Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Why is the Kansas Supreme Court so important right? Fox News' new poll shows Sen. Pat Roberts (R) leading Greg Orman (I) by two points, 40% to 38%, when Chad Taylor (D) is in the mix. In a head-to-head match-up in the same poll, Orman leads Roberts by six, 48% to 42%.
* Is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) rebounding? A new Marquette University Law School poll shows the incumbent regaining his advantage, leading Mary Burke (D) by three, 49% to 46%.
* In related Wisconsin news, Democratic candidates will be listed first on the ballot, as required by state law because of the 2012 election results, just as Republicans were listed first in 2010 because of the 2010 election results. The difference is, Wisconsin Republicans are outraged and have filed a lawsuit, calling the ballot unfair.
* In North Carolina's U.S. Senate race, Fox News' poll is the latest in a series of recent polls to show Sen. Kay Hagan (D) leading Thom Tillis (R). Fox shows a five-point gap, 41% to 36%.
* Polling in Iowa's U.S. Senate has been all over the place lately, though Fox News shows Bruce Braley (D) and Joni Ernst (R) tied at 41% each.
* In Louisiana's U.S. Senate race, Fox News' poll shows Bill Cassidy (R) cruising past incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), 51% to 38%. The margin is significant: if one candidate tops 50% in November, there won't be a need for a December runoff.
* In Colorado's U.S. Senate race, most recent surveys have shown Sen. Mark Udall (D) with an edge over Rep. Cory Gardner (R), but the new USA Today/Suffolk poll shows Gardner up by one, 43% to 42%. Quinnipiac, which seems to have a heavy GOP lean lately, shows Gardner with an eight-point lead, which isn't close to any other result from any other poll.
* On a related note, the USA Today/Suffolk poll also shows Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) hanging on to a very narrow lead over former Rep. Bob Beauprez (R), 43% to 41%.
When Bill Clinton was president, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called him a "jerk" and voted (twice) to throw him out of office. But reflecting on the Clinton era last year, the Utah Republican told reporters, "[I]f it hadn't been for some other difficulties, [Clinton] would go down in history as a pretty darn fine president."
This came to mind yesterday when Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) appeared at an event organized by the No Labels organization -- yes, that No Labels -- and said something similar about the bygone era he still longs for.
"I started my stint under President Bill Clinton," Salmon said, "and I'm the opposite party and I'd give my right arm to have him back right now."
Salmon, of course, voted in favor of four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton.
It's amazing how the idea that "absence makes the heart grow fonder" expresses itself in the weird world of Washington. One of the more entertaining instances is what I call Clinton Nostalgia Syndrome, where Republicans -- especially those who were in Congress in the mid and late 1990s -- yearn for the halcyon days of bipartisan compromise that, in their memory, carried the day during the Clinton presidency.
I actually remember the 1990s a little differently than Republicans who are suddenly celebrating the Clinton presidency. In fact, while I appreciate the fact that the right says nice things about the former Democratic president as a way to condemn the current Democratic president, I tend to think "Clinton Nostalgia Syndrome" is pretty hilarious.
Last week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee launched a slightly unexpected attack ad. The NRSC, at least somewhat worried about the Senate race in Georgia, went after Michele Nunn (D) for supporting "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants. The problem was with the NRSC's proof.
According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Nunn must support "amnesty" since she's endorsed the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, co-authored by four Republican senators -- Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake -- and easily passed by the Senate last year.
In other words, according to the Republicans' Senate committee, Nunn deserves to be condemned for agreeing with several prominent Republicans.
Now, Lundergan Grimes hasn't been in Congress, so she couldn't vote one way or the other on comprehensive immigration reform, but the Kentucky candidate did endorse the bipartisan reform package co-authored by some conservative Republicans.
Then again, so did did Karl Rove's operations. And therein lies the point: Rove and his pals in the Bluegrass State are now condemning Lundergan Grimes ... for agreeing with Karl Rove about immigration policy.
All of this may seem like business as usual for Republicans in an election year, but I'd argue there's more to it.
Earlier this year, the Republican game plan for health care was pretty straightforward: attack "Obamacare" constantly, make it the centerpiece of the 2014 cycle, and wait for the inevitable victories to roll in.
The very idea that we'd see a Republican governor bragging about Affordable Care Act benefits -- in the final stretch of a tough re-election campaign, no less -- seemed hard to fathom. And yet, here we are (thanks to my colleague Nick Tuths for the heads-up).
Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday touted Michigan's successful Medicaid expansion as part of his re-election bid, saying 63,000 more low-income adults have signed up than projected this year, with [three-and-a-half] months left.
The Republican governor said about 385,000 enrolled between April, when the Healthy Michigan program launched, and Monday. His administration had expected 322,000 signups by year's end.
"At that level, we're adding over 9,000 patients a week," Snyder said at an endorsement event at the Michigan State Medical Society, an East Lansing-based professional association of physicians. "It's outstanding progress."
Progress, that is, implementing a key element of President Obama's signature domestic-policy achievement.
There are, of course, multiple angles to this. Michigan's Eclectablog, for example, noted that local Tea Partiers are not at all pleased by the sight of a Republican governor bragging about ACA implementation. For that matter, local Democrats are eager to remind the state that Snyder was not initially an eager proponent of Medicaid expansion, and the governor's delays cost the state money.
Rep. Mark Schauer (D), Snyder's very competitive rival, said Michigan's slow adoption of Medicaid expansion ended up costing the state roughly $600 million.
