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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Obama put away the Dukakis 5?

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

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

Today, two new Rasmussen polls confirm this trend:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday polls: A tough road ahead for Scott Kleeb

Once upon a time, Nebraska was among the most vulnerable Republican seats, ranked fourth on my October rankings. But that was before former Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey and Omaha mayor Mike Fahey announced they would not run for the seat left open by Chuck Hagel. Instead, in their primary last week Nebraska Democrats settled on Scott Kleeb, a young candidate who is very popular with the grassroots and the netroots. Republicans convinced their first choice, former Governor Mike Johanns, to jump in the race, setting up an unbalanced fight in which Republicans are heavily favored to prevail.

This is confirmed by a new Rasmussen poll that shows Johanns clearly ahead, Kleeb could give Republicans headaches if he really does everything right in the next few months:

• In the first poll from Nebraska's Senate race, Johanns leads Kleeb 55% to 40%.
• Johanns has a strong approval rating -- 65% (including 27% very favorable versus 56% for Kleeb (17% very favorable).

This does not warrant calling the race competitive, and Democrats have many opportunities that rank much higher, but I suspect the DCCC will at least push Johanns a little. When is the next time they will have a shot at this seat, after all? Kleeb's coming in at 40% is a strong enough showing to be built upon. After all, Kerry only got 33% in Nebraska in 2004. Rasmussen also polled the presidential race and found Obama surpassing Kerry's total as well:

• John McCain leads Obama 50% to 39%. Clinton trails by a larger 57% to 34%.
• McCain is viewed favorably by 61% of voters, Obama by 49% -- suggesting that he would have trouble getting that much closer to the Republican.

Nebraska is one of two states that awards its electoral votes by congressional districts. The second congressional district could potentially fall in the Democratic column if Obama holds his statewide margin around 11%. In 2004, Bush's winning margin in the second district was 11% smaller than his statewide lead.

Finally, the Minnesota Star Tribune released a new poll of the MN presidential race, bringing great news to Democrats in a state the GOP believes it can contest:

• Obama leads against McCain 51% to 38%. Clinton is ahead 49% to 40%.

Note that the two events Minnesota Republicans are counting on to wrestle this state away from the Democratic column -- McCain picking Governor Pawlenty as VP and the GOP convention in the Twin Cities -- will not impact the race for many more months. Until now, both sides have reason to believe in their chances in this state: MN has not voted for a Republican at the presidential level since 1972 but the state has becoming increasingly purple in the past few cycles, with Kerry and Gore posting two narrow victories.

Thursday polls: Indiana is a rare toss-up

We have seen remarkably few polls from Indiana so far but Research 2000 sought to correct that anomaly today by releasing a survey from the Hoosier state:

• Obama edges out Clinton 48% to 47%, a slight improvement from the previous R2000 poll that had Clinton leading by 3%.
• In the general election, McCain beats both Democrats but by margins that are narrower than those Bush enjoyed in 2000 and 2004. He leads Obama 51% to 43% and Clinton 52% to 41%.

• Update: Selzer & Co (which is I believe the same pollster that conducts the Des Moines Register poll) released another Indiana survey tonight, also showing Obama up within the margin of error, 41% to 38%.
• And in truly stunning general election numbers, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41% while Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%.
  

There have been few states in which there has been genuine uncertainty as to who would win rather than suspense about the margin. Texas was certainly the last state in which we went into Election Day with no favorite, but even there Clinton had gone into it the campaign as a favorite. This is why the next two week promise to be so much fun: There will be an actual measure by which to judge candidates' performances rather than the always subjective metric of what losing margin constitutes a moral victory! That said, Clinton will need more than just a narrow victory, but this initial indecisiveness suggests she might have trouble getting there.

As for the general election, it would certainly be very impressive for the Democratic nominee to even put Indiana in play, as the state has not voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964. That said, the Selzer poll does look like an outlier; there have been other general election polls from Indiana and none suggests that McCain is in that much danger here. Not to mention that if McCain is in danger of losing Indiana come November he probably will be in even worse shape in neighboring Midwestern states such as Iowa and Ohio -- not that the Obama campaign necessarily thinks it has a good chance of winning the latter. In a memo it distributed today to superdelegates and that the Washington Post obtained, the campaign lists what states Obama will concentrate on, classifying them as "big states," "traditional battlegrounds" and "new states" (CO and VA, but also TX, ND and MT). This was meant to be a memo about electability, which explains the inclusion of TX, ND and MT as there have been some polls lately in which Obama has been strong but not Clinton. But much more shocking is that Florida and Ohio have just been left out of the memo!

