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

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.

McCain's map and the electoral college

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.

Poll update: When Wyoming becomes a (congressional) battleground

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Presidential polls: Obama weak in Florida, strong in CO, as Clinton posts surprising NC numbers

A lot of presidential polls to digest today, as SUSA, Rasmussen and two other polling groups released new match-ups for a total of 8 states with some surprises and some expected results. The most interesting come from the pair of Southern states that the Obama campaign believes it can put in play:

• In North Carolina, SUSA finds surprising results: Hillary Clinton is leading McCain 49% to 43%, while Obama is trailing 51% to 43%. As usual, Clinton's advantage is derived from women (she leads McCain by 19% while Obama trails by 1%) and by registered Democrat, among whom her lead is 20% superior to Obama's.

• In Virginia, a VCU Commonwealth poll shows that McCain is leading both Democrats, 44% to 36% against Obama and 47% to 38% against Clinton. One puzzling internal is that Obama only gets a 41% to 36% in Northern Virginia, a region he will have to win by a much bigger margin to make the state competitive.

With all the talk of Obama putting the Carolinas and Virginia (some even add other Southern states to the list) in play, it is easy to forget that until February Clinton polled systematically better than Obama in the South and in non-Western red states. This was true in Kentucky, surely, but also in states like Virginia. It is still surprising to see Clinton poll that much better than her rival in North Carolina, a state in which Obama trounced Hillary and a state which his campaign is prompt to put on the competitive list. There is no question that a race in single-digit is already a victory for Democrats, since they had difficulty reaching that point in 2004 even with that Edwards on the ticket; the same is true in Virginia. But to prevail in one or both of these states Obama will have to improve his showing among registered Democrats: They should be his base, but he often has trouble solidifying it.

Another important poll that was just released is Rasmussen's latest from Florida:

• McCain leads Obama handily, 50% to 40% (this is actually a 5% improvement for Obama). But he trails Clinton 47% to 41%.
  

Rasmussen's poll from Ohio found a very similar set of results a few days ago, prompting me to write early musings on Obama's electoral map and the fact that he appears constantly weak in Ohio and Florida polls. Whatever the reason -- McCain looks to be stronger than most Republicans among elderly, Hispanics and possibly Jewish voters while Obama has possible weaknesses among these groups -- Florida does look like one of the states where Clinton could have fared better, as Rasmussen's poll suggest and as the latest Quinnipiac poll confirmed (Clinton beat McCain by 8% while Obama trailed by 1%). This means that Obama will rely on an alternative electoral map, one based on states in which he appears stronger than Clinton, for instance Colorado:

• The latest Rasmussen poll from Colorado finds Obama besting McCain 48% to 42% while McCain beats Clinton 47% to 44%.
  

Colorado's 9 electoral votes are even more within reach considering that the Democratic convention will be held in Denver. Kerry got surprisingly close in 2004, and Obama strongly appeals to the Western independents whose support is key to changing the state's allegiance. If Democrats carry the state this year, Colorado will have gone through a very rapid switch from reliably red to blue state within 3 election cycles. And in other polling news:

• Missouri is another red state that will be very hotly contested in the coming months, certainly more than Kerry went for it in 2004. SUSA finds Clinton faring a bit better, besting McCain 48% to 46% while Obama narrowly trails 48% to 45%.
• The differential between the two Democrats is mainly due to the registered Democrats vote, as Clinton gets 82% to Obama's 72%.

• In the day's least interesting poll, Deseret confirms that McCain has no reason to worry about Utah's electoral votes. He leads 65% to 20% against Clinton and 62% to 27% against Obama.

Finally, SUSA released two polls from blue states testing potential veepstakes. I am not particularly interested in the VP match-ups in that most of the names have very low name recognition and the test is mostly a measure of that. There seems to be little question that John Edwards and Mike Huckabee help their party's nominees the most, but that is also a reflection on the other tested names not being very well known. So I am here only providing the hard matchup numbers:

• In Pennsylvania, Obama is ahead of McCain 48% to 40%. View more VP match-ups here, as I will only say that it is interesting that the inclusion of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell does not help the Democratic ticket at all.

• In California, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41%. View the numbers with VP match-ups here.
  

The first margin is strong for Obama, though there is no question that he would rather lead by a larger percentage in California to ensure that he will not have to spend a single minute or a single dime defending the country's largest state, and one without which no Democrat can reach the White House. Finally, Democracy Corps released a national poll that shows both Democrats leading McCain by 2 percent.

Same-sex marriage legalized in California

In a decision that will have obvious consequences on the presidential race, the California Supreme Court rejected state marriage laws as discriminatory, making California the second state in the country after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriages.

The ruling was closely divided, 4 votes to 3, but this is a moderately conservative court, dominated by Republican appointments (6 to 1). An appeal is expected to the federal Supreme Court but they have never taken up the issue of gay marriage and it is unlikely they will do so now. Thus there is nothing to stop licenses from being issued later this spring. Note that California already had a domestic partnership program that was among the most ambitious in the country, as it granted pretty much all marriage rights to gay couples.

