While Sarah Palin was drawing major coverage at the start of her book tour last week, her successor as Alaska's governor was operating very much under the radar at the Republican Governors Association Conference in Texas.

In an interview with RealClearPolitics, Sean Parnell said his transition to the governor's office has been “pretty seamless,” given that he was a regular participant in meetings that Palin held with commissioners and staff for two and a half years. Since taking office, he says he's focused – like other leaders – on the economy. As for 2010, when he'll seek a full term, he says he'll stay focused on governing and not campaigning.

“Really right now I am focused on jobs for Alaskans and our economy,” he said. “I'm going to have to work through a legislative session to accomplish those ends, and I'm looking forward to working with legislators on that.”

The mild-mannered Parnell certainly in many ways differs from his former running mate. And in the wake of Palin's stunning decision to resign, that approach seems to have been welcomed by the state. A Dittman Research Poll released in October pegged Parnell's job approval rating at 81 percent, a strong position as he navigates both a primary and general election. Parnell, then the lieutenant governor, lost a primary for Alaska's lone Congressional seat in 2006 against incumbent Don Young.

A Parnell aide had said before the interview that the new governor would not take questions about his predecessor. Parnell has said he read large portions of Palin's new book, and in our conversation said he thinks he's following her example of leadership.

“Alaskans still want leaders who take a stand for them. That's something Governor Sarah Palin did for Alaska, that's something I'm doing,” he said.

Barbour: Health Care Bill “A Mackerel In The Moon Light”

As the Senate readied to vote on moving health care legislation to the floor, Gov. Haley Barbour (R) disputed the notion that Democrats would benefit by quick passage of legislation so they can move on to other priorities. To the contrary, he said voters might hold it against the party in power.

“The Democrats seem to believe that cramming this down America's throat is going to make them more popular. I think the American people will be livid if a party on a partisan vote crams an enormous change in public policy down their throat when every poll shows that most people don't want it,” he said. “It's like a mackerel in the moonlight. The longer it's out there the worse it stinks.”

Texas Two-Step

There are a host of primaries in the offing for Republicans next year, but none was more glaring at the Austin RGA gathering than the race between Texas GOP titans, Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Barbour has endorsed the incumbent, but said the RGA itself won't pick sides.

“I personally think Governor Perry deserves to be re-elected. I hope he is re-elected,” Barbour said. “I hope Senator Hutchison will stay in the United States Senate for the rest of my life.”

He spoke fondly of Hutchison, noting that her victory in a 1993 special election was the first pick-up in his time as RNC chairman. But, he argued, Perry has been a good governor and deserved more time, while he'd “hate to lose” Hutchison's voice in Washington. Despite the tough race, Barbour was optimistic.

“A divisive, expensive primary, regardless of whether it's in Mississippi, Texas or anywhere else, always makes it harder. But I think there's a strong likelihood that Texas will have a Republican governor in 2011, whether we end up having a divisive primary or not,” he said.

A lot of smart commentators seem to have written Sarah Palin off as a serious Presidential candidate in 2012 or beyond (she's only in her forties, so there are probably four or five more cycles where she could credibly run).  One of the more common justifications is that she's lost independents, and is upside down in her overall approval ratings.

I sometimes feel like I'm the only one in the country without strong feelings about Palin, and I certainly see a number of weaknesses in any Palin candidacy.  But I'm not sure that I would write her off because of her polling numbers.

Witness the polling numbers of another female politician who engendered strong feelings among members of the other party and independents. 

The polling numbers on Palin vary by question, but she's generally hovering at around 40% favorable/50% unfavorable.  These aren't great numbers for any politician.  But then-Senator Clinton was similarly upside-down at several points in the past decade, and although Polling Report doesn't have numbers going back to the beginning of the Clinton Presidency, I recall her being quite a bit less popular than Bill was (and he wasn't very popular from 1993 through 1995).  But she has also seen her approval ratings soar into the 60s, and had she spent some time and energy organizing her forces in caucus states, she'd probably be President right now.

Palin's weaknesses are certainly different than Clinton's were, but she has several strengths that Clinton does not.  I don't even know if she wants to be President, but if she plays her hand well over the next year or two and manages her "rehabilitation tour" well, she'll be in the running.

