Public Policy Polling (D) surveyed voters in Arkansas' Second Congressional District, carried narrowly by Pres. Bush in 2000 and 2004 but that went for Sen. John McCain by a 10-point margin in 2008. Rep. Vic Snyder (D), who recently voted for the health care reform bill in the House, could face a tough race there in 2010.

General Election Matchup
Snyder (D) 44
Griffin (R) 43
Und 13

Snyder (D) 45
Meeks (R) 42
Und 13

Snyder (D) 44
Wallace (R) 42
Und 13

Snyder has an upside-down 42 percent job approval rating, with 46 percent disapproving. President Obama fares worse, with 41 percent approving and 52 percent disapproving.

Only 32 percent of district respondents support the health care bill, while 55 percent oppose. Still, 45 percent say Snyder's ideology is "about right" for the district, while 42 percent say he's too liberal. But 50 percent say the Democratic Congress is too liberal, while 39 percent say the GOP conference is too conservative.

“Vic Snyder's situation is pretty emblematic of the perils Democrats face going into 2010,” said PPP's Dean Debnam in a release. “His district hasn't been competitive in a long time but his health care vote and Obama's unpopularity with his constituents has put him in a vulnerable position.”

The survey of 400 voters was conducted November 11-13 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent.

In an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg, Anita Dunn offers a fairly definitive answer to the question about whether the President of the United States gave his stamp of approval on launching a war on FOX News:

HUNT: Just - just - just a follow-on on this. Was President Obama aware ahead of time that you were going to criticize FOX?

DUNN: You know, the - I am not a person who is known for going rogue, OK?

Just a bit prior, Dunn used the same phrasing in response to a similar question from Hunt:

HUNT: Let me ask you about your famous broadside against FOX News.

DUNN: Absolutely.

HUNT: Was that just Anita Dunn talking, or was that something you and Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod planned ahead of time?

DUNN: Well, you know, Al, I am not exactly one known for going rogue, to use a popular phrase these days.

In other words, the White House's assault on FOX News was a carefully choreographed effort planned by Dunn, Emanuel, Axelrod, and President Obama himself.

Lastly, Dunn made clear that she "absolutely" considers MSNBC a different (which is, in the context of this debate, a synonym for "legitimate") news network:

HUNT: Does MSNBC have a political agenda, too?

DUNN: You know, it's interesting, because that, of course, is what gets thrown back. And, obviously, your friend, Karl Rove, who you quoted earlier, declared war on them during the previous administration, and you may recall that FOX actually applauded Karl for doing that.

Now, I will say this: MSNBC has as their host of their morning program a former Republican congressman who was a member of Newt Gingrich's revolution. That, I think -

HUNT: So you think they're different than FOX?

DUNN: Well, but I also think that their opinion shows - their opinion shows absolutely have an opinion -

HUNT: But as a network, they're different.

DUNN: - but I do regard them as different as a network, absolutely.

I've been noodling around with how to get a rough idea of the broadest playing field for 2010.  This isn't a "predict how many seats will be lost" post; rather it's a "how many Democrats currently need to be concerned about flying into a headwind" post.  The easiest solution is to just look at PVI, but in a Republican year, Democrats in Democrat-leaning PVI districts need to be concerned (the inverse was the case in 2006 and 2008).  But where's the "break even" point for Democrats right now?

Obviously there's real problems with this analysis, as there are with any predictive models, but keep in mind that this is just a rough model to try to understand the Republican playing field if the headwinds stay the same.

Last Tuesday, John Garamendi got about 55% of the two-party vote in California's Tenth Congressional District.  The district is D+11, meaning that Garamendi underperformed the district's expected Democratic performance by about six points.  So if D+11 districts are performing like D+5 districts, that means that, roughly speaking, D+6 districts are now at the "break even" point.  To put it differently, if Garamendi had run the exact same race against the exact same opponent in a D+6 district, he would have been in trouble.  I think CA-10 is a pretty good model, since it was a pretty "generic" race.  I think the result is about right too, as I think that NY-23, with a "normal" fact pattern (i.e. no liberal Republican candidate drops out and endorses the Democrat three days before the election), would have elected a Republican with about 54 or 55% of the two-party vote.

I did a count, and there are 124 Democratic representatives in districts that are D+6 or better.  I did a quick "can a Republican REALLY win this district in 2008?" count -- has a Republican won or come very close to winning the district since 1994, exclude all Hispanic districts, count all Republican+5 or greater PVI districts as competitive -- and I came up with 109 districts.  This roughly coincides with the 80 or so Democratic seats that Cook sees as competitive.

Obviously, not all of these seats will be remotely close to competitive -- some may even go unchallenged.  But still, it's a pretty big playing field for the Republicans.

