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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday polls: Preparing for May 20th, and new results from Alaska and Maine's Senate races

The political world's attention has turned away from the Democratic primaries -- to the great frustration of the 5 states and territories that have not gotten a chance to vote. So close to mattering, Kentucky and Oregon will still decide the conditions in which the Democratic candidates finish the race, how much talk there is of Obama's general election vulnerabilities and also -- and this could obviously prove important -- whether Clinton is at all in a position to drag this thing to the convention. Two new polls from ARG suggest Clinton could have a very good day on May 20th, when Kentucky and Oregon hold their primaries:

• In Oregon, ARG finds Obama to be ahead only 50% to 45%.
  
• Oregon's primary is entirely mail-in and 58% of respondents said they had already turned in their ballot. Among those, Clinton and Obama are tied at 49%. Note that this is the second poll in which Clinton is tied with Obama among this group of voters but trailing overall (SUSA was the first a few days ago) suggesting the Obama camp might be demobilizing.

• Meanwhile, ARG shows Clinton crushing Obama 65% to 29% in Kentucky, including 73% of white voters. Note that Edwards is once again on the ballot here so we will see if he can repeat his West Virginia exploits.

In the list of "what if"s that must be haunting the Clinton campaign is something they had no control over and that no one really thought would matter until the morning of February 6th -- what if West Virginia and Kentucky were scheduled to vote in the latter half of February instead of, say, Maryland and Louisiana. Or Virginia and Wisconsin. Would Obama have built the same unstoppable momentum, putting Clinton in an untenable position in the run-up to March 4th? The quickness with which the race went from "this is a pure toss-up" on February 6th to "is there any path for Clinton to win the nomination" on February 13th was one of the most remarkable stretches of time of this entire campaign.

Meanwhile, general election polls were released today:

• First, a Strategic Vision poll from Georgia shows McCain leading Obama by a 54% to 40%.

This is not as huge a margin as Republicans can hope, but it's hard to see a path for Obama to make this state competitive for now, despite talk of that in some Democratic circles. Georgia has been one of the states that has been trending the most Republican in the past few years. It was the only state where Republicans got close to winning a Dem-held seat in 2006 (not one, but two!) and consider that this same Strategic Vision poll shows that the leading Democrat in the senatorial primary is someone who professes to have voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004... Also:

• A Rasmussen poll from Kansas shows McCain not trembling against either Democrat in this deep red state. He leads Obama 55% to 34% and Clinton 53% to 39%.
  

• A Rasmussen poll from Maine shows both Democrats leading McCain 51% to 38%, a good margin in a sometimes-tight state where a close victory would mean the loss of an electoral vote.
  

• Also, a Rasmussen poll from Washington confirms that WA will be less competitive this year than in 2000 (it wasn't at the front of Dem worries in 04). Obama leads 51% to 40%, Clinton 47% to 42% -- very similar margins to yesterday's SUSA poll.

• Finally, Alaska is the big surprise of the day as polls continue to show a single-digit general election race in what is supposed to be a Republican blowout. Research 2000 finds McCain leading 49% to 42% (Clinton trails 55% to 37%) and Rasmussen finds McCain leading 50% to 41% -- slightly larger but still underwhelming.
  

Alaska's tightness is the only shocking finding of these numbers, though McCain was certainly hoping to keep both Washington and Maine closer due to his appeal among independents. Maine has been a state where both Kerry and Gore have feared losing one of the districts and thus an electoral vote (ME and NE are the only non-winner-take-all states) and Democrats would not like to have to spend money to defend just one electoral vote come the fall campaign.

Finally, three down-the-ballot polls, both from Rasmussen, give something to spin to both parties:

• In Washington, Christine Gregoire has opened a surprising 52% to 41% lead against challenger Dino Rossi in the gubernatorial race. All polls of this race have shown a complete toss-up, with the animosity of the 2004 campaign translating to fixed positions in 2008. So until there is confirmation that there has been movement, consider this to be an outlier.

