Economic woes in the Buckeye State put Gov. Ted Strickland in a vulnerable position for 2010, a new Quinnipiac Poll (1,123 RVs, 11/5-9, +/- 2.9%) finds.

General Election Matchup
Strickland (D) 40 (-6 vs. last poll, 9/15)
Kasich (R) 40 (+4)
Don't Know 18 (+3)

Other recent Ohio polls have also found this race a dead heat at this early stage. Strickland, who won his 2006 election by more than 20 points and boasted strong poll numbers early in his term, now sees his approval rating at an all time low, 45 percent, with 43 percent disapproving.

Former Rep. John Kasich still is an unknown quantity to nearly 70 percent of voters, the poll finds, but has pulled into a tie with the incumbent after trailing by 30 points in Quinnipiac's initial matchup in February.

“This race is about Ted Strickland," Quinnipiac's Peter Brown says in the poll release. "Because so few voters have a firm fix on Kasich, the campaign is likely to be a race to define him in the eyes of most voters. That will mean the Strickland campaign will be trying to convince those seven in 10 voters who don't know enough about Kasich that he isn't their kind of guy."

Nearly two-thirds of Ohio voters say they're dissatisfied with the way things are going in Ohio. Just 33 percent approve of how Strickland is handling the economy, a number that's held steady in the last few surveys. Kasich has an 8-point lead now when voters are asked who would do a better job handling the economy and state budget.

In short: add Strickland to the long list of incumbents who will face tougher-than-expected challenges next fall because of the economy.

The latest in the jobs "saved or created" fiasco, this time a Boston Globe report:

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started. [snip]

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.'' Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

Good grief: Seventy-seven thousand dollars spent, "almost nothing" in return in terms of job creation.

This administration has gotten away with conjuring up an utterly dubious metric out of thin air to promote the efficacy of its stimulus plan, despite the fact that we're  now seeing local reports in state after state that the claim of jobs "saved or created" is essentially bogus.

Rick Newman explains why he thinks unemployment will hit eleven percent. Me, I dunno - but I'll take any excuse I can find to throw up a clip from Spinal Tap:

I was struck by this description in the WaPo's feature on Dede Scozzafava this morning:

Around 6 p.m., she and her husband pulled over at a Stewart's convenience store on the rainy drive home from her Watertown campaign office. An aide called with dismal poll numbers. For hours, they sat, with Scozzafava staring at the windshield wipers going back and forth. Her husband counted the people using the convenience store's ATM to pass the time. Mostly, she just cried.

Now, far be it for me to suggest that Scozzafava isn't allowed to have some moment of emotional weakness during what was (I'm sure) an overwhelming and ultimately unkind whirlwind through the national spotlight. But to sit "for hours" staring out the window and crying? That doesn't exactly cut a profile in courage, nor is it suggestive of the type of disposition one might hope for in our elected leaders.

A related point: note that the only reason we have this image of Scozzafava's hours-long pity party is because she willingly provided it to the Washington Post reporter.  Did she think it painted a flattering portrait of her, or that it would possibly endear her to readers? That's just shockingly bad PR judgment.

The episode with the WaPo fits neatly in with the list of egregious missteps piled up by her campaign. Set aside all the ideological arguments about Scozzafava's demise in NY-23 and what it means or doesn't mean.  The one thing that's inarguable is that Scozzafava was a terrible candidate who had more than a small hand in her own undoing.

"This is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill," President Obama told ABC News on Monday. That he had to say this, said so much. The same day, Dick Durbin, the Senate's second most powerful Democrat, told reporters that abortion "is going to be a major issue" ahead. "I hope," Durbin added, "we can find a way around it."

We still have not found a way around it. This country's dominant moral debate for the past three decades is now at the center of the most ambitious, albeit contentious, effort at social reform in about four decades.

Not since civil rights has an issue so enduringly divided and defined American politics. So it was Saturday night that Speaker Nancy Pelosi begrudgingly agreed to the most significant limitation on the procedure since late-term abortions were banned six years ago.

The House provision bans taxpayer-subsidized insurance from covering elective abortions and, controversially, prohibits any participating private insurer from covering abortion in their regular policy. This was some moderate Democrats' asking price for their support. And so it passed out of the House, 220 to 215.

