 50% to 47% in SUSA's latest poll.

Update: A second poll of this match-up was released by Rasmussen and finds Gregoire ahead by 7%, 50% to 43%. That's actually an improvement for the Republican.

Indiana's gubernatorial race also favors the incumbent as a Benenson internal poll taken for the Long Thompson campaign finds the challenger trailing Gov. Daniels 46% to 39%. This is the second poll of the race in three days. The previous one found Daniels ahead by 16%.

In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss looks safe as he beats his 3 Democratic challengers by margins ranging from 15% to 23% in a Rasmussen poll.

The New Jersey Senate race looks like it might remain tight for a few months, and winning the Democratic primary has not given Lautenberg a bounce. This is the second poll in a week that finds him up single-digits. In fact, it might have highlighted the problem of his age. But Democrats should feel no panic and Republicans should develop no hope about a New Jersey race until early October. If there is any lesson we learned in 2004 and 2006, it is that New Jersey likes to tease Republicans. Yet, the second poll finding a competitive race is certainly an unexpected and positive development for the NRSC.

There is no better confirmation of the tightness of the Gregoire-Rossi rematch than the fact that, in the same sample, Barack Obama leads by 17% while Christine Gregoire struggles to stay ahead. Polls taken since 2004 have shown that this race will go down to the wire and that Washington Republicans have not forgotten the shady recounts of 2004.

As for Georgia, it looks like Senator Ensign, the chairman of the NRSC, will get his wish and Chambliss will be part of his "firewall" to salvage 41 seats. Of course, Georgia was never really on the Democrats' target list and the DSCC would love nothing more than or Ensign to cultivate this 15% margin rather than protect more endangered seats.

VP watch: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines, as Obama's vetter resigns

2008-06-11T08:43:00.002-04:00

Quickening the VP process, two vetters from the Obama campaign (Jim Johnson, who is dealing with his own major problems, and Eric Holder) traveled to Capitol Hill this week to talk to Democratic lawmakers about potential picks. Naturally, part of this process is meant to get names leaked to the press to float trial balloons and see how different figures might fare. Not to mention that the press and the blogs immediately start vetting the front-runners and report on some of their findings before the candidates make their pick.

For instance, the negative response to Sam Nunn among some blogs (mine included) will hopefully help steer Obama away from the former Georgia Senator. And it is hard to notice that the press has a particular affinity for airing critical stories about Jim Webb. Today, Politico reports on Webb's frequent defense the Confederacy; for instance, he has "seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede." While it is unlikely that Obama might end up with a significant problem with black voters whoever he puts on the ticket and while this peace doesn't reveal anything that hasn't been already mentioned over the past few years, this drumbeat of stories plays along the conventional wisdom that Webb would be a risky choice and that he would bring with him a number of issues that the Democrats' campaign would be force to address on the trail.

It was only a metter of time after Obama's team left Capitol Hill that there would be some leaks. Senator Conrad of North Dakota said today that 20 names were discussed, including a number of "former military leaders." It is worth keeping remembering that both campaigns will float names that are not truly under consideration if they think they can get any sort of benefit., and a lot of what we will hear in the coming weeks from both parties will be a game of make-believe.

The military information has sparked furious speculation through the day: Who are these former military leaders? Numerous sources, starting with First Read, are naming a surprising and unexpected name who had not yet popped up in potential running mates: James Jones, a retired general and the former commander of NATO. Jones is now the CEO of an institute that is affiliated to the Chamber of Commerce. Yet, the story becomes especially strange when we consider that John McCain and James Jones are friends, as Politico's Jonathan Martin reports. Not only that, but Jones serves as an outside adviser to McCain's campaign and the Republican presumptive nominee talks about naming Jones in his Administration. Could Obama still select Jones? There are limits to post-partisanship, and would Jones even consider an offer by the Democrat?

Speaking of potential picks declining an offer, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, one of the front-runners in the Democratic veepstakes, insisted that he would not accept becoming his party's nominee. Interviewed on NPR, he declared: "If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve. So, I don’t know how more crystal clear I can be." While all potential running mates make sure to vehemently deny all speculation, it is rare for them to issue this adamant a declaration. So has Strickland truly removed himself from the veepstakes? The Ohio Governor is extremely popular in his home-state and seemed to be the choice Obama would settle on if he wanted to choose a former Clinton supporter and not pick Hillary. (Marc Ambinder points out that Strickland has been saying this for a while, so this should not be taken as a rebuke directed towards Obama.)

Update: More on this later if it continues to be a controversy, but Obama's chief vetter Jim Johnson has just resigned from the Obama campaign as the controversy about his ties to a mortgage company was mounting. This made it difficult for the Illinois Senator to take the high road on a major economic issue on which he intends to pound McCain. This is obviously a blow to the Democratic campaign as Johnson is considered as one of the most seasoned vetters either party has to offer. Also, he had been heading the process for a while now whereas his two co-chairs had come on board more recently, so it will all take some catching up (and it's not like Obama was able to start the process very early...).

Non-Senate down-ballot: Who will beat Don Young first?

2008-06-10T12:30:00.003-04:00

In my most recent House ratings, I described the disastrous state of the New York Republican Party and its inability to truly contest the three seats Democrats picked up in 2006 and that were supposed to be at the top of the Republican wish-list. I confess that I had not paid enough attention to NY-20, where the GOP believes it has found a strong candidate to take on Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand in a district Bush won by 8% in 2004. They are running former state Secretary of State Sandy Treadwell who has the advantage of being very wealthy and thus having the means to self-fund his candidacy.

Gillibrand is one of the House's best fund-raisers (perhaps even the freshman Democrat who has raised the most) and thus Treadwell's wealth will not allow him to swamp her with his spending, but it will come in handy to keep tabs on her own spending and keep the race competitive. In fact, Treadwell is already running ads, months before his party's primary. This is early for a House challenger to go up on air, and Treadwell is clearly intending to send the message that he ought to be taken seriously and that he will have the resources necessary to compete -- whether or not the NRCC has any funds left to come to his rescue.

Also today, we got three House polls about two districts:

In AK-AL, Democrat Ethan Berkowitz beats incumbent Don Young 58% to 38%! But Young also trails in his party's primary against Lieutenant Governor Steve Parnell, 37% to 34%. In a Berkowitz-Parnell match-up, the Republican leads 43% to 38%.

In KY-03, a SUSA poll shows that Rep. Yarmuth trounces former GOP Rep. Northup (whom he narrowly defeated in 2006) 57% to 40%!

In response, the Northup campaign released an internal poll also taken early June that shows the Democrat leading 51% to 43%.

It looks certain that Young will no longer represent Alaska come January 2009. The only question seems to be who will beat him first? If Republicans keep him as their candidate, Democrats will surely capture the seat. There have been other polls that have shown Young trailing Berkowitz by double-digits. But if Parnell, backed by the Club for Growth, manages to become his party's nominee, he will have transformed this lean takeover seat into a much better deal for Republicans. It is rare for the Club for Growth to be in a position to help the party by toppling an incumbent (remember PA-Sen in 2004 and RI-Sen in 2006), and it will be interesting to see how they deal with that.

Yet, it does look like Alaska voters have gone sour on the GOP generally, as the latest Senate poll shows Stevens struggling and we have seen a few surveys with Obama surprisingly close to John McCain. Don't forget that the corruption scandal that is sinking Young and Stevens has also endangered many other Anchorage GOP lawmakers and, while Parnell is not associated to the investigation, there were plenty of examples in 2006 of "cleaner" Republicans being tarnished by the mere association with the corrupt incumbent (see OH-18, for instance).

As for KY-03, there is a reason the Northup campaign did not release its internal poll until SUSA found even worse numbers. Republicans believe that Yarmuth's victory in 2006 was an accident, despite the fact that this is the only Kentucky district to have voted for John Kerry over George Bush. Northup's decision to run for her old seat was seen as a major victory for Republicans, as the moderate former representative has the name recognition and profile necessary to take back this district. Yet, the fact that she cannot hold Yarmuth under 50% despite the fact that her own name recognition is probably as good (if not better) than her rivals has to be worrisome for her campaign.

Finally, two gubernatorial polls bring good news for both parties:

In Missouri, Rasmussen finds that Democratic Attorney General is increasing his lead over his two Republican opponents, leading Rep. Kenny Hulshof and State Treasurer Sarah Steelman by 20% and 22% respectively.

In Indiana, however, Republican Governor Daniels has opened a 51% to 35% lead over Jill Long Thompson according an Indiana Legislative Insight poll.

Both seats are currently held by Republicans, and both are heavily contested. This is in fact the first poll released since Long Thompson won the Democratic primary (by the thinnest of margins) and it contradict the previous surveys that found a toss-up race with the incumbent greatly endangered. We will have to see other surveys to know whether this one can be classified as an outlier or whether the election is swinging towards Daniels.

As for Missouri, it is not surprising to see Nixon ahead. After all, the Democrat is well-known statewide and who has been campaigning for this position since 2004. But the huge margin by which he is now leading in numerous polls testifies to Missouri's swing towards the Democratic Party and is reminiscent of other unexpectedly easy wins that Democrats enjoyed in open seat races in 2006 (Minnesota's senatorial race between Klochubar and Kennedy and Colorado's gubernatorial race). Nixon's increasingly comfortable lead is a very good sign for Barack Obama's chances in the Show Me State.

Senate: Ensign raises possibility of fillibuster-proof Senate, though polls find some unexepected good news for GOP

2008-06-10T10:30:00.002-04:00

In one of the most stunning Senate developments of the year, Senator Ensign is now spinning a loss of eight senatorial seats as a relief for his party! As Ensign displaces his objective to making sure there are 41 GOP Senators remaining in January 2009, does that mean he is ready to give up on a number of contested seat to build up a firewall of seats that can still be saved, only focusing to protect incumbents like Cornyn of Texas, Dole of North Carolina, Wicker of Mississippi and McConnell of Kentucky? Sure, Ensign probably only intended to make an argument for Sen. Chambliss's reelection in that interview, but the NRSC's chairman should be more careful about the expectations he sets; such gloomy forecasts risk heightening the panic of congressional Republicans and make it even harder for the NRSC to fundraise.

It is ironic that Senate Republicans received some race good news on the day news Ensign's of comments spread. Of the three surveys released yesterday, only one brought worrisome news to the NRSC:

In Alaska, a Hellenthal and Associates poll conducted in early May found Mark Begich leading Senator Ted Stevens 51% to 44%.

In Texas, Rasmussen finds Sen. Cornyn leading Rick Noriega 52% to 35%. The previous poll, released last month, found Cornyn ahead 47% to 43%. That margin had been confirmed by a Research 2000 poll released the following week.

Finally, a shocking Rasmussen poll from New Jersey suggests that Republicans might have a second competitive seat as Frank Lautenberg is in a toss-up when matched up to Republican Dick Zimmer, 45% to 44%.

Alaska is one of the Democrats' top pick-up opportunities, despite the fact that Stevens is a giant enough in Alaska politics that he should never be ruled out. Texas's status as a first-tier race was never convincing so it is not a surprise to see Cornyn up by such a large margin in this poll, though it is true that two back-to-back polls showed Noriega's potential to make this a competitive race. Five months out, he has a lot of work to do to soften Cornyn before truly testing his vulnerabilities.

As for New Jersey, races here are always fascinating to follow as Republicans often seem on the verge of scoring a big upset and toppling the incumbent and spend a lot of money, only to see the race slip out of their grip. This is what happened in the 2004 presidential race and the 2006 senatorial race and you can bet some Democrats are not that unhappy about this poll, hoping it might push the GOP to invest heavily in Zimmer. Just as Kean in 2006, Republicans would have a much better chance of finally winning a statewide race if the national environment was not so disastrous for them. They will have a compelling case to make that Lautenberg is no longer fit for office (he is, after all, 86 years old).

Finally, in Minnesota, Al Franken launched his general election campaign by attacking Norm Coleman and trying to link him to President Bush. Franken's strategy is simple, especially after the recent controversies that have surrounded him about his comedian years: Make this race a referendum about the incumbent and his ties to the Republican Party. At his rally yesterday, Franken denounced the "Bush-Coleman recession." Coleman's counter-strategy is already crystal-clear as well: Make this a referendum about Franken instead, and the DFL-endorsed candidate is polarizing enough that Coleman does have an opening to focus the conversation on his opponent.

