A National Journal Insiders Poll shows respondents favoring Mitt Romney for president in 2012 if John McCain doesn't win this year, with 55 percent of the vote.

However, when they polled conservative bloggers the results were much closer:

A survey of right-of-center bloggers was more divided; Romney won, but with a plurality of less than one-third, barely ahead of Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. The mood toward Romney was summed up by one respondent: "Alas." A blogger who picked Jindal said, "I think the field would be quite wide-open in 2012, but the base will demand a 'fresh face,' someone with a record of accomplishment, and someone who's not identified as an old Washington hand."

MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews trails incumbent Republican Sen. Arlen Specter by just five points in a new Quinnipiac poll:

Incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter leads TV news commentator Chris Matthews, a possible Democratic challenger, 41 - 36 percent. Democrats back Matthews 56 - 24 percent, as Republicans back Sen. Specter 63 - 16 percent and independent voters go with the Republican 44 - 27 percent.

H/T to Allahpundit, who writes:

[T]here'll be no more entertaining campaigner than Matthews -- a new gaffe at every stop as his mind races to keep up with his mouth, a new "Hardball" lowlight reel issued by the NRSC every week as they sift through and stitch together years of bon mots. He'll lose by 15 points but every minute will have been worth it. There's almost no other media figure I'd rather see run, in fact. Emphasis: Almost.

The Campaign for Americas Future and Democracy Corps have released the results of a new polls this morning taken at the Netroots Nation conference of online progressive activists in Austin, Texas over the past weekend.

Several interesting trends emerged from the more than 2,000 activists who attended the conference. Of those who participated in the survey, 19 percent said "Energy and global warming" was their top concern, with "The war in Iraq" garnering 11 percent for a fourth place finish. However, when asked which issues should be the top priority of the next administration, the top choice was Iraq, getting 23 percent of the vote. Energy and global warming was a close second, with 20 percent of the vote.

The views of Congress were quite dim, with 68 percent saying Congress had accomplished "Not too much," and just 2 percent saying "A great deal." In fairness, 16 percent did say "A good amount," but that's still barely over 10 percent. 12 percent said "Nothing at all."

"This straw poll was designed to help us understand a little more about who our netroots activists are and where they stand," said Toby Chaudhuri, communications director for the Campaign for America's Future. "There's a sea change happening in American politics and it's growing on the Internet. Progressives are gaining popularity, strength, capacity and political sophistication, far outpacing conservatives online."

There are no perfect election simulators or predictions. Otherwise, we wouldn't be burdened by such minor afflictions as voting. But that hasn't stopped many from trying. The pollsters are most infamous for gaming election match-ups, with varying degrees of success this cycle.

Combining the latest polling data, Election-Projection.net does its best to forecast how the contest between John McCain and Barack Obama will play out. Based on the polls, both state and national, the site says Obama has a 95.8% chance of winning. I suppose that's fair to say, as they say, if the election were held today. The site has some great features and I'll definitely add it to my bookmarks, though a few of the state probability meters did catch my attention (not in a good way). For instance:

McCain has less than a 10% chance of winning Pennsylvania and Colorado? And less than a 25% chance of taking New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Ohio? These are zero sum estimates, so I can't fault them too much. After all, McCain could win 49% of the vote in Pennsylvania, but that's still a "loss."

Of course, if you disagree with the site's rankings, you can enter your own probability numbers with their interactive feature.

Today's biggest political story is Newsweek's new poll showing Barack Obama with a 15-point-lead over John McCain. Given that we're also mourning the death of legendary comedian George Carlin today, it's only appropriate that we call out this poll, and the treatment it has received in the press today, for its absurdity.

Progressive blogs like Daily Kos have been blogging about the Newsweek poll findings today, but it's conservative blogs who have been digging through the poll's methodology. After all, nearly every other poll has Obama up between 2 and 5 points. As Outside the Beltway's James Joyner writes:

Newsweek has huge swings from month-to-month that just aren't showing up in the other polls. Simply put, there's either something serious wrong with their methodology or that of all the other major polls.

