A new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) has Gov. Jon Corzine (D) closing what was a 9-point gap with Chris Christie to just 1.

General Election Matchup
Christie 40 (-4 from last survey, 9/11-14)
Corzine 39 (+4)
Daggett 13 (unch)
Undecided 8 (+1)

Christie led by 1.2 percent in the RCP Average.

Asked their second choice, 48 percent of the supporters of Chris Daggett, the independent candidate, said they'd back Christie, while 34 percent said Corzine. Eighteen percent weren't sure. That would seem to confirm conventional wisdom which says that his presence is hurting the Republicans chances of reclaiming the governor's office.

Only 44 percent of Daggett voters say they're solidly committed to their choice, with 56 percent saying they could change their mind.

Christie's favorable ratings continue to drop, while Corzine's has ticked up. More than half of voters now have an opinion of Daggett as well, though his standing in the polls held steady.

Favorable Ratings
Christie 42 / 44
Corzine 37 / 55
Daggett 30 / 24

On an issue that has been covered quite a bit in the news lately, 35 percent of voters say Corzine has been making an issue of Christie's weight in the race, while 47 percent said he wasn't. Only 11 percent say his weight is a legitimate campaign issue. Interestingly, 4 percent of voters say it actually makes them more likely to support him, but 19 percent say they're less likely to vote for Christie because of his weight.

In a generic ballot test, New Jersey voters say they were more likely to vote for a Republican in the General Assembly -- 41 percent to 35 percent. Democrats now hold both chambers.

The survey of 571 likely voters was conducted from October 9-12, with a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent.

Despite the bewilderment from conservatives and liberals alike, Gallup reports that Pres. Obama's job approval rating has actually increased slightly since winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. It had been 53% in the three days leading up to the announcement, but after interviews Friday, Saturday and Sunday, Obama's approval is up to 56% -- his highest mark since early August.

However, Gallup's Jeffrey Jones explains why this brief respite from dwindling numbers won't last, especially with discussion this week getting back to health care reform and Afghanistan.

"In fact, odds are the bump will not last, since the improvement in his rating from his term-low 50% early last week has come exclusively among independents and Republicans, who are less likely to stay loyal to the president," Jones writes.

Obama currently has a 53.0% RCP Average Job Approval rating.

Wall Street Journal: "The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity."

Washington Post: "It's an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree. In blessing President Obama, the Nobel Committee intended to boost what it called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." A more suitable time for the prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit."

New York Daily News: "The Nobel Peace Prize committee members made fools of themselves in bestowing the honor on President Obama and very nearly did him the same disservice.

He is fortunate to have made the best of an idiotic decision."

Boston Globe: "Whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Obama prematurely, global awareness of the award can translate into a valuable American asset. Hard-headed leaders in Tehran, Moscow, or Pyongyang will not suddenly do Obama's bidding simply because he has been praised by a committee of dignitaries in Oslo. But this Peace Prize carries a message for those leaders and their publics. It says that instead of being outside an international consensus, the United States today stands at the center of that consensus. The announcement from Oslo has enhanced American soft power. We hope Obama will earn his prize by making the most of that soft power."

Los Angeles Times: "For our part, we're fans of the president. We endorsed him for the job, and we greatly prefer him to his predecessor. But it's difficult to see why he deserves the peace prize so soon after taking office. The Nobel committee didn't just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the prize itself, which traditionally rotates among world leaders (Willy Brandt, Mikhail Gorbachev), charitable organizations (Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders) and humanitarians (Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa)."

New York Post: "Ironically, Obama's brief record contains only examples where he's arguably lowered chances for peace -- such as his calls for scrapping nukes that have preserved peace for decades.

And he's undermined folks who've risked life and limb to bring peace and freedom to their countries -- voters in Iran and Honduras, dissidents in Cuba and Burma, allies in Eastern Europe . . ."

San Francisco Chronicle: "The award is about the future, one that will be very hard to live up to. This is one prize that rejuvenates his goals but can't be fully redeemed until years from now. That way the world can see if Obama lived up to the high expectations that a majority of voting Americans - and now Nobel judges - have placed on his presidency."

Miami Herald: "Europe loves Mr. Obama because he's not George W. Bush, whose war-on-terror policies are reviled, but is that really a prizeworthy distinction? It shouldn't be.

His selection is an honor for this country, yet the word premature springs to mind. Mr. Obama has made some eloquent speeches, most recently reaffirming a commitment to diplomatic engagement before the U.N. General Assembly. And he has done some good things, too, like ordering the eventual closing of the prison at Guantánamo and outlawing waterboarding.

