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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, four down-the-ballot polls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other major polls released today include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday polls: First VP tests, and Obama's big Oregon lead

The Democratic Party's unification process continued today. After Senator Byrd this morning, Warren Buffet endorsed Barack Obama; he had announced for a long time that he would not endorse before the end of the primaries and had made appearances with both candidates. Meanwhile, Politico reported that Patti Solis Doyle -- yes that Solis Doyle -- is in talks with the Obama campaign about joining their general election efforts; sure, she appears to be a long time friend of David Axelrod, but it is nonetheless a blow to Clinton that even the woman who coined the term "Hillaryland" is now preparing for her loss.

In other words, everyone but the Clinton campaign is acting like the primaries are over and that Obama has become the presumptive nominee. And that's exactly what makes tomorrow's Election Day -- and the two campaign's dual spin -- so surreal.

The most dramatic evidence of the shifting dynamics of the Clinton-Obama race was provided by Gallup's tracking poll where Obama suddenly and dramatically opened his biggest lead yet, forcing Clinton under the 40% bar for the first time. He is now ahead 55% to 39%. Ironically, Clinton progressed in the general election, now ahead of McCain by 4% while Obama is ahead by 1%. Meanwhile, three new primary polls show a much more comfortable Obama lead in Oregon than Suffolk implied this morning:

• SUSA shows Obama ahead 55% to 42% in Oregon. His lead comes entirely from a 28% lead among men, as the two are tied among women.

• PPP finds Obama to be ahead 56% to 38%. Obama is at 60% among those who have already voted.
  

• In Kentucky, SUSA confirms that Clinton will triumph. She is ahead 62% to 31% -- so Obama can expect to do much better than in West Virginia.
  

Don't forget that Oregon's voting is conducted entirely through mail, and voters have until tomorrow to return their ballots. So most of the votes are already in. Also, a huge victory in Oregon could not be enough for Obama to avoid the embarrassment of Wednesday morning headlines; Oregon voting stops at 11pm ET and while the state should be called fairly soon the size of Obama's victory could not be known until after press time. Also, Obama's speech in Iowa should come before counting starts in Oregon.

Also today, SUSA released a new poll of New Mexico testing potential vice-presidential match-ups! The numbers show a lot of discrepancy, way more than any vice-presidential pick would ever impact any ticket, and a lot of it is due to name recognition at this stage, but it is still a fun exercise:

• McCain and Obama are (conveniently) tied at 44% in a straight match-up. Obama gets 67% of the Democratic vote and only 51% of the Hispanic vote -- a very weak showing in a key constituency that Obama must do well in.
  
• Obama prevails when paired up with Edwards as he improves his share of the Dem vote: He leads McCain-Huckabee by 3, McCain-Romney by 6 and McCain-Pawlenty by 9 (Pawlenty suffers from an obvious lack of name recognition).
• But Democrats do badly with most other VP tickets: In the match-ups with Pawlently alone (useful to compare people with comparably low name ID), the GOP leads by 7 if Obama picks Sebelius, 4 if he picks Rendell.
  
• A very interesting lesson is what happens if Obama picks Republican Chuck Hagel, as his share of the Demcoratic vote drops dramatically. He only gets 52% (!) of the Democratic vote in a match-up with McCain-Pawlently, for instance. The parallel lesson is that McCain is a bit weaker if he picks Lieberman as his vice-president.
  

Finally, we also got a Senate poll today from Minnesota, in the race that has possibly been polled more than any other in the past few months:

• Senator Coleman is in single-digits but above 50 percent, leading Al Franken 51% to 44% in the Star Tribune poll.
  

The article emphasizes that Franken looks to have been hurt by the tax scandal that has engulfed his campaign recently. He should find a way to deal with it soon, because Coleman is a good enough politician that he will make sure to use it relentlessly in the coming months. There is no question that Franken looked much better in late February/March and that Coleman has been regaining strength ever since Franken looked to have closed in on his party's nod.

Saturday polls: (Tom) Udall coasts, and an opening in Kasnsas?