The problem with Newsweek's methodology is that they vastly oversampled Democrats in the poll compared to Republicans. Granted, there should be some degree weighted sampling in favor of Democrats, considering national poll numbers. But most of that shift will already be represented in independent sampling, where Obama has a measured advantage. Conservatives have often complained about Republicans being unfairly undersampled in national media polls. Newsbusters says this is no exception:

As the reader should suspect, the poll questioned more Democrats than Republicans: 231 Republicans to 324 Democrats, plus 307 independents

So, if the poll was so poorly conducted, why no outcries from the McCain campaign? Well, McCain does relish the "underdog" role, so maybe that's part of it. The other major political story of the day is about how McCain's monthly fundraising for May was on par with Obama's. Maybe the McCain campaign wants to use the underdog status to further prod those sometimes reluctant Republican fundraisers who seem to be coming on board?

Most polls show Hillary Clinton holding onto a slim advantage in Indiana's upcoming primary, and Barack Obama maintaining a double-digit lead in North Carolina. But a new Insiders Advantage poll now shows Clinton leading Obama by two points in North Carolina. The results do come with major caveats: her lead is within the poll's margin of error and it could be an anomaly, as even Insider Advantage polls from earlier this week show Obama with a double-digit lead. Nonetheless, what happens if Clinton does win both primaries next Tuesday? She is still unlikely to significantly narrow the pledged delegate gap, but two surprising victories would almost certainly help her with super delegates, or at least stop the bleeding. But her real argument then effectively becomes the increasing likelihood that she wins the popular vote and can add in the far less convincing point that the states she's won equate to more electoral college votes in a general election.

Marc Ambinder pours some cold water on the poll's findings:

AN OBVIOUS question about the Insider Advantage numbers is that Obama receives only 65% of the black vote in the sample; also, blacks tend to make up about 40% of the SC electorate - they're 37% of the early voters -- and yet they're 25% of the electorate in the IA poll.

TPM's Eric Kleefeld says the numbers are "demonstrating just how badly the latest controversies have hurt Barack Obama."

Conservatives bloggers have been rooting for Clinton lately and are jumping on the poll results. Ed Morrissey:

If Obama cannot hold North Carolina, it will likely have superdelegates questioning whether the damage has gone too deep for recovery

And The American Spectator's Philip Klein:

[I]f he were to lose Indiana and win North Carolina just narrowly, it would really cement doubts about his canidacy. And if somehow he manages to lose in both states, he could actually see ths nomination slip away.

We're still waiting for actual election results, but exit polling is showing that the "negative" campaigning from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has hurt their standings with voters. While more respondents blame Clinton for the negative tone, it appears to have "tarnished" both candidates, at least according to ABC.

The Donkelphant blog says the negative attacks likely hurt Clinton more in the eyes of PA voters, but since the same data shows most of them made up their minds a week ago, it may not actually affect tonight's results:

It’s interesting that a lot of people decided who they’d vote for a long time ago, but given the recent polls from PA doesn’t this bode well for Hillary despite the perceptions of these negative attacks?

Everyone from the Drudge Report to traditional polling operations are offering their takes on where Pennsylvania voters stand the day before the polls open in the crucial primary state. 

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down the demographics samples in the polls to help explain the differences. In short, the polls have given different statistical weight to how many African-Americans will vote in the primary and how the white vote is breaking down.

Over at Philly.com, Will Bunch says predictions are a bad idea, but adds:

That said, there's one thing that seems impossible to avoid about 32 hours before the polls FINALLY close here in Pa. And that is this, that there is virtually no way that Barack Obama can win here. I don't know the exact margin of victory, but a Hillary Clinton triumph seems certain. 

Most liberal bloggers want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic primary, while conservative bloggers remain divided over whether Clinton or Obama is the weaker candidate against John McCain. Obama supporters are now trying to portray a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania by 5-10 points as a victory for Obama. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters, like the state's Gov. Ed Rendell, now say such a victory would be great for Clinton. Of course, the spin-free take is that a relatively close outcome in Pennsylvania was always the most likely outcome, as it comports with Obama's ability to narrow the gap in large states where Clinton started with a large, institutional lead. There are only two ways that next week's results will significantly change the dynamic of the race: If Clinton loses, she is all-but-certain to quit the race. And if Clinton wins by more than 10 points, the media will push a "Clinton revived" storyline that could affect the results in Indiana, but isn't likely to shift North Carolina away from the Obama column.

Still, bloggers are busily interpreting new polls showing Obama remaining around that five point margin.