Two other general election surveys were released over the past two days by Rasmussen:

• In Minnesota, Obama crushes McCain 52% to 37%. Clinton is ahead by a much narrower 47% to 42%. This is a significant improvement for both Democrats; a month ago, Obama lead McCain by 4 and Clinton trailed by 1.

• In Nevada, however, another crucial swing state that is near the top of the Democrats' pick-up list, McCain is leading both Democrats, 48% to 43% against Obama and 48% to 38% against Clinton -- a rare case in which there the proportion of undecided voters is much higher in Hillary's match-up.
• Last month, both Democrats led McCain -- Obama by 4%, which was already a decline from the month before when Obama led by 12%.

Both of these states will be very disputed all the way to November. Minnesota is one of the blue states the GOP is assured of contesting; not only did it only narrowly reject Bush in 2004, but the GOP convention will be held in St. Paul this year and MN Governor Pawlenty is at the top of McCain's vice-presidential list. As for Nevada, Democrats know they must make inroads in the West if they want to survive the census reallocation that will have kicked in by the next presidential election. They have room to grow in the region and the Obama campaign clearly believes that the West (starting with Colorado) is fertile ground for the Illinois Senator.

Finally, Rasmussen also released a Senate poll from Minnesota:

• It shows Senator Norm Coleman leading Al Franken 50% to 43%. This is a second month in a row the Republican is improving his position since trailing 49-46 in February. Last month, Coleman was leading by 2%, 48-46.

This is the first time Coleman is reaching 50% in a Rasmussen poll, the vulnerability threshold no incumbent wants to fall under. Note that Franken's trajectory is going downward just as he looks to be securing the DFL's nomination. This race is probably the purest Senate toss-up along with Alaska's Senate race, as all other races more or less clearly lean towards the incumbent or challenging party. With Democrats unable to make much of a move right now in Maine and Oregon, Franken could benefit from more DSCC attention.

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.

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).

Monday general election polls: Obama improving his electability, but can he restore his Florida (and Michigan) image?

Three general election polls were released this afternoon by SUSA and Rasmussen, and they show varying electability results, with Obama polling much better in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Clinton looking stronger in Florida:

• In Minnesota, Rasmussen has McCain narrowly leading Clinton 49% to 43% but being trounced by Obama, 53% to 38%. Rasmussen provides an explanation: "McCain narrowly leads Clinton among unaffiliated voters but trails Obama by a two-to-one margin among those same voters."
• The previous poll from Minnesota was released two weeks ago by SUSA and had Clinton running 3 points better than Obama, though both Democrats trailed McCain (though they crushed all other Republicans).


• Rasmussen's Florida poll shows an inverse trend, with McCain leading Clinton 49% to 43% but crushing Obama by a much larger margin, 53% to 37%.
• Obama only gets 55% of the vote of registered Democrats in Florida, 31% of which cross-over to McCain.


• Finally, SUSA released a poll from Wisconsin which shows Obama running much better, trouncing McCain 52% to 42% while the Republican beats Clinton 49% to 42%.
• The previous poll from the state, also released by SUSA two weeks ago, showed Obama and Clinton both narrowly trailing McCain, so the trendlines are good for the Illinois Senator within the same polling group here.
  

The Minnesota and Wisconsin polls suggest that Obama has significantly improved his electability position over the past three weeks, and general election surveys have never been as consistent on whether Obama or Clinton are the strongest contender as they have been over the past month. This trend has been correlated with Obama's improving fortunes in the Democratic primary, as both him and McCain have been receiving favorable media coverage as the two candidates that are emerging from bruising nomination battles. This explains why Clinton's trendlines have been decreasing in the same polls as Obama's has been improving (for example in SUSA's Wisconsin poll where Clinton lost 4 points in two weeks and Obama gained 12. The same is true in Rasmussen's daily national tracking.)

And then there is Florida, the swingiest of swing states. While the Democratic nominee does not have to win this state to win the White House -- it's much more of a must-win for Republicans -- they cannot afford to not be competitive in the Sunshine state, as that would be considered an unmistakable sign of weakness and would concede a huge bunch of electoral votes (I was about to write delegates) to John McCain. Now, the fact that Obama only gets 55% of registered Democrats clearly implies that the controversy over the state's delegates to the DNC convention is hurting the party. Since Clinton is the candidate who is trying to seat those delegates now, Obama is perhaps starting to look bad in the eyes of Florida Democrats, some of whom might be blaming him for trying to thwart their representation.