Opponents are already gearing up for a showdown at the polls to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in November -- though even that will be too late to stop the marriages that will take place until then. A coalition of religious and conservative groups had already submitted a petition to place the issue on the fall ballot; the petition is being currently reviewed by the Secretary of State's office. 763,790 signatures out of 1,1 million have to be valid, and past rates of signature validity don't guarantee that this one will make it.

Predictably, Republican leaders are enraged against these "activist judges." Rep. Roy Blunt, who is high up in the GOP's House leadership, issued a statement lamenting that "the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people." He added that "these California values are not the values of the majority of the American people."

But the GOP is in a bind here. First, these California judges are confirmed by voters -- so they are dependent on the democratic process. Second, the California legislature twice passed a law legalizing gay marriage; twice Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill saying that the matter should be settled by the judiciary and that the matter was already making its way through the courts. That's not going to stop Republicans from denouncing the activist judges, but the fact that the state's Republican governor declined to listen to the legislature and asked the court to rules makes their argument weaker. To his credit, Schwarzenegger did not criticize today's decision and stated that, "As I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The presidential campaigns, meanwhile, have stayed largely silent on this issue today. Today's ruling brings back the debate over same-sex marriage in the political discussio; it had largely faded since 2004. That year, George Bush benefited from two factors: (1) Discussion of gay marriage made values and social issues crucial to the campaign and (2) a bunch of states passed constitutional amendments that Republicans helped put on the ballot to boost conservative turnout. It has been debated whether these referendums actually changed turnout rates and helped Bush that much, but there is no question that heavy discussion of those issues did not help John Kerry.

This year is likely to be different, however. For one, gay marriage is already less polarizing than it was 4 years ago. Arizona rejected a constitutional marriage amendment in 2006, South Dakota almost did the same. Schwarzenegger's opposition will make it even more difficult for conservatives to win the battle. It is true that anything that will drive conservatives to the polls will be welcome by McCain considering that his campaign is worried the most die-heart conservatives will be reluctant to support him, but I remain skeptical that this will impact the field of battle in California.

Second, gay marriage is unlikely to make that successful a comeback at the national level as well for the simple reason that John McCain is reluctant to campaign on any social issues, let alone gay marriage. If he rarely brought up abortion during the primary -- though this was the one issue on which he had the most conservative record, he is even less likely to campaign on gay marriage in the general. After all, he voted against the federal marriage amendment when it came up in the Senate a few years ago. Also, Democrats are much less shy about the issue than they were in 2004, when Kerry shockingly said that he would vote in favor of the Missouri anti-gay marriage amendment if he were a Missouri resident. Both Obama and Clinton are stronger on gay rights this time, testifying to the change of climate just in the past 4 years.

Update: It looks like the new conservative strategy is the constant deferral of the decision from the legislative to the judiciary power. Here is how the New York Times describes the dissenting opinion in today's ruling:

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, dissenting, said the majority had should have deferred to the state Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”

Given that the legislature had legalized gay marriage, bills that had been vetoed because the Republican governor said he wanted to defer to the state Supreme Court, it's hard to make any sense of Justice Baxter's prescription.

SUSA releases wave of general election polls, with both Democrats displaying their usual weaknesses

On March 19th and March 20th, SUSA released 16 general election polls that recorded public opinion in the aftermath of the Wright controversy; in many states, Obama was found to be plunging due to his continued weakness among registered Democrats and to the departure of independents and registered Republicans.

A month has passed, and SUSA released 14 general election polls from some crucial contests today; there is some good news for all candidates in these polls, but the first thing that jumps at me is the extent to which McCain is holding strong, putting a number of Democratic states in play. Obama leads McCain by single-digits in Massachusetts, New York, and California -- including a toss-up (once again) in Massachusetts.

The two Democrats are exhibiting their usual weaknesses that we notice in poll after poll. Obama has regained some of the ground he lost last month, but his at times stunning weakness among registered Democrats in places like Ohio and Missouri leaves him distanced by McCain (and Clinton). This is also also what is making states like MA and CA competitive. This weakness has been picked up over and over again by SUSA -- but also by other institutes (check the most recent Quinnipiac poll from FL, OH and PA with McCain picking-up a significant number of Dem votes when he faces Obama). However small this problem might seem, it is wrong to simply assume that registered Democrats will come home; the ease with which many Dems cross-over is exactly what Clinton is talking about when she questions Obama's electability and McCain has demonstrated his appeal among Democrats.

Meanwhile, Clinton has her own major problems. First, she comes in at dismally low number among African-American voters in most of these states. I do not always mention the results here since in many states the sample of black voters is too small to be statistically significant, but the trend is too consistent to not be revealing. In places like Virginia, Clinton cannot hope to remain competitive without rallying the African-American vote. Obama supporters, of course, contend that for Clinton to win the nomination would take such an ugly scenario that there is no way the New York Senator could regain the black vote. Second, Clinton does not as well as Obama among independents and registered Republicans in many states; in places like Oregon and Wisconsin, we have been seeing this trend for a while, as independent voters in a number of states (particularly in the West) seem to be among Clinton's harshest critics.