AMERICAblog goes with the "it was supposed to be a Clinton blowout" theme.

Eric Kleefeld says one pollster believes Obama's "bitter" comments may not yet have finished cycling through the electorate:

Pollster Terry Madonna thinks the "small town" flap has yet to fully play out with the voters: "With the new commercial and the San Francisco statements, can she push the lead back to double digits?"

Meanwhile, Hot Air says many of the undecided voters in the polls are women, which should bode well for Clinton.

Conservative and liberal bloggers remain almost singularly focused today on Barack Obama's "bitter" comments about American small towns and whether those comments should be interpreted as "elitist" or simply poorly constructed, but nonetheless accurate.

The biggest blogger reactions are to the new Quinnipiac poll showing Clinton holding a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down recent polls and comes away predicting a sizable Clinton victory.

As to whether Obama's comments have hurt him in the state, or are being ignored by voters, Todd Beeton says:

My suspicion is that the truth is somewhere in between, but the fact is, even before the current controversy, Clinton was re-asserting herself in the state. Of course, what we've learned this primary season is that 1 week is an eternity, so if Obama's comments did hurt him in the state, he certainly has plenty of time to reverse it.

Below the Beltway's Doug Mataconis agrees:

With a week to go before the voting actually begins, and given how this race has gone from the beginning, how this will turn out is anyone’s guess.

CNN has a slightly misleading headline, which claims a new poll shows a John McCain/Condoleezza Rice ticket "could win big." The actual poll cited is of New York only. It's certainly interesting, after all, it shows such a ticket even beating a Clinton/Obama, or Obama Clinton ticket in the state. But it doesn't carry the national implications the headline suggests. Nonetheless, it has stirred some renewed discussion about the possibility of Secretary Rice becoming McCain's vice presidential running mate. Most criticisms center on Rice's lack of campaign experience and her close ties to the Bush administration.

The JustOneMinute blog earlier tried to knock down Rice speculation and again argues:

[B]asically, a Rice nomination re-opens the entire pre-war intelligence and planning can of worms and keeps alive topics such as the Yoo memo on torture.

And some anti-McCain bloggers using the opportunity to go after the presumptive GOP nominee as well.

... good news for Democrats?

That's how many liberal bloggers are interpreting a new, national right track/wrong track poll released by CBC/The New York Times today:

In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002.

Firedoglake poster "Scarecrow" cites the findings as evidence of Republican failure:

The primary reason McCain isn't sharing Bush's dismal approval numbers and trailing Clinton/Obama badly is because the media are shielding him from political gravity. They need to let go and let the entire party crash. They've earned it.

As does Daily Kos diarist "DemFromCT":

And this is not going to help John McCain win an election (nor help John Boehner keep his job..

Air America Radio offers more of the same

Matthew Yglesias looks deeper into the findings and notes how the respondents are evenly split at 43 percent as to whether Americans want government to solve their problems:

So the numbers are tied, but focus on the trend. Americans are notoriously hostile to big government in the abstract but tend in practice to favor expanded government services when you get down to specific examples.

Conservative bloggers are so far largely silent on the poll findings. Is that because they too believe the numbers are an indictment of President Bush and Republican governing philosophy? One would assume that if Democrats controlled the White House, conservative bloggers would be heralding these numbers in a similar fashion comparable to their liberal counterparts today.

This new Rasmussen Reports poll showing McCain with a lead, albeit "statistically insignificant," over both Barack (46% to 45%) Obama and Hillary Clinton (45% to 42%) in Democratically-leaning New Jersey, should stoke sentiment that Clinton's continued presence in the race is only helping McCain.

From Blue Jersey:

One notable result is that the percentage of people who view McCain favorably is 61, Obama 58, and Clinton 50. Obama has been improving, Clinton falling, and McCain remaining the same.

TPM's Erik Kleefeld notes how the polling runs counter to Clinton's perceived strengths:

It's interesting to note that Hillary Clinton has a home-region advantage here, but is actually performing behind Barack Obama against McCain — potentially putting a dent in the Clinton camp's argument about being more electable in Democratic base states.

Red State looks at more Rasmussen polls showing positive traction for McCain.

