It's what happens when you mess with the former Mussolini of Manhattan.

Look out, Cory Booker.

A narcissistic, arrogant, out of touch politician who uses the clout of his office to smooth over a rupture created by an adulterous relationship. Sound like the kind of person who should have their butt voted right out of Congress? J. Patrick Coolican takes an unflattering look at Nevada Senator John Ensign.

The biggest drag on Republican John Kasich, the former Ohio Congressman who's now in a dead heat race against incumbent Governor Ted Strickland, is the eight years he spent working for the now defunct investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Strickland has been pounding Kasich for his relationship with the Wall Street firm and for his unwillingness to release his tax returns disclosing how much money he made during his eight year tenure. Kasich responded on Friday by releasing his 2008 tax returns showing that he made a $182,692 salary from Lehman and a $432,000 bonus in 2008.  The Columbus Dispatch has the rest of the deets on Kasich's returns.

The LA Times teamed up with the University of Southern California to poll the California gubernatorial and senate races (3/23/2010-3/30/2010, 1515 RV, MOE +/- 2.6 for general election, unspecified for primary).  The poll represents a joint venture between Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Republican firm American Viewpoint.

California Governor Primary (GOP):
Meg Whitman (R) 60%
Steve Poizner (R) 20%

California Governor General Election:
Meg Whitman (R) 44%
Jerry Brown (D) 41%

California Senate Primary (GOP):
Tom Campbell (R) 29%
Carly Fiorina (R) 25%
Chuck DeVore (R) 9%

California Senate General Election:
Barbara Boxer (D) 48%
Generic Republican (R) 34%

President Obama Job Approval:
58% approve
34% disapprove

Senator Barbara Boxer Job Approval:
40% approve
38% disapprove

Last week, the Democratic Strategist's Ed Kilgore took up the ongoing debate over President Obama's political opposition and racism. The latest iteration began with Times columnist Frank Rich. Rich ascribed racial motives to a debate not about race (in this case, healthcare). I wrote a column arguing it's not about race. And I drew a bigger picture: Rich's charge was indicative of decades of leading leaders who “constantly saw the color of the issue as the only issue.”

Kilgore appears unaware of this history (or how it helped sunder the FDR coalition). I'll spare the reader the sprint through those decades. (But for a starting point see Democrat Henry Jackson; despite his strong record on civil rights, many liberals portrayed him as a racist because he opposed mandated bussing.) A simpler place to start is with one very important political book: Ben Wattenberg and Richard Scammon's “The Real Majority” (1970). They wrote of the politics of the time:

With half of women in America uptight about law and order what was the liberal response? Law and order, they said, “is a code word for racism.” In other words, “lady, you're not really afraid of being mugged; you're bigot.” … instead of saying, “We are for civil rights and against crime,” many seemed to feel that anyone against crime must also be against civil rights.

For my 2007 book on how Democrats lost white men and with them, their majority, I interviewed Michael Dukakis. A related excerpt:

“In the name of tolerance, did liberals, tolerate crime?” I ask him.

“We did a lousy job helping people to understand the difference,” [Dukakis] responds, placing his elbows on the desk. “It's one thing to treat people fairly no matter who they are or where they come from no matter the color of their skin. It's another thing not to take seriously the fact that crime in neighborhoods and cities is up and people are getting terrorized and folks don't want to come out of the house and all that stuff, there's got to be a response to that. Clinton understood that.”

So Dukakis believes liberals made this mistake (albeit the realization was too late for his own political good). Bill Clinton, check. And to a significant degree (albeit insufficiently) Barack Obama agrees as well (a point I wrestled with after his “bitter” mistake in 2008).

The basic point is that many leading liberals seek to (or by consequence do) delegitimize valid concerns by tossing the race card. And as I said on Lou Dobbs' radio show last week, conservatives do the same thing with the “patriotism card.”

But Kilgore wrote that my “standard” on the race debate was:

… If there is any possible non-racial motive for a political posture, then it's irresponsible to impute any racial motives, not just today, but in the past…

Kilgore makes my point in his attempt to delegitimize it. My critique used the word “only.” My argument is with those who say a debate that does not largely concern race largely does, in fact, concern race (as Rich and others take to an extreme on healthcare; we'll return to issues like welfare).

