Second electoral ratings: Five changes all favor Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lean McCain: Florida, North Carolina (42 EVs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of Campaign Diaries' electoral ratings:

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

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.

Poll roundup: Will there be a bouce?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential news: the FEC stand-off and the Missouri ID laws

Two non-campaign developments that occurred last night could have a major influence on the presidential race -- and neither storyline was expected to be resolved in this way.

FEC stand-off: Senate Democrats have been blocking the nomination of President Bush's nominee to the FEC, Hans von Spakovsky, because of his support for the Georgia redistricting plan and for restrictive ID laws. His nomination was stalled in the Senate, whose leadership refusing to hold a vote. As a result, the GOP refused to consider the Democratic nominees to the FEC either, leading to months-long stalemate in which the FEC has lacked a quorum to operate. And just like that, the agency meant to regulate election spending has been unable to operate since January 1st in an electoral year...

Yesterday, however, von Spakovsky withdrew his nomination, citing the financial strain on his family. This unexpected development makes it likely that Senate Democrats and the Administration will be able to resolve the stalemate and confirm enough nominees to allow the FEC to operate and get down to some urgent unresolved business.

This is both a huge relief for the McCain campaign and a potentially problematic development. First, McCain is planning on asking for public financing for the general election. The FEC needs to approve public financing requests, meaning that McCain could have been deprived of funds had the FEC stalemate not been resolved. Second, Democrats have been pressing the FEC to examine whether the McCain campaign is allowed to not take public financing in the primary given that it used the promise of these funds to secure grants from banks at the end of 2007 (more details about this controversy here).

Democrats have been filing complaints about this issue since February to no avail since the FEC cannot do anything but this issue would be examined quickly once the FEC reaches a quorum. If the commission rules against McCain, it would be a devastating blow to the GOP as McCain has already surpassed the totals he is allowed to spend under a public financing system -- which would create legal trouble and mean that he can spend no more until August. It might seem unlikely that the FEC would take such a meaningful decision, but consider that FEC Chairman David Mason wrote a letter to McCain back in February telling him that he is not allowed to withdraw from public financing just yet.

Since then, President Bush has withdrawn Mason's name from the list of nominees it was submitting to the Senate -- a transparently partisan move at a time the GOP is accusing the Democrats of injecting partisanship by holding back von Spakovsky's nomination.

Missouri ID law: The Missouri legislature was considering a bill that would require voters to prove not only their identity but their citizenship. No state has this restrictive a law but since Indiana's ID rules were approved by the Supreme Court last month many states are looking to toughen their laws even more. Designed to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, the Missouri law would have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters who do not have a passport and who would not be able to find a birth certificate that easily, as a much-discussed front-page article in the New York Times last week emphasized. Some estimations suggested that as many as a quarter of a million voters would not be able to participate. After all, a passport does cost a lot of money and many voters were born at a time and in places where birth certificates were not kept, not to mention that obtaining them is often an administrative hassle.

The exact repercussions of the bill had yet to be worked out -- would only newly registered voters have to submit these forms? would all voters have to go through it? would it apply to this election? -- but it was clear that under some of the more restrictive interpretations this could mean the sure loss of Missouri for Democrats in this year's general election, not to mention a few competitive House races in the state.

But the year's legislative session ended yesterday without time for the GOP to bring the bill to the Senate floor, which gurantees that this will not be applied to this year's election since it would have had to be approved by Missouri voters in an August referendum. While Republicans managed to pass a bill requiring proof of citizenship to get food stamps (which will be equally difficult for many legal residents and American citizens to meet), the voting ID law will not be applied for now -- a huge relief for Democratic efforts to put the Show Me State on the map in November.

Friday polls: Obama suffers WV blues, Cornyn struggles again

3 days after North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary Clinton is showing no sign of withdrawing from the race; no matter how low her chances to get the nomination (and Rasmussen has just announced that he will soon cease his tracking poll of the Democratic nomination race!), this means that we should pay attention to the upcoming primaries again. If Obama performs disastrously, it would put him on the defensive again in the final weeks of May, perhaps buying Clinton the time she needs to continue to June 3rd and embarrass the Illinois Senator.