Another important factor to look for in Minnesota will be how unified the party becomes around Franken. Senator Klochubar, who had denounced Franken's allegedly pornographic essay two weeks ago, spoke at his rally yesterday. But Rep. McCollum, Franken's most insist critic in the state delegation, was not.

McCain's map and the electoral college

2008-06-09T20:30:00.001-04:00

Showcasing its general election strategy, the McCain campaign released data, slides and maps from a recent strategy briefing. The material confirmed that McCain will portray Obama as "outside the mainstream" and will seek to use his opponent's clear problems in the Appalachia (which include Southeastern Ohio and Southwestern Pennsylvania) to take control of states that Democrats are hoping to contest. The campaign also released the following electoral map of the states it believes the candidate will be able to strongly contest:

The extent to which both parties believe they will be able to "change the map" this cycle is remarkable, especially when we consider that this was one of Obama's main electability arguments against the more traditional approach of the Clinton campaign. McCain's map is most in terms of what is left out and the two surprising states that are included. First, notice the exclusion of:

Red states that the Obama campaign is planning on contesting, starting with Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina, in what is an attempt to downplay Obama's competitiveness in traditionally Republican areas. Note how confident McCain sounded today when asked about Virginia's new status as a swing state. "We will win," he insisted.
Florida and West Virginia, traditional swing states which the GOP is a bit more confident of carrying with Obama bearing the Democratic mantle.
Washington and Oregon, traditional swing states which McCain is said to want to compete but which Obama will have an easier time defending than Clinton would have.
New Jersey, Iowa and Minnesota, states in which polls find a tight race and which the GOP is committed to contesting (particularly if McCain chooses Gov. Pawlenty), so I am puzzled as to their exclusion.

The exclusion of Minnesota and Iowa when Michigan is included confirms that MI will be at the center of McCain's campaign and should be considered as one of the most important battles of the campaign, along with PA and OH. Obama could conceivably lose the latter two but get to the White House through a less conventional route, but the loss of all three states would surely be fatal to Democratic hopes.

Furthermore, the exclusion of those two states and of New Jersey's is striking considering the campaign's choice to list California and Connecticut, two states which conventional wisdom (and polls) rate as more safely anchored in the Democratic camp. While the map-changing potential of McCain's appeal to independents is undeniable, it is hard to envision that it could lead the Republican to an upset in the Golden State without first putting him on top in a state like Oregon.

In fact, California's inclusion can be best described as an effort by Republicans to get Democrats worried about the state, forcing them to spend resources defending this must-win state instead of setting their sights in more interesting contests. The GOP sets a similar trap every 4 years, though Democrats rarely fall for the trick; in 2000, Al Gore did not revisit his campaign plans to defend California and it is George Bush who wasted the most time pretending like the contest there was competitive. Expect the McCain campaign to continue making a similar case in the coming months.

Yet, it is most likely that Republicans will have no money to actually contest the state and actually move numbers. This is why McCain has to settle for the minimal strategy of convincing the press that California could swing and thus propagate a narrative that will (the GOP hopes) lead Democrats to panic and play defense. Indeed, Republicans are at a major financial disadvantage this year, and given Obama's financial advantage it would not be that much of an inconvenience for him to drop a few millions in the Golden State to make sure its 55 electoral votes are safely in his column.

In fact, Obama's financial advantage should allow Democrats to play the same trick on Republicans in McCain's must-win states. And since Obama will have plenty of money, he will be able to spend some of it in places like Texas and Arizona to test McCain's vulnerabilities (while the GOP can do little else than leak strategy briefings). If Democrats are successful in moving these races within single-digits, they would tie McCain down to playing defense in states he cannot afford to lose.

Presidential polls: Tracking the bounce

2008-06-09T19:05:00.003-04:00

The expectation that Obama would enjoy a bounce after Clinton's concession had been set for months, with the McCain campaign trying to increase the pressure by publicly stating that it expects Obama to surge ahead as he is declared the Democratic nominee. We do not yet have enough polling data to determine how high Obama will rise but can certainly start monitoring the polls. For now, today's national polls find mixed results.

The two tracking polls have found Obama gaining since last Tuesday, when he clinched his party's nod. Both Rasmussen and Gallup find him leading by 6 percent (50% to 44% for the former, 48% to 42% for the latter). This margin is the largest Obama has achieved in Gallup's tracking poll. While this is a very favorable sign for Obama, it is worth noting that Democrats expect to see more of a bounce as the level which Obama will achieve will be regarded as a sort of ceiling. As the campaign gets settled in general election mode in the coming days and as the reality of Clinton's withdrawal sets in, we will see whether Obama can open up more of lead.

At the state level, five polls were released today -- none showing surprising results though we have some interesting findings:

In South Carolina, a Rasmussen poll shows McCain to be leading 48% to 39%.

In Wisconsin, the race is very tight with Obama edging out McCain 45% to 43%. A month ago, McCain led 47% to 43%.
Both candidates have a high favorable rating here, with McCain posting a particularly strong 60%. Obama is at 55%.

In New Jersey, Obama leads 48% to 39%. Rasmussen found McCain slightly ahead 46% to 45% in late March so this is a net progression for Obama though it places him where we expect him to be.
Here again, the candidates have high favorability rating: 60% for Obama (36% very favorable) and 59% for McCain (though only 18% very favorable).

In Texas, McCain is ahead 52% to 39%. A month ago, he was only leading by 5%. As I will soon write about, the Senate race has also dramatically swung towards the GOP, implying that there is a sampling difference between the two surveys.
38% of Texas have a very unfavorable view of the Illinois Senator.

Finally, a poll from Indiana shows that McCain starts ahead, 47% to 38%, in a state Bush won by 20%.

Of these five states, only Wisconsin is rated as a toss-up in my latest electoral college ratings, a status that is confirmed by this poll. Some Democrats believe Obama should be stronger than previous Democrats in one of his most crucial primary victories, but his strength with Midwestern independents should help him put Minnesota out of play before Wisconsin and we should expect that the latter stay competitive to the end.

As for the four others, they are all states that Obama and McCain want to believe they can make competitive: The Democratic advantage in New Jersey has been diminishing and, though the state has not been kind to Republicans, McCain's strength among independents could help him in the Garden State. As for South Carolina, it should be the last of the Southern states where Obama wants to increase black turnout to fall (after NC and GA). In Texas, it is possible that Obama will choose to spend some resources to force the race into single-digits and force McCain to spend a lot more than he would want to defending a must-win state for the GOP.

The money factor: How big will Obama's advantage be?

2008-06-09T10:28:00.001-04:00

The conventional wisdom of the general election campaign has long been that Barack Obama would massively outraise John McCain and bury him under advertisements seeking to define him. This financial advantage could also be used for Obama to expand the electoral map and test McCain's vulnerability in states like Texas, Montana and Georgia that are not expected to fall to the Democratic side, potentially forcing McCain to defend his turf with resources he could have spent elsewhere.

Indeed, Obama's prodigious fundraising ability terrifies Republicans, who are worried about being swamped under the Senator's machine. If the more than 1.5 million donors who have contributed to Obama's primary campaign give just $100 to his general election effort, that already represents more than $150 million -- and you can be sure that many will donate much more. Some are already mentioning the possibility of Obama raising more than $300 million just for the general election, a stunning sum to be able to spend in just over two months. With McCain assured of choosing public financing, he will only have $85 million to spend in the same time period, a significant difference that would make it hard for him to survive the Democratic onslaught in key swing states.

But as the general election is kicking into high gear, it is unclear just how significant Obama's advantage will be. In fact, there are a number of question marks about both campaigns' fundraising, plans and abilities. (Keep in mind that this discussion concerns only the general election campaign, i.e. the two-month period between the conventions and the general election. Up until the end of August, the campaigns will use primary funds and Obama has a clear advantage there although McCain has been picking up the fundraising pace.)

McCain and the FEC: The Republican's fundraising has been at times too anemic and the GOP base is too disgruntled for him to take the risk of forgoing public financing -- and keep in mind that no candidate has done so until now, underscoring the extent of the gamble. But here there is the first question mark: Will McCain be able to receive these funds? The FEC needs to approve his request and for now that committee still does not have a quorum to take any such decision. The Senate stalemate over new appointments that was at the origin of this situation got partly resolved mid-May, but there still have been no new votes on appointments.

Another question is whether the FEC might attempt to punish the McCain campaign for not using public funds in the primary despite using the promise of these funds to secure grants from banks at the end of 2007 (more details about this controversy here). The FEC was not able to rule on this matter because it lacked a quorum and McCain used the opportunity to spend money over the limits that are allowed for candidates who accept public financing.

The RNC: The money that McCain should be able to raise but is not is flooding to the RNC. Keeping up with tradition, the national Republican party is massively outraising its Democratic counterpart. The RNC finished the month of May with more than $40 million in the bank compared to more than $4 million for the DNC. Since most of the RNC's funds help the Republican nominee in a presidential year, this is giving the Republicans hope that they will remain roughly on par with the Obama campaign. Their calculation is that the current cash-in-hand of the respective campaigns added to that of the DNC and RNC has the two parties at the same level.

Of course, there are a few problems with this analysis. For one, the reason Obama does not have that significant a cash-in-hand advantage over McCain is that he has been spending massively to distance Clinton (spending that will come in handy in the fall since a lot of it consists of ads in states like PA, OR and even MT, which the campaign seems interested in contesting). As we saw in our analysis of Obama's general election potential, we are not talking about a $35 million deficit (which would not be that dramatic compared to historical precedents) but one that would surpass $100 million -- potentially even $200 million. There is very little the RNC could do to keep the McCain campaign afloat under this scenario.

Obama and public financing: The final question mark might be the biggest one of all: Is Obama really still considering taking public financing? The McCain campaign has long been pressuring the Democrat to respect what they call as his pledge to take public financing if McCain does. Obama had taken no such pledge but had said that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement" though the GOP believed it could make him look bad. Ever since it became obvious how big a financial advantage Obama would have, public financing seems to have been taken off the table.

Yet, news broke this week-end that Obama left the door open to accepting public funds and thus spending only $85 million from the end of August to Election Day. Obama said he will accept public financing if a deal can be struck in which the RNC would curb its spending. "I won't disarm unilaterally," he added. As we saw above, the RNC's massive financial advantage over the DNC would mean that Republicans would have much more money to spend if both campaigns limited themselves to $85 million. But given that Obama is looking into a massive financial advantage if he opts out of public financing, entering a binding agreement to not spend more than his opponent would constitute a wasted opportunity, however much he convinces the RNC of curbing its spending.

McCain launches first major ad and pushes joint town halls

2008-06-08T19:47:00.007-04:00

The constant developments of the primary are giving way to a quieter period in which the Obama campaign will map its strategy, staff up, decide on new hires and start building on the state organizations that are already in place in every state thanks to the prolonged race the Illinois Senator had to fight with Hillary Clinton. The most urgent decision that Obama is working on, of course, is the choice of a vice-president. His selection team will now travel to Capitol Hill to talk to Democratic Senators and House members and collect their recommendations. Obama's campaign had already been compiling stories about potential running mates and will now start the vetting process.

Of course, McCain has been preparing for this moment for months since the Republican candidate wrapped up his party's nomination as early as Super Tuesday. For much of the past 5 months, his campaign felt that it was no use wasting money airing ads aggressively and fighting for media attention as the press and of the country was focused on the Clinton-Obama race. But as we saw on Tuesday when John McCain delivered a surprisingly weak speech on primetime television, having had a long time to prepare does not mean that the McCain campaign is ready to come out swinging.

Yet, there are certain things that the McCain campaign has obviously been preparing for a while, starting with its first major general election ad which started airing Friday. Called "Safe," the spot (watch it here) features a stern looking McCain who professes to "hate war" and mentions the fact that he was held for five years as a POW. The message is clear: McCain intends to run on issues of national security and we should not expect him to be shy about mentioning his years in Vietnam, however much McCain has stayed away from campaigning on that in the past.