• Meanwhile, in Maine's Senate race, Rasmussen finds Susan Collins leading Tom Allen by 10 percent, 52% to 42%. This is down from a 16% lead last month.

• Finally, a new Rasmussen poll from Alaska shows Mark Begich leading Ted Stevens 47% to 45% -- a confirmation of the trouble Stevens is in after a Research 2000 poll showed him trailing by 5% earlier this week. The previous Rasmussen poll showed Stevens leading by 1%.
  

It's hard to know what to make of the Maine Senate race. This has been one of the Democrats' top target since the beginning. But a series of polls in the fall showing Collins with huge leads against Allen showed that this would not be a repeat of Rhode Island's 2006 race and that Collins had a much more solid base among independents and Democrats (a base any Republican Senator needs in Maine). In this poll, she gets 34% of Democrats and the two candidates are tied among independents. Also, this poll finds her with a 70% favorability rating, including 32% saying they have a very favorable impression of her. And Tom Allen is no unknown...

Yet, in a Democratic year in a Democratic state with a strong candidate, Democrats are not out of the running yet. A 10 percent lead is still not enough to make this a top-tier race, but it looks like the increase of partisanship could be making Collins more vulnerable, and the disparity between her favorability rating and her vote percentage is telling of the same difficulty that plagued Chaffee in Rhode Island. But she remains above 50 percent so we will wait for confirmation that there is any tightening at all here.

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.
  

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.

More polls, with a bunch of general election numbers

First, news came today that Obama has won his eleventh contest in a row, that of the Democrats Abroad, 66% to 33%. Obama narrowly won Mexico and Clinton narrowly won Israel; Western Europe went big for Obama. That gives Obama 2.5 delegates to Clinton's 2 (there were 9 delegates at stake, and they split 5-4, but each only has half-a-vote at the convention, thereby complicating matters with half delegates).

Meanwhile, ABC/Washington Post just came out with two polls from Ohio and Texas, confirming that the trendlines are not favoring Clinton at all and that Obama has a good chance of taking one -- if not both -- of these states, likely putting an end then to the Democratic contest. The fact that Texas in particular is so close (as it is in three polls released earlier this afternoon that I blogged about here) makes tonight's and next week's debates that much more important:

• In Texas, Clinton edges out Obama 48% to 47%. No internals are provided, but the WaPo does specify that Latinos are powering Clinton through here.
• In Ohio, Clinton stays more comfortably ahead, 50% to 43%.

These numbers speak for themselves, and my last post already delves into the primary and the dynamics in the run-up to March 4th; so I am going to jump straight to the latest general election numbers, for we have a few from different pollsters:

• Firs, a poll from New York. SUSA shows Clinton leading McCain by 11%, 52% to 41%; but it is Obama who fares best -- 57% to 36%. Most Northeast polls have usually shown Obama weaker than Clinton, and it is obviously a surprise to see the New York Senator being outperformed in her home state.
  


• In Pennsylvania, things are too close for comfort for both Democrats in a must-win state. That same Franklin & Marshall College survey that showed Clinton ahead of Obama in the primary this morning also released general election numbers: Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%, and McCain is edging out Obama 44% to 43%.

• SUSA also released a poll from Kansas that shows the state semi-competitive if Obama is the candidate, as he trails McCain 50% to 44%. Clinton is trounced, 59% to 35%. In SUSA's January Kansas poll, Clinton trailed by 13% and Obama by 14% -- so the two are stuck in very divergent trendlines.

• Next we have two polls from Rasmussen, the first of which comes from Virginia, where McCain holds off both Clinton (51% to 41%) and Obama (49% to 44%). SUSA's Virginia poll the other day had Obama slightly ahead.

• In Iowa, meanwhile, Obama is barely ahead, 44% to 41%, while Hillary is far behind, 47% to 37%.
  

• Finally, the Quinnipiac poll from New Jersey has both Democrats leading McCain in single-digits, 47% to 41% for Hillary, 46% to 39% for Obama.