This applies to Kentucky, of course, but also to West Virginia which votes in 4 days:

• A new ARG poll shows Clinton leading 66% to 23%. Obama fails to get 20% among white voters.
• An Orion Strategies poll with too large a margin an error finds a similar margin, with Clinton leading 63% to 23%.

We have long known that Obama's worst region was the Appalachians, as he lost by similar voting margins in the counties of Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina that border Kentucky and West Virginia; given the demographic determination of these elections, it doesn't appear there is much Obama will be able to do to avoid this large a defeat (to put things in perspective, only Arkansas has voted for Clinton by a bigger margin).

Meanwhile, we got a series of general election polls in the past two days. Keep those numbers in mind for they will serve to determine whether Obama gets a bump from his being proclaimed the presumptive nominee in the coming days and weeks:

• In Rasmussen's tracking, Obama leads McCain 47% to 44% (the first time he has led for consecutive days for two months) and Clinton leads 48% to 43%. In Gallup, Obama leads McCain by 1% and Clinton leads by 2%.

• UPDATE: How frustrating must today's Gallup numbers be for Hillary Clinton. Not only does Obama fail to pull away despite this being the third day after NC and IN, but Clinton has suddenly jumped up to a 48% to 44% lead against McCain (which I believe might be her biggest lead ever in Gallup tracking) while Obama leads 46% to 45%.
  

• A Rasmussen poll in Missouri, however, has McCain leading both Democrats. He has a 48% to 41% lead against Obama and 45% to 43% against Clinton. Last month, he led Obama by 12% and Clinton by 9% so this is actually quite an improvement for Democrats. Obama's favorability rating is only at 46% -- equal to Clinton's and much lower than McCain's.

• In Georgia, Rasmussen finds McCain comfortably leading both Democrats, 53% to 39% against Obama and 48% to 37% against Clinton.

• In Rasmussen's Wisconsin poll, McCain leads yet again -- this time in a blue state -- beating both Democrats 47% to 43%. This is a big boost for Clinton who led by 11% at the end of March. Obama's favorability rating -- at 51% -- is lower than McCain's (58%). Note that McCain's "very favorable" rating is much lower (only 14%), suggesting that his support is soft.

• A Research 2000 poll from Texas, meanwhile, does not confirm how tight Rasmussen had found the race last week (both Democrats within single-digits) but the race is not as much of a blowout as in past cycles: McCain leads Obama 52% to 39% and Clinton 53% to 38%.

• Finally, Hotline published its latest national poll and finds Clinton leading McCain 46% to 43% and Obama ahead 47% to 43%. McCain leads both Democrats by double-digits among independents, a troubling sign, but both Democrats have markedly improved their showing since the end of March when they both trailed. Proving how much McCain overperforms, Democrats lead the generic presidential ballot by 14% (15% among independens).
  

Democrats were used to leading Republican candidates in a whole list of red states back in 2007... until John McCain became the nominee. Trailing in both Wisconsin and Missouri is not a good place to start for Democrats considering they are supposed to be the heavy favorites to win this year's election. The question then is how these numbers will evolve in the coming weeks. Will Obama's becoming the presumptive nominee and the media's round of celebration boost his numbers, in a traditional post-victory popularity boost? Will Clinton's staying in the race blunt the impact of that?

Finally, a few very interesting down-the-ballot polls:

• Research 2000 polled the Texas Senate race and found a 47% to 43% lead for Senator Cornyn versus state Senator Noriega. Back in September, Cornyn was leading by 16%.
• This is the same margin of a Rasmussen poll released a few days ago.
  

• Meanwhile, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon is opening a large lead against both his Republican rivals for the open gubernatorial race. He is leading state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and congressman Kenny Hulshof 51% to 35%.
  

Both of these polls are great news for Democrats. Missouri is the most vulnerable gubernatorial seat and Nixon has basically been running since 2004. Governor Blunt's surprise retirement actually gave the GOP a bit more hope but it looks like Nixon could put this away quickly. As for Texas, the fact that two polls within one week show this tight a race is truly shocking and suggests that we were wrong to completely overlook this state in assessments of this year's Senate picture. Noriega always had the potential to make the race competitive but TX-Sen was a second-to-third tier race at best: Too big and conservative a state, too well-funded an incumbent, not a well-known enough challenger. We shall know in the coming weeks if the DSCC can count on expanding the map to the Lone Star State.