A new Public Policy Polling (D) survey in North Carolina (711 voters, 11/9-11, +/-3.7%) shows that President Obama's job performance score has pulled back even, with 47 percent approving and 47 percent disapproving. That's an improvement from a 45/49 split in October. Asked for a letter grade, Obama gets slightly more "A's" than "F's," 32 percent to 29 percent.

Meanwhile, a Civitas poll of the Tarheel State also shows improved numbers not just for Obama, but new Gov. Bev Perdue (D). The president's job approval rating climbs to 50 percent, up from 44 percent. Perdue, who had been considered one of the nation's least popular governors, saw her net approval rating jump 28 points, though it's still an upside-down figure: 43 percent approve, 49 percent disapprove. Only 29 percent had approved of her job performance in October.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) had taken a small lead after announcing her campaign for governor. But the man who still holds that job has retaken a commanding lead in the primary race, a new Rasmussen poll finds.

Primary Election Matchup
Perry 46 (+8 vs. last poll, 9/16)
Hutchison 35 (-5)
Medina 4 (+1)
Not Sure 14 (-5)

Looking deeper, Rasmussen finds that Gov. Rick Perry's (R) advantage is among the more conservative voters in the primary electorate. He leads 52-30 percent among those who identify themselves as conservatives, while Hutchison leads among moderates and liberals.

Perry has ratcheted up his anti-Washington rhetoric of late, generating a banner headline on Drudge for saying this week that the Obama administration was "hell-bent" on socialism. That's proving to be a winning message in the race considering both candidates are very popular in their own right. Among these primary voters, Perry's job approval rating is 73 percent, and both have nearly identical fav/unfav ratings -- 75/24 for Perry, 75/23 for Hutchison.

The survey also asked if Hutchison should resign her Senate post in making a gov run, something she was expected to do but not yet indicated when. Sixty percent of primary voters said she should, while 26 percent said no.

The survey of 798 likely GOP primary voters was conducted November 11 and had a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, increasingly active on the rubber chicken circuit, used a speech in Iowa last week to criticize Democrats on both health care and energy, saying at one point: "They should be focused like a laser on jobs, not acting like a manure spreader in a wind storm."

Over two years ago, however, Pawlenty was critical of his own party for being slow to offer solutions on those two issues, saying about health care in particular that the GOP has been "slow to articulate what they're going to do for an average person to contain health care costs." More:

There's a sense that there's emerging issues that we haven't responded to or been leading on. For example, health care is breaking the back of individuals and families and unions and employers. Republicans have been, I think, slow to articulate what they're going to do for an average person to contain health care costs.

People don't want the government to take over the system, but they do want to know, what are you going to do about it to help me and my families. So that's an emerging issue, or an issue that's been rising on people's agendas that I think the Republican Party has been slow to address.

The comments were made in a 2007 interview from John McCain's New Hampshire headquarters. The interviewer linked to the exchange after news that Pawlenty would be returning to the state as he prepares for his own possible presidential bid. Pawlenty was one of McCain's national co-chairmen for the 2008 race.

Of course, the economy has since emerged as the preeminent concern of Americans, and Pawlenty's comments in Iowa reflect that changed dynamic. But Pawlenty has also not shied away from the health care debate, recently announcing steps that states could take to expand coverage opportunities for citizens.

He also stepped in somewhat awkwardly on the debate on "death panels," reflecting the perils of being a primary candidate. Dan Balz yesterday wrote about the perils of Pawlenty potentially "losing his true voice and his authenticity" as he begins courting Republican activists.

Among likely Democratic voters (27% of whom know that the special primary for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is next month), Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a commanding lead with 44% of the vote, followed by businessman Steve Pagliuca (17%), Rep. Michael Capuano (16%) and City Year co-founder Alan Khazei (3%), according to a new Suffolk University poll (Nov. 4-8, 600 RV). One-fifth of likely voters remain undecided.

On the GOP side, just 6% of voters know that a special GOP primary will be held in less than a month. Still, State Sen. Scott Brown leads former statewide candidate Jack E. Robinson by a 45%-7% margin, with nearly half of voters still undecided.

In the January special general election, Coakley (D) leads Brown (R) 58%-27%, while Capuano leads 48%-29% and Pagliuca leads 49%-27%. Brown leads Khazei by a 33%-30% margin, with 35% undecided.

For governor, there is a tight race in the GOP primary between convenience store magnate Christy Mihos (33%) and Charlie Baker (30%), former head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.

In the general election, though, state Treasurer Tim Cahill (I) leads both Republicans, while all trail Gov. Deval Patrick (D).

Patrick 36 - Mihos 20 - Cahill 26 - Und 18

Patrick 38 - Baker 15 - Cahill 26 - Und 22

President Obama just announced a "job summit" scheduled for December. CBS News' Mark Knoller tweets:

markknoller: Obama wanted to show before leaving for Asia, that he's focused on jobs - which polls show is the issue of top concern to Americans.

Er, ok. Jobs have been the top concern of Americans since the day Obama took office. So why did it take him eleven months to "show he's focused" on the issue?