And here is the run-down of the numbers:

• The most important state polled by SUSA is undoubtedly Ohio, where Clinton opens up a very significant lead against McCain, 53% to 42%. But McCain leads Obama 47% to 45%. That's a 5% shift towards both Democrats compared to last month, when Obama trailed by 7%.
  
• Almost all the difference is due to registered Democrats, Obama carries 65%, Clinton 82%. Also, Obama loses the white vote by 12% while Clinton leads, though she underperforms among blacks (73%).

• In Missouri, Clinton edges McCain 48% to 47% but McCain comfortably is ahead of Obama, 50% to 42%. McCain gets a full 27% of the vote of registered Democrats when paired up against Obama... which accounts for his trailing the Republican despite performing better among independents. This is actually a 6% improvement for Obama, however, compared to last month.

• In Virginia, Obama performs better than Clinton but suffers from a significant decline: After tying McCain two straight months, he is now behind 52% to 44%. Clinton is crushed 55% to 39% -- she is also tied McCain last month. This is due to Clinton's dismal performance among blacks (60%) while Obama comes in much stronger among independents.
• Obama's decline in the past month is due to McCain's closing the margin among registered Democrats by 17%.

• In Kentucky, which is not supposed to be anywhere near the list of purple states, Clinton defies the odds by statistically tying McCain, 48% to 46%. She gets 73% of the Democratic vote. Obama trails 63% to 29% and loses the Democratic vote by a point.
  
• It's hard to believe, but that is actually an improvement: Obama lost the Democratic vote by 7% last month, at least suggesting that this is not a complete outlier.

• In New Mexico, McCain narrowly beats both Democrats: 49% to 46% against Clinton, 49% to 44% against Obama.
  
• The two Democrats are equally strong among Hispanics.
  

• In Minnesota, Obama leads McCain 49% to 43%; Clinton edges him 47% to 46%. That's a 7% improvement for the Illinois Senator.

• In Iowa, Obama polls much better -- as usual: He beats McCain 49% to 42%, while Clinton trails 48% to 42%. The difference comes from independents, among whom Clinton trails by 26%!

• In Oregon, another bluish swing state, Clinton and McCain are in a toss-up, 47% to 46%. Obama comes in much stronger, 51% to 42%. Here again, the difference comes from independents.

• In Wisconsin, one of the tightest states in the country, Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%. Obama edges McCain 49% to 44%. The difference is very clearly due to independent voters: Obama leads by 1%, Clinton trails by 17%.
  

The next category are staunchly blue states that are essential to a Democratic victory -- and there are signs of troubles for Democrats, particularly in case of an Obama candidacy. The Illinois Senator looks weak in three states that constitute much of the Democratic base:

• In Massachusetts, especially, poll after poll have shown Obama weak against McCain: This survey shows the Illinois Senator barely edging out the Republican, 48% to 46%. Clinton crushes McCain 56% to 41%. Most of the difference comes from registered Democrats: Obama gets 65%, and Clinton gets 84%. Believe it or not, this is actually a slight improvement for Obama, who was tied with McCain last month.
  

• In California, Clinton beats McCain 53% to 40%; but McCain keeps Obama in single-digits, 50% to 43%. The difference here is first among women (Clinton has a 18% lead, Obama 8%) and both Democrats and independents (McCain actually leads Obama by 2% among the latter group!). That's a 7% drop for Obama over the past month.
  

• In New York, the story is very similar: Clinton crushes McCain 55% to 39%, Obama is held to single-digits, 52% to 43%. Most of the difference comes from registered Democrats (McCain trails by 17% less). Obama already led by single-digits last month.
  

SUSA also released a few polls from red states that aren't competitive at all:

• In Alabama, McCain predictably crushes both Democrats. He beats Clinton 60% to 34% and Obama 64% to 32%. Only 65% of black voters vote for Clinton, while Obama gets only 15% of white voters.

• In Kansas, McCain beats Clinton 57% to 36% and Obama 54% to 37%. That's an improvement for the Republican against both Democrats.
  

Thursday polls: Are Democrats at risk in California?

Slow polling day today, as the bulk of the week's Pennsylvania polls were released earlier this week. That left the Thursday stage to Zogby, who released a poll from the Keystone state:

• Zogby shows a toss-up, with Clinton edging out Obama 45% to 44%. This makes Zogby only the second pollster with PPP to find this tight a race.
• In an interesting internal number, Obama is slightly ahead in union households. If he can hold on to that on April 22nd, it would be a great talking point for him to diffuse worries that he would be weak among blue collar voters.
  

We will naturally have to wait a few days for polls to start registering whatever impact yesterday's debate might have had on voters; in fact, Clinton's negative advertisement hitting Obama for his San Fransisco remarks only started airing at the beginning of this week, so the environment of the Pennsylvania campaign changed dramatically this week. That, too, can probably not yet be picked up by polls. It is of course unclear who all of this might help, but we will have to keep a close eye on poll trendlines in the next 5 days.