Politico reports that McCain is running this ad in an impressive list of swing states that gives us a good idea of where the GOP believes the fall campaign will play: Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The inclusion of Missouri should reassure Democrats that the Show Me State will be competitive in the fall while McCain's determination to target Michigan confirms one of the most surprising storylines of the early stages of the campaign -- Michigan replacing Florida as the third member of the holy trio, along with Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Second, the McCain campaign had been preparing its offensive on holding joint town halls as they issued their challenge to Obama as soon as the Democrat wrapped up his nomination battle on Tuesday. Naturally, Obama's team was in position to agree to such a thing when it had barely started strategizing -- and Republicans knew that, their objective being to put Obama in a hole and advance their argument that he was not ready for the big stage. In fact, McCain proposed that the first event be held on June 12th, something Obama was obviously in no position to accept.

Today, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who is having a lot of trouble staying away from this presidential campaign) complicated the picture for the Obama campaign by offering to host the first joint town hall meeting at Manhattan's Federal Hall. This ups the pressure on Obama to accept, and Republicans are likely to portray any delay as stalling. But it is unclear whether the Democrat is looking for a way out of this. In fact, all signs point to the fact that both parties think holding joint town halls would favor them -- making those atypical events a very real possibility!

On the one hand, Republicans are at a financial disadvantage and would relish the free media and equal exposure that joint town hall meetings would guarantee; McCain also believes that common appearances would be an opportunity for him to showcase his expertise and contrast himself with his opponent's alleged inexperience. On the other hand, Democrats seem convinced that any joint appearance would serve to highlight McCain's old age and that any opportunity for Obama to showcase his mastery of policy and go toe-to-toe with John McCain will serve him greatly, undermining the GOP's attacks on his readiness.

Down-the-ballot: Franken wins DFL endorsement, AK-AL gets heated

2008-06-07T20:52:00.002-04:00

Mike Ciresi must be regretting that he dropped out of the Minnesota Senate race for he certainly could have benefited from the series of bad news Al Franken has been suffering through. More, in any case, than Professor and activist Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer managed to as he attempted to make the most of the doubts many harbor towards Franken. The Democratic Farmer-Labor Party convention was held yesterday and today but Nelson-Pallmeyer did not carry enough weight to truly endanger Franken's hold on the nomination. In his speech at the convention, Franken sought to address the criticism head-on in an effort to convince delegates he remained electable in November: "It kills me that things I said and wrote sent a message to some of my friends in this room and people in this state that they can’t count on me to be a champion for women, a champion for all Minnesotans." Franken was also helped by the backing of the DFL's Feminist Caucus, which came days after Planned Parenthood blasted Franken for his sexism.

The former comedian was endorsed on the first ballot by 62% of delegates. Franken now moves on to the primary, organized in September. The candidate who is endorsed at the DFL convention traditionally enjoys an easy primary ride as rival candidates typically withdraw and respect the convention's endorsement. Nelson-Pallmeyer did just that today as he announced his support for Franken after the result of the vote were announced. When he was still running, Mike Ciresi had also pledged to respect the will of the convention.

Thus, Franken just took a decisive step towards representing his party against Senator Norm Coleman. It is however technically still possible for a Democrat to file against him in the September primary, and the probability of that could increase if the GOP keeps up its slow trickle of oppo research and if figures of the Democratic universe (like Rep. McCollum) continue to criticize Franken and perhaps even hold back from fully supporting him. Yet, such a candidate would face very long odds given that it is already late in the game, that Franken has raised millions of dollars that would go a long way towards defeating any underfunded primary rival and that Franken is likely to have the backing of the state establishment after today's convention. With the Coleman-Franken race now much more set, we will soon see whether Republicans can successfully continue to put Franken on the defensive and whether they have many more aces up their sleeve.

Meanwhile, the Republican primary in Alaska's sole House race is getting heated as Club for Growth has endorsed Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell in his challenge to incumbent Rep. Don Young. Club for Growth, which has enjoyed a good record in primary races this year, claimed Young is the "poster child for what has gone wrong with the Republican Party in Washington” while Parnell is a "solid conservative." Club for Growth can do a lot for a candidate in a primary race and the conservative organization is especially committed to defeating an incumbent or two every cycle to bolster its reputation as a force to be reckoned with and to signal to moderate Republicans that their days are numbered (though the two most high-profile primary challenges the Club has funded, against Sen. Specter and Sen. Chaffee, both narrowly fell short). The Club's support should ensure that Parnell has the funds and organization to make his challenge to Young truly competitive.

This is actually worrisome news for Democrats. While an incumbent facing a primary and a seat opening up are generally good news for the opposing party, this is a case in which the Democrats' hopes of picking-up the district are largely related to Young's ethical troubles and the corruption allegations he is being investigated for. Given that Alaska is a very Republican state, Parnell would start the general election favored if he were to defeat Young as he would not have the baggage that has made the current incumbent an underdog against a very solid Democratic candidate.

Clinton calls for unity and endorses Obama in a feminist speech

2008-06-07T13:43:00.006-04:00

Freed from the imperatives of the campaign trail and the need to minimize the historic nature of her candidacy to be deemed credible in a male-dominated system, Hillary Clinton went further than usual in linking her efforts to women's rights today -- but not before delivering a strong endorsement of her former rival and pledging to work her heart out to make Barack Obama the next president.

In what is likely to be her last major speech until the convention (unless Obama selects her as his running mate, of course) Clinton spoke to loud applause and a cheering crowd, thanking her supporters and repeating some of the stories she is fond of telling on the campaign trail. And after announcing that she was suspending her campaign (a semantic choice that is meant to allow her to continue raising money to close off some of her debt), Clinton asked her supporters to "take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States." She insisted, "I endorse him and throw my full support behind him." Just as she did at AIPAC on Wednesday, Clinton vouched for Obama, insisting that no one can do that better than her because "I've had a front-row seat to his candidacy and seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit."

Clinton then listed the challenges the country faces (with a predictable emphasis on universal health care) insisting after each item that this is why Barack Obama must be elected president. While John McCain was never mentioned, the message was clear: No one who cares about ending the Iraq War or passing universal health care can go off and vote for the Republican ticket in November, however bitter they might be about the Democratic primary. Clinton insisted on the need to unite: "The Democratic Party is a family," she said, "and now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together, and to come together. We may have started on separate journeys but today our paths have merged."

Both parties know that the percentage of Clinton supporters that migrate to the GOP could determine the outcome of the November election. The McCain campaign has long been sending sign that they will aggressively play on the division lines that were made explicit by the long showdown between Clinton and Obama. Democrats believe that the party will unite and that the level of cross-overs will not be dramatically higher than in past cycles (Bush won about 10% of Democratic votes in 2004). How active Clinton is in the coming months will have a huge impact in resolving this battle, and the New York Senator knows that she will be closely watched for any sign that she is not working her "heart out," as she said. Any future role she wants to play in the party will require her to do everything she can to bring most of her 18 million supporters into the Obama campaign.

In particular, the female vote will be crucial to the general election campaign and whether female voters who supported Clinton feel that the primary campaign was too sexist could determine what they do in the fall. Women have long formed the backbone of the Democratic Party, and John Kerry's failure to beat Bush substantially among women is a key factor explaining his loss. That is why Clinton's decision to stray away from her usual stump speech and deliver a more overtly feminist address today is an important one for Clinton passionately explained how her campaign lifted barriers for women, even if it ended up ultimately unsuccessful.

"I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I would be the best president," she said repeating her typical campaign line. "But," she continued as she never does, "but I am a woman and like millions of women I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious." She had never dwelt on the historic nature of her candidacy before, but there was no reason to shy away from that today as she expressed her joy that, "although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you it's got about 18 million cracks in it." She celebrated the fact that, from now on, a woman winning a primary will be an "unremarkable" event, and she called on her supporters to overcome any bitterness they might harbor.

Whether this speech is sufficient to bring Clinton supporters back into the fold might very well determine whether Obama ends up selecting her as his running mate. In what was the paradox of Clinton's speech, its success would mean that Obama would no longer need to put her on the ticket to unify the party. Surely aware of this, Clinton sought to demonstrate her strength today. Not only did she make sure to carve her place in the party history, but she also reminded Obama of just how much she could do to help him with female voters and to vouch for him when the GOP attack machine gets going.

House ratings: Field continues to shift towards Democrats, particularly in New York

2008-06-06T16:00:00.001-04:00

In the past 3 months, Democrats have increased their House majority as they picked up a remarkable 3 seats in a series of special elections organized in Illinois’s 14th district, Louisiana’s 6th district, Mississippi’s 1st district. What is particularly remarkable is that all three of these districts leaned heavily Republican; in 2004, George Bush had won them respectively with 55%, 59% and 62%. Each defeat increased the chaos of the Republican caucus as the NRCC started to settle in panic mode. After the loss of MS-01 on May 13th, Tom Cole, the chairman of the NRCC, issued a remarkable statement calling on Republican incumbents to brace for the worse and find individual ways to deal with the onslaught.

And Republicans have reason to fear a second November debacle. First, Republicans are now three more seats away from the majority and it is hard to find a GOP operative willing to suggest their party has any hope of reducing that margin in November. Second, the party continues to be at a significant financial disadvantage while the DCCC has a huge pile of cash that it will use in dozens of districts in the coming months, testing any Republican seat that shows any sign of being vulnerable. While the GOP was able to respond in the special elections, they will not have the money to do the same in the fall and will be forced to make some painful choices.

Third, the success of Travis Childers in MS-01 differed from those of Don Cazayoux and Bill Foster in that his opponent was not tragically flawed; in other words, the GOP had no easy excuse to explain the loss of that seat and has to face the terrifying prospect that all of its open seats are vulnerable, no matter how competitive they have appeared in previous cycles. A number of districts that opened up in the past few months and which Republicans believed would be safe bets for re-election are now finding themselves at the center of the storm, districts like NM-02, MO-09, AL-02 and OH-07. Democrats know that they will likely not have such an opportunity to snatch away heavily Republican seats in years – perhaps even decades – and they will do everything they can to make the most of every opening they have this year.

The field has shifted towards the Democratic Party, as a stunning 53 of the 88 seats that are listed in these rankings are held by Republicans. The 25 seats Democrats are defending include the 3 districts that they have just acquired and that are likely to remain in their hands in November. New York in particular is looking to be emblematic of the national catastrophe Republicans fear. Once dominant in the Empire State, the GOP has only 6 districts left today. Next year, they might only have 2. NY-25, NY-26 and NY-29 were already on everyone’s list of vulnerable Republican seats at the time of my last rankings, though the GOP’s catastrophic recruitment process in the first two of these districts has increased their predicament. And in a sign that New York Republicans are doing everything they can to seal their own doom, Vito Fossella’s arrest and subsequent retirement and the farce Staten Island Republicans are currently playing has suddenly moved NY-13 from a barely vulnerable seat to one of the Republicans’ two most vulnerable districts nationally. And to make matters worse, Republican chances in the three districts Democrats picked up in 2006 are rapidly fading, despite GOP boasting that they would have no trouble recapturing NY-19, NY-20 and NY-24 (though the first has been making some noise again over the past few weeks, see below).

I have written full descriptions of seats that have made news since mid-February. For detailed descriptions of the other races, check last month's rankings. I indicated upgraded or downgraded next to the seats that saw their ratings change to indicate whether they became more vulnerable or less vulnerable for the incumbent party. Here is the quick run-down:

Less vulnerable: IL-11, IN-07, IN-07, PA-06, OH-15, OH-18
More vulnerable: AK-AL, AL-02, ID-01, LA-04, MD-01, MO-09, NM-02, NY-13, NY-19, NY-25, NY-26, TX-22, WY-AL
Changed parties: IL-14, LA-06 and MS-01
Off the list: DE-AL, FL-10

Outlook: Democrats pick-up 14-20 seats, with a possibility of higher gains. My current prediction is a net pick-up of 17.

Continue reading the full rankings here.

Poll roundup: Missouri looks like a toss-up, and testing Sen. Roberts

2008-06-06T09:45:00.000-04:00

Given how obsessively we have all been following the Clinton-Obama race for 18 months now, it is strange to think that we will soon go entire days without mentioning Clinton's name once or including her in blog posts. Here is a poll roundup post, for instance, with no survey testing Clinton's name! I am offering this little prelude to ease your way into this post-Clinton election season, one with new code words and constituencies to watch.

