Gallup has some good data out this morning, with a look at President Obama's approval rating in each of the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia).

It should be noted at the outset, however, that the polling data is based on telephone interviews from January 21 through June 30. His numbers have slipped steadily since then.

For what it's worth, though, Obama polled best in DC -- 92 percent approve. His lowest approval rating is in Wyoming, where just 46 percent approve.

From Gallup:

In general, state patterns of support for Obama follow the political orientations of the states. For the most part, the states that Gallup classified as "solidly Democratic" (based on the party affiliation and leaning of its residents in the first half of the year) had approval ratings at or above the national average of 63%. The four states Gallup identified as being "solidly Republican" -- Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, and Idaho -- gave Obama his lowest average approval ratings. But even in these four states, his approval rating exceeded his disapproval rating.

Some other nuggets:
Highest Red State Approval: North Dakota (63%)
Highest Red State Net Approval: Missouri (+33)
Lowest Blue State Approval: Colorado (55%)
Lowest Blue State Net Approval: Colorado (+22)

Gallup reported this week that Democrats enjoy a double-digit party identification advantage in 30 states, while just four had a Republican affiliation margin that high. In addition to the “solid” Democrat states, eight states “lean” Democratic with a margin of 5 to 9 points, while just one leans Republican.

However, as Gallup notes in its analysis, party leanings “are not necessarily indicative of a party's electoral strength.” This was especially true in the 2008 presidential election.

Nearly a quarter of the 38 states Gallup identifies as either leaning or solidly Democratic voted for John McCain. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia all have a Democratic identification advantage of 5 points or more, and all chose McCain over Barack Obama.

“Election outcomes are decided on party support (which, as shown here, typically shows a Democratic advantage) but also turnout among party supporters (which typically works in the Republicans' favor),” Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones wrote.

In six of the nine states, McCain did not just beat Obama -- he crushed him by 13 points or more.

In Arkansas, solidly Democratic by a 15-point margin, Democrats currently hold the positions of governor, both senators and three of four House seats. However, the state gave McCain a 20-point victory. McCain won Louisiana by 19 points, despite a two-to-one voter registration advantage and 5-point party ID margin for Democrats.

Oklahoma is another example of a state where party identification matters little. Eight of the top nine elected state officials are Democrats, while Oklahoma's two senators and four of its five representatives are Republican. In 2008, Democrats held more than a 200,000 voter registration advantage over Republicans, but McCain won by more than 400,000 votes.

“Much of this has to do with the fact that this state does reside in the Bible Belt and thus, there are more conservatives than liberals here,” said Jan Hardt, a political scientist at the University of Central Oklahoma. “Thus, this explains the vote at the national level -- such as for president.  At the local level, it is different, with Oklahomans voting for candidates that are locally known.”

To win these nine states, McCain relied not only on higher turnout, but also on winning over Democratic and independent voters. According to CNN exit polling, in five of the nine states, McCain won the votes of more than a fifth of self-identified Democrats. That includes 33 percent of Democrats in Oklahoma, 30 percent in Kentucky and 28 percent in West Virginia; in all three, McCain also won the independent vote by at least a 19-point margin.

Comparatively, McCain won the votes of at least 90 percent of Republicans in eight of the nine states; in just one of them did that many Democrats vote for Obama.

The Gallup analysis included more than 160,000 interviews conducted during the first six months of the year, and they were largely unchanged from its January report, which compiled data from all of 2008. Just nine states' affiliation changed (from lean Democratic to solid Democratic, for example), with six moving toward the Democrats on the party identification spectrum.

As it was in 2008, Massachusetts is the most Democratic state with a 34-point margin between Democrat and Republican identification totals. Following Massachusetts was Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia, which has never voted Republican in a presidential election in its 40 years of voting, is by far the most Democratic with a 65-point margin.

Utah and Wyoming were easily the two most Republican states, followed by Idaho, Alaska, Alabama and Mississippi. No other states had a GOP affiliation advantage.

Interesting tidbit on Obama from James Macintyre of the New Statesman:

From across the Atlantic comes more detail about Barack Obama's opinion of David Cameron. Last year, I reported that the then presidential candidate had emerged from a meeting with the Tory leader describing him as a "lightweight". Now it is claimed that Obama also said that Cameron is all "sizzle" and no substance.

The colourful verdict was apparently the result of meetings with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Cameron on 26 July last year, at the end of a Continental tour. I have been contacted by a senior figure at a respected national newspaper who gave me an account of the meetings from an Obama aide. After taking breakfast with Blair, visiting Brown in Downing Street and meeting Cameron in parliament, Obama is said to have given the following verdict: Blair was "sizzle and substance"; Brown was "substance"; Cameron was merely "sizzle".

That should make for an awkward "special relationship" if, as expected, the Tories defeat Labor in the coming year's election and Cameron becomes Prime Minister.

Jack Shafer escorts the Executive Editor of the Washington Post to the woodshed.

New Rasmussen survey in the New Jersey Governor's race has Republican Chris Christie up 13 points over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine, 50 -37. Eight percent are undecided.

Overall, Christie leads Corzine 50.7 to 38.0 in the latest RCP Average.

To get a sense of just how much today's speech was an attack on the previous administration's anti-terror policy, consider this opening salvo from Obama homeland security czar John Brennan today.

Eight years ago this morning, I read warnings that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike inside the U.S. but our government was unable to prevent the worst terrorist attack in American history that would occur on 9/11.