This New Jersey poll is a perfect summary of the strength of the two candidates and what they each bring to a match-up against McCain. Clinton does better among Democrats (80-10, versus 72-15 for Obama); Obama does better among independents (leading 47-38, while Clinton trails 44-43) and African-Americans (87-6 versus 75-13 for Clinton).

Both candidates would have to work really hard to complete this coalition and to win the race, and their weakest points have interestingly enough been groups among which they are also weak in the primary, so this is not just a small problem they can expect to get resolved in a few days.

Also worth noting is how clearly Obama has gone up in the past month and Clinton has gone down, for example in the Kansas poll that has Obama gaining 7% and Clinton went down 14%. The same trend is obvious in many surveys and in national trackings like Rasmussen's daily numbers.

Catching up on some forgotten polls

With the January 19th craziness behind us, it's time to catch up on a few polls that were forgotten because of the focus on South Carolina and Nevada. And the first of these is a Rasmussen poll of California's GOP primary that was released mid-week (the Democratic numbers have already been blogged):

• McCain is ahead with 24%, followed by Romney's 17%, Huckabe's 13%, Thompson's 13% and Giuliani's 11%.

This is obviously very significant given that California will be the biggest prize on February 5th. Giuliani was long crushing the field here, and his collapse to fifth-place is that much more significant. The trouble for McCain's opponents is that numbers in states like California, Illinois and New York are likely to start reflecting national numbers given how huge those states are, and McCain has an unmistakable advantage there. And a win here would be particularly impressive for the Arizona Senator given that California is a closed primary (just like Florida), and McCain has not been doing that well among registered Republicans for now.

Second, we get a primary poll from Massachusetts by SUSA released on Thursday. MA is voting on February 5th and awards many delegates, particularly on the Democratic side, so these numbers are particularly important.

• On the GOP side, it looks like Romney will manage to hold on to his home-state. He defeats McCain 48% to 34%, with Giuliani at 8%.
• Among Democrats, Clinton crushes the field on the strength of a 42% lead among women (!). She gets 56% to Obama's 23% and Edwards's 14%.

Keep in mind that general election polls in MA have shown Romney much weaker than Giuliani and McCain, leading questions as to whether he would get any home-state effect in the GOP primary here. It would certainly be humiliating for him to lose the state. Second, MA is not generally considered to be in Clinton's home-state region (as NY, NJ and CT are), so she would certainly be able to spin a big victory here as a success and she would get a big delegate advantage if she keeps up this lead. But odds are the numbers will tighten at least to some degree when campaigning picks up.

Second, we have a wave of general elections polls released by SUSA on Friday of three states that went bif for Bush in 2000 and 2004. This time, Virginia and Kansas show more than competitive Democrats, though Alabama is firmly anchored in the Republican camp. But in all three polls, McCain runs about 15% stronger than his Republican rivals, underscoring just how consistently better the new GOP front-runner is polling in general election polls:

• Virginia looks like a very promising state for Democrats, and this poll has Clinton and Obama leading Giuliani (50-44 and 46-45 respectively), Romney (51-43 and 48-44) and Huckabee (50-43 and 49-44).
• And now take a look at McCain's numbers, who crushes Clinton 52% to 43% and Obama 52% to 40%.


• The scenario is the same in Kansas, a state Bush won by a massive 26%! Clinton manages to lead Giuliani 48% to 42% though Obama narrowly trails him 45% to 43%. The same is true against Huckabee (47-46 Clinton and 44-46 Obama), and both Democrats leadagainst Romney.
• But McCain handily defeats both Democrats 53% to 40% against Clinton and 53% to 39% against Obama. Notice that McCain's margins are still half of what Bush won by in 2004, but they have got to be disappointing for Democrats after seeing how weakly the other GOPers run.


• Alabama, another state Bush won by 26%, looks better for Republicans. Giuliani beats both Clinton and Obama (50-42 against Clinton and 55-34 against Obama), so does Romney (52-42 and 56-34) and Huckabee (55-40 and 59-32) But here again McCain manages to run even better: He defeats Clinton 58% to 37% and Obama63% to 29%. Notice also how much better than Obama Clinton is faring in this poll.