The first noteworthy poll of the day is CBS's latest national poll that shows Bush's approval rating has sank to 25%. I have never monitored the president's ratings nor will this be a recurrent feature, but this is the lowest number even attained by President Bush, who has now gone under Nixon's 26%. He still needs to beat Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, however. The data's relevance to the general election is obvious. We all know that McCain has been able to distance himself from Republican woes surprisingly well and that he is quite possibly the only candidate his party could have nominated that would not automatically have sank because of the national environment. Yet, there is only so much that even a politician like McCain can do and the lower Bush's approval rating remains (or falls further) the hardest it will be for the Arizona Senator to mount a credible campaign over the next 6 months.

Second, we have a series of general election polls from important states:

Rasmussen released numbers from Missouri and finds Obama edging out McCain 43% to 42%. This is a great trendline for the Democrat, as he trailed by 5% last month and by 15% in March.

In Kansas, Research 2000 found McCain surprisingly low, leading 51% to 40%.

In West Virginia, finally, Rasmussen has a surprisingly tight race with McCain ahead 45% to 38%. Obama suffers from a disastrous approval rating (40% favorable, 58% unfavorable).

This is the second Missouri poll this week to show Obama edging out McCain, the first having been released by SUSA. This is a favorable turnaround for the Illinois Senator. As the trendlines of the Rasmussen and SUSA polls indicate, he had been trailing in the past few months -- by narrow margins, yes, but constantly enough to warrant my rating Missouri as a "lean McCain" state in my first electoral college ratings. With Florida potentially out of reach, Obama needs to demonstrate that he has an ample reach elsewhere and the Midwest looks within reach. Also, if Obama is able to be highly competitive in Missouri (something Kerry gave up on early), it speaks well of his chances in Ohio.

Finally, we close with two congressional polls from two races that clearly lean Republican:

In the Kansas Senate race, Research 2000's survey is now the second poll to find Senator Roberts in an unexpectedly competitive race. Sure, he leads former Rep. Slattery 50% to 38% but this is a very Republican state and a state almost no one has been talking about.

In OH-07, an open seat in which the top Democrat declined to run noting that chances of victory were too small, an internal poll conducted for Democratic candidate Neuhart finds him trailing state Senator Auria 41% to 35%. Bush won the district with 57%, so it is not as conservative as some of the other open seats Democrats won this spring.
However, this is definitely the type of poll meant to make a candidate look good (as a further question is asked after biographical information is read), so take the results with a grain of salt.

Such polls do have an effect on campaigns as they get the attention of national Democrats. With a Rasmussen poll and now a Research 2000 survey finding Roberts barely at the 50% threshold, Chuck Schumer will probably move to test the incumbent's vulnerability, commission a poll himself and see whether it is worth sending a few staffers. And with the decline of Minnesota as a pick-up opportunity, Democrats will be looking to expand the map even further to guarantee a large number of take-overs and keep open the (small but existent) possibility of a 60-seat majority.

Down-ballot: Franken continues to sink in MN, GOP drowns in NY-13

2008-06-05T22:03:00.001-04:00

Al Franken's Minnesota campaign is not going well. Facing a shrewd incumbent with the reputation of a solid campaigner, Franken had no room for error. Yet, his campaign started tanking with revelations of Franken's tax problems and with the controversy over his 2000 allegedly-pornographic essay in Playboy, a controversy that led a Democratic congresswoman state that she was not sure she could support Franken's campaign. Now, it is the turn of Planned Parenthood to blast Franken for his 2000 essay in an e-mail which explained that it was difficult to see how the organization could endorse Franken and that they deplored "the misogynist remarks of some of these statements and find them degrading to women."

In parallel, a second controversy has now erupted over a joke related to rape that Franken helped write on SNL in 1995 (visit that link for full explanation); the skit did not ended up airing as it received weak laughs at a dress rehearsal. The state GOP, which acknowledged having had the tape in hand for a while but only releasing it now, was ready to launch an immediate offensive as Republicans are blasting the former comedian. And Rep. McCollum, the Democratic congresswoman whose criticism had already made news last week, used the day's news to distance herself from Franken even further. "It is appalling that anyone could characterize rape, a violent and horrible crime, as a joke," she said.

Given the slow tickle of stories about Franken's years as a comedian, there is very little doubt that the GOP has a whole series of similar scandals to use against the Democratic candidate. After all, Franken was a comedian and skit writers for years and his name is sure to be involved in many similar stories. Worried that it will be impossible to mount any sort of credible general election campaign under the threat of the GOP unleashing a new chapter of their apparently formidable oppo research file, Democrats are reportedly now considering their options besides Franken, including Mike Ciresi's possible jump back in the race.

Al Franken's prodigious fundraising abilities will be hard to match by any replacement candidate, not to mention that his early start was one of his main assets. After all, Senator Coleman was never going to be an easy incumbent for Democrats to defeat. But for a candidate who just two months ago was receiving sustained praise for a strong transition from comedy to politics, the change of tone in Franken's coverage is brutal. Franken's main task has always been the need to be taken seriously, and the ease with which Republicans are transforming him back into a goofy figure leaves him few paths to being elected.

Meanwhile, the saga of NY-13 continues to get more absurd after a month of unexpected developments: First, there was Vito Fossella's arrest for drunk driving followed by the revelation that he was taking his mistress on taxpayer-funded congressional trips and Fossela's subsequent retirement, the two top Republicans from the districts declining to run and the Staten Island GOP's stunning decision to endorse the candidacy of Francis H. Powers, the island's largely unknown former representative on the MTA board. Meanwhile, Democrats got one of their strongest candidate in the race.

As if this was not enough to get Democrats confident that they would pick up the last New York City district that was under Republican control, Francis H. Powers's son (who, to make matters more complicated, has the same first name: Francis M. Powers) announced today that he would run for Congress too as the Libertarian nominee! His objective? Defeating the Republican Party and, as he explained himself, "A vote for my father is a vote for the straight Republican ticket." He denied that he was doing this to get back at his father, though he acknowledged that he was motivated by the opportunity to give the Libertarian Party a wide audience by creating the spectacle of a son running against his father.

Now, there is the possibility that the son will not make it to the ballot as he needs to collect 3,000 signatures. But if he does this is sure to prove very distracting to the Republican candidate's campaign; it would have been so under any circumstances, but the fact that the two have the same name would render the situation impossible to follow. As for the entertainment-value of this controversy and how much Francis H. Powers will be unable to escape constant talk of this development, his priceless reaction to his son's announcement sets the tone: "I've tried very hard for many years to help my son. Unfortunately, he's rejected everyone's help to live a healthy lifestyle. Regardless of whether he wants to run for Congress, I still stand ready to help him move his life in a positive direction."

Lifestyle, really? The young Powers is a married man with children, not a drug addict currently in a rehab clinic, as his father's statement would imply. The Staten Island Advance provides an explanation: "A Republican source said that Powers was referring to his son's 'carefree' lifestyle in the music business."

VP watch: Nunn backtracks on gay rights, Webb campaigns with Obama, Clinton steps back

2008-06-05T20:17:00.000-04:00

Former Sen. Sam Nunn, often mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick for Barack Obama, is giving signs that he is indeed interested in the job. Last week, I explained that Nunn would be one of the Left's nightmare picks because of his profile as a very conservative Democrat -- and one who would fully embrace Obama's post-partisan message -- and also because of his dreadful record on gay rights. Fourteen years ago, he was one of the main opponents of Bill Clinton's efforts to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving within the military and he used unmistakably gay-baiting methods.

Given how important a role gay rights have played in the political debate in the last 5 years (and will do so again this year now that California conservatives managed to get an amendment to ban gay marriage on the November ballot), Nunn's past should a factor that plays against him in the vetting process. While it might help Obama to have a running mate who is socially more conservative, Nunn's presence on the campaign trail would lead reporters to ask more rather than less gay rights questions to Obama, forcing him to revisit the issue more than he would like to.

Aware of this handicap, Sam Nunn chose to publicly backtrack this week, saying that "times change" and that it is time for the Pentagon to review "Don't ask, don't tell," a policy which Nunn played a huge role in implementing in 1994. Nunn explained that, "It's appropriate to take another look at it -- see how it's working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military." The timing of his declaration should lift any doubt that he is aiming for a position in the Obama Administration -- if not the vice-presidency than some secretarial nomination (Nunn is, after all, more than 70 years old). Why else would he suddenly come out with such a surprising declaration? "Don't ask, don't tell," after all, is not playing a prominent role in this year's campaign.

Meanwhile, veep speculation today centered on Jim Webb, who campaigned with Barack Obama as he held his first major event of the general election in Bristol, Virginia -- a move intended to confirm that his campaign intends to fully compete in the Old Dominion this year. Remember that Virginia and Colorado are the two states that the Obama campaign will cite first when ask where they are hoping to expand the map this cycle. Also accompanying Obama and Webb was Mark Warner about whom vice-presidential rumors circulated a few weeks ago though Obama will be reluctant to take Warner away from his current campaign for Senate. In fact, Obama has as much to gain from Warner appearing on the senatorial ballot as the former Governor is likely to poll much better than the party's presidential tickets and Democrats can hope for some reverse coattails.

Finally -- and inevitably -- Hillary Clinton was at the center of all VP talk today, and this will likely remain the case until Obama makes his pick. Note that John Kerry was in a similar situation in 2004 when he did bow do public pressure and selected John Edwards as his running mate. After prominent Clinton backers (starting with Lanny Davis) started a public effort yesterday to push Obama into selecting his now-former rival as his running mate, Clinton backtracked today, saying she was not interested in the job (something all potential picks have to say) and saying that the decision was entirely Obama's and that she would not make any specific demand. Hillary Clinton must have realized that her supporters' pressure was becoming too explicit and that the Obama campaign would never cave in to it for fear of appeared weak and of prolonging the Clintons' dominance.

Update: Via Marc Ambinder, it looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are finally having that meeting though it is being held in secret and far away from the press corps.

Poll roundup: Will there be a bouce?

2008-06-05T08:26:00.000-04:00

As I explained two days ago, I am skeptical of arguments that securing the nomination will automatically resolve Barack Obama's problems with the registered Democratic vote, but that does not mean that the Illinois Senator will not enjoy a substantial bounce in the coming days and weeks. We will then have to see how the bounce lasts and whether it gets Obama to his full potential. For now, use these polls -- some of which are very interesting on their own right -- as markers of where the campaign lied as of early June.

Keep in mind also that any bounce Obama will get will come from (1) the Democratic Party uniting and (2) the boost that any candidate derives from victory. I don't buy the argument that McCain has been campaigning for the general election for months but Obama hasn't and that he will therefore improve his percentages. He will certainly improve his general election organization, turnout efforts and registration drive, but that has little to do with poll numbers for now. If anything, McCain has been out of the spotlight and struggling to attract any attention since mid-February, whereas Obama has been airing dozens of ads in key swing states worth millions of dollars. He was campaigning against Clinton, sure, but many of these spots were meant to introduce himself to voters and having already aired those will be useful in the general election as well.

First, the latest NYT/CBS poll and USA Today/Gallup will be widely discussed because of their strong reputation:

In the field from May 30th to June 3rd, the CBS/NYT poll did not register any effect Tuesday night might have had. Obama is leading McCain 48% to 42%.
As for favorability ratings, both candidates have a lot of neutral respondents -- much more than usual. Obama's rating stands at a strong 41-31, while McCain is much weaker, 34-37.

In the USA/Today Gallup poll, Obama is leading 46% to 43%. Clinton fares better in what is probably the last national poll in which she will be included, trailing 49% to 43%.

Republicans have long been worried that Obama might open up a double-digit lead nationally once he wraps up the nomination. If that is correct, the fact that he already leads by mid-single digits should worry the GOP. But Republicans are also more hopeful about the state-by-state situation and their chances in the electoral college. As my first ratings yesterday afternoon showed, that race is a toss-up, with McCain ahead by a slight 227 to 207 electoral votes. A few polls all released by SUSA on Tuesday give us a better sense of the situation in those states (these polls were taken to test VP match-ups which I will not report fully since I do not find interesting at all; most match-ups only test name recognition):

In New York, Obama leads McCain 48% to 38%, with only 66% of registered Democrats. This is the same margin Obama has enjoyed for two months now, and it is naturally too close for comfort in one of the Democrats' strongest states nationally.
Depending on the VP match-ups, the range goes from +1 Obama (if McCain picks Romney and Obama picks Hagel) to +20 Obama.