Rasmussen continues releasing polls at an accelerated rhythm, providing a useful picture of what the electoral map looks like 6 months from the election -- both at the presidential and senatorial level. Yesterday, they showed Senator Stevens struggling in Alaska, while Obama was surprisingly competitive there, being trounced in Kansas and Arkansas but putting Washington away. Today, new polls point to interesting results.

First, a general election poll from New Mexico suggests Democrats have an early edge in a state that narrowly went for Bush in 2004:

• Obama leads John McCain 50% to 41%, while Clinton leads 47% to 41%. This is a significant improvement for both Democrats over last month's numbers.
  
• Obama is also enjoying a superior favorable rating, 58% including 33% very favorable versus 50% including 14% very favorable for McCain.

While New Mexico represents only 5 electoral votes, both parties want to lay a claim on the Southwest, where 3 states (Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico) will be in play. If Obama manages to get strong support among Hispanics -- more than Kerry did in 04 and certainly more than he did in the primaries -- he could pick up a lot of electoral votes in the region and prepare Democratic gains in these fast-growing states in the year to come.

It's also worth taking a quick look at the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls, since we have not for a while:

• Gallup's poll shows Obama opening his largest lead in a while against Hillary, 51% to 42%. In the general, however, he is continuing to struggle, led 47% to 44% against McCain while Clinton is ahead 47% to 45%.
• Rasmussen finds McCain edging out Obama 45% to 44%. Despite professing that they will stop polling Clinton for 10 days now, they are still doing so: Obama is ahead only 46% to 44%. Clinton and McCain are tied at 44%.

Finally, Rasmussen released two important Senate polls, one confirming what we already knew in New Mexico and the second showing a slightly surprising result in Kansas, where Senator Roberts might not be as safe as we might have thought:

• In New Mexico, this week's second poll confirms that Tom Udall is coasting to picking-up this open seat. Against Heather Wilson, Udall leads 57% to 36%. Against Steve Pearce, he leads 53% to 37%. The margins were actually even bigger in SUSA's poll.

Expect the race to tighten once the GOP choose its nominee and once the nastiness of the Republican primary stops. But there is no question that Udall is starting with an impressive lead and it will be hard for Republicans to even find the resources to make this truly competitive. As for Kansas:

• Senator Roberts is leading his Democratic opponent, former congressman Jim Slattery 52% to 40%.

While Roberts does not appear particularly threatened for now (up double-digits, above 50% and enjoying a 60% favorability rating, important measures of an incumbent's support), there is no doubt that these numbers have to be disappointing to the NRSC. This is not a race that is on anyone's radar, ranked 22nd in my latest Senate rankings. Democrats were happy that Slattery jumped in the race, as they at least got a decent candidate, so for Roberts to come in at 52% is not very reassuring. More than point at Roberts' vulnerability, this polls shows how toxic the environment is for Republicans. Despite a 60% favorability rating, superior to Slattery's, the incumbent trails among unaffiliated voters by 3 percent, and this is in Kansas.

Even when they like their particular incumbent, it looks like independents are massively looking to bolt from the Republican Party, and it is revealing of how much appeal McCain has that he is able to hold on to them. This is why Democrats have been so successful in the three special elections this spring and why even Republicans like Roberts should be worried. Chuck Schumer has actually talked about this race before, and you can be sure that he will jump in and pour money to test Roberts' vulnerability if there is any sign that he can be lowered under 50%. This is a presidential year and Roberts' remains popular, so don't hold your breath but still telling of the playing field being clearly tilted towards Democrats.

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.
  

General election: How much will the electoral map change?

An Obama-McCain general election match-up would ensure that the electoral map we are accustomed to changes; both candidates appeal to states traditionally abandoned by their respective parties, but they are also both dangerously weak among groups previous nominees have carried more easily. Clinton could also transform the map, as she would put in play states that Kerry had given up while having to counter McCain's atypical appeal to blue-leaning independents.

In fact, the conventional wisdom of how the two candidates' strategies differ seems set for the time being: Obama would rely less on states like Ohio and Florida in which he looks to have more difficulty than Clinton and choose a less conventional path to the White House that goes through states like Colorado, Virginia and... the Mountain West, places in which Clinton is much less competitive.