More than 1,000 Diggs of the new NBC/WSJ poll showing Hillary Clinton's negative polling numbers rising, while Barack Obama appears largely unhurt by reports of past racially-charged statements made by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. From Chuck Todd:

Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

Chris Cillizza declares:

The data suggests that Obama has passed his first major crisis -- not, perhaps, with flying colors, but passed it nonetheless.

However, the poll still reveals some potentially unsettling numbers from Obama's recent speech on race:

[T]he numbers did show that 55 percent of all voters were disturbed by Wright's statements and 32 percent of those who saw Obama's speech on race were "dissatisfied with (the) explanation of association with Reverend Wright."

Steve Benen addresses talk that the poll oversampled African-American voters:

Just as an aside, there’s been talk that the poll intentionally “oversampled African-Americans,” which in turn makes the results less reliable. In this case, that interpretation appears mistaken: “What I think he means is this: In order to get a statistically reliable subset of African-American voters, they over-sampled this category. (Remember, African-Americans account for only about 13% of the US population. So that subset of a regular poll doesn’t really have a large enough sample to ensure a low margin of error.) They then re-weighted these results to come up with topline (everybody put together) numbers that adjusted for that oversampling.”

Would 28% of Clinton supporters and 19% of Obama supporters defect to John McCain if their first-choice candidate doesn't win the Democratic nomination? Those are the numbers in today's Gallup poll. However, even Gallup cautions against taking their own numbers too seriously:

It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.

Additionally, some threat of deserting the party always takes place as party nomination battles are waged, and this threat can dissipate.

So, what the poll seems to be actually illustrating is something anyone following the campaign is already acutely aware of: the longer the Democratic nomination fight continues, the greater the animosity between the Clinton/Obama camps. Rather than actual defections to the Republican side, Democrats are likely more concerned with eroding enthusiasm as the nomination fight becomes more contentious.

Most conservative blogs are happy with the poll numbers, but also not taking them too seriously.

Just One Minute's Tom Maguire puts it this way:

It is easier for elderly and working class whites to defect to the war hero than it is for blacks and hipsters to defect to the old white guy.

While Real Clear Politics' Heather Wilhelm notes the assumption that most conservatives are expected to vote for McCain even if he wasn't their first choice.

In a smart and detailed post, Chris Bowers explains how Obama can rebound from his recent drop in the polls, but still thinks his overall prospects aren't likely to completely bounce back:

Now, this isn't the first time Obama has taken a hit, and it is entirely possible that this current downturn is yet another in a series of entirely temporary negative stretches for his campaign. However, in this particular case, I think it is more likely that Obama has suffered some lasting electoral damage.

Obama supporters are also taking some criticism from Paul Starr at the American Prospect blog, Tapped, who argues that by not allowing a re-vote in Michigan, Obama supporters may be actually hurting their candidate in the long run:

[T]he burden for the failure falls clearly on Senator Obama’s supporters, who, perhaps understandably, didn’t want to risk the psychological impact of a defeat in Michigan at the end of the primary season.

But having prevented any new vote in Michigan, Obama's campaign may well have given up any moral claim to oppose seating of the delegates elected in January.

Meanwhile, conservatives continue to salivate over Obama's recent drop in the polls in prospective match-ups against both Clinton and John McCain. Over at Red State, Erik Erickson theorizes that Democratic superdelegates will turn on Obama if they don't see an end to the drop in his poll numbers after the Jeremiah Wright story:

[B]ecause of the Clintons effective deployment of the race card within the Democratic Primary, super delegates are getting nervous. They know they were put in place to avoid the party going far left. And they are worried that Obama, the unknown quantity, could be painted as far left by the GOP. The Democrats want to win this year, and, at the end of the day, they'd rather go with the known quantity with a history of winning.

New Gallup and Pew polls show a positive shift in the public's perception of the Iraq war, with more respondents believing the U.S. will ultimately be successful in Iraq, than in any time since last year. From the Pew findings:

In that survey, 48 percent of Americans thought that the war was going very or fairly well and the same number thought it was going not too well, or not well at all. That is a stark change from February 2007 when 67 percent of those surveyed told Pew the war wasn't going well, while only 30 percent said it was.

Several conservative blogs are relishing the poll findings, with Ed Morrissey adding:

Congressional Democrats seem to have already figured this out. They recently approved the entire appropriation request for operations in Iraq without making hardly a peep about it. It’s no coincidence that it’s the first time in two years they haven’t tried to hold it hostage for a retreat.

