On the heels of yesterday's Quinnipiac poll showing Obama under 50% approval in Ohio, PPP is out with a new survey showing the same in Virginia. The folks at PPP write:

The caveat here is that we are measuring his numbers among likely general election voters for this year- in the context of the race for Governor- rather than all registered voters or likely voters for a Presidential election. Turnout from key groups that support Obama like African Americans and voters under 30 seem likely to turn out at diminished levels from 2008 and that impacts these numbers.

Taking that into consideration, the numbers still aren't real good. They show a high level of polarization we find in every state- 95% of Democrats but only 9% of Republicans giving him good marks. But he's also doing pretty poorly with independents, as only 38% say he's doing well and 52% disapprove.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan will announce today she is running for re-election, despite being recruited by the Obama administration to run for Senate and her own interest in running for governor.

The Fix first reported the news.

Madigan had long expressed an interest in serving as governor but the ouster of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and ascension of Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) to the top job complicated her path.

To be clear, Madigan would have been a favorite had she decided to run for either the Senate or for governor, a fact that makes her decision to run for neither office all the more puzzling.

With Madigan out of the Senate race, expect businessman Chris Kennedy to quickly announce his candidacy, joining state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the Democratic primary. Madigan's no-go decision also makes it far more likely that Rep. Mark Kirk, by far Republicans strongest candidate, will make the race.

A survey released in late April found Madigan leading Kirk by 15 points.

The dust has now settled somewhat after Sarah Palin's stunning announcement last Friday. And two new polls indicate that despite the instant reaction of pundits, the outgoing Alaska governor remains very much in the mix for 2012, should she choose to pursue a presidential run.

According to a new Gallup survey (1,000 voters, July 6, MoE +/- 3 percent), 70 percent of voters say Palin's decision to resign did not change their impression of her, with 9 percent actually saying they view her more favorably compared to 17 percent who now view her less favorably. She remains a polarizing figure, with 41 percent of all voters and 70 percent of Democrats saying they are not at all likely to vote for her if she runs for president.

Meanwhile, 43 percent of voters say they are very likely or somewhat likely to vote for her for president. That number jumps to 72 percent in the Republican sample. In a November poll from Gallup, 67 percent of Republicans said they would like to see Palin run in 2012.

Gallup compares this result to a 2005 finding about Hillary Clinton. Then, 52 percent of voters said they were "at least somewhat likely" to support her, while 28 percent said they very likely would not.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen has new horserace numbers on a potential 2012 primary, with Palin near the top.

Presidential Primary Election Matchup
Romney 25
Palin 24
Huckabee 22
Gingrich 14
Barbour 1
Pawlenty 1
Other 6
Not sure 6

But when asked who they least wanted to win the nomination, 21 percent say Palin, indicating even Republicans may have mixed feelings about the former VP nominee. Only 9 percent say they did not want to see Mitt Romney win the nomination. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee actually has the highest favorability rating in the Republican field.

Favorability Ratings
Huckabee 78/17
Palin 76/21
Romney 73/19
Gingrich 65/29
Cheney 59/34
Pawlenty 38/33
Barbour 34/37

Rasmussen's survey polled 750 likely Republican voters on July 6, and had a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.

So, we now have a bilateral presidential commision, to be coordinated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

It includes 13 working groups headed by corresponding high-level Russian and American officials (e.g., Health: Tatyana A. Golikova, Minister of Health, and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services).   One of the pairs is rather eyebrow-raising (brought to my attention by Dmitry Sidorov, the Washington, DC correspondent for Kommersant, writing on EJ.ru):

Civil Society: Vladislav Surkov, First Deputy Chief of Staff, Presidential Administration, and Michael McFaul, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russia , National Security Council

Say it ain't so!  On one side, Michael McFaul, a strong opponent of Russian authoritarianism, a champion of the "color revolutions," a passionate believer in democracy who takes pride in having been a part of Russia's democracy movement in the 1980s and '90s.  On the other side, Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin's Putin-era ideological enforcer, creator of the term "sovereign democracy" (which seems to be shorthand for "we'll define democracy as we damn well please, and everyone else should keep their nose out of our business") and of Nashi, the thuggish "youth movement" launched with the express purpose of thwarting grass-roots democratic activism of the kind that brought about Ukraine's "Orange Revolution").  The same Surkov who just recently rejected the idea that the crisis should be an incentive for the Kremlin to loosen its iron grip on political life within Russia. (more...)

