Down in Australia, the Labor Party has won a decisive victory over the Liberal/National Coalition that previously ruled the country, and Kevin Rudd will replace John Howard as Prime Minister. Having spent some time hanging out with Australian (and New Zealand) Labor folk last year, I strongly believe that they deserve their electoral good fortune, and will provide a clear breath of fresh air for their country.
Howard has been one of the longest-reigning conservative leaders in the world. He will not be missed.

In just a few hours polls will be opening in Australia for its general election. For some time now, Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party has been favored to ouster John Howard’s long-reigning conservative Coalition party. But on the eve of the elections, at least one poll shows the race too close to call.
One thing’s for sure: turnout will be at levels Americans can barely imagine; Australia’s compulsory voting system assures that.
We’ll have more on the Aussie elections when the results become clear.

This Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for a lot of things that have nothing to do with politics, and thus have no place here. But on the political front, I am thankful that the Great Nominating Contest Calendar Dance of 2007 appears to have ended, with Michigan’s primary being set for January 15, and New Hampshire’s for January 8. The specter of NH and then IA moving up into December has finally been banished.
That means people like me don’t have to completely recalibrate many months of speculation about the dynamics of the nominating process. And more importantly, it means a lot of poorly paid campaign staffers and unpaid volunteers will get to have some sort of holiday season.

Tired of generational analysis of politics? You know, the assumption that this or that pol represents the world-view and/or aspirations of the age cohort into which he or she was born. If so, you’ll love this comment from Dana Goldstein at TAPPED:

Sure, the experience of living through Vietnam and the student protest movement indelibly shaped politicians like Clinton and Mitt Romney. But every generation has its liberals and its conservatives, its hopeful optimists and its hard-nosed power brokers, its intellectuals and its businesspeople. Furthermore, a “generation” is almost impossible to define in any self-contained way.

.
Makes abundant good sense, eh? It’s sort of like the reason I’ve always had a hard time taking astrology seriously (apologies if I offend any astrology fans here). I mean, really, I’m supposed to believe I have more in common with a Bangladeshi hemp farmer who happens to be a Virgo than with, say, my Sagittarian father? To a lesser but still significant extent, I have the same objection to generational typecasting.
Moreover, Dana’s right: generational definitions are a little squishy. She notes that Barack Obama, the purported avatar of post-baby-boom politics, is himself a baby boomer, having been born in 1961. When the term “baby boom generation” first came into use, in the 1960s, it was applied to people born immediately after World War II, from 1946 to 1952. At some point it was extended to 1960. Now, apparently, the line between baby boomers and Gen Xers is 1964.
So maybe we need to start defining Barack Obama as a “baby boomer with X rising.” Or better yet, find another way to describe him altogether.

The GOP version of the Washington Post/ABC poll of Iowa is now out, and the storyline is all about Mike Huckabee.
Mike’s now within the margin of error of Romney in this poll (28%-24%). The other candidates are pretty much where they were back in July. More importantly, Huckabee’s base of support seems a lot firmer than Romney’s, as Gary Langer’s analysis for ABC points out:

[A]mong likely caucus-goers who are “very enthusiastic” about their choice, Huckabee leads Romney by 37-25 percent. Among those who say they’ve definitely made up their minds, 34 percent support Huckabee, 24 percent Romney. That makes for a better turnout profile for Huckabee.

This may matter a lot, because this and previous polls consistently show less enthusiasm among Republicans than Democrats in Iowa, which (along with strong indications that independents are likely to participate on the Democratic side) could mean a relatively low turnout.
One factor that doesn’t matter for the GOP is second-choice preferences. Unlike the Iowa Democratic Caucuses, the presidential segment of the Republican Caucuses is a straight straw poll, without all the thresholds and preference reassignments that make the Dem Caucuses so unpredictable. That’s too bad for Huckabee, since every other candidate would love to see him derail Romney in IA. You do have to wonder if they will avoid attacking Huckabee in Iowa between now and January 3, against the wishes of the conservative opinion-leaders who can’t stand him and are beginning to worry that an IA win could catapult him into serious contention down the road.

In a rare development, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post penned a column today that offered a cogent and oriiginal point about a political subject (though maybe I’m just suffering from Column Envy).
All the talk about Mitt Romney’s religion, says Cohen, has detracted attention from the fact that Mike Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, which is a relatively unusual phenomenon on the presidential campaign trail. Indeed, while there’s not much evidence that Romney’s faith has any particular impact on his policy positions, Huckabee’s been trading on his evangelical credentials pretty heavily of late. So why, asks Cohen, isn’t anybody asking the Arkansan to do a JFK-style speech reassuring people about his religious views?
It’s a good question, and one that may get asked a lot if Huckabee manages to upset the Mittster in Iowa.