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.
  

Genearal election thoughts: The Democratic dilemma

As the primaries drag on, a question that has long been haunting Democratic operatives is how much will the Clinton-Obama showdown damage the party's eventual nominee. Will the candidate have time to repair the animosity within the party? And will the prolonged exposure (one might say monopoly) they have on political coverage right now (especially in a crucial swing state like Pennsylvania) help them build the infrastructure and support they will need in the fall or will it exasperate voters months before they are supposed to paying attention?

Gallup released a poll today that shows some worrisome news for both campaigns: 28% of Clinton supporters say they will vote McCain in November if Obama is the nominee, and 19% of Obama supporters say the same if Clinton is their party's candidate. While many people think that Obama supporters will be more bitter if the election is taken away from them, all the evidence for now confirms Gallup's finding to the contrary. Obama's weakness among Democrats in general election polls has been documented. But keep in mind that if Clinton wins the nomination she will probably have done so despite a pledged delegate lead for Obama -- and that could lead to many of his supporters being more bitter than they are now.

Leaving aside the question of who is better capable of unifying the party, it is clear that both candidates have a problem: 28% and 19% are both too high cross-over rates for either candidate to hope to be strong against McCain. Thankfully for Democrats, primary tensions tend to dissipate once nominations are over, and there is no reason to think that the cross-over numbers will be this high come September; but if the nomination fight continues all the way to August, all bets are off.

Clearly, however, Democratic voters are not ready to let the primaries end. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 22% of Democrats want Clinton to withdraw... the same exact proportion that want Obama to drop out. But Rasmussen's other poll for the day -- a general election poll from Missouri -- confirms that things are not looking up for Democrats right now:

• John McCain comfortably leads both potential opponents, 50% to 41% against Hillary and 53% to 38% against Obama.

Missouri might have been trending red in the past few cycles but 2006 showed that a Democrat can win and many polls taken in the past few months showed Democrats leading or at least very competitive in the state. This type of poll showing McCain jumping ahead in purple state Democrats were looking to put in play is not good news for Democrats.

Meanwhile, today's Rasmussen daily tracking shows McCain up double-digits nationally for the first time, leading Obama 51% to 41%. He is ahead of Clinton 50% to 43%.

So is there no reason to hope that a prolonged primary fight could be good for the party? There certainly is, and here is the evidence. I have long argued that a 6 week battle in Pennsylvania would help the Democratic nominee in the fall, first of all because he/she will build a network and increase the party's visibility. Now comes word that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of registered Democrats which has now reached an all-time record. More than 4 million Pennsylvanians are now Democrats, a 4% increase from last year's election, and this is directly correlated to the primary: The record was reached on the last day to change your party registration and vote in the April 22nd primary.

McCain rises and Obama plunges in series of 9 catastrophic polls for Dems

Rarely have I seen this consistent a turnaround in general election polls: In 9 general election polls released today, McCain is on the rise and Obama declines due to his (1) continued weakness among registered Democrats and (2) the departure of many cross-over Republicans and independents who had come to support his candidacy. Also, Clinton's position generally remains stable, suggesting that it is Obama who is weakening more than McCain who is improving.

Obama's plunge looks particularly vertiginous because of how high he was riding in the last two weeks of February, looking competitive in every poll and beating McCain in many reddish states; so some of the trendlines have to be taken with a grain of salt, since they follow an Obama progression. Also, it looked likely that Obama would not keep up his strong levels of support among registered Republicans and independents once the general election campaign began, the GOP nominee was chosen and the two sides became polarized. But the consistency of the numbers suggests that March belongs to McCain.

All the polls I am about to cite follow PPP's Florida release yesterday that showed McCain up 11% in Florida against Obama. Today, two polls from Ohio show the Arizona Senator strengthened in the red state that until recently looked the most promising for Democrats:

• SUSA shows Clinton leading McCain 50% to 44%, but McCain leads Obama 50% to 43%. Compared to the previous SUSA poll from late February, that's a 4% Clinton drop and a 17% Obama plunge.
• In a pattern that we will find in most of these polls, Obama is weak among registered Democrats (he gets 66% to Clinton's 80%) and Clinton is weak among blacks (64%). But the shift in numbers is due to independents deserting Obama (down from 60% to 45%) and Republicans moving home (the margin is 12% better for McCain).

