Former Minnesota senator Norm Coleman (R), fresh off a losing battle for re-election in which he won half the votes, is now rumored to be considering a run for governor. However, Coleman's extended post-election legal battle to keep his former Senate seat has negatively affected his stance among voters, a new survey finds.

The poll, conducted by PPP (July 7-8, 1491 RV, +/- 2.5%), finds 52% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of Coleman, and 54% said the way he handled his post-election campaign made them less likely to support him in a future campaign for governor.

Coleman is less popular than former senator Mark Dayton (D), who declined to run for re-election to a second term in 2006 due to low poll numbers and no money. Dayton is viewed unfavorably by 37% of voters, 15 points less than Coleman.

Matched up against potential Democratic oppponents, Coleman leads only State House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, who's unknown by nearly half of voters. Coleman trails Dayton and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak.

Dayton 41 - Coleman 39 - Und 20

Rybak 43 - Coleman 37 - Und 19

Kelliher 34 - Coleman 42 - Und 24

The normally level-headed Steve Chapman goes off the rails in his column today by contrasting Harriet Miers with Sarah Palin:

But it's really not hard to see why Palin inspires such devotion. And I do mean "see." She has one obvious thing going for her that Miers didn't: She's a babe, and she doesn't try to hide it. [snip]

Harriet Miers' problem was that she couldn't overcome her deficiencies with sex appeal. When people remain ardent fans of Palin no matter how badly she performs, it's reasonable to wonder what they are thinking. But thinking has nothing to do with it.

According to Chapman, then, if Harriet Miers had just been better looking and had more "sex appeal," conservatives would have backed her for the Supreme Court. That's absurd.

Chapman also misfires with this:

Palin is not alone in using her looks to enchant the Republican faithful. Carrie Prejean went from being a runner-up for Miss USA to a conservative heroine because she came out against gay marriage in her pageant interview -- but also because she wears a bikini well.

Carrie Prejean became a popular figure with social conservatives because she was attacked in a high profile, nationally televised event as a homophobe and a bigot for expressing the exact same view held by the President of the United States - who is obviously never characterized in those terms. The bikini had nothing to do with it.

Lastly, Chapman writes:

Good looks are a big advantage to male politicians as well. No one would have given the time of day to John Edwards or Mitt Romney if they were short, paunchy and bald.

The same could be said of Barack Obama. I find it odd that Chapman devotes an entire column to arguing that Republicans are somehow uniquely susceptible to letting good looks blind them to a politician's "deficiencies" without mentioning that no one since John F. Kennedy has benefited more from charming good looks and a 100 megawatt smile than our current president.

Chapman's problem is that he tries to take a basic truism - that people who are good looking are often treated better or held to a different standard than those who aren't as good looking - and turn it into a partisan political argument. He fails.

Karen Tumulty has back to back must read pieces on the health care debate (here and here).

The Marijuana Policy Project makes an interesting appeal to California's cash-strapped public:

(Via Carla Marinucci)

Will there or won't there be another Russian attack on Georgia?  Since I raised the issue in my Wall Street Journal op-ed a few days ago, a follow-up.

In a July 7 article on Grani.ru (Russian-language link), Andrei Piontkovsky, one of the commentators who have warned most strongly about the possibility of a new war this summer, writes that he now believes the risk is considerably reduced.

Why?  For one thing, Piontkovsky (not a big Obama fan) thinks "Obama has done what he could," both by bringing up Georgia during his Moscow visit -- apparently in rather firm tones -- and by sending Vice President Biden to Tbilisi.  (There's a new function of the Veep role: a human shield!)

However, he believes the actions of another president -- the president of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan -- may have been even more important.

On June 26, an amazing event happened in Yerevan.  In the midst of the anti-Georgian bacchanal in all of the pro-Kremlin media, the president of Armenia, Russia's only remaining ally not just in the Caucasus but in the entire post-Soviet space, solemnly and very publicly bestowed on Mikhail Saakasvili the highest Armenian state award – the Order of Honor.

(more...)

Chris Cillizza reports that Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk has begun circulating word in Washington that he will jump into the race for the US Senate, a move that comes just hours after Lisa Madigan announced she will be seeking reelection as Attorney General and not running for either Governor or Senate. Cillizza reports that IL GOP Chair Andy McKenna is also exploring a bid.

A moderate hailing from the Democratic-leaning 10th district, Kirk came under fire last week for being one of eight Republicans in the House to vote in favor of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade climate bill.  Whether that causes him any heartburn in the primary remains to be seen.

Regardless, Kirk will have his work cut out against whoever emerges from what is now shaping up to a wide open Democratic primary to replace the damaged Roland Burris.

First, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper opted out of challenging Republican Sen. Richard Burr, despite a White House sit-down with President Obama. Now, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has decided not to run for Senate, even after her own private White House visit.

This begs an obvious question: Has Obama lost his sway?

Obama seemed able to snag almost anyone he wanted to join his administration -- he tapped a potential 2012 rival in Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) to serve as ambassador to China, and even Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) hopped on board for a day or two before declining the nomination for Commerce Secretary.

The president appeared equally adept at getting candidates to drop bids against incumbents he wants to protect -- a quick phone call was all it took to get Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) to drop any plans for a challenge to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

However, along with his inability to sway Cooper and Madigan, the White House hasn't had any luck keeping Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) from challenging Gillibrand or Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) from taking on the second-newest Democrat in the Senate, Arlen Specter (Pa.).

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.

The Florida Senate race is strange in many ways.  It is strange that Governor Charlie Crist -- who supposedly holds Presidential ambitions -- decided that being a junior Senator was preferable to being the Governor of the nation's fourth largest state.  It is strange that the Republican establishment immediately lined up behind Crist, as opposed to taking a closer look at conservative, telegenic state Representative Marco Rubio, whose views are probably more in line with the mainstream of Republican opinion in the state.  This is especially true given that the Democratic lineup for the seat is pretty weak, so Rubio probably could win the November general (although perhaps there is a "Crist cleared the field of competitive Democrats" effect here).

And its odd that Rubio has stayed in the race, rather than running for one of the other statewide offices that Crist's departure from the top of the ticket has opened up.  More to the point, it is odd that he stayed in when he raised only $340,000 in the second quarter of 2009.  Florida is an expensive state in which to campaign, and to knock off a fairly popular Governor such as Crist, it will take much, much more than the $1.6M (extrapolating his fundraising haul through the end of the primary season next year).  Rubio's best rationale for his candidacy is that by staying in this race he raises his profile for a future run.  But if his fundraising doesn't improve and he is blown out by Crist, even this is a pretty shaky rationale.

"In the end, it was not only Ward Churchill's professional deceit, fraud and lies that doomed his career at the University of Colorado, but also his incurable personal nastiness, a nastiness that has been on display for decades in his writings, public discourse and interaction with many of those who crossed him." - Vincent Carroll, writing on the ruling on the Churchill case in today's Denver Post.