The big buzz today, just over six weeks out from the iowa Caucuses, is a new ABC-Washington Post poll of the Democratic field in Iowa. For casual news consumers, the top line of this poll–Obama up by 4 over Clinton–may seem like a big, exciting shift. But actually, the same poll had Obama up back in July. The more dramatic change is that Obama’s up 8 points over Edwards, though even that difference shrinks to 5 percent among the likeliest voters, and the margin of error is four-and-a-half percent.
Like last week’s CBS-New York Times poll, this one shows Clinton trailing Obama and Edwards in “second-choice” support, though it does not break out supporters of those second-tier candidates who might actually have to make a second choice at the Caucuses.
The internal finding that the Post finds most significant is that Obama’s now no more dependent on first-time Caucus-goers–and thus a big overall turnout–than HRC (though both are significantly more dependent on such voters than Edwards, the candidate who would probably most benefit from a lower turnout).
Meanwhile, there’s a new CNN/WMUR poll of the Republican field in NH, which shows Mitt Romney expanding his lead, Rudy Giuliani and (most calamitously) Fred Thompson declining, and Ron Paul leaping into fourth place. CNN/WMUR’s September poll was the one, you might remember, that sparked a bunch of “Giuliani Catches Romney” headlines. Not so much today, since Romney’s lead over Rudy is 17 points, with McCain actually in second place without adding or losing support since September. Big Fred dropped from 14 percent in September to 4 percent now, and an amazing one-half of poll respondents said they wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances.
Sic transit gloria, eh Fred?

Via pollster.com, we learn that Elon University has done a presidential nominating candidacy poll of adults (e.g., no screen for registration or likelihood to vote) in VA, NC, SC, GA and FL.
This is interesting because most prior primary polls in the South have focused strictly on South Carolina and Florida.
Among Dems, Elon has HRC well ahead, at 45%, with Obama at 17% and Edwards at 11%. Front-runner-factor notwithstanding, this is pretty impressive, since Edwards is a southern white male (with his home state and native state in the mix), and Obama is an African-American (the black share of the Dem vote in these states is probably somewhere between a fourth and a third of the total).
On the GOP side, Rudy leads with 25%, with Big Fred at 16%, Romney at 12%, and McCain and Huckabee tied at 8%.
All these numbers are obviously vulnerable in a big way to early state results and regional campaigning. But it does indicate that all the down-ballot-fear-of-HRC stuff we hear about Southern Democrats is an elite, not popular, phenomenon, and that Rudy’s national lead is predictably smaller in the SE, and even more inviting to a candidate who can unite conservatives before the first Southerners vote in SC.

In another sign that the Conservative Establishment is getting worried about Mike Huckabee’s rise towards political viability in Iowa, the Editors of National Review have published a brief piece dissing him on a wide variety of grounds, centering on his “mixture of populism [note: not a compliment] and big-government liberalism.”
But here’s the really interesting thing: NatRev also thinks Huckabee’s advocacy of the so-called “Fair Tax”–a national sales tax scheme that right-wing talk show types love like drunks love cheap hootch–is a really bad idea, too:

This proposal would almost certainly make a presidential nominee unelectable. But even if he got elected, it would be impossible to deliver. To bar the door on the income tax we would need to amend the Constitution. Otherwise we would end up with the income tax and Huckabee’s sales tax. We would call it a pipe dream, if Huckabee weren’t so anti-smoking.

You might want to make a note of this graph, in case Chuck Norris’ buddy takes flight in the Iowa Caucuses. Add in his increasingly strident support for a national constitutional amendment extending the full benefits of the Equal Protection Clause to human embryos from the moment of conception, and you’ve got a potential GOP nominee whose genial personality masks a lot of crazy talk.

My post yesterday about the Democratic Left’s “Obama problem” was cross-posted at TPMCafe by that site’s request, and at this point, has attracted more than 60 comments, mostly about Obama’s Social Security rap.
And over at OpenLeft, Matt Stoller takes pretty strong exception to my analysis, primarily, it appears, because he considers discussion of Obama’s framing and rhetorical themes “non-substantive.” He also seems to think I’m poorly qualified for the task of providing insights on “the Left” because I am insufficiently “Of the Left” myself, a point of view that would cast a negative light on a lot of progressive analysis of conservatism and the GOP. He is right that I should have noted some progressive policy disagreements with Obama, such as the Iraq residual troop issue, and maybe his health care plan.
I’ve traveling right now, but will address Matt’s post in greater length later today.