First, there was the Cairo speech to the Muslim world.  Now, Obama speaks to Russians at the graduation ceremony of the New Economic School.

It was a very, very good speech that hit almost all the right notes.   The right amount of flattery for Russia as a "great power" and for its cultural and scientific achievements (and I'm glad that, in mentioning the great 19th Century Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, Obama resisted the temptation to claim kinship with Pushkin due to the latter's African ancestry, as a few Russian commentators semi-facetiously predicted he might).  Recognition of Russia's enormous sacrifice in World War II, a very big topic in Russia these days (though with a major missed opportunity to remind the audience that Russians repelled a foreign tyrant and butcher only to be re-victimized by a domestic one).

Also on the plus side: there were no apologies, no genuflection toward the official Russian point of view on NATO expansion or the missile shield.  On the contrary, Obama once against emphasized that neither is a threat to Russia.

Obama strongly reiterated America's commitment to democracy and freedom as universal, not just American values, devoting a prominent portion of his speech to "America's interest in democratic governments that protect the rights of their people."

By no means is America perfect. But it is our commitment to certain universal values which allows us to correct our imperfections, to improve constantly, and to grow stronger over time. Freedom of speech and assembly has allowed women, and minorities, and workers to protest for full and equal rights at a time when they were denied. The rule of law and equal administration of justice has busted monopolies, shut down political machines that were corrupt, ended abuses of power. Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course and hold our leaders accountable. If our democracy did not advance those rights, then I, as a person of African ancestry, wouldn't be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a President. ...

So around the world, America supports these values because they are moral, but also because they work. The arc of history shows that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not. Governments that represent the will of their people are far less likely to descend into failed states, to terrorize their citizens, or to wage war on others. Governments that promote the rule of law, subject their actions to oversight, and allow for independent institutions are more dependable trading partners. And in our own history, democracies have been America's most enduring allies, including those we once waged war with in Europe and Asia -- nations that today live with great security and prosperity.

Moreover, in discussing Russia's "rightful place" as a great power, Obama also delivered a devastating indictment of the Putin regime's vision of the world -- the vision that has been force-fed to the Russian public for the past decade by Kremlin ideologues.

Yet unfortunately, there is sometimes a sense that old assumptions must prevail, old ways of thinking; a conception of power that is rooted in the past rather than in the future. There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another.

These assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries.

I'm not sure there is anyone of any consequence in the U.S. who subscribes to those 19th- and 20th-Century views, so this one's pretty clearly directed at the Kremlin.

On the minus side:

I believe that the free market is the greatest force for creating and distributing wealth that the world has known. But wherever the market is allowed to run rampant -- through excessive risk-taking, a lack of regulation, or corruption -- then all are endangered, whether we live on the Mississippi or on the Volga.

Even if one argues that the economic crisis was brought about completely by market forces, the market being "allowed to run rampant" is strikingly negative imagery.  And sure corruption is not just "the market running rampant"; it is a distortion of the market that is intimately bound to government power.

I'm rather torn on Obama's reference to the coup in Honduras:

Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies. We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with the view that the coup was intended to thwart the democratically-elected president's dictatorial aspirations, not to thwart democracy.  On the other hand, the statement was a strategically shrewd one, making the point that America's support for democracy and opposition to tyranny is not just a euphemism for supporting leaders who are in our pocket and undermining ones who are in disagreement with us.

Overall, a very good speech, though I'm not sure how many hearts and minds it will win.

(Cross-posted to The Y-Files.)

The latest numbers from Public Policy Polling (D) hold some good news for Republicans.  Attorney General Bob McDonnell currently leads state Senator Creigh Deeds by six points, 49%-43%.  Both candidates are viewed favorably.  The poll shows similar numbers for the races for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General.  This is a poll Republicans have hoped to see, as most post-primary polls gave Deeds a slight edge over McDonnell.  On the other hand, this is PPP's first poll conducted in 2009, so we don't have an apples-to-apples comparison.  A poll from June of 2008 had McDonnell up by 5.

The poll reveals that there is a silver lining for Democrats.  A disproportionate number of the undecideds are African Americans and/or Democrats (though one assumes there is considerable overlap here).  This indicates that Deeds probably has more room to grow, although if the poll is correct the undecideds could break 5:1 against McDonnell and he would still win.

Reader AC sends the following note:

I was at the Austin TEA Party and I'd like to help clarify events.  I was standing within 15 feet of both Senator Cornyn and Governor Perry when they spoke.  As usual, the Statesman only tells half the story.