In Kilgore's view, to deny an issue is mostly not about race is equivalent to denying racism. Kilgore's spin is complicated by my book (which discusses the racist appeals of men like Goldwater and Wallace) and the column in question (where I note debates over issues like welfare as “racially loaded" and cite the racism of some anti-Obama radicals). It's true, of course, that some debates are about race and also about much more than race – like say welfare or affirmative action.

Kilgore carries on:

If David Paul Kuhn really believes that antagonism to busing, affirmative action, welfare, and immigration did not have any racial content…

Let's stop there. The “if” undercuts the point, since I never wrote that I believe such revisionism (because I do not). Kilgore also mistakes me as a conservative because I highlight a liberal error (he overlooks recent pieces on fiscal conservative hypocrisy or concerning a GOP presidential contender's radical words).

Ergo, Kilgore mounts an argument. The argument is just not with me. Rather, he is in a fight with the hard right. And thus Kilgore disputes hard-right revisionism on issues like the Civil War or civil rights (where I agree with him).

Yet hard-lefties create their own revisionism as well. Consider Paul Krugman. In 2007, he wrote a column exemplifying the same mistake as Rich. Krugman wrote that racism explained much of the rise of Reagan. I laid out Krugman's mistakes here: Misunderstanding Racism in the Rise of Reagan and Republicans. And sometimes, even for an economist like Krugman and Princeton's Larry Bartels, it's simply a matter of misreading the data on the white vote and race.

So we return to that 1970 warning. Then, whites heard from liberals: “Lady, you're not really afraid of being mugged; you're bigot.”

Now, many whites hear: “Man, you're not really upset about healthcare or the role of government or inattention to the economy, you're a bigot.”

The same mistakes decade after decade (whether on policy, priorities or race debates) produce the same result. Many liberals suggest the worst motives when whites do not support liberal policy. Many whites turn their back on liberalism. And all over again, liberals wonder why the Democratic Party loses whites.

Presidential Tracking Polls

President Obama ended this week about where he was at this time last week in the Gallup tracking poll.  His job approval rating stayed steady at 50%; his disapproval ticked up a point to 43%.

Rasmussen showed a slight deterioration for the President over the past week.  His strongly approve/strongly disapprove numbers were steady at 31%/41%.  But over the course of the week, his approval sank slightly from 49% approve/51% disapprove to 46% approve/53% disapprove.

The President also got some unwelcome news today from the CBS News poll.  The poll of adults – which should skew Democratic compared to the actual electorate – finds that only 44% approve of the job the President is doing.  41% disapprove.  This matches the lowest approval rating found for the President outside of the Rasmussen poll.

As we've seen before, the President's numbers below the topline are significantly worse than his actual polling numbers.  34% approve of the President's job on health care – down a point from his previous February low, while 42% approve of his handling of the economy (which is a minor improvement from January).

Senate

Ohio Senate:  In yesterday's polling of the Ohio gubernatorial race, Rasmussen found the same movement Quinnipiac showed, with Ted Strickland closing the gap with John Kasich.  Today he found that the Senate race still leans toward Rob Portman regardless of whom the Democrats nominate this spring.  He leads Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher by five points and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner by seven.  This race is still a tossup, but you can probably put a finger on the scale for Portman.

Arizona Senate:  The DailyKos teamed up with Research 2000 to poll the Arizona Senate race.  Mind you, consistent with their other polling, it seems to use the 2008 electorate as its basic turnout model; their poll was 31%D/40%R/29%I, while in 2008 the Arizona electorate was 32%D/39%R/30%I.  In 2004, which seems like a more accurate turnout model for 2010, we saw a more heavily Republican electorate:  30%D/44%R/26%I.

In any event, R2K first polled the JD Hayworth/John McCain matchup, and found McCain winning handily, 52%-37%.  While it is still early (the primary isn't until late August), and I suspect that Hayworth isn't going to have any problems raising money, you would still have to classify this as "advantage McCain."

R2K then polled two high profile Democrats who haven't declared:  Former Governor (and 1988 Democratic Presidential Primary candidate) Bruce Babbitt, and 8^th District Representative Gabrielle Giffords.  The 71-year-old Babbitt trailed the 73-year-old McCain by six points, while Giffords trailed McCain by nineteen points.  Two fairly unknown actual candidates, Rodney Glassman and Nan Stockholm Walden, trailed the Senator by twenty and thirty points, respectively.