Only about one tenth of women who have an abortion ask their insurer to fund the procedure, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. And yet, the provision was enough to instantly incite the debate.

Today's abortion wars tend to be settled by small battles. And both camps mobilize for every battle as if it was the war. It's the conflict that is certain. Regardless of who wins a battle, the war goes on.

And in this latest confrontation, how quickly the brinkmanship came. At least 40 Democrats have threatened to vote against the final bill if it contains the provision. Democrat Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has actually floated the idea that the IRS should reconsider the tax-exempt status of United States Council of Catholic Bishops for pushing the abortion provision.

Meanwhile, on Monday, Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson said that he might not allow the Senate legislation to proceed unless his party's leadership resolves the abortion issue. By Tuesday morning, Nelson was on NBC's "Today" show warning, "While there may be different views about abortion, I think there's a strong majority against using federal dollars to fund abortions."

Later in the day, Hotline summed up the views of liberal bloggers with the headline: "This Will Not Stand." The major editorial boards have now also weighed in. The New York Times wrote that the provision, "was depressing evidence of the power of anti-abortion forces to override a reasonable compromise." The Wall Street Journal wrote that, "the real importance of the abortion uproar is as preview of the politics that will dominate every medical coverage issue if ObamaCare becomes law."

The very cultural debates Obama has sought to avoid now may derail, but more likely delay, the paramount legislation of his presidency. In spring, Obama told reporters that the Freedom of Choice Act, a law affirming abortion rights, was not his "highest legislative priority." The warring factions have now elevated abortion to a presidential priority.

Healthcare, like modern American politics, is now too captive to the abortion debate. More than three-decades of argument, of litigation, of exhaustive, virulent and sometimes violent confrontations, have passed. And yet, we so easily forget, how little we have changed.

About one fifth of the public believes abortion should be legal in all circumstances. About one fifth says it should be illegal in every circumstance. And the larger middle believes it should be legal in limited circumstances. These fault lines have defined abortion since the Supreme Court legalized it in 1973.

Two years after Roe v. Wade, Gallup began to ask whether abortion should "be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

In 1975, 21 percent said always legal. In 2009, no change. In 1975, 54 percent said mostly legal. Now it's 57. Then, 22 percent said always illegal. Now it's 18.

The constancy of abortion views does not mean it is without flux. For the first time since 1995 a majority--51 percent--said they were "pro-life" in the Gallup Poll. That was in the spring. By summer, the division reemerged. "Pro-life," 47 percent. "Pro-choice," 46 percent. Yet these entrenched divisions only appear to taunt conflict. Each side is out for unconditional surrender.

Abortion is America's undying and irreconcilable debate. It is the vacuum of modern politics. A policy quagmire. And yet, we know why. Abortion concerns the most central of concerns. Life on one side. Liberty on the other. What may be most remarkable is not the endurance of this cultural debate, but that abortion divides America so deeply, so constantly, that it holds hostage so many debates and also us.

A new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) tested Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) against a generic conservative challenger in 2012. The result: the moderate may not survive such a fight.

2012 Primary Election Matchup
Conservative Challenger 59
Snowe 31
Not Sure 10

Snowe boasts a strong approval rating among the larger electorate, 51 percent vs. 36 percent who disapprove. But, PPP says:

"Snowe's numbers are steady with independents but down with both Democrats and Republicans compared to three weeks ago, an indication of the perilous political position she finds herself in. Republicans are mad at her for supporting any Democratic bill, while Democrats still are not completely happy with her because of her hesitance to support a public option."

Snowe is just halfway through her term, but these numbers suggest that Tim Pawlenty was not alone when he told MSNBC last week, "We want Olympia Snowe in the big tent but she can't say she's a Republican and vote against the Republican position much of the time." Still, any conservative challenger would need to amass considerable resources against the established Mainer.

The survey of 1,133 likely voters was conducted before last week's election, from October 31-November 1. The subsample of 415 likely GOP primary voters had a margin of error of +/- 4.8 percent.

A new Quinnipiac survey shows Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R) was ahead in her bid for re-election when she unexpectedly dropped out of the race yesterday. Rell led her closest potential Democratic opponent, Sec. of State Susan Bysiewicz, by 6 points, and 2006 Senate nominee Ned Lamont by 20 points.