A new Iowa Poll finds that Sarah Palin has a 68 percent favorable rating among Iowa Republicans, "making her a credible candidate for the 2012 caucuses should she decide to run for president," the Des Moines Register finds.

But Palin doesn't score as well as Mike Huckabee, who has a 70 percent favorable rating and is viewed unfavorably by just 12 percent of Iowa Republicans. Palin's unfav number is double that -- 24.

Among Iowa voters overall you see why Palin is such a lightning rod, as she is the only potential Republican candidate with a net-negative favorable rating. And 30 percent view her very unfavorably, compared to 12 percent who view her very favorably.

Favorable Ratings
Huckabee 53 / 22
Palin 37 / 50
Gingrich 42 / 36
Romney 40 / 31
Pawlenty 17 / 10
Jindal 16 / 10
Pataki 16 / 14

The Iowa Poll was conducted for the Register by Selzer & Co. among 800 Iowa voters from November 8-11, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent.

For the first time, Barack Obama fell below 50 percent in the Gallup tracking poll.

Obama's decline comes at an historic pace. It ranks in the lower third of modern American presidents.

The fall below 50 is a fraught milestone for any president. In legislative terms, a president is only as powerful as he is popular. Public approval rating is the metric of that popularity.

Below 50, a president can no longer claim the majority's support. His political arsenal depletes. A president's political opposition has powerful, though nebulous, new ammunition.

Of the twelve presidents since World War II, Obama lost the majority at the fourth fastest rate. It nearly was worse. Ronald Reagan's fall-point came about a week sooner. That Reagan also fell below 50 during his first November, and would go on to languish below 50 for two years, illustrates that the milestone is not determinative.

But Friday's news—Obama at 49 percent—is indeed symbolically significant. It will immediately impact the health care debate, albeit intangibly and perhaps only slightly. It will be more difficult for the White House to pressure moderate Democrats.

Obama owes most of this year's decline to independents. But Obama's newly weak standing is also due to the loss of still-more Republicans and to a lesser extent, some Democrats.

The physics of Obama's approval rating generally reflect George W. Bush's in 2004, when he first dipped below 50 (mid 80s with his party, low to mid 40s with independents and high teens with the opposition). Bush below 50, however, maintained slightly stronger support within his base than Obama—possibly because 2004 was an election year.

Clearly, Obama's greatest issue is with the fickle middle. Obama's fragile bond with independents has been visible throughout his young presidency. As early as mid March, this writer was wondering: Can Obama Hold the Center?

Other recent polls, like Quinnipiac, have also for the first time tracked Obama below 50. But Gallup has unrivaled historical reach. Its findings carry unique symbolism. Obama's RealClearPolitics average, the mean of major public polls, is at 50.6 percent.

The bulk of Obama's public opinion decline occurred over the summer. Democrats can largely blame the crawling health care legislation. But more recent issues have not helped, including double-digit unemployment and his unpopular decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian criminal courts.

All presidents, save John Kennedy, eventually fall below 50. Gerald Ford fell below 50 during his third month (pardon of Richard Nixon) and Bill Clinton in his fourth month (a confused and unpopular early domestic agenda). Reagan fell in November 1981 (the U.S. was entering, what was then, the worst recession since the Great Depression).

The remaining post-war presidents held the majority's support longer than Obama. Excluding Kennedy, Obama's predecessors lost the majority on average after 23 months in office; the median was 13 months.

For some presidents, the fall below 50 fluctuates but generally marks the start of an unrelenting decline (Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter). Other presidents languish in the minority but eventually recover (Reagan and Clinton). Some presidents fall below the threshold and quickly recover (Dwight Eisenhower).

Democrats need not panic. Most modern re-elected presidents fall below 50 at some point in their first term. But his early popularity (nearly at 70) means that few have, so quickly, fallen as much as Obama. Obama's public approval suffered the worst third quarter (July 20 to October 19) decline of any elected president in the post-war era, according to Gallup.

In a time of tracking polls, Obama can recover and fall in a matter of days. After W. Bush fell below 50 in January and February 2004, he fluctuated in the 40s and low 50s throughout the year. Bush's long dive began in his second term.

