More than any other state in the country, Ohio is considered a premier political bellwether.  And for good reason.  Only twice since 1900 has the state sided with the loser in a presidential election: in 1944 Ohioans chose Thomas Dewey over FDR (though only by 11,530 votes) and in 1960 they opted for Nixon over Kennedy.

Because of its geography, the composition of its electorate, and its sensitivity to economic issues, Ohio is generally considered a good indicator of the political pulse of "Middle America." And with its 20 electoral votes, its hard to understate Ohio's importance at the national level.

In the last 5 presidential cycles, Ohio has voted Democratic three times and Republican twice - all decided by 6 points or less. In 2000 and 2004, Al Gore and John Kerry would have become president if they had been able to win the Buckeye State.

For all these reasons, Democrats should be concerned with the latest poll results in Ohio.  Granted, we are exceedingly early in the 2010 cycle, and much can and will change between now and next November, but the latest trends in Ohio show how potentially fragile the Democrats' hold on power might be, and why it all depends on the state of the economy.

Consider the following trends in job approval ratings for President Obama, Democratic Governor Ted Strickland, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, and Republican Senator George Voinovich in surveys taken by Quinnipiac University over the last five months:

As you can see, the three Democrats (Obama, Strickland, and Brown) have all suffered rather steep declines in their approval ratings (18, 17, and 10 points, respectively), while the Republican (Voinovich) has barely suffered at all (3 points).

Because Voinovich is retiring, it's possible voters are being more generous in their assessment of his performance - the political equivalent of a Gold Watch, if you will - but a more compelling explanation is that Voinovich isn't experiencing a commensurate decline because he's not a member of the party controlling the government and setting policy.

Though Obama, Strickland, and Brown have seen some slippage in support among partisans from both parties, the real core of the decline in support has come from Independents. This is to be expected, since Independents are by definition less ideological and more fluid in their support. But it's also a great concern - especially for Obama, whose political popularity relies on maintaining his appeal with Independents:

It's also no surprise that the decline in President Obama's job approval in Ohio is being driven by voter dissatisfaction with the economy.  Those "somewhat" or "very" dissatisfied with the way thing are going in Ohio jumped 10 points in the July survey.

At the same time, approval of President Obama's handling of the economy dipped into negative territory, with 46% approving and 48% disapproving. In Quinnipiac's previous survey, Obama enjoyed a 57/36 approval/disapproval rating on his handling of the economy in Ohio, a net 23-point decline in just two months.

These trends aren't confined to Ohio. A new poll in Virginia by PPP shows Obama's approval rating under 50% there as well, with a majority of Independents (52%) now disapproving of the job he's doing as President. And Gallup's national daily tracking poll shows Obama's job approval at an all time low of 56%.

All of this is merely confirmation of what we already know: President Obama and the Democrats' fortunes will rise or fall with the state of the economy.  If by next year a solid recovery is underway and unemployment is headed back down, the President and his party will reap the political rewards of that recovery.  If unemployment remains high and the news remains bad, however, they can expect their ratings to continue to slide and could be headed for a rough go of it in the midterms next year.