Kossacks Drinking Koolaid

The title isn't anything new, of course, just that when Dear Leader Kos himself speaks, they don't even bother to follow a link and check it out. Case du jour: Ohio polling. Kos busily hypes up a new SurveyUSA Ohio poll showing Obama with a 9 pt advantage over McCain and pointing to the trend lines from a previous poll (McCain +2 at 47-45) as evidence that Obama is uniting the party; he also points out that this is a poll of likely voters.

Now that struck me as odd - I haven't been poll-watching too closely of late, but I didn't think SUSA (an automated phone polling company) surveyed LVs, only registered voters. A quick visit to RealClearPolitics' Ohio polling page showed me to be correct. It also showed that Kos omitted any mention of a few other polls: a Quinnipiac poll of over 1200 RVs conducted during roughly the same period showing McCain up 4, and a Rasmussen poll of LVs (single-day, too so mostly unaffected by the news) showing McCain up 1. What's especially galling about this is that all one needed to do is follow a link provided by Kos to SUSA's site to see that indeed, it was a poll of registered voters. Currently the story's got 163 comments, not one of which seeks to correct Dear Leader's misstep. Listen, I'm not expecting these folks to get a whiff of reality anytime soon - but please, can they at least get the small stuff right?

Also, for what it's worth, I have to think that those Rasmussen numbers are closer to the truth than the SUSA numbers. Why? Well for one thing SUSA's crosstabs indicate that 17% of black voters in the sample support McCain. Case closed. Bunk poll. Interestingly, Rasmussen's poll also indicates that Obama has higher unfavorables, and lower favorables, than McCain in the Buckeye state.

This isn't to say that McCain is going to win Ohio, which he basically must do to win the White House, just that he's probably in a better position to do so than Obama. After all, Ohio Democrats are the sort that Obama has such trouble with - the kind who might confuse white wine and vinegar (and for whom screw-top bottles of vino are no longer just edging into acceptability) - which is to say blue collar types. Sure the state of the economy as portrayed by the media helps Obama, but it may not be enough if he comes across as a guy you wouldn't want to have a beer with (a metric I personally dislike, but appreciate when Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Obama-types).

Electorate Muddled on Obama's Religion

The Wright flap would seem to indicate, as in 2x4 across the face indicate, that Obama's a Christian. Apparently 1 in 10 voters don't read the news and still think he's a Muslim (that includes 10% of Democrats).

Wright himself is a mixed bag - a new poll suggests his disgusting comments don't actually hurt Obama - but the AP would have us believe that faith isn't exactly helping him either.

Yikes.

What's Going On in Pennsylvania?

The expectations game in Pennsylvania's April 22nd primary is already underway: Clinton's predicting (and needing) a win. Obama manager David Plouffe has also set her up for a win, saying she "should win by a healthy margin given where they start....We'll try and get as many votes and delegates as we can, but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania ...."

Demographically, the state favors Clinton. Western PA is heavily white, working class, and Catholic - think Steelers fans. Much of the central region is also white and middle- or lower-class. Those demographics are also the kind of voters who are leery of Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright - a leeriness reflected in a new poll showing her up 51-37 among likely Democratic voters.

Clinton's chances are bolstered by the endorsement of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a pretty serious party boss who topped the ticket in a great year for Democrats in the state in 2006. An additional boost is the fact that the state's is a closed primary: only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary; the independents who have fueled Obama elsewhere won't be able to take part unless they re-register their affiliation (playing back into the import of that poll).

Obama should fare better in the eastern part of the state - urban Philly's minority voters as well as the wealthy, educated suburbs surrounding the City of Brotherly Love. The area is rife with classic swing voters: While delivering the state to Kerry in '04, they also sent their Republican representatives back to Congress; in '06, they voted solidly Democratic. So the fact that it's that area that has seen one of the largest increases in Democratic registration may be very telling; ironically, this was the territory Rendell carried en route to his primary victory in 2002 against now-Senator Bob Casey.