To be sure, these details matter. But I'm nevertheless struck by the broader political circumstances.
When Andrew Kaczynski caught Monica Wehby's Republican Senate campaign in a fairly blatant instance of plagiarism, the candidate's team didn't handle it especially well. Despite clear evidence that the Oregon candidate's health plan had been copied and pasted from materials published by Karl Rove's Crossroads operation, Wehby's spokesperson got a little snippy.
"The suggestion that a pediatric neurosurgeon needs to copy a health care plan from American Crossroads is absurd," a Wehby aide told BuzzFeed. "Dr. Wehby is too busy performing brain surgery on sick children to respond, sorry."
As best as I can tell, Wehby was not actually performing brain surgery on sick children at the time.
Monica Wehby's campaign on Wednesday acknowledged problems with plagiarism in some of her issue documents and removed them from her website.
Her campaign blamed a former staffer, and it was clear from the context that Wehby and her aides were referring to her former campaign manager, Charlie Pearce, who is now running Dennis Richardson's campaign for governor.
Pearce, who was clearly irked, denied having anything to do with the problem. "I did not author the health care policy or economic policy plans," he said in an interview.
It's safe to say this isn't what Team Wehby needed right now.
Under Pentagon guidelines, American servicemen and women who re-enlist are required to sign a specific written oath. In the Air Force, that's proven to be a bit more controversial than expected.
The oath seems pretty straightforward. Signers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"; "bear true faith and allegiance to the same"; and "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me." But it concludes, "So help me God," and for atheists, that's a problem.
In the Army and Navy, Americans have the discretion to omit those final four words without penalty, but the Air Force has made it mandatory. In fact, as we discussed over the weekend, an airman was recently told he would be excluded from military service, regardless of his qualifications, unless he does as the Air Force requires and swears an oath to God.
At least, that was the policy. Abby Ohlheiser reported late yesterday that the Air Force has agreed to change its approach.
After an airman was unable to complete his reenlistment because he omitted the part of a required oath that states "so help me God," the Air Force changed its instructions for the oath.
Following a review of the policy by the Department of Defense General Counsel, the Air Force will now permit airmen to omit the phrase, should they so choose. That change is effective immediately, according to an Air Force statement.
In a written statement, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said, "The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so." She added that Air Force officials are "making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected."
It's worth emphasizing that the Air Force didn't have a lot of choice -- it was facing the prospect of a lawsuit officials were likely to lose.
The data on initial unemployment claims was a little erratic around Labor Day, leading to some questions about what to expect next. With this in mind, the new data from the Labor Department was not only welcome news, it was better than anyone expected.
The number of people who applied for jobless benefits dropped 36,000 to 280,000 in the week that ended Sept. 13, hitting the lowest level since mid-July, signaling that employers are laying off very few workers, according to government data released Thursday. Economists polled by MarketWatch had expected initial claims for regular state unemployment-insurance benefits to decline to 305,000 in the most recent weekly data from an originally reported 315,000 for the prior period.
On Thursday, the U.S. Labor Department tweaked initial claims for the week that ended Sept. 6 to 316,000. The four-week average of new claims, a trend that's less volatile than weekly changes, fell 4,750 to 299,500, the government reported.
Just to add some additional contest, this new report is the best since mid-July, but more important, the 280,000 figure suggests initial unemployment claims are approaching a 14-year low.
That said, to reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it's worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report.
The White House may be struggling badly with its political standing, and Democrats may very well have a rough election cycle, but President Obama can still occasionally get exactly what he wants.
For example, the president and his team worked hard to secure support for part of his new counter-terrorism strategy, and yesterday afternoon, the Republican-led House delivered.
The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday afternoon to greenlight President Obama's controversial proposal to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels in effort to defeat the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Obama wanted this measure, and he got it. The president wanted the House to approve a spending measure -- the "continuing resolution" -- to avoid a government shutdown, and he got that, too. Obama even urged lawmakers to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank, and despite the controversy, that's also going through.
It's not often the White House can reflect on developments on Capitol Hill and conclude, "We got everything we hoped to get."
Of course, in yesterday's case, Obama had some help. The measure on support for Syrian rebels passed because House Republican leaders endorsed the administration's plan. The CR passed, despite some recent grumbling, because there was little appetite for a pre-election government shutdown. The Export-Import Bank will live on because so many of the GOP's allies in the business community urged Republicans to side with the White House on this.
Still, presidents struggling in the polls generally don't get what they want, especially from chambers run by the other party, especially when contentious issues like war take center stage. Yesterday, however, Obama had a good day.
That said, there was plenty of drama surrounding the proposal on supporting Syrian rebels -- with a more difficult discussion on the way.
Laith Alkhouri, senior analyst at Flashpoint Partners, talks with Rachel Maddow about how ISIS distinguishes itself from other terror groups by its effective use of propaganda to terrorize Americans and draw the U.S. into the validating engagement it... watch
Rachel Maddow reports on the role of partisan politics in the upcoming Scotland independence vote, where Scotland's disdain for British conservatives could boost secession while empowering conservatives by taking Scotland's liberals out of Parliament. watch
Rachel Maddow, in teasing ahead to an upcoming segment, reports on a war of polling data analysis between heavy hitters Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com and Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium. watch
Bob McManaman, senior sportswriter for the Arizona Republic, talks with Rachel Maddow about charges filed against Arizona Cardinals football player Jonathan Dwyer, who has been deactivated by the team and whose likely replacement has a history of abuse. watch