Matt Stoller says recent electoral evidence contradicts the poll findings.

Meanwhile, liberal journalist Glen Greenwald goes after the Politico's feature story on the poll findings and concludes:

The Politico today published one of the most blatantly one-sided, journalistically flawed "news" articles on the Iraq War in quite some time and promoted it as its featured story, filled with dramatic proclamations certain to attract (by design) significant attention.

A number of prominent liberal blogs are linking to new Zogby poll numbers showing Hillary Clinton ahead in Texas and deadlocked in Ohio. However, many of these same blogs have (correctly) questioned Zogby's accuracy during this primary season. Nonetheless, the poll continues to fuel the debate over if and when Clinton should drop out.

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat says:

I like to laugh at John Zogby and the outfits that cite him as a serious pollster. And this post is no different.

MyDD's Todd Beeton believes in the Clinton surge, but not the argument that national security concerns are driving it.

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias believe he has a better grasp on the "reality" of the  Democratic primary than the two-thirds of Democrats who want Clinton to stay in the race if she wins either Texas or Ohio:
 

I don't think she and Bill are that out of touch with reality, and I don't think that most of her key supporters are either. If her results today are good enough to give her a realistic shot at winning the nomination through winning primaries, then of course she'll stay in. But if the delegate math isn't there, then I think she'll get out.

Of course, Ygleasias is missing a separate point here. Two-thirds of Dems polled aren't saying they think Hillary can win the nomination if she picks up Texas or Ohio, they're simply saying they think she should stay in the race. That sentiment could originate from a number of factors: Clinton supporters who just want to see her go on, even when logic dictates otherwise; uncommitted Democrats who want to see Obama vetted more before facing John McCain; and other factors folks inside the Beltway might not, God forbid, have picked up in their philosophy/poli-sci classes.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrrissey, now at his new home over at Hot Air, predicts Clinton will stay in the race and says of the Dems who want Clinton to stay in the race:

That doesn’t exactly give a ringing endorsement to Barack Obama, who may wonder why a 13-state win streak isn’t enough for 45% of Democrats

Will the Texas and Ohio primaries create another pollster showdown in the blogosphere? Zogby appeared to miss the mark on Super Tuesday, when compared to SurveyUSA. Now, a new Rasmussen poll showing Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by double-digits in Texas is generating a lot of blog traffic from the left and the right.

Hot Air asks:

Serious question. If the party elite gets to pick the nominee, what’s the case for them picking her over Obama?

However, there are some questions worth asking about the survey, primarily, "How many undecided or 'Hillary-lite' voters have had adequate time to consider voting for Obama?" The survey's summary notes:

However, just 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in Texas say they have made up their mind and are certain about their vote. Ten percent (10%) remain undecided, 5% say there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and 16% say they might change their mind.

And now Drudge is topping with this new American Research Group poll - showing Obama leading Clinton 48 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent undecided.

Most polls show John McCain leading in California, fighting off a late Romney surge, along with safer McCain bets in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Arizona. Likewise, pollsters show a tighter contest on the Democratic side, with Obama rising quickly. But Zogby now shows Obama and Romney leading big in California, making the race appear far more influx than most analysts and pollsters have measured. After the collapse of polls and conventional wisdom in New Hampshire, that's led some bloggers to add a level of scrutiny to the polls, usually reserved for the actual candidates.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat, looks at the latest Zogby poll showing Obama leading in California. BTD says a California win for Obama delivers the nomination, but adds:

I do not believe Zogby is an honest pollster, I believe he is a disingenuous pundit

Talking Points Memo's John Marshall says:

There's one guarantee I can make right now about tonight's results. They are going take make either Zogby or SurveyUSA look like complete fools. Which one I'm not completely sure, but definitely one of them.

CQ Politics' Poll Tracker takes a look at some of the leading Super Tuesday state polls and breaks down the ethnic and issue divides:

Three common threads that jump out in the Democratic race are these: Hillary Clinton leads big among Hispanics, Barack Obama among blacks, and voters cite the economy as the top issue, usually by a double-digit margin over the number two issue, Iraq. It's worth checking out Gallup's analysis on race and ethnicity.