Meanwhile, two general election polls are of interest:

• In California, Rasmussen finds McCain competitive. He trails Obama 50% to 43% and Clinton 47% to 42%. Last month, McCain trailed Obama by 15% and Clinton by 7%.
• Obama at least benefits from a strong favorability rating (58%), whereas McCain at 48% and Clinton at 47% are weaker in this respect.

• In Colorado, a poll conducted by Republican polling firm TargetPoint Consulting shows McCain trouncing both Democrats, 51% to 39% against Obama and 52% to 40% against Clinton. I do not particularly trust this poll, and given its partisan nature take the results with caution (which also contained Senate numbers showing both candidates tied).

Colorado is an important state for Obama, one of the red states that is not traditionally at the forefront of Democratic preoccupations that the Illinois Senator thinks he can make competitive this year; the previous poll from the state (released by Rasmussen) shows him tied with McCain.

The worry for Democrats, of course, should come from California: They cannot afford to have this state even be competitive. Every day the Democratic nominee spends in California, every dollar that is spent on its expensive airwaves is that much less to go on the offensive in Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. A Democrat cannot enter the White House without California's 55 electoral votes, so McCain's staying in mid-single digits against both Democrats has to be a worrisome signs that the Arizona Senator has appeal on the coasts and appeal among Democratic-leaning independents who keep Democrats comfortably ahead in states like California.

General election polls: Obama strengthens his hand, Clinton struggles

A week ago, Barack Obama's poll numbers had undoubtedly plunged, as surveys were showing him weakening in primary and general election match-ups with remarkable consistency. But this was in the heat of the Wright controversy. Since then, Obama's speech helped the Senator stop the bleeding. But the question now is whether he has regained some of the lost ground.

Two primary polls released 48 hours ago suggested he was back to his pre-Wright form, jumping to a huge lead in North Carolina and looking up in Pennsylvania. Now, four general election polls released today show him posting the type of numbers he needs. In fact, it is Hillary Clinton who is weakening and looking in difficulty in all four polls. First, a national poll from NBC:

• Barack Obama is leading John McCain by a narrow 44% to 42% while the Republican edges out Clinton 46% to 44%.
• In the primary match-up, Obama and Clinton are tied at 45%.
• In a confirmation of yesterday's Gallup poll, NBC finds that about 20% of Obama and Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if their candidate did not win the nomination.

But the most interesting number from this poll is Hillary Clinton's favorability number: 37%! This is the lowest she has ever been in in an NBC poll since early 2001, two months after she left the White House. This includes a 12% drop among African Americans, who appear to be blaming her for the Wright scandal despite the fact that she did not say anything about it until 2 days ago. Obama's numbers, meanwhile, are slightly in decline but less dramatically so, though it is worth noting that Obama loses some ground among independents and Republicans.

Meanwhile, we also get three state polls this morning -- all from blue states that Kerry and Gore both carried:

• In California, a PPI poll shows that neither Democrats manage a double-digit lead against McCain. Obama leads 49% to 40% and Clinton is up by a much narrower 46% to 43%.

• In Connecticut, Quinnipiac released a survey showing Obama is leading 52% to 35%, including 45% to 38% among independents. Clinton only leads 45% to 42% because of a differential among independents: She trails 48% to 36%.
  

• In Oregon's Rasmussen poll, finally, Obama is also stronger (though this one is less surprising, considering WA and OR have always been two states in which Obama has looked better). He leads McCain 48% to 42% while Clinton trails 46% to 40%.

It is worth noting that it is not coastal blue states that will determine whether Obama has successfully turned the page of the Wright controversy, so these 3 state polls are maybe not the most useful in that direction. But they still suggest that McCain won't have that easy a time contesting a state like Connecticut in which the Republican is placing hopes. Oregon looks tight, but it has not been a reliably blue state in past cycles. This morning's most worrisome numbers for Democrats come from California. A single-digit lead is certainly not enough to keep McCain away from the state, and the last thing Democrats want is to have to play defense in their #1 must-win state.

SUSA complements primary polls with avalanche of general election surveys

• Primary polls have Clinton up in two key states
  

Two primary surveys released today point to Hillary Clinton's advantage in some upcoming states, including a surprisingly big lead in a state that is supposed to be closer:

• In Pennsylvania, Franklin & Marshall released a survey showing Clinton leading 51% to 35%. This is an improvement for the New York Senator, who led 44% to 32% in the group's previous poll.
• The favorability ratings of both candidates are also very instructive. In the past month, Obama has gone from 57-16 to 47-25, a significant plunge (and this is among Democratic voters only), while Clinton is still viewed favorably by 65% and unfavorably by 18%.

• In West Virginia, Rasmussen released a poll today showing Clinton up 2:1, 55% to 27%. West Virginia votes on May 13th.
  