And how's the public going to respond to Obama's big idea, which is to sit down and talk about creating jobs, instead of actually taking steps to create them? This administration should have offered a point-by-point roadmap to job creation a month after taking office. Instead, while the "jobs saved or created" canard used to prop up support for the stimulus has been unravelling over the last few weeks, the administration has been (and remains) singularly devoted to health care as its signature domestic policy issue.

Public Policy Polling's (D) latest survey in North Carolina finds not much has changed for Sen. Richard Burr (R) as the year to Election Day begins.

His job approval rating is just 40 percent, typically a warning sign for an incumbent. But against several potential Democratic foes, the numbers have changed little since last month's survey, with Burr still ahead by double-digits. The only significant change being a 6-point uptick in a matchup of the incumbent versus a generic Democrat. "It's gotten closer because Democrats this month expressed a stronger commitment to supporting their party nominee," a PPP analysis says.

General Election Matchups
Burr 44 -- Cunningham 31 -- Und 25
Burr 45 -- Etheridge 35 -- Und 20
Burr 44 -- Foy 32 -- Und 23
Burr 45 -- Lewis 32 -- Und 26
Burr 45 -- Marshall 34 -- Und 21
Burr 45 -- Wicker 33 -- Und 22

Burr 44 -- Generic D 40 -- Und 16

More from PPP:

“Every poll we do on Richard Burr provides more evidence that his fate will be tied up in the national climate,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “His approval numbers are mediocre but he'll still get reelected if it's a Republican year. If things move back in a more Democratic direction he's extremely vulnerable.”

The automated telephone survey of 711 state voters was conducted November 9-11, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.7%.

A US Army Major weighs in on Fort Hood:

As an officer in the United States Army, I'm angry for so many reasons over what happened at Ft Hood.  I'm angry that twelve of my fellow soldiers and a contractor were murdered.  I'm angry that over thirty people have suffered life altering injuries from which they will never fully recover.   I'm angry that the lives of so many families have been forever ruined.  I'm angry that this happened on an Army post on American soil where soldiers should be safe.  And I'm angry that the murderer was a terrorist who masqueraded as an Army officer for half a dozen years.

But as angry as I am at what happened, I'm even angrier that it was allowed to happen.  Apparently, there was no shortage of warning signs that this guy identified himself more with Islamic Jihadists than he did with the US Army.  From speeches, writings, conversations, affiliations and postings on Jihadist websites, there were more than enough dots to connect that should have exposed this guy as someone inclined to attack innocent people in the furtherance of a political, religious and ideological agenda.   There were more than enough red flags raised that at a minimum, should have gotten Hassan kicked out of the Army.

But just like 9-11, those agencies and individuals charged with keeping America and Americans safe, failed to connect the dots that would have saved lives.  Jihadist rhetoric espoused by Hassan was categorically dismissed out of submissiveness to the concepts of tolerance and diversity.  The Army as an institution has been neutered by decades of political correctness and the leaders in Hassan's chain-of-command failed to act accordingly out of fear of being labeled anti-Muslim and receiving a negative evaluation report.  The counter-terrorism agencies knew this guy was communicating with Al-Qaeda and dismissed it as academic research instead of delving deeper into the probability that a terrorist had infiltrated the ranks.

Even four hours after Hassan stood on a desk yelling Allahu Akbar and opened fire, the FBI stated that they were not investigating the attack as an act of terrorism even as there were still reports of other gunmen on the loose.   Meanwhile the Army continues to dismiss it as a “tragedy” and an “isolated incident by a lone gunman” while the media has invented the psychological condition of post-traumatic stress disorder by proxy.  There is more concern for promoting the appropriate information operation campaign and maintaining the illusion of safety than there is for actually exposing the weaknesses and faults in the system that allowed this to happen.  We're even being told that damage to the Army's efforts at diversity would be a greater tragedy than the murder of the twelve soldiers – how ironic that it's Veterans' Day.

This has nothing to do with being anti-Islamic.  After numerous tours to Iraq and working with countless cultural advisors on Ft Bragg, I know dozens of Muslims who I respect and admire greatly.  This has everything to do with force protection and security being trumped by the concepts of political correctness and diversity.  This has everything to do a hypocritical system and culture that breeds timidity and dismissiveness in the interest of career advancement.  If I preached a white-supremacist ideology or described Timothy McVeigh as a hero to the cause of freedom and liberty, how long do you think I would still be in the military drawing a salary, receiving educational benefits and getting promoted like Hassan did?

Hassan's radical ideology grew to the point that he committed mass murder because too many leaders were too afraid to lead out of fear harming their career or the image of the Army.  If those leaders don't have the intestinal fortitude, moral conviction or personal courage to do stand up, speak up and protect soldiers, then retire, resign or get out of the way and let somebody else do it for you.

Shawn Keller

Major, US Army

Fort Bragg, NC