In Massachusetts, Obama continues to look stunningly weak as he barely distances McCain 46% to 41%, with the support of 65% of registered Democrats.
Depending on the VP match-ups, the range goes from +1 Obama (once again if he picks Hagel) to +16 Obama. Huckabee fares a bit better than Mitt Romney, the state's former Governor.

In Missouri, Obama edges out McCain 45% to 43% with 74% of registered Democrats.
Depending on VP match-ups, the range goes from +11 McCain to +11 Obama. Only Edwards improves Obama's vote total, but that is entirely a factor of name recognition.

In Iowa, Obama is leading 47% to 38%. He has been ahead in every single one of the 10 polls SUSA has taken starting in February 2007, most of them by substantial margins.

Finally, an Alabama poll confirms this state will not be paid attention to in the general election. McCain crushes Obama 57% to 34%, as the Illinois Senator only gets 19% of the white vote.

The Massachusetts poll confirms my rating of Massachusetts as only "likely Obama" despite the state's reputation as the country's most staunchly Democratic. It is difficult to explain why this is the one state in which Obama's weakness is so consistent. Rasmussen's survey last week found Obama up 13% but that paled in comparison to previous cycles and to Clinton's 30% lead in the same poll. As for Iowa, this poll confirms that this is the one 2004 Bush state that is already leaning towards Democrats, not to mention how strong Obama's organization in the state ever since the caucus campaign. Finally, Missouri is a good surprise for Obama as it is a state I have rated "lean McCain." Most other polls taken in the past few weeks show the Arizona Senator ahead in that state and it remains to be seen how strongly Obama will push there.

Another observation about these polls is the increase in the percentage of undecideds. The trendline in most of them shows a decrease in the totals of both McCain and Obama, which is not necessarily what we would be expecting after months of campaigning.

Finally, one last poll for the day concerns the North Carolina Senate race. It is an internal poll taken by Anzalone Liszt Research for the Hagan campaign and it was in the field mid-May, at the time other polls showed very narrow Dole advantages and before the Republican incumbent started airing ads of her own: In this survey, Dole leads 48% to 44%. Since then, a poll taken more recently showed her slightly expanding her lead, a possible consequence of the advertising blitz. But since I am still the phase of slight surprise at every survey that shows that yes, indeed, Dole is vulnerable, this poll is certainly useful.

Clinton to suspend campaign, says goodbye to staff

2008-06-04T20:19:00.006-04:00

Early this evening, the New York Times and ABC News are reporting that Hillary Clinton is looking to suspend her candidacy on Friday (Update: the event will now be held on Saturday) after a day of conversations with surrogates and Democratic figures who were supporting her. Other news agencies like Politico are now refining the news by describing the news as coming directly from the campaign and even reporting a venue from Clinton's speech: Washington, DC before a possible New York homecoming.

Obama's campaign was disappointed last night when Clinton did not endorse him in her prime-time speech, which would have set up a great moment for Obama to unify the party in his own address. Depending on how grandiose Clinton chooses her Friday event to be and the hour of the day at which she holds the event, her last speech as a candidate might repair some of yesterday's lost opportunity or seek to minimize the withdrawal. For now, the venue of Clinton's withdrawal informs us about the kind of message she wants to send, namely that she intends to concentrate on her work in Washington and build her Senate career -- unless, of course, she is picked for other duties (if not a vice-presidential spot then maybe the czar of Obama's health care initiative).

Speaking to AIPAC this morning, Clinton had delivered the first sign that she was dropping the defiant tone of last night's speech as she chose a more conciliating tone. Speaking to an audience that gave her a warm welcome and whose leaders are often described as skeptical of Obama's candidacy, Clinton vouched for the Illinois Senator's: "And let me be very clear. I know that Sen. Obama will be a good friend to Israel." In a way, Clinton's speech allowed her to remind Obama that she remains popular among a number of groups that he will need to appeal to in the general election and that she remains a powerful force in the campaign. The day's second sign that Clinton would not put up a fight came in the afternoon, as Marc Ambinder reports that Clinton bid farewell to her emotional staff in Arlington.

There had been similar clues circulating earlier this week, for instance in reports that Clinton staffers had been told to submit all receipts and that their last day of work would come mid-June. This also suggests that Clinton had pretty much decided to not stay in the race as of last night but still chose to not withdraw in her Election Night address. This could have two explanations. First, Clinton wanted to put pressure on Obama to accept some of her bargaining positions -- and she has other things she could want than the VP spot. Second, this allowed her to receive donations for one more night which is important to her as the campaign is in debt.

Clinton is likely to occupy the center stage for a few more days as last night's events coupled with the coming announcement will guarantee that many political obituaries, campaign retrospectives are written by all papers and magazine, and this also means three more days of non-stop speculation about Clinton's intentions and potential plans -- which is also what Clinton wants to stay relevant in the conversation. Starting Saturday night, however, the focus will be on the general election. The two campaigns are already in full war mode and are now going back-and-forth on the possibility of holding more debates.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign will dramatically expend in the coming days and weeks as it integrates some staff from the Clinton campaign and more generally opens up more offices, sets up more resources and starts recruiting volunteers to organize for the general election campaign. How long will we have to wait to see Obama start airing ad, as he is, after all, sitting on top of a giant warchest which he only has 3 more months to use (as the primary funds cannot be spent after the convention).

First electoral college ratings: It's a toss-up

2008-06-04T13:30:00.001-04:00

Now that primary contests have come to an end, the time has come for the first electoral map ratings. Of course, if there is a popular vote blowout on either direction, careful electoral college calculations will be much less important, but until then the campaign has to be thought of as a collection of 51 contests that ought to be considered on a state by state basis.

The states have been divided in seven categories and rated as "safe," "likely," "lean" or "toss-up" states. A state that is rated as likely should not be considered competitive at this time but there is a conceivable scenario under which it could become so in the next few months. For instance, Obama should not envision picking-up Texas and McCain should not expect to be close in California, but it would not be surprising if polls end up tighter than expected. On the other hand, the 15 "lean" and "toss-up" states are where most of the action will be in over the next few months.

These ratings are based on a mixture of polling data, considerations of which states both parties are likely to invest in, Obama and McCain's respective strengths and weaknesses and the voting and registration patterns of each state since 2004. In other words, they are meant to be a snapshot of the present moment and we can expect a lot of changes in the coming months. These ratings will eventually be updated weekly, but there is no need for that frequent re-evaluations for now, so we will stick to an update every two weeks at most.

Without further delay, here are the first 2008 electoral college ratings:

Safe McCain: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska (at large + 3rd congressional district), Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming (97 EVs)

Likely McCain: Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (1st and 2nd congressional districts), North Dakota, Texas (77 EVs)

Lean McCain: Florida, Missouri, North Carolina (53 EVs)

Toss-up: Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin (104 EV)

Lean Obama: Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota (24 EVs)

Likely Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, Washington (107 EVs)

Safe Obama: DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont (76 EVs)

This gives us the following totals:

Safe + Likely Obama: 183 electoral votes
Safe + Likely + Lean Obama: 207
Toss-up: 104
Safe + Likely + Lean McCain: 227
Safe + Likely McCain: 174

Of the toss-up states, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio look to be the holy trio of the 2008 election (Michigan has for the time being replaced the Sunshine state) but Barack Obama has carved himself an alternative route to the presidency that does not require him to carry Ohio. With Iowa leaning to his side, he needs a combination of the Western states, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado (I recently discussed this more in detail here).

The 9 toss-up states are made up of 4 states won twice by George Bush (CO, NV, OH and VA), 3 states that both John Kerry and Al Gore carried (MI, WI and PA) and two states that split their decision in 2000 and 2004 (NH and NM). If I had a gun pointed to my head and had to allocate these 104 electoral votes, I would say it is most likely at this point that Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania for 273 electoral votes while McCain would carry Nevada, Ohio and Virginia for 265 electoral votes. As I said, this all presupposes that the national numbers remain as tight as they are today, for a blowout election would likely lead one party to snatch all these 104 electoral votes and score some upsets on the list of "likely" states.

Also, a few explanatory notes on some of my other ratings, starting with Massachusetts. It seems very unlikely that this state, which many dub as the most Democratic in the country, would give itself to John McCain, particularly given how low Bush's approval rating is here. But there have been too many polls showing Obama polling weaker than he ought to for me to move the state in the safe column for now. SUSA has consistently shown Obama barely edging out McCain while Rasmussen has repeatedly shown him considerably weaker than Hillary Clinton.

Florida, meanwhile, is one of the rare states in which it seems hard to dispute that Hillary Clinton would have been in better shape than her opponent. Numerous polls have shown Obama struggling against McCain, and some of the constituencies that the Illinois Senator has the most trouble in and that McCain believes he can win over (older voters, Hispanics) are key to Florida politics.

As for the Southern states, the Obama campaign looks to be serious about planning a registration drive in states in which past nominees have fared extremely poorly like Georgia and Mississippi. The problem for Obama is that any surge in black turnout could be negated by increased racial polarization in the electorate and white voters turning even more away from Democrats than they have in the past, but the campaign's determination to test these states is enough to warrant their move to the "likely" column. The Obama campaign has even more promising grounds in North Carolina and in Virginia, where high black turnout coupled with outreach to independent-minded voters could result in upsets.

There are two more regions of interest. First, the Mountain West, where a number of states which were never mentioned in 2000 and 2004 (MT, NE, ND) could be in play in 2008 though the GOP's dominance in this region make them tough states to crack. Second, Appalachia, where West Virginia and Kentucky would have both been rated much more competitively had Hillary Clinton been the Democratic nominee as this region is definitely the only one in the country in which Obama looks unlikely to make numbers move.

The morning after: Clinton's bargain, as Obama and McCain launch the general election

2008-06-04T08:17:00.005-04:00

Last night, the two Democratic candidates lived in alternate dimensions. On the one hand, Barack Obama proclaimed himself the Democratic nominee after the networks showed him surpassing the magic threshold of 2,118 and delivered a celebratory speech in front of thousands of supporters as the media commemorated the first black nominee of a major US party. On the other, Hillary Clinton issued a defiant and combative message to her rival, avoiding any sort of concession and offering only some weakly-worded praise; she recapped her own claim to the nomination -- the popular vote and electability -- and said it was too early for her to decide anything.

Yesterday was meant to be Obama's night. Given how much of a favorite he had become since mid-February, it is easy to forget how giant an upset his victory his and how inevitable Clinton's nomination looked just 7 months ago or at least until the Philadelphia debate held at the end of October.

Last nigt, after months of false rumors about stacks of superdelegates just waiting to endorse, the Illinois Senator stunningly delivered on the promise of a superdelegate tsunami. About 40 delegates behind yesterday morning, he now stands at 2,156 by CNN's count, 38 more than the majority. Of these roughly 80 delegates Obama accumulated over the past day, only 15 came from Montana and South Dakota. Obama moved to put the nomination out of Clinton's reach, and even a more favorable allocation of Michigan's delegate would not solve Hillary's problem now, unless she insists on a full seating which her post-RBC reaction appeared to rule out.

Clinton first crashed the party by pulling an unexpected victory in South Dakota, the first legitimate upset since February. And in an ironic sense of event, it is the state in which she finally accomplished what she had been trying to do ever since March 4th (create a true surprise) that allowed Obama to win the delegates necessary to clinch the nomination. This latest development is telling of how much of a lead Obama had build by the end of February since three months of sustained Clinton victories -- some of them huge -- still leave her about 100 pledged delegates behind her rivals. This is, Obama supporters will say, a reminder of how futile Clinton's quest has been and how much time Democrats have wasted.

The sheer magnitude of the superdelegate tsunami led most observers to believe Clinton would pull out of the race in her speech, or at least concede that her odds are long. But she did no such thing and prevented the Democratic Party from launching its re-unification process heading into Obama's speech on a night in which TV networks were carrying speeches live in front of a large audience. Clinton's tone was more combative than expected, signaling that reports that she was on the verge of conceding were probably overstated -- one does not decide to be use this defiant a speech at the last minute. Clinton probably underestimates her party's expectation that she would offer some gesture last night and, whatever she does in the coming days, yesterday's speech might come back to haunt her if other Democratic figures are resentful of her last minute slap in the face.