Rasmussen's survey is the first poll we have seen from West Virginia, so it is clearly a relief for Hillary to see that she is so favored in the state, which was not necessarily a given. As for Pennsylvania, Clinton's has been steadily increasing her baseline double-digit lead since March 4th to the extent that a 16% lead almost looks disappointing for her right now.

• General election: McCain picks up ground but Obama holds his own
  

Following the string of 9 catastrophic general election polls released yesterday (including three from SUSA in OH, KY and MO), today's delivery of general election surveys is almost a relief for Democrats, as it can reassure them that they have yet to lose all the advantages they had amassed in the past few months. And SUSA followed up yesterday's releases with an avalanche of polls today, many of which were less dramatic for Obama.

We'll look more at the detail of the swing state surveys:

• In New Mexico, both Clinton and Obama lead McCain 51% to 45%. That's a six point improvement for Clinton in the past two weeks and a one point decline for Obama.
  
• Obama gets much more cross-over Republicans, Clinton more independents. And Clinton does better among Hispanics, 65% to Obama's 56%.

• Great number for Democrats in the traditionally red state of Virginia, where Obama edges McCain 48% to 47% and where Clinton ties him at 47%. That's a 10 point improvement for Clinton and a one point improvement for Obama over the past two weeks.
  
• Obama is slightly stronger than Clinton among independents and Republicans, and weaker among Democrats. Clinton is also weak among black voters (63% only, versus 84% for Obama).

• In Minnesota, Clinton leads McCain 49% to 46% but the Republican edges out Obama 47% to 46%. That's an 8 point decline for Obama and a 1 point decline for Clinton.

• In Iowa, it's the inverse: Obama leads McCain 50% to 44% but McCain leads Clinton 48% to 44%. That's a one point improvement for Clinton and a three point decline for Obama.
• The difference is among Republicans (Obama gets 14% and Clinton 5%) and among independents (Obama leads by 12, Clinton trails by 2).

• In Wisconsin, the race is also very tight: Clinton edges out McCain 45% to 44% and Obama beats him 48% to 44%. That's a 3% decline for Clinton and a 7% decline for Obama.
  
• There are here again noteworthy differences: Obama leads independents by 2% but Clinton trails by 19%. Clinton balances that by her strength among Democrats, 85% versus 74% for Obama.

• In Washington, Clinton is ahead 50% to 45% and Obama 52% to 41%. That's a significant improvement for Hillary who trailed in the state three weeks ago.
  

• In Oregon, Clinton leads 5o% to 44% and Obama 5o% to 41%. That's also a significant shift in Clinton's favor as she was led by 5% three weeks ago. Generally Clinton has had trouble in WA and OR, so it is good for her to be ahead in both.
  

• And then there is Massachusetts which is competitive even though it should not be: Clinton leads 55% to 42% and McCain manages the stunning feat of tying Obama at 47%. There have been many polls that have shown Obama in trouble in this blue state. Obama trails among independents and only gets 66% among Democrats in what represents a 7% decline for him in the past 2 weeks.
  
• We also got a MA poll from Rasmussen, pointing to a more positive picture for Dems: Clinton leads 54% to 35% and Obama 49% to 42%. Even that is too close for comfort for Obama.
  

We also got a number of polls from less competitive states:

• In California, Clinton is up 56% to 38% and Obama 54% to 40% -- that's a 3% improvement for Obama and 6% for Clinton, though she only gets 64% of black voters, while Obama is a bit weaker among both Democrats and Hispanics.
• In Alabama, McCain crushes Clinton 56% to 38% and Obama 62% to 35%, a 13% decline for Barack in 2 weeks. Obama gets 62% of Democrats, Clinton 64% of blacks.
• In Kansas, McCain leads Obama by only 51% to 39%. Clinton is trailing 55% to 36%.
• In New York, Obama is only up single-digits, 52% to 44% (a 6% decline). Clinton leads 54% to 41%.

The last poll I will cite is CBS's national poll that has Obama up 48% to 43% and Clinton up 46% to 44%. Worth noting that McCain was trailing by 12% against Obama last month, so this is actually a positive trendline for him -- though he clearly trails.

All candidates have good news in those polls: McCain is generally strengthening his position, Clinton is as well and while Obama is on the decline in most states he remains in a very strong position in a number of key contests (Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico, for example, all states won by Bush in 2004). Contrary to yesterday's 9 polls, these general election surveys point to are balancing from the polling excesses of the end of February: At the height of Obamania, Clinton was constantly distanced in polls and Obama was riding high. Now, the latter is back down to more normal levels and Clinton is back up to where she likely always truly was.

Friday polls: General election polls show McCain up in Ohio, down in California

For all the electability talk, the one state which will undoubtedly go from "lean Democrat" to "lean Republican" depending on the identity of the Democratic nominee is... Arkansas! Clinton would be favored to carry the state's 6 electoral votes, and Obama would start as the clear underdog. This is obviously due first and foremost to Clinton's home-state advantage, more than to her strength, but the importance of 6 electoral votes (and in an unlikely place like Arkansas) should not be understated. We all know where 6 electoral votes would have gotten Gore...

