Not a typo.

I've been harping on my 1994-is-roughly-the-median-result for Republicans this cycle theme for most of the year.  The latest SurveyUSA poll of Virginia's Fifth Congressional is more than consistent with this theory.  SurveyUSA shows Republican Rob Hurt leading Freshman Democrat Tom Perriello by an astonishing 58%-35% margin.

Now, Perriello was something of a surprise winner in 2008, and it was assumed that he'd have a tough race.  But his district is "only" R+5, Obama almost carried it, and it is much more heavily Democratic at the local level.  There are 41 Democrats in districts with more Republican PVIs.  This, of course, begs the question of what their polling looks like.  I'm guessing that, generally speaking, it isn't pretty.

Three new polls highlight the uphill battle facing  incumbent Arkansas Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln. On Sunday, Talk Business Quarterly released a poll conducted on July 17 showing Lincoln trailing Republican John Boozman by 25 points. This morning the Republican polling firm Magellan Strategies released a survey of 897 likely voters taken Monday July 12 showing Lincoln losing to Republican John Boozman by a whopping 31 points.  Late this afternoon, Reuters/Ipsos published the results of its poll of 600 registered voters conducted over the weekend showing Boozman with a smaller but still daunting lead of 19 points.

"In a relative sense she's not in a good position," said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young, in what may be the year's biggest understatement.  One hundred and five days from Election Day, Lincoln is winning the support of fewer than one in three Arkansas voters, on average.  That is unheard of for an incumbent who's been twice elected statewide with more than 55% of the vote.   Lincoln began showing signs of vulnerability in early 2009, when a March survey by the Democratic firm PPP showed her approval rating at an anemic 45%.  By the following January, however, her approval rating had collapsed to just 27%.

Gallup today released the results of its survey of American workers and retirees on their opinions on Social Security solvency. The pollsters found working Americans are "more pessimistic than at any time since Gallup began asking this question in 1989." The question is, "Do you think the Social Security system will be able to pay you a benefit when you retire."

That's "a benefit," as in "any benefit whatsoever." Six out of 10 nonretired Americans (60 percent against 36 percent) said "no." If they're right, this could prove a huge problem because

Gallup research earlier this year found that nonretirees have become slightly more likely since 2007 to project Social Security as a major income source in their retirement, concomitant with a drop in projected reliance on pensions, 401(k) plans, and other investments. Americans thus appear to be in a bind, perceiving an increased need for Social Security while at the same being less sure it will be there when they need it.

Not surprisingly, Gallup found Social Security skepticism to be highest among 18-to-34-year-olds. More intriguing was the discovery that current retirees, in proportions very similar to nonretirees, think their current benefits are likely to be cut. The pollsters found that 37 percent of retired Americans believe that they will continue to receive full benefits, while 56 percent believe that their benefits will at some point be pared back.

A new survey from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling finds Nevada Senate challenger Sharron Angle has yet to unite Republican voters around her candidacy. Just 63% of Republicans surveyed say they support the GOP nominee and one-fifth say they have an unfavorable opinion of her.

There is still three months for Angle to bring GOP voters home, but she begins the general election race at a disadvantage to incumbent Sen. Harry Reid, who has the support of 80% of Democrats.

He now leads Angle by a 48%-46% margin, with 6% undecided. Putting it in perspective, the majority leader of the Senate should not be polling under 50% or hold just a 2-point lead over a challenger. However, this is the highest mark he's received against Angle in eight months of polling.

Still, Reid's job approval rating remains upside down at 44%, the same as President Obama's. Reid still holds a large cash-on-hand advantage ($9 million to Angle's $1.8 million), but Angle outraised him in the second quarter.

The survey of 630 registered voters was conducted July 16-18 with a margin of error of +/- 3.9%.

RCP rates this race a Toss Up.

The Democratic firm PPP is out with a new poll in the Florida Senate race showing Independent Charlie Crist with a six point lead over Republican Marco Rubio, 35 to 29, with Democratic Kendrick Meek bringing up the rear at 17%. Fifteen percent of those surveyed remain undecided.

Substituting Democrat Jeff Greene for Kendrick Meek (the two are in a primary battle that won't be decided until August 24th), Crist extends his lead over Rubio to 9 points, 38 to 29, with Greene picking up just 13% of the vote.

From PPP's analysis of the results:

The Democratic Senatorial Primary won't be held until late August and the lack of a unified front in such a contentious election may be hurting the party. Neither Democratic candidate has substantial name recognition; 60% of voters are unsure of their opinion of Jeff Greene and 55% have yet to form an opinion of Congressman Kendrick Meek. Democratic voters are more attracted to Crist than their own party's candidates. However, Meek is more likely to pull votes
away from Crist than Greene. Meek is seen more favorably amongst Democrats than Greene; 33:23.

It is unclear that Crist will be able to maintain his lead. Democrats represent 52% of Crist's supporters. Crist loses support in a horserace that includes the more popular Democrat, Meek versus one that includes Greene, suggesting that as the August 24th Democratic primary approaches and passes and Democrats begin to rally their support behind one candidate, Crist may lose much of his foundation of support.

Overall, Crist leads in the RCP Average by 5.2%. RCP currently ranks this race as a Toss Up.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin is running to become the state's next senator, he announced this morning. The news came just hours after Manchin signed a bill late last night that created an Aug. 28 primary and Nov. 2 general election to fill the remaining two years of the late Robert Byrd's Senate term.