In one of the most interesting Keystone scenarios, a pair of state political observers make the argument that this primary replays that '02 gubernatorial between "the son and heir apparent of the former Governor Casey against the liberal, urban, upstart Rendell." Rendell won just ten of the state's 67 counties enroute to a 54-46 victory. Can Obama do it? Maybe. Wright's a cross he has to bear among increasingly suspicious voters outside of the guilt-ridden liberals who are his base. Philly's also got about a billion colleges and universities, meaning that if his campaign has its usual success in getting students to the polls, he could do pretty well there.

For Hillary, Pennsylvania may be do or die again - just like New Hampshire and then Ohio and Texas were do or die. Should he somehow win here, Obama may run the rest of the table. However, his prospects may have become complicated by Wright, reflected in developments like the poll in North Carolina that has his lead down to one; Allahpundit situated that poll in the larger picture of a campaign hemorrhaging support across the country. If he loses PA, and loses (or almost loses?) NC, it's all eyes to Indiana, where popular Senator Evan Bayh has endorsed Hillary. So, once momentum's tossed into the mix, there's an argument to be made that Pennsylvania could be do-or-die for either candidate [ed: this may not be entirely clear right now; perhaps I'll flesh it out later].

Another element that I haven't seen discussed anywhere is the cost of running a campaign in Pennsylvania. There are two major media markets - Pittsburgh and Philly - and a handful of smaller ones. Philly's DMA (designated media area), bleeding into New Jersey, is among the most expensive in the nation. Both Hillary and Obama have a ton of cash, but both will have to throw a ton of it into the state to pull out the W. We're not talking break-the-bank expenditures, but enough that whoever comes up short may wonder if they got their money's worth.

Huckabee Moves Into Two Spot

I've blogged a lot on Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who's starting to shake things up in Iowa.

Of course he was beginning to shake things up before the latest ABC/WaPo poll, released today: Huckabee polled at 24% - only 4 points behind Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the long-time leader in Iowa. The Post's piece rightly points out that much of Huckabee's boost came from Christian conservatives (which may factor into Giuliani's slump in their poll), but it'll be interesting to see if he gets a financial boost as well. ABC's story is long (4 pages) but worth at least skimming.

Yay Senate Races

Not really. My previous post was a quasi-in-depth/analytical look at Maine's Senate race; the good news there doesn't change the fact that others aren't exactly roses.

- Let's start with Virginia. Chris Cillizza has this as an almost sure-fire flip; he's right. Republican Jim Gilmore, a former Governor (he of the oh-so-brief presidential bid) is the presumptive nominee; he's also expected to be mauled by former Governor Mark Warner. Because, yes, Warner (he of the over-before-it-began presidential bid), is in; he's wildly popular and enormously wealthy. He projects a sufficiently blue-collar/good ol' boy image to be successful in traditionally Republican parts of the state - though the demographic swelling of the People's Republic of Northern Virginia is also to blame.

There's a silver lining, though, that only a blogger will indulge: I've heard rumors (without details, though from a credible source) that Warner's got at least one large skeleton in his closet. It's entirely plausible; if the Republican Party is aware, they weren't willing to use it when Warner ran for governor as the state GOP was in meltdown. That situation sounds eerily reminiscent of Illinois's situation in 2004, when Jack Ryan's self-destructing campaign meant that whatever dirt the party had on Obama (and again, I've heard well-founded rumors that there was dirt - you can't rise that fast in Chicago without something shady) was squirreled away for another day.

- New Mexico's also looking ugly, if only because Democrats have gotten themselves behind one candidate, Tom Udall (a member of that Democratic clan which has been so wildly successful in Mountain West politics). In contrast, Republicans are expecting a bruising primary between Representatives Heather Wilson (a moderate heavily targeted by the DCCC last cycle) and Steve Pearce (the self-anointed conservative candidate).

I hold out little hope for this race, but find it interesting as it illuminates the difference between the chairs of the NRSC and DSCC: Chuck Schumer's cleared the field for his boy, and he's making sure he gets it his way. John Ensign, despite the fact that people are pretty convinced Wilson's the more electable candidate, hasn't found a way to show Pearce the door. Ensign's failure to date may have something to do with the fact that the Republican Party as a whole has been a fundraising failure this cycle, allowing Pearce, no doubt funded by conservative groups, to keep up on the money trail.