Patrick Ruffini is running a poll over at Hugh Hewitt’s website attempting to measure which candidate Fred Thompson’s supporters (FredHeads) would back assuming Thompson drops out of the race.

With about 4,000 votes, the overwhelming choice so far is Mitt Romney, with 74 percent. And in a second poll, 88 percent of respondents say a Thompson endorsement of John McCain would make “no impact” in their decision of whether or not to support McCain.

There are so many problems with this poll it would be a greater challenge to find something right about it than to outline the number of things wrong with it. First, the poll is being hosted on a website operated by Hugh Hewitt, an ardent Romney supporter. Second, McCain’s web presence has always been quite weak, so it’s unlikely a surge of online Thompson supporters would migrate to someone they’ve never been fond of. Third, not only is it a pro-Romney website, but many people forget that before Ron Paul’s “Ronulans,” or “Paultards,” began their great spamming adventure, it was Romney’s “Rombots” who were infamous for stacking online polls and surveys.

Then there’s the question of how much a Thompson endorsement would actually matter outside of the blogosphere. If he can’t get actual voters to support his campaign, what are the odds he could sway a significant portion of the electorate to vote for someone else?

A new Atlanta Journal Constitution poll shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton in Georgia, 36 percent to 33 percent, respectively.

Mike Huckabee is far-ahead of John McCain, 31 percent to 18 percent.

Via CQ’s Poll Tracker, we find this new Survey USA poll showing Rudy Giuliani barely holding onto his lead in New York, edging John McCain 32 percent to McCain’s 29 percent. Mike Huckabee is a distant third, with 12 percent.

While Huckabee and McCain’s campaigns have demonstrated that so much in this race is fluid, this poll is nonetheless embarrassing for Giuliani’s team. What it really shows is that primary voters in most states will be looking for a front-runner come Super Tuesday, and unless Giuliani builds major momentum in Florida, he’s likely to fade far behind the competition when the biggest states are being called.

In other poll news a “Non-scientific survey of 80 Dem and 86 GOP political insiders” by the National Journal (subscription required) finds John McCain and Hillary Clinton the presumed nominees of the Beltway community.

58 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans expect McCain to be the nominee, while 63 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans expect Hillary to be her party’s nominee.

A new Fox New South Carolina poll puts John McCain in first place with 25 percent of the vote. Mike Huckabee is second, with 18 percent, followed by Mitt Romney at 17 percent and Fred Thompson, who hails from neighboring Tennessee, at 9 percent.

While there is clearly no love lost between McCain and Romney, it might be in McCain's best interests to have Romney stick in the last through Super Tuesday. It appears that Huckabee and Romney are fighting over the social conservative vote, with Thompson pulling some of that away as well. That leaves McCain to reap the more secular and moderate vote. Take Romney out of the equation and the path to victory looks brighter for Huckabee, especially if he finishes a strong second or even third in Michigan.

Two new South Carolina polls are out today, both with good news for John McCain and Barack Obama.

A Rasmussen survey shows McCain leading Mike Huckabee with 27 percent to Huckabee’s 24 percent. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson appear to be battling for third place, with Romney taking in 16 percent of the vote and Thompson 12 percent.

Obama is 12 points ahead of Hillary Clinton in the poll, leading 42 percent to Clinton’s 30 percent. John Edwards, who was born in South Carolina, gets 15 percent support.

There have been rumors and accusations that Huckabee and Thompson are both working in the campaign as proxies for McCain. That seems far-fetched for Huckabee, who has just as good, if not a better chance, than McCain to win the nomination. Their natural affinity for each other and antipathy for Romney should not be confused as a conspiracy theory.

However, there’s a stronger case to be made for the Thompson as proxy theory, as Rasmussen’s numbers show him viewed by SC GOPers as the strongest conservative in the field and the one they are most committed to. A strong showing (but not a victorious one) by Thompson in SC not only has the potential to hurt McCain’s foes, but also adds weight to the case that Thompson would be a perfect vice presidential nominee for McCain because Thompson can help shield McCain against conservative attacks and because the two are well-suited temperamental allies:

Fred Thompson’s support is the most solid of all the candidates. Sixty-six percent (66%) of his supporters are “certain” they will vote for him. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Huckabee supporters are that “certain” along with 49% of McCain backers and 48% of those who currently favor Romney.