Given the high odds Clinton faces, it is clear that she is looking to bargain something in exchange for her concession and for her support of Obama. But what is she asking for and, as importantly, what is Obama ready to give her? The vice-presidential nomination? It is too early to talk of that, and the Obama campaign does not want to tie its hands in the back -- though there are some scenarios in which they might eventually realize they need to tap their former rival. Simply to save face? Given how wounded reports indicate the Clintons are, this is a possible factor as well. Another possibility -- and one Obama might be more willing to grant -- is to give Clinton an important role in crafting and passing health care policy. Clinton emphasized that issue repeatedly last night, perhaps to pressure Obama to take up elements of his plan and perhaps to win an actual position. It is difficult to see how Clinton could seriously be envisioning any other route than dropping out over the next few days, however, as the political damage to her legacy and role in the Senate would be too great at this point were she at all serious about contesting Obama's nomination all the way to Denver.

While Hillary Clinton remained at the center of the political stage, John McCain and Barack Obama had moved on to their own contest. Both their speeches were combative and should be considered as the official launch of the general election. But the comparison was not favorable to McCain in ways that are puzzling: Why did his campaign not plan for this important night better? This was the first prime time speech McCain would deliver since March 4th and most probably the last until his acceptance speech in September; it was also his re-introduction to voters. Why, then, was McCain's speech so overwhelmingly negative and why was it almost exclusively focused on Obama? The Democrat's address, by contrast, had large portions designed to attack McCain but it also contained the usual more uplifting passages that celebrated his clinching the nomination and marked the path forward.

And why was the event organized in such a small venue in front of a relatively small crowd? Not to mention the problems with McCain's delivery, as he strangely snickered when repeating his campaign's new motto, "That's not change we can believe in." Compare McCain's enthusiasm and fire not just to Obama's speech but also to Clinton's. The New York Senator's addresses on election night paled in comparison to Obama's for much of the past few months, as is expected, but that was due to his speech-making strength -- not to her weakness. McCain will never win based on his oratory, and he knows that. But yesterday's speech had a number of strategic and purely organizational mistakes that is surprising from a campaign that had so much time to prepare.

Given this strange situation, it is easy to forget that McCain unveiled some important themes of his general election campaign that we will hear about in the coming weeks: He accused Obama of being in the pocket of special interests and of wanting to lead Iraq into chaos. And he pinpointed the area on which he will draw the sharpest contrasts with Obama: We are done with Clinton's experience, prepare to hear about judgment. McCain also presented himself as an independent voice, independent from both the Bush Administration and the Republican Party and its special interests. That message has two drawbacks, of course -- it puts the Arizona Senator on a defensive position and risks alienating conservative voters. But the combative and openly disdainful tone McCain used last night does point to one thing: He has been waiting for a long time for the general election to start and we should be ready for things to get heated fast.

The end game thread: Obama clinches nomination, Clinton wins SD and McCain delivers very weak speech

2008-06-03T20:17:00.019-04:00

7:50am: Steve Pearce puts an end to the career of Heather Wilson by defeating her by a few thousands votes. After surviving countless challenges by Democrats in her district NM-01, many of them won when Democrats were sure of picking-up her seat (see 2006), Wilson fell to a more conservative Republican in a primary and sees her political career interrupted. The two candidates polled roughly the same against Udall for the general election (with perhaps a slight advantage to Pearce) but Democrats ought to be relieved that they won't have to face Wilson's formidable campaign skills. For a moderate to have kept it this close in a low-turnout primary dominated by conservatives once again speaks to her survival instincts. Meanwhile, in CA-04, the conservative wing of the GOP also defeated a more moderate candidate and gave the nomination to famous California conservative Tom McClintock, who is now slightly favored to beat Democrat Charlie Brown in a district that clearly leans Republican.

11:45pm: Senator Lautenberg survives his primary by a significant margin, and so does Rep. Boswell of Iowa, with about 60% of the vote. The New Jersey Senate race will now oppose Lautenberg to former Rep. Zimmer, who narrowly won his party's nod. In New Mexico, Steve Pearce is holding on to the tightest of leads against Heather Wilson -- but her district is underreporting compared to his and that could help her pull a come-from-behind victory (if Wilson becomes the nominee Democrats ought to be careful as she always seems able to snatch victory from the brink of defeat). In NM-01, it looks like Martin Heinrich will become the Democratic nominee, setting a hotly contested open seat race against Republican sheriff White.

10:30pm: Obama proclaims himself the Democratic nominee and delivers a tribute to Hillary Clinton and her service in an attempt to woo her supporters and avoid giving the impression of pressuring her. Speaking to a cheering crowd that has packed the St. Paul auditorium in which McCain will accept the nomination in early September, Obama then turned his sights to John McCain and outlined his differences with the Arizona Senator. Since I criticized McCain for talking about Obama too much in his own speech, I ought to say the same here but it's hard to deny that Obama's tone is much less negative (there are no snickers, for one) and Obama quickly moved on to talk about his own priorities and his own hopes -- moving to celebrate this day as the end of his primary campaign. Obama finished his speech to a screaming crowd. Rarely had the difference in Obama and his opponents' speech-making ability been so obvious, as McCain's speech was weak in a way Clinton's never were (compare the energy of Hillary's rally to McCain's).

10:05pm: Montana is called for Obama, which allows prevents Clinton from scoring two upsets tonight (and which also gives Obama 5 new superdelegate endorsements, including the state's governor's and 2 senators). The exit polls suggest this is going to be a huge win for the Illinois Senator. We are now waiting for Obama's speech, the third and final one of the night.
In AL-02, Bobby Bright, the Montgomery Mayor who the GOP also tried to recruit (underscoring how conservative Bright is) will be the Democratic nominee's in this district that Bush won with 67% of the race. Meanwhile, in the New Mexico Senate primary, Heather Wilson is off to a strong start as she is leading Steve Pearce by 6% even though Pearce's district is the one that has reported the most and Wilson's has barely started reporting. In New Jersey, Lautenberg is continuing to crush Andrews by more than 30% with almost two thirds reporting.

9:50pm: After a very long speech in which she at times looked set to drop out and which she started with a long recognition of all Obama has accomplished but in which she also outlined her own case for the nomination (claiming the popular vote, outlining she won states that are necessary to get 270 electoral votes and that she is more electable), Clinton announced... she would make no decision today and consulting with party leaders. She also emphasized the issue of health care, in what is perhaps a signal that she will take that in negotiations with the Obama campaign (either to have him embrace elements of her plan or to appoint her as his point-person on health care issues). I think most people -- including me -- were expecting Clinton to announce she was dropping out considering how massive the day's superdelegate tsunami ended up being but she remained stunningly defiant. She said she would talk to party figures in the coming days but outlined no path to the nomination -- how does she think she can reverse the tide?!

9:25pm: South Dakota called for Hillary Clinton. With 19% reporting, she is ahead 57% to 43%. Is it not appropriate of what has happened ever since the beginning of March that Obama would win the nomination based on his delegates in a state in which Clinton unexpectedly won (in what is the first true upset since February). For much of the past three months, Clinton won important contests but she never did so by a margin large enough to change the race's fundamentals. By the time she started pulling in large leads (WV, KY and PR), it was too late. And by the time she won the first state that was expected to go for Obama, her rival already clinched the nomination. Overall, her last-minute win deprives Obama of closing strongly, something she has denied him for much of the past few months; Ben Smith notes this is particularly embarrassing for one of Obama's strongest backers, former Sen. Tom Dashle.
In New Jersey, meanwhile, Lautenberg is now crushing Andrews 64% to 31% with 46% reporting. In the GOP race, former Rep. Zimmer is narrowly leading.

9:10pm:"That's not change we can believe in," McCain repeated in a speech that was interrupted at before its completion as the networks wanted to call the Democratic race. Did the McCain campaign realize this was the candidate's first primetime speech since March 4th and his first general election speech? Is this how he wants to reintroduce himself to voters and launch his general election campaign? In what was intended to frame his showdown with Obama, McCain devoted much of his speech to attacking the Illinois Senator, accusing his opponent of being in the pocket of special interests, of threatening to lead Iraq into chaos and more generally questioned Obama's judgment. Overall, the tone of McCain's comments were overwhelmingly negative, which I believe was a mistake considering that the rest of the night would clearly be a celebration of Obama's candidacy and that this was McCain chance to launch his general election campaign on his own terms. And I am not even mentioning the terrible delivery, the strange snicker before each rendition of "That's not change we can believe in," the obvious teleprompter reading, and the very sparse crowd weakly cheering and jeering (could McCain not find a better venue and a bigger crowd for this important speech?).

McCain did attempt to define himself as well, choosing to emphasize his reputation as an independent voice who is in the pocket of neither party. He repeated that his priority is working "for you" and claimed the mantle of change. He also did his best to distance himself from President Bush, repeating that he does not represent a third term (talk about being on the defensive) and that he has long opposed the president on issues like climate change and the management of the Iraq war. McCain also emphasized his new slogan, "A leader we can believe in," a rip-off of Obama's slogan that is meant to emphasize that Obama's promise is "empty hope" and that only McCain has the judgment to lead the country.

9pm: Networks announce that Obama has earned more than 2,118 delegates and is projected as the presumptive Democratic nominee. The polls closed in South Dakota and, while it is too early to call a winner, Obama cannot not win a few delegates there and thus get the 4-5 delegates he needed as of 10 minutes ago.
Surprisingly, the polls actually show Clinton leading in South Dakota! ARG's poll, which came out of nowhere to show her ahead two days ago, could be vindicated and Clinton could leave on a high note (note that Clinton also picked up a last minute superdelegate!)

8:40pm: Frank Lautenberg is off to a decent start though Andrews is coming in stronger than expected, as the incumbent leads 55% to 40% with 9% of precincts reporting. Keep in mind that Andrews launched in the battle stunningly late, and if he manages to keep this relatively close he will really come to regret not having launched his race months earlier. It takes time to organize a statewide primary battle against as established an incumbent as Lautenberg.

Original Post: The last results thread of the primary season will, appropriately enough, be devoted less to raw results than to superdelegate endorsements. Polls close at 9pm and 10pm ET in Montana and South Dakota and given the pace at which superdelegates are endorsing, it is possible that Obama will clinch the nomination before polls close in either of those states. Polls have also closed in Alabama and New Jersey, which are holding some contested primaries today, so we shall soon know whether Frank Lautenberg survived the last-minute primary challenge mounted by Rep. Andrews.

For now, here are some guidelines of what to watch for tonight.

Election Night guidelines: Obama will reach 2,118

2008-06-03T19:44:00.007-04:00

As had been predicted for weeks, June 3rd marked the beginning of a superdelegate tsunami in favor of Barack Obama. I have lost count of the day's endorsements, but they haven't stopped since this morning and they have included prominent figures including former President Jimmy Carter, Rep. Clyburn, Debbie Dingell of Michigan (along with at least one other super from the state), Gov. Bresden of Tennessee (along with two other Tennessee Democrats), three supers from Delaware, Rep. Moore from Kansas, two supers from Massachusetts, Rep. Farr from California, a state official from Mississippi, a state Rep. from New Hampshire, and others. In addition, a couple of superdelegates who were supporting Clinton announced they were now endorsing Barack Obama, including DC's Ben Johnson, California's Kamil Hasan and, very importantly, Rep. Maxine Walters, one of Hillary's most important left-wing and African-American supporters.

All of these endorsements have put Obama a few delegates away from the magic mark of 2,118 and he is now sure of crossing that number in the next few hours just from the primaries of Montana and South Dakota, and even if he loses those states. The rapidity of the superdelegate flow in his favor leaves very few options to Hillary Clinton as it confirms that Obama will not only cross the threshold but he will do so by building a substantial margin, negating the only routes Clinton would have had going forward, as I explained this morning.