With Rell out of the picture, the spotlight falls on Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele (R), who the Hartford Courant reports has Rell's support, and the Democratic primary battle likely to come down to Bysiewicz and Lamont.

Bysiewicz leads the primary with 26%, followed by Lamont with 23%, Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy 9%, and three others with less than 4%. One-third of voters are undecided.

"Ned Lamont made headlines last week by announcing his exploratory committee, but Bysiewicz is the stronger general election candidate," said Quinnipiac pollster Douglas Schwartz. "In the primary Lamont and Bysiewicz are at the top, but Lamont's money gives him a big advantage."

Picking up the theme of GOP internal conflict and running with it, Marc Ambinder writes about how the conservative GOP candidate was pushed out in Colorado, in favor of former Congressman Scott McInnis. Ambinder insists that McInnis is a “moderate” Republican, and is confused why the GOP would want to push an “archetypical” conservative out for the squishier McInnis.

Maybe this says more about the modern GOP than anything, but let's turn to Keith Poole's Optimal Classification algorithm, which orders all members of a given Congress from most liberal to most conservative, based on their entire voting record. In McInnis' last Congress (the 107th), which I've linked, McInnis is the 76th most conservative member of the House, setting him to the right of members like JC Watts, Mark Edward Souder (Newt Gingrich cancelled a fundraiser for him in the 104th Congress because Souder wanted to keep the government shut down), Saxby Chambliss and Richard Burr. He's to the right of Eric Cantor, Roy Blunt, and John Boehner. He's sandwiched between Minnesota's Mark Kennedy and Kansas' Jerry Moran. None of these members scream “squishy.”

Unfortunately we only have OC scores going back to the 107th Congress, but if we look at DW-NOMINATE Common Space scores, which compare the voting records of all Congressmen and Senators in the country's history, we see that, on a left to right continuum with 44,865 entries, McInnis is number 36,375 (I'm oversimplifying here).

So while McInnis may once have been pro-choice (which would interestingly have put him to Ritter's left), I think the hyper-salience of the abortion issue among the GOP base is seeping into conventional wisdom regarding McInnis' voting record. His voting record was solidly conservative; he's no Charlie Crist, much less a Dede Scozzafava.

“One of the things that bugged me while I ran was looking around at all these people onstage who were senators and congressmen — I as a taxpayer was paying their health insurance and their salaries and a lot of their staff. I was having to figure out how to make my house payment and pay my health insurance.” - Mike Huckabee on the financial difficulty of running for president as a private citizen.

On CNN's Reliable Sources this weekend Joe Klein called the GOP "an extremist shard of a party that is essentially a regional southern party in the country and doesn't have broad appeal to the mass of Americans."

This comment - made in the wake of Republicans picking up two governorships last weekend on the back of overwhelming support among Independents - is rightly being ridiculed for its silliness.

But moments later in the program Klein went on to say something important, even if it did undermine his argument:

And I think Michael Medved is right that there is a real antsyness out in the country right now in large part because of the recession, and in large part because the public doesn't like what the government has done in response to the recession even though it seems to have worked at -- it has prevented something far worse, a depression from happening. But still, there's a great deal of anger at big anything -- big government, big business, et cetera.

There is indeed a "great deal of anger" in the country aimed at "big anything" - including "big government. But which party is more identified with big government?

And as unemployment sits above ten percent for the first time in more than a quarter century, Democrats are busy pushing the largest government expansion of health care in more than two generations. That will be followed by proposing an unprecedented expansion of government control and regulation of the U.S. energy economy.

More to the point, the anger and disaffection noted by Klein is not confined to the right - though that's where it finds its greatest expression, which leads Klein and others (like Paul Krugman and Frank Rich) to the erroneous conclusion that the GOP has been utterly consumed by an angry, paranoid mob.

That was the lesson delivered by Independents on Tuesday. It's also evident in the most recent poll data which now shows President Obama with less than majority support for his handling of almost every significant issue facing the country - including health care.

It would be logical to conclude that if Democrats don't heed this lesson and the mood of the country remains as sour as it is now, they should expect to be punished rather harshly next November.

Yet all indications are that the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress - based on the urging of members of the left wing intelligentsia like Klein himself - are drawing precisely the opposite conclusion and are gearing up to push these initiatives through Congress using any and all means at their disposal.