The University of Central Arkansas released a general poll yesterday that confirmed this disparity -- also observed in SUSA's survey last week:

• Clinton is leading McCain 51% to 36%, while McCain leads Obama 43% to 27%.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen released two surveys from the very crucial states of Ohio and California. After a string of Pennsylvania polls showing McCain leading Clinton and Obama, Democrats would have liked some good news out of Ohio, but it's not for today:

• McCain is leading both Democrats 46% to 40%. Obama is slightly stronger among men and Clinton among women.

• In California, at least, both Democrats are ahead but with differing margins: Clinton is leading by 7% only, 46% to 39%, while Obama gets more than double a lead: 53% to 38%.

In the day's last poll news, Gallup's tracking poll has both match-ups completely tied nationally... It can't get much tighter than that.

SUSA releases wave of competitive general election polls

SUSA released 8 general election polls today, getting it to a total of twelve within 3 days. First, they had shown Iowa and Virginia to be competitive, with Obama looking strong in the former and competitive in the latter, and Clinton struggling in both. In Kansas and New York, SUSA also found Obama running stronger than Clinton (surprisingly in New York), with McCain trailing both candidates in NY and leading them in KS.

Today's wave of polls offers a more complex picture of competitiveness and electability, with McCain competitive in unlikely places (Massachusetts, particularly against Obama for the second poll in a row) and struggling in others, and with Clinton pulling in stronger numbers than her rival more than we have been used to in recent weeks.

As you will see while going through these numbers, both Clinton and Obama have very clear groups among which they are stronger: Clinton outperforms Obama among women and Democrats; Obama among men, blacks and independents. And while one might think that it is more important for the nominee to appeal to independents than to Democrats, to whites than to black in order to win the swing states, that cannot get the Democratic Party very far: The base needs to be secured (and motivated). In Ohio, for example, Obama is stronger than Clinton among independents; but he is so much weaker among registered Dems than Clinton outperforms overall. The same is true in reverse for Clinton's relative weakness among black voters.

Democratic and African-American votes are usually taken for granted by the party's nominee, but it should not just be assumed that Obama and Clinton will post strong numbers come November. After all, John McCain's main asset is that he appeals to Democrats, after all; and while black voters are unlikely to go to McCain they could choose to not turn out, which could prove a very big problem. In other words, either Obama and Clinton would have a lot of work to do to secure the Democratic base, and McCain is well positioned to take advantage of their weaknesses.

And with that, let's look at the numbers:

• In Ohio, Clinton leads McCain 52% to 42%, while Obama is up 47% to 44%. The difference comes entirely from registered Democrats, which go 85-10 for Clinton but only 71-21 for Obama. Among independents, in fact, Obama is stronger even here, leading 50% to 36% versus 48% to 40% for Clinton.


• In Missouri, both Democrats are ahead: 51% to 44% for Clinton, 49% to 43% for Obama.


• In New Mexico, Clinton leads 50% to 45% and Obama does much better, 55% to 40%. This is due both to the male vote (Clinton is tied, Obama leads by 15) and to independents (Obama leads by 5, Clinton trails by 12).


• The numbers are almost the same in Minnesota, where Clinton leads 49% to 45% but Obama crushes McCain 55% to 40%. Obama runs 20% better among men, and he also does much better among independents.


• Oregon is another state in which Obama runs stronger, edging out McCain 48% to 47% while Clinton trails 49% to 41%. This is entirely due to the independent vote, which Obama wins 52% to 41% and Clinton trails 54% to 33%.


• The most surprising numbers come perhaps from Massachusetts, one of the country's bluest state in which McCain is very competitive, trailing 52% to 43% against Clinton and only 48% to 46% against Obama. In the last SUSA poll, McCain actually had a small lead against Obama, whose weakness is due to the female vote (+11 instead of +32 for Clinton).

• In California, neither Democrat has any trouble dismissing McCain: 58% to 35% for Hillary, 61% to 34% for Obama. The gender difference is astonishing: Clinton gets +39 among women and +6 among men; Obama gets +25 among men and +9 among women.

• Finally, in Alabama, McCain easily beats both Clinton (57% to 37%) and Obama (58% to 34%). Obama performs much better among blacks (87% against 69% for Clinton) but much weaker among whites (17% versus 26% for Clinton), in one of the only instances of such a racial divide.

Other than Massachusetts, there are no huge surprises in this group of polls, and we can expect the states we are used to thinking as tight to remain so in the coming months, including Ohio. If anything, the Democrats should be really happy about Missouri, a fairly large state in which they have been consistently competitive and which looks ripe for pick-up. The Democratic nominee can certainly hope to reach a majority by winning not a big Bush state like Florida and Ohio but putting together smaller ones, with Missouri and Virginia the obvious suspects at this point (as well as IA and NM, of course, but it is hard to think of those as red).