We will now wait to see tonight's results and whether Clinton can pull an upset and finish the race on a high note (though Obama is certainly favored in both of today's primaries). Surprisingly winning either could get Clinton some superdelegates, as 5 Montana superdelegates (including 2 Senators and the governor) and at least one South Dakota superdelegate (Sen. Johnson) will endorse their state's winner. We will also wait and see what Obama and Clinton will say in their speeches, whether he will confidently proclaim victory or try and leave her some space and whether she will bow out tonight and defiantly vow to survive a few more days. And McCain will also give a speech tonight, taking advantage of the last day of primary season to try and claim his share of the spotlight.

We will also be watching contested congressional primaries, including two crucial Senate contests: In New Mexico, Steve Pearce and Heather Wilson are engaged in a brutal battle to become the GOP's senatorial nominee, which means that one of these major Republican politician will see his or her career interrupted in the coming hours. In New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg is favored to win the Democratic primary against the challenge of Rep. Andrews who is contesting the leadership of a 91-years old Senator (note that there is slight hypocrisy in the Democrats' hitting McCain's age but officially supporting the candidacy of an incumbent 20 years McCain's senior).

In House races, meanwhile, the general election field will be set in some contests that have been confusing over the past few months as candidates have withdrawn, gotten back in, and as some contested primaries will be settled. This includes NM-01 and NM-02 (the first being the more obviously competitive), CA-04 (where GOP moderates and conservatives are waging a brutal war), AL-02 and AL-05 (both open seats held by the GOP and Democrats respectively), NJ-03 and NJ-07 (two open seats held by Republicans) and finally IA-03, where a progressive challenger is trying to unseat a more moderate Democratic incumbent.

Obama, general election polls and the vote of registered Democrats

2008-06-03T14:55:00.003-04:00

The most common reaction to polls showing Obama posting weak numbers in a poll and particularly among registered Democrats is the assertion that the problem will get resolved by itself once Obama secures the nomination. This is an assumption that Kos systematically and unproblematically posits, dismissing most poor poll results with the insistence that Obama cannot but shoot up among registered Democrats; for instance in this post in which he discusses a Kansas poll, Kos holds that, "If you take Obama's Democratic performance and match it to McCain's (81-16)..."

While it is certain that Obama will significantly improve his numbers as the party unifies around him and do so in all voting groups (particularly registered Democrats), saying that the entirety of his weakness in Massachusetts polls or among registered Democrats is due to the primary season and that it will just go away when Clinton drops out is too hasty a conclusion. Obama will probably get a large boost when Clinton drops out (we will monitor that in the next few weeks), but we will have to see whether the boost lasts and whether it gets the Illinois Senator to his full potential among groups Democrats ought to do well in.

For one, the same polls show Clinton is stronger among registered Democrats, though she typically fares worse among independents (we know there are a lot of Obama supporters who don't think warmly of Clinton right now). The two candidates are not symmetric in their weakness, suggesting that the issue is not the party's polarization but that Obama and Clinton each have constituencies among which they struggle; there is no reason to think party unity will resolve this situation. It explains why Clinton is relatively stronger in states like Ohio and Florida and why Obama is stronger in states in the Northwest and the Mountain West.

Second, as long as Obama has a consistent weakness in the Democratic primary with blue-collar white voters, there is nothing surprising in the fact that he is weak among registered Democrats in countless polls. In Kentucky, where Obama suffered a drubbing in the primary, a SUSA general election poll found McCain winning the vote of registered Democrats. Party unity or not, states at the center of the Appalachia region -- West Virginia and Kentucky -- seem lost for sure for Obama. He will have much more of an opening to woo blue-collar voters in other states like Ohio or in the Mountain West but These are, after all, the very voters that have been willing to bolt from the Democratic Party in past elections; even if Obama was not the Democratic nominee, McCain's appeal to conservative Democrats and to independents would have made them open to crossing-over to the GOP.

This is not to say that Obama cannot unify the party and gain as high numbers among registered Democrats as he ought to have, but I am simply trying to suggest that we cannot simply assume that he will do so once the primaries are over. Whether Obama succeeds in polling stronger number among registered Democrats will be key to his chances in the fall. Given how dismal Bush's approval ratings are and the coming multi-million campaign to link McCain to the incumbent president, I believe odds are that he will -- but it will require a concerted effort.

In fact, it might very well be that strong support among registered Democrats is all Obama needs. All evidence points to the Democratic Party being very energized and to the Republican base being low on energy. Very importantly, Democrats are building an advantage in registration and party identification that by itself makes them the favorite to November. The 50-state primary has led to the registration of hundreds of thousands of new Democratic voters, while Republicans cannot say the same thing. These shifts are exemplified by SUSA's polls, as the partisan breakdown of the polls is systematically much more favorable to Democrats than the 2004 exit polls. Though SUSA might be overstating the change, there is no doubt that the ground has shifted.

In other words, Obama has less of a need to appeal to independents and to Republicans than Democratic nominees in the past few cycles. As long as he can hold his own among independents, Obama can build a majority by gaining the strong support among registered Democrats, which would includes -- though is not limited to -- outreach to supporters of Hillary Clinton. While there are segments of the registered Democratic population that are probably lost to Obama (most notably in Appalachia and in states like West Virginia and Kentucky), constituencies like the union vote and non-Appalachia blue collar Democrats will be key to his chances.

In brief, what we are talking about when looking at whether Obama will solidify the registered Democratic base is whether he will win the presidency, which is one more obvious reason to remember that there is no reason to believe that Obama will get as high a level of support from his party as McCain will get from his, nor does he necessarily need to. But it will be very important to keep an eye on the proportion of registered Democrats that support Obama in polls in the coming months, for any upward movement could put him in a formidable position.

It's the last voting day: What's next? (Updated: AP hints at concession tonight, CNN disagrees)

2008-06-03T08:23:00.009-04:00

Welcome to the last presidential voting day until November 4th. The last presidential primary is upon us, and yet all eyes are fixed on New York, not on South Dakota and Montana. There have been no Zogby tracking polls, no wall-to-wall CNN coverage from Helena or Rapid City. Instead, every single one of Hillary Clinton's movements has been scrutinized for clues as to her plans: Will she drop out tonight? Will she give an uncommitted speech and drop out in the coming days once Obama reaches 2,118 delegates? Or is her campaign serious about its repeated threats to continue their quest all the way to the Denver convention?

There no longer is an obvious route for her campaign to take. For the past three months, Clinton had been avoiding the pressure to drop out by claiming she had to stay in until every voter was able to vote and she kept herself busy by campaigning full time, traveling to states that were holding primaries (even Puerto Rico last week-end).

After tonight, she can continue her quest for the nomination, but with what rationale? In a statement yesterday, Clinton laid out the case for her candidacy:

Tomorrow is the last day of the primaries and the beginning of a new phase in the campaign. After South Dakota and Montana vote I will lead in the popular vote and Senator Obama will lead in the delegate count. The voters will have voted and so the decision will fall to the delegates empowered to vote at the Democratic Convention. I will be spending the coming days making my case to those delegates.

Clinton is trying to put herself on par with Obama, as if both had won one of the counts, putting them on equal footing. But the popular vote argument is a difficult one for her to make as she would have been in a stronger position had she surpassed Obama with a count that includes all the caucus states. Instead, the best count in which Clinton is ahead is one that includes Michigan and grants the uncommitted to Obama but does not include estimates for four caucus states that have not released raw numbers. Note that these numbers could change again tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign will try to make it easier for Clinton to take her decision by ensuring that the third option no longer be on the table once Hillary, Bill and her team meet to discuss the end game. They do not want to appear to be pressuring her to drop out, but they are working overtime to ensure that enough superdelegates endorse them from this afternoon to tomorrow evening for the threshold to be crossed sometime soon. And there are many reports circulating that dozens of superdelegates -- particularly House members but perhaps even Senators, as Ken Salazar and Tom Harkin (both undeclared right now) are pressuring their colleagues -- will rally behind the Illinois Senator starting tonight.

In other words, Obama is likely to surpass 2,118 in the coming days -- and probably open up a substantial margin. The question then for Clinton is no longer to justify to superdelegates why they should endorse her (and thus have a reason to stay in the race) but justify why she is staying in the race after Obama has clinched a majority of delegates.

Her first rationale is Michigan, which does remain on the table, but that would only give Hillary so many delegates. And remember that her statement after the Rules & Bylaws meeting appeared to suggest that she would not push for a full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations, concentrating instead only on the allocation of Michigan delegates. Second, her claim that superdelegates can change their mind offers her an argument that is technically true, though it is difficult to see why supers would cross back to the Clinton camp once Obama is declared the winner both by his own campaign and by the media.

She can still travel around the country, but what would she be campaigning for? Is she supposed to pretend like she's concentrating on the general election and hold events in the fall's battleground states? Should she try and put pressure on uncommitted delegates by traveling to their district?

Thus, Clinton will be in an even more difficult position than she has been these past few weeks once Obama substantially crosses 2,118, as that would remove the two arguments Clinton could have to stay in the race beyond that point, superdelegates changing their minds and the Michigan delegation. Perhaps the Clinton campaign can hope that two giant upsets tonight in SD and MT would give pause to the superdelegates, but those two states are not big enough to shift numbers much.

Of course, the Clinton campaign probably feels frustrated that it has done so well in so many states since the beginning of March without it having changed anything to the equation. But her challenge had become clear as soon as the dust settled on Obama's February streak. She needed to make something happen and she had no room for a single error. Her victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania were not big enough to satisfy the former condition, and her stumble in North Carolina was all Obama needed to wrap this up.

Update: Well, it looks like there is less suspense about Clinton's plans than expected, as the AP is reporting that Clinton will concede that Obama has enough delegates to win the nomination in her speech tonight (presumably under the condition that Obama lives up to his favorite status in SD and MT?). The WaPo reports that five Montana superdelegates, including the governor and the two senators, will endorse the winner of their state's primary as soon as it is called, confirming that we are likely to see a lot of endorsements starting tonight (Politico suggests as many as 28 look set to endorse by the time Obama speaks tonight) and Terry McAuliffe said today that, as soon as Obama gets a majority of delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

But CNN is reporting that the Clinton campaign is denying the AP report and says they have no plan to concede the delegate race tonight. It indeed seems likely that such plans would be set in stone before it becomes clear whether Obama will reach 2,118 today. In any case, all this talk confirms that Clinton is unlikely to try to hard once her rival reaches that number and clues of a Clinton concession tonight or at least in the coming days are accumulating.

Down-the-ballot: Graves continues gay-baiting, Dole and Udall leading

2008-06-02T19:46:00.007-04:00

The race in Missouri's 6th congressional district has become heated surprisingly early. Two weeks after he first aired an ad attacking his opponent's "San Fransisco values" and featuring disco dancing, Sam Graves is at it again, hitting Kay Barnes with an ad linking her to San Fransisco values for the second time. Accusing Barnes of supporting the gay agenda by using colorful pictures (whose production looks rather amateurish), the ad once again juxtaposes the video of a (San Fransisco?) party with footage of Graves walking down a suburban street with his wife and children:

For Graves to air a second ad so soon after the first despite the controversy and the strongly-worded response Barnes unleashed suggests that his campaign has at least some indication that the ad is working or that it is generating talk beneficial to the GOP. As Barnes is the former Mayor of Kansas City, tarnishing her image in the rural parts of the district could be good enough for Republicans to retain this seat.

The rest of the day's congressional news is polling-based, starting with PPP's latest release from North Carolina:

In the Senate race, Elizabeth Dole has stopped the bleeding and regained minimal ground, as she is ahead 47% to 39% versus 48% to 43% in the previous poll.
In the gubernatorial race, Beverly Perdue is barely ahead of Charlotte Mayor McCrory, 43% to 39%, in what is shaping to be one of the few competitive governor's contests of the year.

Despite the small uptick, Dole remains vulnerable as she leads by single-digits and under 50%. More importantly, the race has now caught the DSCC's attention and Democrats know they have the potential to stun Republicans in this state, guaranteeing that they will show attention and resources to Hagan's campaign. However, this poll also points out to the advantage of incumbency and being a better-funded candidate, as Dole has been airing her first ads of the cycle over the past few weeks and the adblitz might be helping her stop Hagan's momentum.