Two thoughts here. First, Democrats obviously need none of these states to win the 2008 elections. But if McCain becomes the GOP nominee, the polls that are going to come out from states like VA and KY are suddenly going to look much worse for Democrats than they have grown used to in the past few months, and Republicans will be able to be much less worried about losing red states like this. And while there is no telling whether McCain will prove to be the most electable of candidates down the line, the fact that he runs so much better so consistently says something.

Second, Hillary does run better in all three states than Barack. Keep in mind that this is a dynamic we are very much used to: Clinton almost always polls much better in red states like these and in the South, where she rallies much more of the Democratic base; Obama, on the other hand, tends to do better in other areas, especially out West.

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.

Morning polls, and lots of them: Colorado is a toss-up

• Colorado's Senate seat: Definitely a toss-up

We had seen some polls starting in September showing Mark Udall and Bob Shaffer in a toss-up in the open Colorado Senate seat; but most of them were internal polls, so I had left the race ranked "lean take-over" in my Senate rankings. But the latest poll from Rasmussen makes it more difficult to do so: Shaffer gets 42% and Udall 41%.

The SUSA poll from November 5th had Udall up 48% to 41% but there is now too much evidence that Bob Shaffer is keeping things much more competitive than expected in Colorado. Given what happened in 2006, where relatively unknown Democrat Ritter broke ahead of GOP star Beauprez early and never looked back, most people were expecting the same thing to happen here -- but it looks like the GOP is getting a break in the state and has a real chance of holding it. The question is: will they put choose to fight here when they might have so many other endangered seats to protect?

• Rasmussen polls Arizona, Colorado and Kansas's general election

Rasmussen also came out with some presidential polls from three states that Bush won comfortably in 2004. Republicans look to be ahead in all three -- though Clinton gets decent showings:

• In Colorado, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani beat Hillary Clinton 44% to 40%.
• Hillary is behind Mike Huckabee 42% to 41% but she leads Mitt Romney 43% to 40%.

• In Arizona, McCain's home state, he crushes all three Democrats: 57% to 34% against Clinton, 55% to 33% against Obama, and 56% to 30% against Edwards.
• Clinton is a bit stronger against other GOPers, though she still laggs behind: 47% to 38% against Giuliani, 45% to 41% against Romney.

• Finally, Kansas, a state Bush won with 62% in 2004. Clinton is distanced, but she keeps all Republicans but McCain who leads her 55% to 32%.
• Giuliani is ahead 49% to 36%, Romney 47% to 35%, and Huckabee 47% to 38%.

Another poll from Kansas released a week ago showed Democrats a bit more competitive, but the bottom line was the same: McCain crushed both Obama and Clinton, but Giuliani barely mustered a 5% lead against both -- and Clinton and Obama both led against Romney.

Clearly these 3 polls have no particular good news for Clinton, but they at least reinforce the fact that she would in no way be destroyed in those red states the NYT claims she would drown in.

• California's initiative could pass

SUSA asked voters in California whether all of CA's 55 votes should go to the winner, or whether they should be divided between different candidates in a new poll released yesterday. 35% said winner-take-all, and 47% answered divided. This certainly suggests that there is the potential that the electoral vote initiative prepared by GOP activists could pass.

But, the poll is also certainly not bad news for Democrats. SUSA did not ask this in the form of electoral intentions on an initiative; it was asked as a policy question. The "yes" has to be strongly above 50% from the start in polling of referendums for the initiative to be able to pass; that is even more true when the poll only asks it as a principle. When voters have to look at a specific proposal, the "no" goes up significantly. In 2005, California voters had to decide whether to give the redistricting process to independent judges rather than to the legislature. While most agreed with the principle, the measure was likely perceived to have the potential to hurt Democrats -- and it failed.

Presidential diary: Kansas swinging, and primaries becoming increasingly heated

• Even Kansas?

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

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

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

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

• Primary rhetoric heating up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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