This is of course just a rough sketch that the coming months will allow us to refine; but there is already plenty of evidence of how different the two electoral coalitions that Obama and Clinton are amassing are. Against McCain, Obama is typically stronger among independents and African-Americans, just as in the primaries. Meanwhile, Clinton's general election strength are derived from an edge among blue-collar voters, here again a repeat of her match-up against Obama. Gallup came out with a fascinating study today showing how Clinton and Obama's general election coalitions are almost unbelievably the opposite of one another:

• The aggregate of Gallup's tracking poll from March 31st and April 6th shows that McCain leads Obama among voters with no college education (46% to 40%). McCain's lead evaporates among voters with any college education, including a 52% to 42% lead for Obama among voters with a postgraduate education.

• Clinton, meanwhile, performs in exactly the opposite way: Clinton leads among voters with no college education (48% to 43%) but trails among voters with any college education, including a 10% deficit among four-year college graduates and a 3% deficit among voters with a postgraduate education.
  

Given these dramatic differences, it is hardly surprising that Obama and Clinton are working on different electoral maps, and that the 2008 general election could throw the Bush-Rove map of the past 2 cycles right out the window. Today's wave of general election polls confirms that we will have to pay attention to states that are generally forgotten in general elections:

• First, a Marist poll of New York shows John McCain not only competitive but actually edging out Obama 48% to 46%. Clinton leads 48% to 46%. In the poll's least interesting but most discussed follow-up, a McCain/Rice ticket would lead both a Clinton/Obama and an Obama/Clinton ticket.

It is hard to know what to make of this poll for the simple fact that it is a complete outlier relatively to all the New York polls we have seen this year. This is not to say that McCain will not make blue states competitive, as there is plenty of polls that suggest Connecticut and New Jersey will be very competitive with McCain on the ballot. But looking at the past few New York polls, there simply is no sign of much vulnerability on the part of either Democrat (Obama leads McCain by 13% and 21% in the past two polls), so we will have to wait for other polls to confirm Marist's finding.

We also got a wave of general election releases from Rasmussen:

• In Ohio, McCain is leading both Democrats comfortably, 47% to 40% against Obama and 47% to 42% against Clinton.


• In New Mexico, Obama leads McCain 45% to 42% while McCain is ahead of Clinton 46% to 43%. In late February, McCain tied Obama and led Clinton by 12%.


• The first surprising results come from Alaska, where McCain only leads Obama 48% to 43% while trouncing Clinton 57% to 32%. Clinton's favorability rating is just 35% far behind McCain (63) and Obama (55).


• Just as surprising are Montana's numbers: McCain here again only leads Obama 48% to 43%. He is further ahead of Clinton, 54% to 38%.

Both Alaska and Montana are staunchly Republican states where Obama is vastly overperforming the typical Democratic candidates. Note that these states are conservative in a very different manner than in the deep South and its history of racial conflict; the relative absense of racial polarization in the Mountain West makes this region the testing ground of Obama's attempt at changing the electoral map.

Note also that there is a precedent for such numbers in other polls: SUSA's 50-state poll project in early March tested McCain-Obama match-ups in both Alaksa and Montana and found McCain ahead by 5% and 9% respectively. Obama was competitive in many Western states -- and even led McCain in North Dakota! Most of these states are worth only 3 electoral votes, but the last thing McCain wants is to have to play defense in so many small states.

Relatively to the numbers from MT and AK, of course, Ohio's numbers have to be very disappointing for Democrats. This state was supposed to be a disaster zone for Republicans since 2004 and Democrats were confident that it would be much easier for them to pick it up this time. Democrats do not necessarily need Ohio to get to the White House, but the fact that McCain is consistently strong in the state has got to be a painful blow.

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.

Controversy over McCain's public financing commitment picking up

John McCain opened fire on Barack Obama last week, accusing the Democrat of wavering on whether he would accept public financing for the general election. But he soon found himself in the center of a controversy, as the Washington Post came out with a story that put in doubt whether McCain was allowed to opt out of public financing after qualifying for it. If McCain applied for a December loan using the promise of these public funds as collateral, he is not supposed to be allowed to withdraw. In fact, the FEC Chairman wrote a letter to McCain questioning also whether he had a right to withdraw. For a full explanation of what exactly is the issue here, my explanation is available here.