The announcement came at a news conference at the state Capitol, where Manchin signed his candidacy papers.

Many expect Manchin's Republican opponent to be Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, a five-term congresswoman who, thanks to a provision in the state legislature's bill, will be able to run for the Senate seat as well as for re-election to her House seat. The move makes Capito's Senate bid all the more likely, as she can continue serving in the House even if she loses the Senate race.

Manchin, who turns 63 next month, was re-elected governor in 2008 with a state record-setting 70-26 percent margin.

Manchin appointed his former general counsel, Carte Goodwin, as the temporary successor to Byrd and he will be sworn in today to serve until November, when the special election winner will likely be sworn in. Had the legislature not approved the added elections for this year, Goodwin likely would have served through the 2012 elections, when Byrd's term ends.

On RCP, Kyle Trygstad reports on the uphill financial climb facing Carly Fiorina and Elaine Marshall as they try to unseat vulnerable incumbent senators. David Paul Kuhn argues that the economy is only one of many factors that determine the outcomes of elections. Also on RCP, Thomas Sowell writes that the NAACP, with its attack on the Tea Party, is engaging in "race card fraud."

On RCW's Compass blog, Greg Scoblete weighs the arguments for and against an Israeli attack on Iran.

On RCM, Josh Barro argues that while local governments do need help from the federal government, that help should be combined with reforms to the broken public employee compensation system. John Tamny explains why we shouldn't worry about the wealth gap.

On RCS, Tim Joyce writes about the active Major League Baseball players who are on their way to becoming Hall of Famers. Finally, RCS ranks the "Top 10 Winningest Owners in Sports."

The Daily Caller pairs a column by Andrew Breitbart with its latest scoop on what those liberal journalists and pundits on Journolist had to say among themselves about the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Before we get to the substance of the report, here's Breitbart's take/spin:

American journalism died today. What The Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs. They deserve the deepest levels of public consternation. Will they get it?

The only way that the media will recover from the horrifying discoveries found in the Journolist is to investigate and investigate until every guilty reporter, professor and institution is laid bare begging America for forgiveness. Will they do it?

The Daily Caller's story title plays into Breitbart's call for a mass defenestration, and then some: "Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright." Why, it's as if Woodward and Bernstein and the Nixon administration had switched places!

What the e-mails that the Daily Caller uncover actually show is a bunch of liberal journalists reacting petulantly to the news of Wright's indefensible statements hitting the big time. Here's what got them worked up:

[I]n mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos[,] Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright's remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Members of Journolist were outraged that this would be brought up, for various reasons but basically because they didn't want anything to get in the way of Senator Barack Obama becoming president with a new progressive majority in Congress to rubber stamp his agenda.

They suggested reacting to the Rev. Wright problem in different but complimentary ways, including a collective letter of concern, suggesting that members of the list not give the story any more oxygen, and, well, here's what that prince of a pundit Spencer Ackerman had to say:

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?

The story does say that some Journolist members argued against Ackerman's idea, but "only on strategic grounds." However, one e-mail quoted, by Kevin Drum, contains at least the seeds of a moral objection.

Several list members insisted to reporter Jonathan Strong that it wasn't like their calls to ignore the story were taken very seriously by most journalistic outlets. The truth of the matter is complicated, but consider this: Michael Tomasky is one of the journalists quoted trying to change the subject. He was then titular editor of the Guardian's Comment is Free America, which did not ignore the controversy.

I know this because I contributed essays (here and here) to the Guardian that were critical of both Wright and Obama, and one of those essays was part of a symposium. The press could have done more to cover the Wright flap, but it did not ignore it.

This story is the second Daily Caller leak from Journolist. More are sure to follow. It all sounds very bad but we are left to rely on the Daily Caller's reporting on/interpretation of the off-the-record e-mails. One hates to give Ezra Klein advice but wouldn't it be better to stop the steady drip-drip-drip of embarrassing headlines by releasing the complete Journolist archives now? We're going to find out anyway, gents.

Today, the Behavior Research Center released a poll (pdf) showing a dramatic falloff of support for President Barack Obama among Arizonans. He has a net negative of -11. In the same poll in January (pdf) he had +5 and last September (pdf) he had +14.

The current poll translates to a negative of -26 among Caucasians and +25 among Hispanics, but the dynamic picture is not anywhere near as polarized as the static snapshot might lead us to believe. The pollsters write in their summary, ''Erosion in his job performance scores transcend all demographic and political groups."

The math bears that statement out. Last September, Obama enjoyed +7  support among Caucasian Arizonans and +67 among Hispanics, so the net swing against Obama among Hispanics (-42) has been more significant than the swing among Anglos (-33). The pollsters suggest, "It is very likely that the President did not help his overall image by jumping into the illegal immigrant/immigration reform issue that is raging in Arizona."

Georgia's state employee health care fund is going broke.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts firms are dropping private health care coverage in favor of pushing employees onto the state's health care rolls, insurers are now pushing lower cost plans that heavily restrict people's choice of doctors, and the Obama administration is now arguing the individual mandate is a tax.

Not only are all of these developments things President Obama promised wouldn't happen under his plan, he repeatedly accused those suggesting such possible outcomes as being either ill informed or purposefully misleading.  Remember this?