Senator Cornyn most certainly received a loud chorus of boos, which continued throughout the speech.  While it was fine to let Senator Cornyn know what you think of TARP, at some point the boos just became childish.

When it comes to Governor Perry, this is where the Statesman report is way off the mark (why does that not surprise me?).  The people heckling Governor Perry were a couple of nuts at the front of the stage.  Otherwise, Governor Perry was WILDLY cheered.  In response to the heckling of the nuts, spontaneous chants of "Four More Years" broke out and were easily louder.

I hope this helps.

One of the stories of the past few election cycles has been the Democrats' outstanding fundraising.  One of the earliest signs in 2005 and 2006 that a wave was building was the fact that the DSCC and the DCCC caught up to and then surpassed their Republican counterparts in cash collected, which had been unheard of in recent cycles.

With two Governor's seats to defend this cycle, the Democratic Governor's Association, which is in charge of raising funds for Democratic gubernatorial candidates, has been breaking records this year.  It collected $11.6 million in the first six months of 2009.  In 2005 it raised $10.5 million for the entire year.

There is a caveat however.  The Republican Governor's Association raised $12.23 million, compared to $3.04 million in the first half of 2005.  In fact, the Republican's haul outstripped their 2006 take, when 36 governor's races were on the ballot.

Sarah Palin's surprise resignation last Friday has thrown one aspect of our culture into  dramatic relief: the unbridled arrogance of the pundit class. While it's fine to have an opinion about the way Palin orchestrated her resignation (and it seems just about everyone does) and though it's an irresistible parlor game to speculate about Palin's motivations and her future plans, the one thing that astonishes me is the string of pundits across the political spectrum proclaiming with certitude that Palin is out of the running for 2012.

Maybe she is. Maybe she's not.

We simply don't know what her prospects for 2012 are, nor do we know with any degree of certainty how the public - but most especially Republican primary voters - will react to Palin's announcement. And we definitely have no idea how they will react to things she may do in the future.

I suppose its human nature for pundits - who are supposed to be "experts" and have an opinion on everything under the sun - to make such declarations without having the faintest clue what the next 24 months might hold for Palin (or anyone else).

Even more to the point, pundits (and, yes, I regrettably include myself in this group) have time and again looked at the data and read the tea leaves and declared political outcomes with certainty, only to have voters turn around and decide things differently.

Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a perfect example of pundit arrogance.  It was a slow-motion, two-year "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment where almost the entire pundit class was spectacularly wrong from the beginning in declaring Hillary Clinton unbeatable and spent the rest of the time playing catch up to what was happening on the ground.

And we all remember what happened in New Hampshire.

The point is that politics, like life, is totally unpredictable. Pundits who say Sarah Palin has "no chance" or is now "written off" for 2012 are once again falling into the arrogance trap. They simply have no idea what Sarah Palin is going to decide to do. More to the point, if Palin does decide to run, pundits obviously have no idea how voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina might react to her two and a half years from now.

President Obama's job approval in Ohio has dropped significantly in the last two months, dipping under the 50% mark for the first time, according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University. In the last Quinnipiac poll in Ohio taken in early May, Obama enjoyed a healthy 62% job approval rating, with only 31% disapproving. Today, Obama's job approval stands at 49%, with 44% disapproving - a twenty-five point net drop in just eight weeks.

Not surprsingly, Obama has seen a corresponding drop among voters' approval of his handling of the economy: two months ago he had a net +21 approval (57/36), today it is -2 (46/48).

In the 2010 race for Senate, Rob Portman is well ahead of Tom Ganley for the Republican nomination while Lee Fisher ahead of Jennifer Brunner by a nose for the Democratic nomination:

Republicans
Portman 33
Ganley 10
Undecided 55

Democrats
Fisher 24
Brunner 21
Undecided 51

In general election match ups, both Fisher and Brunner run slightly ahead of Portman, though their leads have nearly evaporated over the last eight weeks:

General Election: Fisher (D) v. Portman (R)
Fisher 37 (-5 vs. last poll May 6)
Portman 33 (+2)
Undecided 26 (nc)

(See all Fisher-Portman polls here.)

General Election: Brunner (D) v. Portman (R)
Brunner 35 (-5)
Portman 34 (+2)
Undecided 29 (+2)

(See all Brunner-Portman polls here.)