This race is doubly painful because Wilson's campaign means she's not running for reelection to the House; in 2006, she won by a mere 875 votes out of some 211,000 cast. It's unlikely a Republican will win this open seat.

- Kentucky. Is it in play? Is it not? Cillizzas' got it at #10. Democrats are convinced McConnell's vulnerable. I'm still not sold on the prospect of a poisonous atmosphere next year, and Kentucky gave Bush nearly 60% of the vote in 2004. It's a state where Hillary Clinton's unlikely to poll well. In 2006, I would have said that Democrats had an argument; next year, I'm less convinced despite being gloomy about the Senate as a whole.

Good News in Maine?

Maine's a funny state: almost no one lives there (errant Canadians and moose aside). It's also a politically wacky state: Gore and Kerry won it, it has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Representatives, and two Republican Senators. Now Republican here is a loose usage of the term, less so than with Linc Chafee in Rhode Island, but Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are hardly conservative firebrands.

Democrats and the Left have been busy attempting to paint Senator Susan Collins, up for reelection next year, as an out of touch conservative as well as a warmonger. Democrats already have as good a candidate as they're going to get in Congressman Tom Allen, who represents Maine's 1st District - aka the inhabited one. The race has consistently been listed in the lower half of the top 10 most competitive races by Chris Cillizza (latest update is here, worth reading in full).

Yet things don't seem to be going the Democrats' way. Two polls show Snowe sitting pretty; one has her up 54-34, though it's worth noting that 12% of respondents (408 likely voters over an 18 day period) are presently undecided. The other (and I link to DailyKos because they commissioned it, though with a notably independent pollster) has 55% saying they'd reelect Collins and shows the incumbent with a 23 point lead over Allen.

Republicans meanwhile are trumpeting this race; this email was sent out by the NRSC yesterday:

Dear Republican Supporter,

The race in Maine is shaping up to be nothing like the Democrats imagined. They have mistakenly named Susan Collins as one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators running for re-election in 2008. But their predictions are turning out to be off the mark.

In a new poll out last week, Sen. Collins has a stunning 20-point lead. The poll shows Collins leading her opponent, Tom Allen, 54 percent -- 34 percent with only 12 percent of Maine voters undecided -- a great sign this early in the race. These results nearly mirror another poll out earlier this month that shows Sen. Collins leading the race with an even stronger 23 point lead.

Partisan Democrat U.S. Rep. Tom Allen cannot seem to gain the traction he is looking for to compete against Senator Collins, no matter how hard he tries. Though there is one thing that makes him stand out in the race: He has the grand distinction of being the Democrat that liberal extremist group MoveOn.org has donated the most money -- an astounding $250,000 so far this year. This distinction will show voters where his true loyalties lie.

Sen. Collins has an accomplished record of working hard for Mainers and its clear that the people of Maine respect that drive and dedication. Senator Collins has never missed a vote in the Senate and in contrast to that stellar record, her opponent, Rep. Tom Allen, has never had sponsored legislation enacted into law. It's this record that Tom Allen will be taking to Maine voters in his run against Sen. Susan Collins.

Not only is Tom Allen a MoveOn.org puppet, he's also an ineffective legislator.

Help us keep liberal, MoveOn.org-supported Democrat Tom Allen out of the U.S. Senate and support our efforts to ensure a Republican majority.

We're gaining the momentum we need to win. But we can't do it alone. Donate today, and together we will capture the U.S. Senate.

Thank you for your continued support.

Scott Bensing, Executive Director
National Republican Senatorial Committee

This is all well and good, but let's be clear: one race that doesn't look like a massacre in the making doesn't make up for Republican woes elsewhere. But I'll look at those separately.

Huckabee Surprises

So it's no secret that I'm somewhat fond of Mike Huckabee - I like him as a human being, which is more than I can say about most other presidential candidates (and politicians in general), but I find him weak or poorly-informed on many crucial issues (especially foreign policy) and disturbingly populist on the economic front.

Therefore it's with mixed feelings that I report this latest CBS/New York Times poll, which has Huckabee at 21% in Iowa - only 6 points behind field leader Mitt Romney. Of course he's only really seeing progress in Iowa; the same poll found him polling at 6% (behind Crazy Uncle Ron) in the Granite State.