General election polls: McCain's electability still on display

Just when we think we've seen the extent of McCain's superior electability come November, here's a new wave of general election polls that looks even more surprising -- even showing McCain potentially winning... Massachusetts. First, here are the most recent national numbers of the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll:

• Clinton and Obama crush Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani with margins they have rarely approached but that are starting to look very common in most national polls released in the past month. Romney is defeated 50-39 (Clinton) and 46-35 (Obama), Giuliani is crushed 53-37 (Clinton) and 49-32 (Obama) and Huckabee is down 51-38 (Clinton) and 47-37 (Obama).
• But McCain runs much better: He trails Clinton 46-42 and is statistically tied with Obama 42-41 (it's unclear who gets 42, as the official version has two different set of numbers). Notice also that Clinton runs slightly better than Barack in this poll, counter to the CW of some that Obama is obviously more electable (polls are very inconsistent in showing which of the Democratic candidates would run stronger).

In a Rasmussen survey of the general election that was released today, John McCain trails both Hillary (47% to 45%) and Obama (46% to 41%). But it is in state polls that McCain's advantage is the most obvious. Consider this wave of SUSA polls from key general election states released over the week-end:

• In California, for example, Democrats do not tremble but McCain does cut Clinton and Obama's lead by half: Hillary leads the Trio of Giuliani, Huck and Romney with margins raging 29% and 36% and she holds off McCain by 19% (58-39). Obama, who has smaller leads against the trio ranging from 18% to 24% only leads McCain by 6%, 50-44.
• In New York, meanwhile, neither Clinton nor Obama have trouble sending Giuliani packing (by 21% and 14% respectively) and they poll even better against Huckabee and Romney. But McCain keeps Clinton at 53% to 40% and Obama falls under 50% in the Empire State, trailing 49% to 43%.
• The most shocking result comes to us from the Massachusetts poll, one of the bluest states in the nation. Romney makes very little inroads in his home-state, the one he governed for 4 years. He trails Clinton by 24% and Obama by 13%. The pair of Democrats perform much better against Giuliani and Huckabee (who trails by more than 30%). But look at McCain's results: He is behind only 4% against Clinton (49% to 45%) and he leads Barack Obama 50% to 45%. That's right, McCain manages a lead in what is arguably the country's most liberal state.

The Democrats obviously cannot afford to spend a single minute thinking about NY, CA and MA come the general election. With polls showing them competitive against the GOP in places like KS and VA the list thing they want is to be on the defense in some of their most important states. Notice also that Giuliani was the candidate proud of putting these kind of states in play for a long time, but that he is doing nothing for the Republican ticket.

Also, I think it is fair to conclude that Barack Obama runs significantly poorly in staunch blue states than Hillary Clinton, as he does in very red states (like Kansas and Virginia). He often looks more electable in states that are less partisan (such as Iowa), suggesting that Clinton rallies her base very effectively and Obama reaches to independents better -- and both are weak at what the other does well. And while it is important to be able to reach out and win purple states, it is also important to be able to expand the map and not have to play too much defense.

SUSA also released three polls from swing states which are even more indicative of McCain's strength and they also confirm that Obama looks better in purple states than he does in either blue or red states. Take a look at these set of numbers:

• In New Mexico, Clinton has slight leads against the trio (1% to 5% only), but she is demolished 51% to 42% by McCain. Obama's lead is larger against the trio (8% to 10%) but he trails by just as much against McCain, 50% to 41%.
• On to Wisconsin, one of the hottest states in both 2000 and 2004. Clinton leads from 4% against Huck to 8% against Rudy -- but she trails 49% to 45% against McCain. Obama leads 10% against Huck to 13% against Rudy -- but he trails 46% to 44% against McCain.
• Finally comes Minnesota, a slightly blue trending state that Clinton leads from 8% to 11% against the trio. She once again trails against McCain, however, 49% to 45%. Obama leads the trio 7% (against Huck) to 19% (against Romney) but he trails McCain by an even bigger margin, 49% to 42%. That's right, McCain runs 26% better than Romney.

6 polls, and McCain runs better than his rivals 6 times, and it's not close. We are talking about wild improvements here, in the 15%+ range. And he wins MN and NM convincingly, two states Democrats would need to do very well in to capture the White House.

3 polls from blue states, and Clinton hardly trembles. 3 polls from purple states, and Obama's margins are bigger -- but that goes both ways, as his floor is lower as well. That is both the strength and weakness of Obama in the general election. His supporters are more uncommitted, he is less well known so he can rise higher or fall lower. Clinton both has a low ceiling and high floor.

SUSA comes out with 7 general election polls: Dems strong in VA and KY, and McCain as solid as always

Everyone obsessively tries to compare the electability of the different Democratic candidates, which I've tried to argue over and over again is an absurd exercise because there is no coherent data. There are dozens of polls showing Hillary more competitive than Obama and vice-versa. The one thing that holds consistently is Clinton running better in the South/deep red states. Why is no one talking about electability in the GOP race? The data here is very consistent: McCain is the best Republican to save the GOP from an electoral disaster. That may not be true down the line, but since we're basing ourselves on current perception and current polls, most of them remarkably show McCain running stronger than the other GOPers.