Meanwhile, SUSA released a poll from New Mexico's Senate race that confirms that this is one of the strongest pick-up opportunities for Democrats:

Tom Udall defeats Heather Wilson 60% to 36% and similarly crushes Steve Pearce 61% to 35%. He has been leading by such margins for months now.
In the primary that is taking place tomorrow, it is a fight to the finish between the two Republicans, with Wilson at 47% and Pearce at 48%.

It's hard to believe that one of those major New Mexico figures will have his or her political career ended tomorrow, when New Mexico Republicans go to the polls to select their nominee and put an end to a very hard-fought and at times brutal race. It's even harder to believe that both GOP House members gave up their seats to run for a Senate seat in which they are trailing so badly. More on tomorrow's primaries tomorrow night.

Finally, we also got two House polls today, an exciting development given those tend to be more rare. Both surveys are internal polls taken for the Democratic candidate, so take them with the appropriate grain of salt:

In CA-04, a Benenson poll finds toss-up contests in a Republican stronghold that is now an open seat, as Charlie Brown narrowly edges two Republicans, 38% to 34% against Dough Ose and 42% to 40% and Tom McClintock.

In IL-11, another GOP-held open seat that Democrats are looking to pick-up, an Anzalone-Litz poll released by the Halvorson campaign shows her to be leading 43% to 32% against Martin Ozlinga despite the presence of a green party candidate that gets 6% of the vote.

IL-11 is one of the Democrats' strongest pick-up opportunities, as the GOP had to settle on Ozlinga after their nominee dropped out after the primary and after a slate of state Senators still refused to jump in the race. Halvorson is one of the DCCC's strongest recruits and that she is so far ahead with a third-party candidate polling so strongly should comfort Democrats. In CA-04, meanwhile, Brown was favored to win the race as long as Rep. Doolittle, hit by corruption scandals, was in the race. But the district is very Republican, and Brown has a tougher shot at the open seat and at getting from 38% and 42% to a majority of the vote. McClintock and Ose are hitting at each other in an ideologically split primary, whose nastiness is one important ray of hope for the Brown campaign.

Monday polls: The Barr effect and the difference between the Northeast and the Northwest

2008-06-02T17:36:00.007-04:00

There will be a lot more discussion of the general election map in the coming days, as the primary season wraps to a close. For now, we get a few interesting state polls, including our first look at the potential Barr effect. While Georgia is the Southern state in which the former congressman and current Libertarian candidate should have the most impact, PPP released a poll of North Carolina in which it included Barr's name:

Barr gets 6% of the vote in both match-ups and helps Democrats draw close to John McCain, as Barack Obama trails 43% to 40% and Hillary Clinton is behind 39% to 34%.
Note that it is rare to have the match-up including Clinton have such a higher proportion of undecided voters.

In 2004, Ralph Nader was not always included in polls but he ended up being a non-factor anyway, as voters who might have been hesitating between the Democratic Party and Nader remembered the lesson of 2000; also, Nader was not running as the Green Party's candidate so his spot was not guaranteed on state ballots. Will this year be different? Third-party candidates included on the ballot sometimes tend to appear stronger than they actually are (remember Rasmussen's strange poll that showed Stephen Colbert at 13%?), but there is no question that Bob Barr polling anywhere near 5% would make it very difficult for McCain to hold on to a number of states, as Barr would pull from disaffected Republicans who would be choosing between him and their party's nominee.

Complicating the picture for Republicans is the fact that the Libertarian Party has an automatic spot on the ballot in most states, so there is very little room for the GOP to maneuver and keep the former Republican congressman off the ballot, as Democrats did to Ralph Nader in 2004. PPP is the first pollster to include Barr in its poll but it would be good to have more match-ups try his name if he has the potential of being a disruptive force.

The second interesting poll of the day comes to us from Connecticut, where Rasmussen finds a close presidential race:

Obama is only ahead of McCain 47% to 44% while Clinton is leading 48% to 42%.

Even more than fellow Tri-State Area state New Jersey, Connecticut could surprise us this year by hosting a competitive race. It is no secret that McCain believes he can appeal to independent voters and plans to campaign accordingly. Connecticut should be a good target for him as it is is much less of an automatic Democratic state than people think. Kerry won by 10% in 2004, and McCain will probably point to Lieberman's victory in 2006 as evidence of what he could accomplish. But ultimately, it would be a huge surprise to have any of the solid Kerry states shift this year given how toxic the national environment has become for the GOP since then.

Finally, SUSA released three general election polls from states that Democrats won in both 2000 and 2004, albeit not without trembling:

In Minnesota, Obama is leading by a narrow 47% to 42%. McCain leads in a number of match-ups that include vice-presidential candidates, by as much as 8% if he selects the state's governor Pawlenty.

In Washington, McCain is crushed 52% to 36%. The best he can muster is trailing by 5% if he selectes Romney and Obama selects Hagel.

In Oregon, Obama also dominates, ahead of McCain 49% to 39%.

Washington and Oregon have long been two of the states in which Obama has polled the most strongly in the general election. Just as he is looking in the direction of the Northeast, McCain is also determined to put the two relatively swing states of the Northwest in play (Oregon and Washington). But the Western independents have become one of Obama's strongest constituencies, so much so that it appears that the Illinois Senator could be competitive in a number of Mountain West states. Unlike Northeastern independents among which McCain has strong appeal (see New Hampshire), Washington and to a lesser extent Oregon are clearly starting out in Obama's camp.

The end game: Primary season ends tomorrow

2008-06-02T13:51:00.005-04:00

For those who have moved on from the Democratic primary, it's easy to forget that tomorrow is the last primary day as South Dakota and Montana go to the polls. The Obama campaign is working overtime to convince superdelegates to rally around him in the coming days for the Illinois Senator to reach the magic number of 2,118 and claim the nomination.

Before we get there, however, we have to get through two more primaries and new polls today suggest that those might not be as much of formalities as we expected. Obama is heavily favored to win both South Dakota and Montana but two new ARG polls tell a different story:

In Montana, a state with 16 delegates, Obama is barely ahead 48% to 44%. The two are tied among registered Democrats and Obama gets his advantage from independents.

In South Dakota, a state with 15 delegates, ARG finds Clinton trouncing Obama 60% to 34%.

Whatever tomorrow's results, it is unlikely they will have a big impact on the nomination and even on what superdelegates think. The two states combined offer 31 delegates and the popular vote should not switch dramatically because of tomorrow's result as there should not be that many voters. However, even a single victory would allow Clinton to score a very rare upset. When is the last time a candidate benefited from a surprising victory? We have to go back to February, when few people were expecting that big a margin for Obama in Maine and Wisconsin and his victories in Delaware and Connecticut on February 5th were surprising. Overall, it is telling of how significant a lead Obama built in February that Clinton's 30%+ wins in WV, KY and Puerto Rico coupled with a suggestion of a coming upset could look so irrelevant to the nomination quest.

Should Clinton have a good night tomorrow, it could also impact her thinking process about whether she ought to withdraw from the race. Her campaign has sent conflicting signs in the past few days. First, Clinton has stated that she had not lost hope of convincing superdelegates that have already declared for Obama to change their mind as they are not pledged to any candidate even after they declared; Terry McAuliffe suggested that he was "hearing things." This is an essential argument if Clinton wants to justify her staying in the race past once Obama passes 2,118. Second, the campaign has kept the door open to contesting the legitimacy of the Michigan seating and the RBC's decision which they are suggesting they might take all the way to the convention.

On the other hand, there have been insistent suggestions that Clinton is looking to suspend her campaign this week, perhaps even endorsing Obama as early as this Friday. The Obama campaign is already in discussion with Clinton staffers about integrating them to his team, and Ben Smith suggests that Clinton's announcement could occur as early as tomorrow. Indeed, he notes that Clinton is organizing her election night party in New York City in a larger-than-expected facility to which she has invited her top donors, which could signal something a bit more significant than expected. Also, Marc Ambinder reports that Clinton staffers are being told to return their receipts by the end of this week, another sign that the campaign is preparing for the end.

If the superdelegate tsunami that will start once the primary season is over is as huge as Obama is hoping for, it would make it impossible for Hillary to remain in the race. There is only so many declared superdelegates she can hope to switch and a more satisfactory seating of the Michigan delegation would only net her so many additional votes. CNN reports that most of the 17 remaining uncommitted Senators will endorse Obama this week, after the end of voting, though Harry Reid should not do so. Note that Clinton won the support of two supers today (one from Louisiana and one from New York) while Obama was endorsed by four who count as three (as there are two from Michigan, apart from one from CT and one from VA).

In retrospect, the Democratic primaries have been very predictable, with most of the results since early February determined by demographic factors more than anything else. But Clinton's intentions have always been much harder to understand and even harder to predict, making it that much more difficult to foresee what will happen in the coming days. But there is no question that most people in the Democratic universe are now looking to put a close to the primary and they will do everything they can to bring an end to the Clinton-Obama storyline starting tomorrow night. If Florida and Michigan were holding re-votes tomorrow as once seemed very possible, June 3rd would be a much more climactic day and one in which Clinton would actually have a plausible path to save herself. But now even an unexpected Clinton triumph tomorrow should not change the race's closing dynamic.

Sunday polls: Shifts in the partisan make-up, and unlikely states to host tight races

2008-06-01T21:44:00.004-04:00

Today's three presidential surveys come from states that are deemed unlikely to host competitive races but where these polls find some tighter-than-expected results. First and foremost comes Nebraska, a Western state which Bush had no trouble winning 2:1 in 2004 but which Barack Obama might have different thoughts about:

SUSA finds McCain to be leading 49% to 40%, quite a dramatic drop for the Republican from past results.
Very importantly, SUSA shows tight races in the 1st and 2nd congressional district. In the first, McCain edges Obama 44% to 43%. In the second, McCain is on top 48% to 43%. In the third, McCain is leading 57% to 33%.

Nebraska allocates 3 of its 5 electoral voters by district, and this is not the first poll to suggest that Obama might have a good shot at winning the first or second congressional districts, thereby complicating even further our electoral college calculations (by the way, expect the year's first electoral college ratings to be posted in a few days). This is also a sign of trouble for McCain in the Mountain West, as a number of states that are usually not even mentioned at the presidential level could host competitive races this year.

One note, however, about SUSA's series of presidential polls. SUSA's samples are consistently much more Democratic than the 2004 exit polls indicated. This is the case in this Nebraska poll, as the partisan breakdown is 44% Republicans and 38% Democrats while the 2004 exit poll found that 53% of voters were Republicans and 24% Democrats. This is not to say that SUSA's polls are too skewed towards Obama, for there is no doubt that the proportion of self-identified Democrats has considerably risen since the last presidential election and that there is a considerable enthusiasm gap between the two parties, making it credible that the partisan breakdown of this general election will be much more favorable for Obama than the one in 2004.

The fact that SUSA is registering this swing this consistently is amazing news for Obama's chances, for it is hard to see how he could lose the election if there anywhere near the 20% shift that this poll is suggesting. But whether SUSA is registering too much of a swing is open to debate, and it is indeed hard to imagine that there is this much of a change in partisan identification. Other polls are not necessarily finding this dramatic of shifts and it is important to keep in mind that SUSA's assumptions about turnout model, while they could be perfectly right, appear to be leading to results more favorable to Obama.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen released two general election polls of its own:

First, it found a single-digit race in Louisiana, where McCain leads Obama 50% to 41% and Clinton 47% to 40%. McCain's favorability rating is superiot to Obama's, 55% to 45%.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts looks Democratic as Obama leads McCain 51% to 38% and Clinton crushes him 60% to 30%.

Louisiana's numbers aren't surprising in the sense that the state used to be a battleground, with Bush prevailing over Al Gore by 8% in 2000. But the state has increasingly trended Republican since then, with Bush increasing his winning margin to 15% in 2004. Louisiana should not be the first Southern state to fall if Obama manages to make inroads in the region.

Massachusetts, meanwhile, has become somewhat of a puzzle: Why is Obama struggling to live up to the state's Democratic strength? While a 13% margin is certainly decent, it is underwhelming, especially when we consider that Rasmussen has consistently shown Clinton performing better here, suggesting that Obama is having trouble to catch on. More troubling have been SUSA's surveys, which have repeatedly shown Obama struggling in Massachusetts. The latest, released late April, showed Obama 2% ahead and that was actually an improvement from the March survey that had the two candidates tied.