All of this may be irrelevant, yet for the same reason raises some interesting points about modern campaigning: $$$. Huckabee's basically broke, whereas Romney's spent a fortune in Iowa - and the two are only separated by six. But that's Iowa, and he's unlikely to translate even a strong second-place finish there into success elsewhere unless he collects a lot of checks in the interim.

While we're at it, the same poll also shows the widely accepted Democratic dead heat in Iowa - Clinton 25%, Obama 22%, Edwards 23%. It doesn't seem as if Iowa voters are bothered by her issues in recent weeks (even though some, like the planted questions mini-scandal, have occured in their backyard), but if on Thursday night in Las Vegas she turns in a debate performance like that in Philly, well that may begin to change.

More Polls!

I've seen this causing some chatter, so I might as well mention it: Rasmussen's latest weekly numbers have Thompson in front of Giuliani (and at the head of the pack) 26%-22%; Romney and McCain occupy a sort of netherworld they describe as "a precarious niche somewhere between the frontrunners and the also-rans."

There's always an additional note with Rasmussen. At the bottom of the page, Scott R trumpets his success record over the last two cycles. His polls, however, use "automated technology" and thus are generally distrusted by many within the beltway; at the NRSC during my tenure there, his results were always treated suspiciously.

Data Shows Durbin Vulnerable?

That's the claim from a poll cited on Illinois Review, which pegs the approval rating of the Senate's #2 Democrat at 49% favorable/24% unfavorable, and almost a dead heat (36%-33%) on whether he puts Illinois or Washington first.

As much as I'd love to see Durbin returned to private life, none of this data paints a picture of vulnerability by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually difficult to gauge any sort of vulnerability on Durbin's part due to a real paucity of polling data. No Senator's invulnerable, but Durbin's not exactly an endangered incumbent at present.

Oh and I treat these numbers with the greatest degree of skepticism because of the poll itself - only 400 respondents, MOE +/-4.9%, no notes as to who the pollster is etc.

Iraq: Slightly Less Unpopular

Or so says a pair of recent NYT/CBS polls. Yes, it took two polls to be certain - when the first set of numbers came out, the Times and CBS were apparently in such shock that they had to make sure. Janet Elder noted that they looked for other explanations, that perhaps the ordering of the questions had influenced the results; while this is good statistical practice, I wonder if there weren't other motives.

Anyways, the second poll found that 42% of respondents believed that we did the right thing in going into Iraq and that 51% think we should have stayed out; it also found that "only" 66% think the war is going badly, though that's notably down from 76% in May.

Another analysis from the Times sifts through responses to other questions (such as whether we'll be safer if we stay out of the Middle East - not likely), but is worth a read.

Elder also claims that these findings were an aberration, that at the same time no other metric on the war including the president's approval numbers showed any change. While that may be true, over at Political Arithmetikic Professor Franklin notes an up-tick in the President's approval numbers. As always, the Professor's insightful analysis is well worth reading; I don't know of anyone else out there who does such interesting work with polling data.

What Homefield Advantage?

If you listened to the buzz, you'd think Obama would be invincible in his home state. But a recent poll from ARG, reported by the Tribune, has Clinton within the margin of error: Obama 37%, Clinton 33%, MOE +/-4%. On the other side of the aisle, Giuliani's got a pretty commanding lead though Thompson's overtaken McCain.

Most Americans Don't Understand Government?

Or that's what a poll regarding impeachment tells me. On the question of impeaching Bush, the public is split, 45% for and 46% against; Cheney's significantly less popular, with 54% in favor and only 40% of those surveyed opposed.

Now part of me asks what in God's name do most Americans know about impeachment and impeachable offenses? I find it unlikely that those surveyed were sufficiently well-informed to make any sort of honest judgment on the matter. That, of course, may just be the reactionary in me speaking.

It's unlikely that the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill will actually pursue such an extreme course of action, but if they do there are two schools of thought on the consequences. On the one hand, Democratic analysts suggest that forcing Republicans to vote against impeaching a highly unpopular politician (most likely Cheney) would hurt them at home in an election year (or alternately force them to support the measure). For Republicans, however, a well-played media strategy could result in the spotlight being focused on some of the loonier Democratic members, potentially producing party-wide blowback.