Obama first saw 50 in late August, according to the Gallup tracking poll. We've known since then, with an eye on how other presidents dealt with that milestone, that: For Obama, The Fall Below 50% Looms.

Now Obama is here, a president without the majority. I've written before that public approval is the currency of political capital. Now we'll witness—as Democrats struggle to extricate health care from its legislative quagmire—how Obama governs without the riches of what was, last January, soaring public support. These are the periods that test presidents.

Rasmussen survey of the California Senate race shows incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer under 50% but still maintaining healthy leads over her two potential Republican rivals:

Boxer (D) 46
Fiorina (R) 37
Undecided 12

Boxer (D) 46
DeVore (R) 36
Undecided 13

Apropos Sean's post on the results of the CNN survey, there are plenty of data points to to explain why Americans are visibly frustrated with the state of the economy. While Wall Street Banks are set to dish out record-breaking bonuses just a year after being bailed out of the financial collapse, things are not nearly so rosy on Main Street:

Nearly one in 10 homeowners with mortgages was at least one payment behind in the third quarter, the Mortgage Bankers Association said in its survey. That translates into about five million households. [snip]

In the first stage of the housing collapse, defaults and foreclosures were driven by subprime loans. These loans had low introductory rates that quickly moved to a level that was beyond the borrower's ability to pay, even if the homeowner was still employed.

As the subprime tide recedes, high-quality prime loans with fixed rates make up the largest share of new foreclosures. A third of the new foreclosures begun in the third quarter were this type of loan, traditionally considered the safest. But without jobs, borrowers usually cannot pay their mortgages.

Once again, the lesson is simple: jobs are paramount. We see unemployment continuing to rise in 29 states, which means things are going to get worse before they get better.

This is exceedingly perilous political terrain for Democrats, who control all the levers of power but have spent the first eleven months of the year focused almost exclusively on health care. It's growing clearer by the day that the one signature item passed by this Congress (along strictly partisan lines), the stimulus, is at best a mixed bag and at worst a complete failure.

The Obama administration continues to insist its claim of more than 1 million jobs "saved or created" is legitimate, even as the underlying data supporting that claim has come under severe scrutiny.

Regardless, the claim is effectively trying to prove a negative (that the economy would be worse had the stimulus not passed), which is an utter intangible that doesn't matter a whit to voters. What matters to voters is what they see around them in the real world on a daily basis, and right now what they see is high and growing unemployment, and continued economic anxiety with no end in sight.

It was bound to happen sooner or later, though Democrats very much hoped that it would be later. Public opinion is shifting -- sharply -- and Americans are beginning to blame the Democrats for the state of the economy.  According to CNN, 38 percent of Americans blame the GOP for the state of the economy, down 15 percent from May, while 27 percent of Americans blame the Democrats, up six percent.  27 percent blame both parties.  Perhaps even more troubling, 28 percent of Americans believe that Obama's policies have harmed the economy, while 35 percent think they've made no difference.

Rasmussen is out with a new poll this morning indicating that Senator John McCain could be facing a stiff primary challenge from former Rep (and now radio talk show host) JD Hayworth. According to Rasmussen, McCain leads Hayworth by a slim two point margin, 45 to 43.

“This result is no surprise to us. Maybe Obama didn't understand that all the high officials of the so-called free media are appointed by the party.” - Michael Anti, a Chinese blogger, explaining why Obama's interview with the Chinese Newspaper Southern Weekly disappeared from some editions while a heavily edited version appeared in others.

The Watertown Daily reports:

With his prospect of winning the 23rd Congressional District race now almost zero, Conservative Party candidate Douglas L. Hoffman suggested Wednesday in a letter that “ACORN, the unions and the Democratic Party” “tampered” with results to deny him victory.

Mr. Hoffman provided no evidence to support his claims, but asked fellow conservatives to send donations his way to “ensure every vote is counted.”

This strikes me as a fairly transparent ploy on Hoffman's part to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the results. If he's got proof fraud occurred, then by all means bring it forward. But to cry fraud without proof is irresponsible, not least because will undermine future cases where fraud may actually have occurred.