• PPP's poll also brings good news for McCain, who trails Clinton only 45% to 44% but is ahead of Obama 49% to 41%.
• Here again, Clinton is very weak among blacks (47%) and Obama among registered Democrats (60%).
  

The same internals and trendlines can be found in other polls from other states:

• In Kentucky, SUSA finds McCain leading Clinton 53% to 43% and trouncing Obama 64% to 28%. In the past three weeks, Clinton has dropped by 1% and Obama by 15%.
• McCain actually wins among registered Democrats when paired up against Obama (48% to 41%); Clinton is up 60% to 31%. The gap among registered Republicans has increased by 18% -- with Obama down to 8%. Independents have shifted by 11%.

• In Missouri, McCain is leading Clinton 48% to 46% -- a 2% improvement for Clinton in the past 3 weeks. But Obama is trailing 53% to 39%, an 8% decline.
• Obama is winning only 62% of registered Democrats, versus 83% for Clinton. McCain has closed the gap by 17% among that group against Obama.

In all three of the SUSA polls (MO, OH and KY), Obama and Clinton are now running roughly even among registered Republicans and independents, and the difference in their showing is coming from registered Democrats. That suggests that Republicans are starting to look at Obama as an adversary, and no longer as the candidate who finally defeated a Clinton.

Furthermore, the fact that Clinton is weak among blacks but running so far ahead among registered Democrats confirms that it is white Democrats who are right now deserting the Obama, meaning that it is the racial controversies of the past week have taken a toll on him. This is not good news for the hope that the general election could be civil, for this will likely encourage Republicans to not shy away from racial attacks in the coming months. Whether or not Clinton was actually attempting to do that in the past 2 months, it did not work against the Illinois Senator in the primaries (where Democrats were voting, after all) -- which should give comfort to the Obama supporters.

There are more polls showing the same trendlines:

• In Colorado, Rasmussen released a new poll showing McCain gaining against both Democrats: Obama and McCain are tied at 46% (Obama led by 7% last month) and McCain leads Clinton 50% to 38% (he was up 6% last month).

• In New Hampshire, Rasmussen shows McCain edging out both Democrats, 46% to 43% against Obama and 47% to 41% against Clinton. A month ago, both Democrats led the Republican, +2 for Clinton and + 7 for Obama.
  

And add to this two national polls:

• Gallup's tracking poll finds McCain's posting his largest leads yet, 47% to 43% against Obama and 48% to 45% against Clinton.

• And Zogby's numbers are particularly depressing for Democrats, as McCain is leading against both Obama 46% to 40% and Clinton 48% to 40%. Last month, Zogby had Obama leading McCain 47% to 40% but McCain trouncing Clinton 50% to 38% (a slight improvement for Clinton, therefore).

The Rasmussen surveys as well as well as Gallup's tracking shows that Clinton is also losing ground against McCain, and while she on average declines much less than Obama the Democratic primaries is taking its toll on both Democrats. Clinton's numbers were disastrous throughout the last weeks of February, which also explains why she is not collapsing that much more.

These numbers should therefore pull Democrats in two direction in the primary context: On the one hand, they undercut Obama's electability argument and support Clinton's claim that there is just much less that could suddenly shift the election against her. On the other hand, the long primary is proving a huge boost for McCain -- an argument against extending the process further and against giving another chance to Clinton. Which argument is the most convincing?

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).

Wednesday polls: Obama polls well in general election match-ups, Dems have a shot at IL-14

• General election

Rasmussen released three state general election polls today, with Barack Obama polling much better than Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and Colorado, while the two are at the same position in Missouri:

• In Missouri, McCain leads Clinton by 1%, 43% to 42%. Against Obama, he is ahead by 2%, 42% to 40%.
• The Colorado numbers show some major discrepancy: McCain leads Clinton by double-digits, 49% to 35%, while Obama is ahead 46% to 37%.
• In New Hampshire, finally, Obama is ahead 49% to 36% against McCain, while Clinton only leads him 43% to 41%. This is entirely due to the male population, which favors Obama over Clinton by 18%, while the two run equally well among women.