If Hayworth were the nominee, the Republicans would probably have little to worry about this cycle, as he leads all the candidates as well.  His margins are smaller than McCain's, but that is due to candidates falling into the “undecided” category rather than flipping.

Governor

Wyoming Governor:  Rasmussen also polled the Wyoming Governor's race.  This race actually looked like it could be interesting for a while, as the Supreme Court of Wyoming invalidated the state's legislative term limits.  Governor Dave Freudenthal deliberated challenging the limits for the governor as well by running for a third term, but ultimately decided not to do so.

The race could still be interesting.  Although state Senator and Minority Leader Mike Massie trails all of his GOP opponents, none of them are at 50%.  Wyoming gubernatorial politics are surprisingly nonpartisan, and the relevant split at the state level tends to be more between ranchers and railroaders than Republicans and Democrats.  The GOP has actually only won the office twice since 1974, and Freudenthal was elected in the very good Republican year of 2002.  Nevertheless, while we can't rule out a Democratic win, it seems very unlikely.

House

Nothing today.

Miscellany

CNN polled 935 registered voters to get their views on what party is best positioned to handle the nation's problems.  At first glance, the news is good for the GOP, since most of the movement is in their direction.  But what we may be seeing is just evidence of how balkanized our politics are becoming.  Areas where the country was split between the parties before, it is still split.  Where the GOP had previously led (terrorism), the country moved toward parity, and the Democrats.  While the GOP's competitiveness with Democrats on health care is truly historic, the Democrats' parity with the GOP on foreign affairs and taxes is likewise historically unusual.

Numbers from CNN's August polling are in parens; you can see historical polling numbers at the link.

Economy:  GOP 48%, Dems 45% (39%/52%)

Foreign Affairs:  GOP 44%, Dems 48% (44%/47%)

Afghanistan:  GOP 44%, Dems 46% (40%/48%)

Terrorism:  GOP 50%, Dems 40% (52%/39%)

Health Care:  GOP 46%, Dems 48% (42%/51%)

Taxes:  GOP 48%, Dems 45% (47%/47%)

Deficit:  GOP 46%, Dems 44% (46%/46%)

Medicare:  GOP 46%, Dems 47% (39%/52%)

Unemployment:  GOP 46%, Dems 46%

Education: GOP 40%, Dems 50%

Environment:  GOP 34%, Dems 57%

A new Rasmussen survey finds former Rep. Rob Portman ahead of both potential Democratic opponents -- Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner (March 30, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%).

A Quinnipiac poll out earlier this week found both Dems with small leads over Portman.

Portman 43 (-1 vs. last poll, March 4)
Fisher 38 (-1)
Und 14

Portman 45 (+2)
Brunner 38 (+1)
Und 13

Click here for a full list of Ohio Senate polls.

The latest DailyKos/Research 2000 poll (3/29/2010-3/31/2010, 600 LVs, MOE +/- 4%) finds that John McCain is in pretty good shape to win a fifth term to the Senate.  In addition, he is presently in solid shape to defeat former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging McCain from the right. The only declared Democratic candidate is Tucson City Councilman Rodney Glassman.   President Obama's approval rating in the state is upside-down at 41%-55%:

Primary Matchup:

McCain -- 52%, Hayworth -- 37%

General Election:

McCain -- 48%, Bruce Babbitt -- 42%

Hayworth -- 43%, Babbitt -- 42%

McCain -- 53%, Gabby Giffords -- 34%

Hayworth -- 49%, Giffords -- 36%

McCain -- 52%, Rodney Glassman -- 33%

Hayworth -- 48%, Glassman -- 37%

McCain -- 57%, Nan Stockholm Waldman -- 21%

Hayworth -- 53%, Walden -- 22%

The latest CBS News poll (3/29/2010-4/1/2010, 858 A, MOE +/- 3%) shows President Obama's approval rating ticking downward this month.  It now stands at 44%, down five points from the March polling.  41% of those surveyed disapproved of the President's performance.

34% approved of the President's handling of health care reform (55% disapprove), 84% of Americans think the economy is in bad shape (down slightly from last year), and 35% of Americans are "very concerned" that someone in their family could lose a job.