Now the DNC is directly going after McCain on this issue, filing an official complaint with the FEC about McCain's spending. In fact, the DNC notes that McCain had spent $49 million as of the end of January, which means that he probably has already passed the public finance limit of $54 million! Let me repeat this: If the FEC rules that McCain is not allow to withdraw from public financing, the Arizona Senator would not be allowed to spend one more dime all the way until September... while Obama would spend tens of millions. That could just about do it for GOP hopes. And to make matters worse, the DNC is adding an argument to that of the loan's collateral, and noting that McCain might have used the qualification for public financing to get on the Ohio ballot and adding that such a move also locks McCain in the system.

Thankfully for McCain, not only are these matters still legally debatable (though the FEC Chairman clearly appears to share some of these concerns) but the FEC might not get to rule on anything at all. It is unclear whether the FEC will have a quorum to issue any ruling and hope to enforce them, since it only has 2 members right now out of 6. The Senate is deadlocked on the four others... allowing McCain to keep on spending. And the fact that getting FEC nominees approved might now cause huge trouble for McCain will make Senate Republicans less eager to resolve the dispute.

Even if he managed (as is still likely) to dunk the issue, McCain would clearly be hurt if he were to face weeks of questions on this issue for weeks, especially if it undermines his image as an ethics reformer. But campaign finance issues have rarely have a significant impact on election results, which is why the DNC is pushing the issue and making sure it gets as much coverage as possible.

Also today, three general election polls were released from purple states, all three showing Barack Obama running much better than Hillary Clinton, with McCain posting some strong numbers as well:

• In Wisconsin, Rasmussen shows Obama edges out McCain 44% to 43%, though McCain crushes Clinton 50% to 38%.
• In New Mexico, Rasmussen shows very similar numbers, with Obama and McCain tied at 44% and McCain crushing Clinton 50% to 38% yet again.
• In Iowa, finally, the Des Moines Register poll has Obama running 27% better than Clinton! He leads 53% to 36%, while Clinton trails 49% to 40%.

The electability gap keeps getting bigger between Clinton and Obama. As of late January, there was no consistent pattern; now, Obama almost always runs much better than Hillary (albeit with some caveats and key weaknesses that I explained here). Also, it is worth noting that SUSA's numbers were more favorable to Democrats than Rasmussen's (both Democrats lead McCain in New Mexico, for instance).

SUSA releases wave of competitive general election polls

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

General election polls: McCain's electability still on display

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evening polls: Iowa up for grabs with Clinton, Huckabee slightly ahead

Two new polls today from Iowa, one from each party:

• Rasmussen has Democratic numbers: Hillary is ahead with 31%, with Obama at 27% and Edwards at 22%. Among those who are "certain" to participate, it's Clinton at 29%, Obama at 28% and Edwards at 22%.
• As always, second-choice looks good forEdwards, picked by 28% versus 22% for Obama and Clinton at 15%.


• The Washington Post/ABC poll of the GOP field has Huckabee ahead of Romney 35% to 27%, with everyone else in single-digits: Thompson has at 9%, Giuliani and Ron Paul at 8%, and McCain at 6%.

We've had three polls of Iowa in 24 hours, and three different leaders in the Democratic race -- underscoring the fact that the race is completly tied up 16 days from Iowa. On the GOP race, it was Huck up thee times -- but not by a lot, and his lead no longer looks all mighty.

• Dole vulnerable in North Carolina

A new Research 2000 poll of the North Senate race has worrisome news for Elizabeth Dole, who looks particularly vulnerable:

• She leads state Senator Kay Hagan 46% to 39%, and banker Jim Neal 47% to 37%.

Any incumbent under 50% is in danger -- especially when her lead is in the single-digits against an unknown opponent. A PPP poll released earlier in the week had Dole leading with a slightly bigger margin -- but still in the danger zone.

With numbers like this, Democrats have to regret they did not manage to get a better-known Democrat in the race, or entice either the Lieutenant Governor or the Attorney General out of the gubernatorial race and into the senatorial race. But with the DSCC failing to get its top recruits in Nebraska and Kentucky, they will likely pay more attention to North Carolina, which makes Elizabeth Dole much more endangered than she was a few weeks ago.