Three things to point out from these numbers: (1) We are used to seeing Missouri numbers that are much more favorable to Dems, but that is because the numbers we usually looked at where the match-ups with Rudy Giuliani. SUSA's last Missouri poll, for example, showed Clinton and Obama leading Giuliani but trailing McCain. This trend will likely hold in other purlpish-red states like Virginia and Kentucky.

(2) I wrote in my last detailed discussion of electability that Obama polls better than Hillary in the West (I particularly had in mind Washington, Oregon, and Colorado) and Clinton polls better in the South and very red states (I had in mind Kentucky and Virginia), with the electability question more unclear in the rest of the country. This poll confirms that, and Colorado especially shows a gigantic advantage for Obama.

(3) This is the point in the election season that the good coverage McCain and Obama are having will impact their general election poll numbers, just as Kerry rose against Bush in the weeks after his primary victory. The latest Rasmussen tracking, for example, shows Obama gaining two points against McCain after the week-end, with Clinton losing two points. This opposite trend can clearly be attributed to their divergent fates and the kind of coverage they are getting. But this obviously comes at the worst time for Clinton, and allows Obama to step up an electability argument two weeks from March 4th and at a time they are trying to both court superdelegates.

• IL-14, special election
  

The special election in IL-14 to fill Dennis Hastert's House seat is scheduled for March 8th. Both parties selected their nominees for the special election on February 5th, with Jim Oberweis representing the GOP and Bill Foster the Democrats. Oberweis had lost a few GOP primaries before, so this is already an improvement for him.

You might remember that the timing of this election provoked some controversy, as Democrats were hoping that Hastert would resign in time to let the governor schedule the general election on February 5th and not the primary, in the hope that the high Super Tuesday turnout in Obama's home-state might help Democrats pick-up this usually reliably Republican seat and Hastert made sure to wait off on his resignation, reassuring the GOP about their prospects here.

But a new poll released today by the Foster campaign has this as a very tight race, with Oberweis up 45% to 43%. This is an internal poll so take it with a lot of caution, but it still underscores the tricky nature of any special election, low turnout affair where the most motivated party often wins (and this year that clearly seems to mean Democrats).

This is not the kind of seat Republicans want to be defending right now, as the NRCC is at a significant financial deficit. Democrats have been very effective at expanding the map, and while they fell short in OH-06 in December they forced the NRCC to spend a considerable amount of money. Will they make a similar play here? We will surely know in the coming weeks by keeping an eye on money spending in this race, and how much both parties are willing to spend.

More polls: Clinton and McCain rise nationally, but Nevada has tight races (plus g-e surveys with more good news for McCain)

Let's start by recognizing John McCain's incredibly strong poll numbers today. Combine this morning's poll diary with this one, and he leads in every single primary poll that has been released -- and there are six of them: He has big leads in two South Carolina polls, and is ahead in Michigan, in Nevada and in Florida (two polls there) -- and though some of these are by small margins he has barely campaigned at all in NV and FL for now. He is also surging in the national polls and looks very strong in the blue states of WA and OR in the general election (see below). It could all go very quickly if McCain wins Michigan tomorrow (and that's a big if; if Romney gets Michigan the GOP race could sink into further chaos).

And now let's see the details of those polls. First up, Nevada, which is the un-polled contest, the state that no pollster is delving into given that Nevada is holding caucuses, notoriously hard to survey (the only reason anyone tries Iowa is that there is a lot of previous experience in the state). But Research 2000 delved into it today and released the following survey:

• In the Democratic race, it's a three way tie: Barack Obama gets 32%, followed by Hillary Clinton at 30% and John Edwards at 27%.
• Among Republicans, it's 22% for McCain and 18% for Giuliani, followed by Huckabee at 16% and Romney at 15%.

There are two striking results in this poll. First, John Edwards is very much still in the race here, and you be sure that has much to do with the fact that this is a caucus. Though the big problem that Edwards is facing is that he has even less support from labor than he did in Iowa: The SEIU here is supporting Obama and so is the biggest labor group (the culinary workers' union).