Even if Hillary emerges as the nominee, she will have to deal with the ridiculous chaos that this situation has created in Florida and repair the rift between her party and Floridians. And consider how much worse the situation will become if the Florida delegates are not seated after all, and there are no contingents from that state during floor votes and cuts of the crowd?

In fact, the same problem holds for Democrats in Michigan, and while there hasn't been a poll taken in that state for a while, the DNC better find a way to resolve this situation without making the Democratic nominee sweat it too much, unless they want to lose the state's electoral votes as well. Michigan has been voting reliably Democratic in recent cycles, but always by surprisingly tight margins, and this is as much of a must-win for Democrats as a swing state can get.

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.

Presidential polls coming in from all directions

I have been posting more slowly than usual the past 24 hours, and as a result I am left with a deluge of great polls that I have not yet talked about. So here's my best comprehensive attempt to list this morning's polls -- and there are a lot to list since many institutes decided to just deliver lots of state numbers today.

• Gallup's national numbers

I had already posted the Republican primary numbers yesterday to indicate Huckabee's stalling. Gallup also came out with general election numbers and a survey from the Democratic primary nationally:

• Among Democrats, Clinton comes in at 45% followed by Obama at 27%and Edwards at 15%. This is an improvement for Hillary who stood at 39% two weeks ago.


• In the general election, Clinton and Obama win all 6 match-ups. But Barack is much stronger than Hillary.
• Against Giuliani, Clinton wins 49-48 and Obama 51-45. Against Huckabee, it's 53-44 Clinton and 53-42 Obama. And against Romney, it's 52-46 Clinton only, and 57-39 Obama.

I don't much faith in the electability difference here, as we could point to many polls that have the reverse effect nationally (though, as I have explained before, there is more consistency in finding Obama stronger in the West and Clinton in the South). The bottom line is that Democrats are starting ahead in this election, but cleraly not by huge margins.

• Rasmussen's flurry of state polls: OH, MO and NJ

Rasmussen came out with a few great presidential polls this morning:

• In Ohio, Republicans have leads but it's all within the margin of error.Giuliani is ahead of Clinton 44% to 42% and of Obama 43% to 40%. Clinton and Romney are tiedat 43%.
• But it's Huckabee who runs best: 44% to 40% against Hillary, and 45% to 39% against Obama.


• In Missouri, Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 45% to 39%, and Obama leads by 1%. But both Democrats lose against Huckabee, 45% to 43% for Clinton and 45% to 41% for Hillary.
• The explanation: Giuliani's favorability rating is the lowest of the four candidates, at 45%, under Clinton and Obama who are at 52 and 51%. What is happening to Rudy Giuliani in the heartland?


• Finally in New Jersey, Clinton is strong but Obama has difficulty putting Giuliani away: Clinton leads Rudy 50% to 37%, but Obama is statistically tied 42% to 41%. This is coherent with many other polls we have seen that Rudy would make the Tri-State area competitive if the Democratic candidate is not Clinton.
• Both candidates comfortably lead Huckabee: 49% to 30% for Obama and 51% to 34% for Clinton.

None of these numbers are very shocking: Missouri and Ohio are close, and New Jersey clearly leans Democratic. Missouri's slight Democratic lean in most polls taken this fall is probably the biggest surprise, as the GOP was boasting of having put the state away in past cycles -- clearly that is not the case, and Democrats have a great chance of winning the state. After all, they certainly have electoral college scenarios in which they get to a majority with Missouri and without Ohio.

• PPP: North Carolina is competitive

Public Policy Polling came out with a general election and a Senate poll out of North Carolina today:

• In the presidential race, John Edwards is the only Democrat tobeat Republicans in his home state: He beats Giuliani 48% to 43%, Huckabee 50% to 43%, and demolishes Romney 52% to 40%./li>/li>
• Giuliani leads Clinton 46% to 39% and Obama 46% to 43%. Huckabee leads Clinton 46% to 42% and Obama 47% to 42%. And Romney leads Clinton 46-42 and Obama 45-42%.

In the presidential race, Clinton had come in stronger in a previous North Carolina poll, but the Democrats are clearly running stronger in the South than they were 4 years ago. Edwards did not do much for Kerry in 2004, so it's interesting that polls are finding him this much stronger today.