But let's admit that there's an easier way around all of this. Cheney should resign (Bush can appoint him Master of the Universe or whatever title he chooses); Lieberman should be nominated to fill his seat. Democrats could really be hung out to dry if they refused to confirm him, and no doubt 51 votes could be found. That, of course, would leave a Senate vacancy - in a blue state with a Republican governor. That'd produce a fifty-fifty split, but I'm not sure which way Lieberman would vote. Anyways, it'd be an introducing move.

Democratic Base Solid

Barone analyzes party ID numbers from Scott Rasmussen's polls; seems that despite an impotent Democratic Congress, the party's base remains solid; however the gap between them and the GOP is at its narrowest in the past year - a Republican revival? Too soon to be sure.

A Big New Survey of the GOP

Marc Ambinder rounds it all up; what's interesting is the decline of the economically-focused voters, instead replaced by national security voters (me!). However, the social/cultural conservatives remain the single largest bloc. According the polls, the party is united on

– Desire to balance the budget – Belief that government spends too much – Belief that taxes are too high – Belief that federal government is too big and does too many things – Belief that current immigrations laws should be followed and no special treatment – War in Iraq was the right decision – Belief that our Foreign Policy should be based on our own security and economic interests – Support of employment non-discrimination for gays.

and substantially dived on

Top priority – cutting taxes or balancing budget – Whether health care coverage is a right – Fund SS or allow private investment – Level of military/defense spending – Role of federal government in education – Allowing gays to serve in the military – Role of federal government on global warming – Private initiative vs. government safety net – Abortion – Influence of religion on public policy

It's well worth a read.

Three Democrats Tied in Iowa

A new Mason-Dixon poll shows Edwards, Obama, and HRC effectively in a dead heat in Iowa. Though the nation's first contest is rapidly losing significance, I still believe that a loss for Edwards here will kill his campaign. Obama's got the star power and the $$ to keep fighting if he takes second; should HRC run second, she too can bounce back. But any amount of analysis right now is basically worthless; with seven months till caucus day, a lot will change.

Bush > Congress

At least so far as Gallup is concerned, that is. Their latest shows Congress's approval rating at a dismal 14%, the institution's lowest since Gallup began polling in 1973. The other period when its ratings were so dismal was in the years preceding the Republican Revolution; why is it Democrats seem unable to run Congress effectively? Someone recently proclaimed this a lame-duck Congress and I'm beginning to agree with them.

In other news, the RCP average has Bush at 31.3%

Fred and Rudy

In what's got to be the most over-reported news of the day, not-yet-declared candidate Fred Thompson is quickly catching up with (or even surpassing) Rudy Giuliani in some recent polls. It's not entirely surprising that the Fred Express is doing so well: he's well-liked by members of the conservative establishment (Mary Cheney, famously the target of John Edwards' assualt during the 2004 VP debate, just signed on to his campaign) and following their cues, the masses seem to have taken to him as well.

On to the news: a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll has Giuliani leading Fred 27%-21% (and Giuliani beating HRC by 10%). The poll doesn't test any Democrats against Fred, however, thus failing to illuminate the crucial "electability" dynamic.

However, a new Rasmussen poll found the two tied at 24% apiece, whereas Rudy was leading 23%-17% just a week ago. I don't think Rudy's peaked too soon, I just think the electorate (especially the conservatives who as of yet have not found anyone sufficiently conservative for their tastes yet electable) is excited by the buzz and his potential. Whether or not he can live up to the hype in a major way remains to be seen. He's got the star power - and although it's just Law & Order, at least it's not Bedtime for Bonzo! - and he's been making the right noises on the issues, but I'm still skeptical if this is any more than a temporary phenomenon.

The other thing that the Times/Bloomberg poll mentions is that Romney, who has been doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire (though they don't cite their own numbers to that extent) gets decimated by Clinton or Obama in the general. I have to believe it's his Mormonism: to "mainstream" Christians, it's a little too cultish and to secularists (to whom all of Christianity is just a little cultish), it's just down right freaky.

Anyone else notice the "values" buzz lately? I've been collecting some articles on it and pondering - maybe something tomorrow?