The second striking result is Romney's coming in fourth. He is without a doubt the candidate who has spent the most resources and time in Nevada -- and he is likely to do so even more in the coming days now that he seems to have conceded South Carolina. The press seems to be treating Romney as the favorite in Nevada for that reason, but this poll suggests Romney does not have an advantage in these caucuses after all.

But as we said, look at the poll with a skeptical eye. The way pollsters can figure out who is a "likely voter" is by looking at whether they have caucuses before; but this is the first time Nevada has played a role like this in the nominating process, so most indicators that are available are muddied.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen released a primary poll from South Carolina in both parties:

• In the Republican primary, McCain is pulling ahead, now leading 28% to 19% for Huckabee and 17% for Romney. Thompson is at 16%, a 4% rise in a few days -- almost all of it at Huckabee's expense (remember that Fox debate last Thursday?). Rudy is only at 5%.
• In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton has cut the margin by more than half, trailing 38% to 33% "only" while she was down 12% last week. Obama is ahead by 23% among black voters and Clinton is up by 19% among white voters, with Edwards taking 31% of that group's vote, ahead of Obama as well -- which is further proof of how racialized the vote in this state is becoming. Note that this morning's PPP poll of SC showed no such tightening.
  

Clinton and McCain's rise in South Carolina are parallel to their surges in the latest national Gallup poll, that has McCain going up from 19% to 33% in a week, with Huckabee and Giuliani to 19% and 13% respectively. In the Democratic race, it was a 33-33 tie last week, with Edwards at 20%. Now, Clinton is ahead at 45% with Obama at 33% and Edwards at 13%. And before we dismiss national polls, don't forget that February 5th is pretty much a national primary day so these polls are going to become relevant very soon -- possibly for the first time in primary history.

Finally, SUSA released three general election polls today -- and they confirm that John McCain is the most electable of the Republicans, by far (just as in Saturday's CNN national poll that has McCain running about 15% better than his rivals):

• In Missouri, first, John McCain defeats Clinton 50% to 44% and crushes Obama 51% to 40%. Huckabee also does very well, edging out Clinton 47% to 45% and Obama 51% to 41%.
• Clinton and Obama both beat Giuliani (47-43 and 47-44) and Romney (49-42 and 48-43).


• Oregon is even more striking. Compare the domination of Clinton and Obama against Giuliani (52-39 and 56-35), Romney (54-38 and 57-34) and Huckabee (54-40 and 55-38) and the stunning strength McCain displays, beating Clinton 49-45 and tying Obama 47-47.


• Results in Washington are similar but less dramatic, though Clinton runs weaker than Obama. She loses 49-46 to McCain but Obama beats him 52-43. Neither trembles against Giuliani (51-38 and 57-35), Romney (54-38 and 63-32), and Huckabee (54-40 and 60-35).

Two observations on electability. First, among Democrats. As we have often noticed over the months, Clinton runs slightly better than her rival among traditionally red states and especially in the South, and while Missouri is not in the South it has trended Republican lately. On the other other, Obama is often found to poll better out West.

It is much easier to draw conclusions in the GOP race. McCain's strength is so consistent it is really difficult to doubt that he would be the strongest general election contender. What is striking is how well Huckabee runs in Missouri and how poorly he does in Washington and Oregon; not that it is very surprising given the difference in the reception Huckabee received in Iowa and New Hampshire. For now at least, Huckabee's base is the evangelical vote -- and that base is much stronger in the Midwest than in coastal states.

Yet more polls, as SUSA just keeps it coming

Today is poll-heavy, and my postings are reflecting that. Survey USA just keeps the polls coming today. It released surveys from Iowa and Minnesota this morning, and it now continued with Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin, all crucial swing states in any presidential race.

First up, Ohio, arguably the most important of purple states.

• Hillary Clinton demolishes her opponents, leading Giuliani 49% to 40%, Romney 51% to 40%, Huckabee 51% to 39%. But she ties McCain at 45%.
• Obama, however, runs poorly: He trails Giuliani 46% to 40% and McCain 47% to 38%. And barely musters a one point lead against Romney and Huckabee (43-42).