Today's massive SUSA poll release is an ideal example. Apparently looking to release as many polls as is humanly possible before Christmas, SUSA came out with seven general election polls last night and this morning. The main lessons: Democrats (almost) sweep Virginia, remain competitive in Kentucky, but Obama would have trouble holding New York or Massachusetts against McCain or Giuliani, and McCain is (by far) the most competitive general election candidate.

First up then, Virginia -- which is probably the most interesting poll:

• Hillary Clinton demolishes all GOPers: 52% to 42%, Romney 53% to 40%, Huckabee 54% to 40%. McCain keeps it a toss-up, 48-46.
• It's closer with Obama, who beats Rudy 48-45, Romney 50-43 and Huckabee 51-42. But McCain comes out on top 50-44.

This confirms previous polls that have had Democrats leading in Virginia, and it is a marked improvement from SUSA's last poll from the state. Remember: No Democrat has won Virginia since 1964 -- though Kerry held Bush to 9% in 2004. And the state has 13 EVs. If Democrats get it and a state like Iowa, they wouldn't even need to win Florida or Ohio.

The second state which has had Democrats strong throughout the fall -- and surprisingly so, is Kentucky:

• McCain is the only candidate to beat Clinton, 50% to 44%.
• Clinton comes out on top against Giuliani 47-45, Romney 48-44 and Huckabee 47-46.
• Obama, however, is demolished by all Republicans: 50-40 against Rudy, 46-40 against Romney, 51-38 against Huck, and 53-35 against McCain.

Kentucky has been one of the states that has the most consistently shown a blue drift in presidential polls over the past few months -- in a state Bush won by 20 points in 2004. The previous poll from SUSA had Democrats a tiny bit stronger, but this survey can in no way be consider an outlier: Obama might be weak here, but Clinton's competitiveness shows Democrats have a huge opening here.

A lot of this is due to the local situation in Kentucky, which is more toxic for the GOP than in other places due to the ethical trouble the state party was in that led to the ouster last month of Governor Fletcher. However stunning it might be, Republicans will have to prepare for Kentucky and its eight electoral votes emerging as a very unlikely battleground state in 2008. (In case you're wondering, Kentucky and Virginia together would give Democrats a victory,if combined with all the Kerry states).

SUSA then has polls from three of the most reliable blue states in the country -- NY, CA and MA:

• In California, Democrats never tremble and have some massive leads. Clinton demolishes Rudy 58-36 and even McCain 57 to 38. Obamais a bit weaker but he stays within double-digits: McCain holds him 52-39, but Obama gets 56-36 against Giuliani.


• New York is a bit more interesting: Rudy Giuliani gets Clinton down to... 55% (to 40%) and locks Obama in a toss-up in his home state (48% to 46%). McCain is also very competitive against Obama: 47% to 43%, but stands no chance against Clinton: 57% to 37%.
• The Democrats demolish the two other GOPers: Clinton hits 60% and 59% against Romney and Huckabee, while Obama beats them both 54-36.


• Finally Massachusetts, where Clinton crushes Rudy 57-37, Romney 60-34, and Huck 63-30, but beats McCain only 53-43.
• Obama stays on top but sometimes with difficulty: He crushes Romney 55-36, Huck 60-28, but it's only 50-41 against Giuliani... and a 47-45 toss-up with McCain.

Don't forget that Massachusetts is the state of which Romney was governor -- so he has no excuse for his stunning weakness there. Clearly, McCain has the potential to put very blue states in play, which is supposed to be Rudy's central campaign argument. Why is no one pointing out how BS Rudy's electability appeal is when McCain does as well as him in New York -- Rudy's home state -- and up stages him in Massachusetts? It goes without saying, naturally, that no Democrat will be elected in 2008 without carrying New York (and certainly also Massachusetts). So however much Democrats stay in a great position now, they should be afraid of McCain.

And SUSA closes it off with two polls from red states: Alabama and Kansas. The previous polls from these states by SUSA had Clinton very very competitive in states that Bush won more than overwhelmingly. Democrats today stay competitive: the GOP has the upper-hand, but remember how less than red than normal these states are performing (Bush won Kansas with 62%

• First up, Alabama, where Clinton holds all GOPers to single-digits: 49% to 42% against Rudy, 49-44 versus Huck and 50-43 versus McCain. She forces Romney into a toss-up 46-45.
• Republicans perform better against Obama, who holds Romney in single digits 48-39 but is then crushed by the the three others -- 54-36 by McCain and 52-36 by Giuliani.


• In Kansas, Giuliani leads Clinton 51-39 and Obama 52-38. McCain does better, 58-35 against Clinton and 56-36 against Obama. Huckabee leads a bit more weakly, but it is Romney who has trouble: ahead of Clinton 49-43 and of Obama 44-43.

Democrats did better in last month's SUSA poll where they led four out of eight match-ups, but the bottom line is that McCain is the only candidate not massively under=performing on his party's strength.