• SUSA delivers too: IA and MN

SUSA also came out with two state polls from Iowa and from Minnesota:

• In Iowa, Clinton leads Giuliani 47% to 42%, Romney 48% to 45%. She's only up 46-45 against Huck and behind 46-45 against McCain.
• Obama runs much much better than Clinton: 55% to 36% against Rudy, 51-39 against Romney, 52-39 against Huck, and 51-39 against McCain.


• In Minnesota, it's Clinton who runs much much better: She demolishes Giuliani 53-40, Romney 58-36, Huck 53-41. Her lead is within single-digits only against McCain, but still far ahead 51% to 43%.
• Obama, on the other hand, trails Giuliani 48% to 44% and McCain 50% to 41%. He is timidly ahead of Romney 48% to 42% and Huck 47% to 42%.

This is the second month in a row that SUSA shows Obama miles ahead of Clinton in Iowa -- which could be significant given that it is the state in which Obama is the best known at this point after months of caucus campaigning. But by that token, Iowa has always been the state where Clinton has had the most difficulty in the primary campaign, which could also account for her weakness in the general election.

And don't forget that IA went red by a point or two in 04 and MN went blue by a small margin; but both states have long histories of being Democratic. So it looks like 2008 could see them both return solidly to the blue column -- though depending on the candidates the GOP can hope to make them competitive.

Sunday polls: Democrats strong in Minnesota and Missouri

• Minnesota stays blue

SUSA released a new poll from Minnesota today -- and the results are very similar to yesterday's survey from Wisconsin: The state clearly trends Democratic, Hillary Clinton is stronger than Barack Obama, and John McCain is the only Republican who wins a match-up:

• Clinton edges out John McCain by only 3 points, 48% to 45%. She leads Rudy Giuliani 49% to 43%, Romney 54% to 37%, and Huckabee 54% to 36%.
• Obama trails McCain 46% to 43%, ties Giuliani 44%, leads Romney 49% to 38%, and leads Huckabee 52% to 33%.

It is in many ways not a surprise that Wisconsin and Minnesota have similar results. Both are midwestern states with progressive roots that have gone very competitive in recent elections... and both turned more Democratic in 2006. Clearly, the Democratic nominee has an opportunity to put this sort of state away early instead of having to fight to keep them as Al Gore and John Kerry had to do.

It is also interesting to see that Rudy Giuliani would put Northeastern states (NJ, CT) in play, while McCain would put Midwestern states in play more than other candidates. Both have their own advantage electability-wise.

• Democrats stronger in Missouri

Research 2000 released a poll from Missouri today. And the top 3 Democrats lead all 12 of their match-ups against the 3 Republicans -- and here too, McCain is the strongest GOPer. And remember, this is a state Bush won twice, rather comfortably in 2004.

• Hillary Clinton crushes Rudy Giuliani 47% to 39%, Mitt Romney 47% to 38%, and Fred Thompson 46% to 38%. She also leads McCain, albeit by a smaller 46% to 41%.
• Obama leads 46% to 42% against Giuliani, 46% to 38% against Romney, 47% to 38% against Thompson. He does lead McCain by 6 points, though, 46% to 40%.
• Edwards leads Giuliani 47% to 40%, Romney 47% to 38%, Thompson 47% to 37%, and McCain 46% to 41%.
• It is worth noting that these results come despite Hillary Clinton's high unfavorables (47-48), while Obama stands at 45-31. The Republican numbers are bad (Giuliani is also 47-48), which seems to be a result of the voters souring on the GOP.

The primary numbers for the GOP are also very interesting. It would seem unimportant, given that MO is neither an early state nor one in which the campaign is particularly engaged, but this is precisely why the results are so valuable: Rudy Giuliani arrives on top with 24%, yes, but Mitt Romney is close behind at 17%, ahead of Thompson and McCain. Now, we are not used to seeing Romney second in states in which the campaign has not been engaged, since he has such lower name recognition. So the fact that he is tightening this thing up everywhere now is a sure sign that he has taken his appeal nationally. Hillary leads the Democratic primary 36% to 21%, with Edwards stronger than usual at 20%.

• Rasmussen has Obama slightly ahead

Rasmussen releases different national match-ups every so often. Today, it's Obama-McCain and Obama-Romney. The Illinois Senator leads both contests, the first 46% to 43% and the second 46% to 40%. This is a slight improvement, as he slightly trailed McCain a month ago -- but notice that Romney has been growing closer to other Republicans in these match-ups, whereas he was much weaker earlier in the year. He is apparently finally succeeding in becoming better known.