That's a good start, but no more than that. The Nobel Peace Prize should represent something more than a pat on the back for good intentions."

National Post: "What seems clear from all this bafflegab is that Mr. Obama is being given his award for mere words -- for striking fashionable poses in favour of multilateralism, for making a nice speech in Cairo, for offering "hope." Months after Americans learned to dismiss Mr. Obama's 2008 presidential campaign slogans as the bromides they were, Scandinavians apparently are still drinking his Kool-Aid."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Mr. Obama's harshest critics -- a motley crew of conservative Republicans, right-wing bloggers, talk-show hosts and the Taliban -- are beside themselves with rage that their nemesis has received another "undeserved" honor.

Though pleasantly surprised, even Mr. Obama's admirers are baffled by the announcement out of Oslo that the 44th president of the United States will be the third sitting president to receive this honor."

Philadelphia Inquirer: "That Obama was chosen for this honor only nine months into his tenure is more evidence of the impact that his election alone has already had globally. The hope that was sparked with Obama's election in November has stirred people across the planet."

I think Michael Tomasky has it about right when he says:

Let's face it. This is so out of nowhere that it could be almost embarrassing for the White House. If Obama and his people try to act like this was really deserved, he could damage himself politically.

In fact, Ruth Marcus - no right wing nut job, she - does think it's embarassing:

This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it's no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn't done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

Obama did offer some self-deprecating words at the beginning of his remarks today, and he did make an effort at humility saying he didn't feel he deserved the honor (whether he was being sincere is another story).

But here's the problem: by bestowing an "achievement award" upon Obama for things he hasn't actually achieved (but sure hopes to one day) the Committee has made the entire thing look farcical. And by accepting the award, President Obama become complicit in the farce while saying in the next breath he really didn't deserve it.

Here's the other problem: folks across the political spectrum are asking, "what has he done to merit the prize?" Heck, the question even being asked by the Associated Press. The entire episode is serving as a big spotlight on Obama's lack of accomplishments to date - not something the President really wanted, especially coming on the heels of the much-discussed Fred Armisen SNL skit that lampooned Obama over the same issue.

I think as a political matter Obama probably would have been better to use his eloquence to graciously decline the prize, suggesting that he aspired to do great things that would one day merit such a prestigious achievement award. But it's a close call.

The only thing that isn't a close call is that the Nobel Committe made itself a laughingstock with the pick. And despite their efforts to try and help Obama, in reality they threw him a political knuckleball right when he really didn't need it.

An email from the President just arrived in my inbox:

Obama for America

Thomas --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

CNN is teasing an upcoming segment with the question: Will Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win help him pass healthcare?

Peter Beinart, no stranger to good analysis, deftly captures the gestalt of problems with Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He's done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he's given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he's really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there's absolutely no way to know if he'll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama's actual accomplishments

Obama will survive this award. The damage to the Nobel Committee itself will be greater. They've clearly fallen in love with celebrity, and with the idea of shaping the course of history—in other words, they've fallen in love with an absurdly grandiose conception of their role. The Nobel Prize Committee should be in the business of conferring celebrity on unknown human-rights and peace activists toiling in the most god-forsaken parts of the world; the people who really need the attention (and even the money). It should be in the business of angering powerful tyrants by giving their victims a moment in the sun. Choosing Barack Obama, who practically orbits the sun already, accomplishes the exact opposite of that. Let's hope Obama eventually deserves this award. And let's hope the Nobel Committee's decision meets with such a deafening chorus of chortles and jeers that it never does something this stupid again.

You didn't think he would turn it down, did you?

Following the RNC's criticism of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize award, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine says this proves the president has brought the country back to its stance as a world leader. Here is Kaine's full statement:

“The Nobel Committee's decision to award this year's Peace Prize to President Obama is an affirmation of the fact that the United States has returned to its longstanding role as a world leader. The President has made a conscious decision from the beginning of his presidency to reinvigorate diplomacy, by talking to our friends and our rivals. Those efforts to bring world leaders together are helping the people of the world to face monumental challenges like nuclear arms proliferation, conflict resolution and climate change.

“With this prize comes a sense of enormous pride, but also an enormous sense of humility about the work that remains if we are to resolve the global problems facing humanity. Democrats will continue to work with President Obama to keep moving America forward, as we continue in earnest to sow peace, progress and understanding around the world.”

A commenter from Cynthia Tucker's blog:

BREAKING NEWS: Fetus wins Nobel Peace prize. Experts see excellent potential based on genetic testing. “Although the fetus has yet to actually take a breath, the results of our DNA analysis says that, once born, the child will have the capability of speech and is likely to wish for world peace” said researchers about the 20 month old fetus.