Read more about Brennan's speech today over at Politics Nation, including his explanation of why the Obama administration has ditched the use of "global war on terror" to describe their approach.

President Obama spoke from the Diplomatic Reception Room in the White House today following the Senate's 68-31 vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Here is an excerpt from his relatively short remarks:

These core American ideals -- justice, equality, and opportunity -- are the very ideals that have made Judge Sotomayor's own uniquely American journey possible. They're ideals she's fought for throughout her career, and the ideals the Senate has upheld today in breaking yet another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union.

Like so many other aspects of this nation, I'm filled with pride in this achievement and great confidence that Judge Sotomayor will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family, but I also think it's a wonderful day for America.

In an article explaining why Republicans won't defeat healthcare reform (and I'm ultimately skeptical that they will), Robert Reich writes:

Who can blame them for wanting to re-create 1994? Republicans have no other strategy. They can't attack Obama personally because he's just too popular. They've been incapable of coming up with their own plan for healthcare reform. The biggest healthcare interest groups -- the AMA, private insurers and Big Pharma -- have publicly backed the major healthcare initiatives coming from congressional Democrats (although, I suspect, are quietly supporting the Republicans' Astroturf blitz). Their "tea parties" in April were a flop. Their poll numbers are awful. Their major loudmouths -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannnity and Dick Cheney -- are not exactly attractive to most Americans. Their biggest nightmare, Sarah Palin, is already on the campaign trail for 2012.

It isn't too often that I see entire paragraphs written by really intelligent people where I disagree with almost every sentence -- or at least the implications of almost every sentence.  Consider:

"Who can blame them for wanting to re-create 1994? Republicans have no other strategy."

This may be true, but the implication that there's something wrong here, or that it proves something wanting in the Republican party is incorrect.  First, of course Republicans want to re-create 1994.  Every out-party wants to take control of Congerss.  And there isn't anything wrong with the 1994 model.  1994 isn't sui generis, its the basic battle map for making massive gains: make the party in power unacceptable.  There was no massive positive Democratic agenda in 2006 that Democrats used to take control of Congress; Democrats simply attacked everything Republicans did, and said "we aren't them."  In fact, I can't think of a single midterm election in history where the out-party made gains through its brilliant positive agenda; it's always simply "the other guy screwed up, and we won't be as bad."

"They can't attack Obama personally because he's just too popular."

That attitude is so seven weeks ago.  Obama's average approval rating at RCP is 53.7/40.8.  His approval rating at Pollster.com -- which measures trends, rather than simple averages -- has him at a slightly worse 53.4/41.2.  These aren't terrible numbers, but they are tepid, and they mean that Obama is probably upside-down in several dozen districts represented by Democrats.  They are easily in the range where red-state Democrats should become concerned about having their images transformed into Obama's face in a 30-second advertisement.

"They've been incapable of coming up with their own plan for healthcare reform."

This may be true -- though there are actually plenty of conservative suggestions for healthcare reform (occupying varying places on the spectrum between "constructive" and "lunacy").  But again, the lack of an alternative rarely hurts the out-party.  What was the Republican plan for healthcare reform the last time it was a major issue?  Nothing.  How did that hurt efforts to stop a Democratic health care reform push?

"Their poll numbers are awful."

I guess it depends on what poll numbers we're talking about, but they're even in the generic ballot, and just about every pollster shows them doing better than they have done in four years or so.

"Their biggest nightmare, Sarah Palin, is already on the campaign trail for 2012."

I'm not a huge Palin fan, but she held Obama to a 52%-40% edge back in June, before his net job approval declined by fifteen points or so.

In the end, I can't see Democrats letting health care reform fail this time around.  In 1994 there was a "there's always next year" theme, since no one really took seriously the possibility that they wouldn't control Congress again for another decade.  Democrats are all too keenly aware of the possibility that they could have their numbers seriously reduced, or be out of power altogether after next year's elections.  For Democrats, there is no tomorrow.

But showing your work is as important as coming to the right conclusion, and Reich's work on that paragraph is pretty rough.

A new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll finds Republican Bob McDonnell leading by 8 points in the race for governor of Virginia (Aug. 3-5, 600 LV, MoE +/- 4%). McDonnell, whom 57% have a favorable opinion of and 38% unfavorable, is viewed more favorably than either his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds (46%/40%), or President Obama (51%/44%).

Three months out from the general election, McDonnell leads with 51% to 43% for Deeds. McDonnell has the support of 88% of Republicans and 55% of independents, while Deeds is struggling to win over even three-fourths of his own party (77%) and independents (40%).

Tonight, Deeds is receiving a guest appearance from the president at a rally and fundraiser in Tysons Corner -- in suburban D.C. Despite Obama's relatively low favorable numbers in the state, the president should help raise some much-needed dough for Deeds.

McDonnell now leads by 10.0 points in the RCP Average for Virginia Governor

The Daily Kos has polled on the New Jersey gubernatorial race, and finds a somewhat smaller deficit for Gov. Jon Corzine (D) than other recent surveys, which have put former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie ahead by double-digits.

General Election Matchup
Christie 48
Corzine 40
Undecided 9

This poll, done by Research 2000, does not include independent candidate Chris Daggett, who has averaged in the mid-single digits. The RCP Average has Christie leading 12.5 points.

Corzine also again posts abysmal favorability ratings -- 35 percent overall and just 27 percent among independents.

Favorability Ratings
Christie 44 / 29
Corzine 35 / 56
Obama 62 / 31

The survey of 600 likely voters was conducted from August 3 to 5, with a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.