Meanwhile, a new Insider Advantage poll shows Huckabee leading with 33 percent over McCain’s 21 percent. Romney places third with 14 percent.

For the Democrats, it’s Obama leading with 40 percent and Hillary Clinton in second at 33 percent. Edwards gets 15 percent of the vote.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

Rasmussen Reports has an early poll out of South Carolina showing Mike Huckabee with a solid lead at 28 percent, to John McCain's 21 percent.

Mitt Romney places third with 15 percent and Fred Thompson gets 11 percent. Rudy Giuliani is also in double-figures, with 10 percent of the vote.

Of course, these numbers are bound to change after tonight's results from New Hampshire. How much of a boost will John McCain get? How far will Mitt Romney's numbers fall? And will Mike Huckabee's numbers be affected at all?

The first entrance polls are coming out from Iowa. CNN is reporting that Huckabee and Romney are leading, 33 percent to 24 percent respectively. In the battle for third place, Fred Thompson is getting 17 percent of the entrance poll numbers, while John McCain is pulling 11 percent.

On the Democratic side, CNN says entrance polls are showing a “tight race” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

These numbers are incredibly early and prone to change, but very interesting nonetheless.

UPDATE:

MSNBC is also posting some post-entrance poll numbers

Edwards: 39%

Clinton: 38%

Obama: 36%

Huckabee and Romney are leading MSNBC's polling as well, with Fred Thompson is a solid third-place at 18 percent.

Daily Kos held its latest straw poll yesterday, where John Edwards and Barack Obama continued to show traction, finishing first and second, respectively. With 14,804 respondents, Edwards took 39 percent of the vote, improving his standing amongst progressive bloggers in the poll for the third consecutive time. Obama placed second with 30 percent. His numbers have fluctuated in each poll, but the 30 percent mark is his highest placement yet.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton remains static, tying for fourth place with Dennis Kucinich, as both received eight percent in the poll.

Markos’ take:

I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess. That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

As Mike Huckabee continues to ascend in both Iowa and national polls, so rises the level of distrust and criticism from the conservative blogosphere.

The oft-cited narrative of the Republican primary is that voters are just waiting for someone to latch onto. Rudy reflects their views on crime and foreign policy, but little else. Romney says all the right things, but hasn’t held those views long enough publicly to earn their trust. Fred Thompson seemed like a perfect fit, until he didn’t. And Huckabee, he's great, just not electable.

There are a number of significant differences between the conservative and liberal blogosphere aside from the obvious ideological gaps. The netroots are more reflective of what the Democrats’ progressive base believes in the same way that conservative talk-radio speaks to the Republican base. The overall membership of the Democratic Party is certainly more moderate, but philosophical alignment between liberal bloggers and the Democratic base is a powerful, and mostly united, front.

Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere tends to more accurately reflect the largely diminished sentiment of fiscal conservatives. It’s a very respectable branch of political thought, and one that many disaffected voters call for a return to, but not one that dominates the party nowadays.

So, how do we evaluate the contrast between Huckabee’s rise in national polls versus his lackluster reception in the righty blogosphere?

Real Clear Politics’ John McIntyre says Huckabee has benefited because: “I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney.”

Sounds a lot like this morning’s post on how John Edwards is potentially benefiting from the Obama-Clinton cage match.

Most conservative bloggers don’t like Huckabee’s record on fiscal issues or his opposition to torture. And they are crying foul at this Politico story today revealing that he, as of yesterday, had not yet been briefed on the latest NIE report about Iran.

All that outrage aside, I doubt any of these issues really hurt Huckabee in his quest for the nomination. Fiscal conservatives are no longer reflective of a base that has largely continued to support George Bush and congressional Republicans despite their very liberal record on spending issues over the past several years.

And Mary Katherine Ham’s cry that Huckabee needs to carry around a Blackberry to avoid missing breaking news may sound practical to Beltway pundits, but I find it hard to believe that Iowa voters will punish Huckabee for being slightly behind the curve on an evolving news story that many conservatives have rejected. If you actually read through the transcript of that Politico interview, you’ll find the substance of Huckabee’s answer was quite measured and tailored to a conservative audience, even if it didn’t come directly off a Fox News Channel email alert.