• SUSA polls NM, OR, and WA

Survey USA came out with some of its frequent general election polls this evening: Oregon and Washington are firmly leaning Democratic, and New Mexico looks as all over the place as it was in the past two presidential cycles.

• First up, New Mexico, Clinton leads Rudy 49-46, Romney 50-44, Huckabee 49-45, while McCain is ahead 48-45.
• Obama trails all Republicans, though within the margin of error: 49-44 against Rudy, 46-44 against Romney, 46-45 against Huckabee, and 51-40 against McCain.


• In Washington, Clinton is up by big margins: 52-43 against Giuliani, 55-41 against Romney, 54-41 against Huckabee, and she holds on 49-47 against McCain.
• Obama demolishes all GOPers: 55-38 against Rudy, 57-35 against Romney, 55-37 against Huckabee, and 50-43 against McCain.


• In Oregon, finally, Democrats are strong as well: Clinton leads Giuliani and Huckabee 50% to 42%, Romney 51% to 40%, and is tied with McCain at 46%. Obama is ahead of GIuliani 50-40, of Romney 50-38, 51-40 against Huckabee, 46-44 against McCain.

Washington and Oregon have been tight in previous cycles, but they are both definitely must-win states for the Democratic nominee. New Mexico was probably the tightest states over both 2000 and 2004, and it will likely be hotly be contested next year -- though it won't be a priority given it has only 5 electoral votes. But for Democrats who like to think that the West is drifting towards them, they definitely have to win states like New Mexico to strengthen their argument and advance their party in that region.

• NBC's national numbers

NBC came out with a national poll, and it has the GOP race in a complete toss-up -- and Obama running better in the general election

• In the GOP primary, Giuliani has lost its massive national lead: It's now tied at 20% between Giuliani and Romney, with Huckabee at 17% and mcCain at 14%, and Thompson at 11%. A month ago, Giuliani had a massive lead with 33%, with McCain at Romney at 11% and Huckabee at 8%... Would seem like a crazy outlier, only Giuliani's collapse is confirmed by most polls at this point.
• In the general election, Clinton beats Rudy 46% to 43%, but Obama does much better, coming on top 49% to 40%. Against Huck, it's Clinton 46% to Huckabee's 44%, and here again Obama runs massively better, beating Huck 48% to 36%.

Sunday polls: Trying to find interesting governor races

• New Mexico stays close

SUSA released a poll from New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes today. Clinton runs ahead of Obama, and only John McCain manages to win a match-up against her:

• McCain leads Clinton 48% to 45%. But Clinton leads Giuliani 48% to 44%, Romney 52% to 40%, and Huckabee 53% to 39%.
• Obama, on the other hand, is far behind Giuliani (49% to 41%) and McCain (50% to 40%). He is ahead of Romney 49% to 41% and Huckabee, 50% to 38%.

These numbers represent a small improvement for Clinton on last month's numbers when she was narrowly trailing Giuliani. They also contradict my theory that Hillary tends to run stronger than Obama in the Northeast and in the South, and Obama tends to run stronger in the Southwest. Clearly, New Mexico will be as closely fought as 2000 (when Gore won by 300 votes) and 2004 (when Bush won by 6000 votes).

• Indiana Governor in trouble

With Louisiana and Kentucky resolving their governor elections last month, there are not that many competitive gubernatorial contests coming up in the next few months -- only Missouri, Indiana and Washington are ranked competitive in my latest governor rankings. A new poll out today shows that Governor Daniels of Indiana is in big trouble, tied with his two lesser-known challengers, and way under the 50% threshold.

Former congresswoman Jill Long-Thompson and architect Jim Schellinger both get 44% of the vote, and Daniels gets 43% against both challengers -- a bad omen to be led this far out of Election Day. Daniels approval rating stands at 40%. There was a lot of noise about this race earlier in the year and last year, and Democrats pick-ed 3 House seats in Indiana alone last year, demonstrating the unpopularity of the state GOP. But Republicans were arguing that Daniels had recovered some support and was less of a drag, though that apparently is not the case at all.