As always, it's important not to put to much in electability comparisons in the Democratic field, given that numbers are rarely consistent -- though McCain is almost always by far the strongest Republican. These numbers suggest that the state will likely be as tight as it was in 2008, especially when combined with this morning's Rasmussen Ohio poll which had a complete toss-up.

Next comes Wisconsin, one of the tightest races in both 2000 and 2004. And it leans slightly Democratic:

• Clinton beats Giuliani 45-42, Romney 47-42, Huckabee 49-40, but she is crushed by McCain 49-42.
• Obama does better, besting Giuliani 48-40, and McCain 46-44. He crushes Romney 53-35 and Huckabee 52-36.

At this point, we really have to admire not that McCain runs best among GOPers, but just how much better he runs. And with that we are off to Missouri, where SUSA confirms Rasmussen's numbers from today:

• Clinton is ahead of Rudy 49-43. She also leads McCain 50-46, Romney 51-41, but the race is tight against Huck 49-47.
• Obama actually trails Huckabee 47-45, though he wins his three other match-ups. 47-42 against Giuliani, 49-39 against Romney and 47-44 against McCain.

Surprisingly, Huckabee runs better than any other Republican here. Is that a reflection on his own popularity? Or, more likely given that he has low name recognition, are the other candidates just weighted down by their own unpopularity?

Also, Missouri does look to be one of the most promising 2004 red states for Democrats, as it is leaning in favor of Clinton and Obama pretty consistently at this point. With its 11 electoral votes, Missouri is clearly a major player, and it could very well tip the balance. While all eyes are on Ohio and Florida, Missouri could emerge as a key battleground.

• Down-the-ballot: NC-Sen and MO-GOV
  

Meanwhile, we also got some surveys form senatorial and gubernatorial races. In North Carolina, PPP contained senatorial numbers:

• In the Senate race, State Senator Kay Hagan trails Elizabeth Dole 51% to 39%. Banker Jim Neal is behind 52% to 37%.

Elizabeth Dole is clearly starting off favored, and she is above 50%; but leading unknown challengers by such margins will not reassure Republicans that she is safe, and Democrats might soon regret not having fielded a stronger candidate.

And in Missouri, we get confirmation that Governor Blunt is trailing Attorney General Nixon in his re-election race, 47% to 42%. Most polls are showing a tight race here with Nixon slightly ahead -- which explains why the race is ranked first in our latest Governor Rankings.

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.

Edwards hits Clinton's electability, while Clinton leads in Missouri

Electability has always been one of the main arguments of Barack Obama and John Edwards, who argue that Hillary Clinton is too polarizing and divisive to win the general election. Yesterday, the Edwards campaign launched yet another offensive on this theme. And Missouri state Senator Wes Shoemyer, an Edwards supporter, came out saying: "Sen. Clinton presents somewhat of a lightening rod effect that John does not bring with him to the state of Missouri. And I think that having that on the top of the ballot, we’ll move right down."

Very well, this is the standard argument. Clinton will concede purple states. Only, this argument will fail if polls consistently disprove it. Earlier this week, a poll found Clinton leading Giuliani in Kentucky. And today, a new SUSA poll has Clinton up big on all Republicans in... Missouri. Not the best way for Shoemyer to prove his point:

• Clinton leads Giuliani by a solid 50-43 margin.
• She beats Thompson (52-42), Romney (50-41) and Huckabee (51-40) by consistent margins, while she demolishes Ron Paul 54% to 32%.
• Just like in Kansas and in Ohio, the strongest Republican is John McCain -- who only leads 48% to 45%.
• The poll did not test Edwards and Obama.
  

This is a marked improvement for Clinton since last month's SUSA poll from Missouri, in which she lost against Giuliani and had small leads against the other candidates. Obama and Edwards both led all match-ups last month, so they would surely have strong leads here too. What is this improvement due to then? To Hillary's improved image, or to the deterioration of the Republican brand? Also, McCain's strength is a fascinating phenomenon -- the September wave of SUSA poll did not test McCain, so this is the fist time we are realizing just how much better he is running in most of the SUSA polls.