Gerald F. Seib’s Wall St. Journal column makes the case that the 45 percent of NH voters who are Independents are kingmakers. Nut graphs:

These independents, able under New Hampshire rules to vote for either party in the nation’s first primary on Jan. 8, may represent the most important group of voters in the land. They are likely to determine, among other things, whether John McCain’s candidacy can be revived, whether Barack Obama can sustain whatever momentum he gets out of Iowa’s caucuses, whether Mitt Romney actually is best-positioned to win the Republican nomination and whether Mike Huckabee’s rise in Iowa will turn out to be just a flash in the pan.
…Here’s why: Under New Hampshire’s rules, undeclared voters can show up on primary day and choose a party in which to vote. In essence, they can simply move to whichever primary looks more interesting or important.

Also in the WSJ, Jackie Calmes and Michael M. Phillips have a stats and quotes roundup making a persuasive case that the economy is now a/the top issue of concern to Americans heading into the holidays and the last month before primary mania grips the nation. Calmes and Phillips explain:

Fifty-two percent of Americans say the economy and health care are most important to them in choosing a president, compared with 34% who cite terrorism and social and moral issues, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. That is the reverse of the percentages recorded just before the 2004 election. The poll also shows that voters see health care eclipsing the Iraq war for the first time as the issue most urgently requiring a new approach.

Edwards followers can take some heart from E. J. Dionne’s WaPo op-ed, limning a victory scenario for the N.C. populist going into his home stretch. Dionne’s key insight on how Edwards can outflank Clinton and Obama:

The Edwards campaign has a theory of how he can beat both of them. As Trippi sees it, Clinton has relied on support from less affluent voters, particularly women, who are especially engaged on economic questions.
Trippi argued in an interview that some of these soft Clinton voters could eventually move to Edwards because his message of economic populism and his background as a mill worker’s son will trump Clinton’s arguments that are based on her experience. Trippi claims to see “lots of potential” among “blue-collar women who are currently leaning her way.”

Dionne also quotes what may be Edwards’ most resonant and defining one-liner. “Standing before a large American flag, the former North Carolina senator insists that the country shouldn’t ‘trade a crowd of corporate Republicans for a crowd of corporate Democrats.'”

Janet Elder’s “On Polling “column at the Grey Lady has a cautionary comment on the pitfalls of recent horse-race poll reporting that should be of interest to readers and reporters alike, “When a Poll Changes the Way People Think About the Race.”
Also at The Times, Paul Krugman’s “Mandates and Mudslinging” column makes a persuasive case that Senator Obama needs to tweak his health care plan to make everyone pay into it and cover everyone and resist the temptation to use Republican arguments against his Democratic rivals.
Bob Moses has an Alternet post addressing a critical question for Democratic strategy “Have Democrats Already Lost Florida?”
The purpose-driven Hillary courts moderate evangelicals, and apparently shows how it’s done, according to Carla Marinucci’s San Francisco Chronicle report.
Chris Bowers has a pair of interesting articles up at Open Left, a report on a new poll of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual constituency’s political views and a thoughtful look at endangered Democratic Senate seats.

In today’s USA Today Jill Lawrence adds to the discussion of “electability” as a leading motivating factor for voters begun last week in Adam Nagourney’s article in the New York Timesand extended by The American Prospect’s Terence Samuel. Where Nagourney’s report centered around a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in New Hampshire and Iowa 11/2-11 and Samuel’s piece touched on the psychology behind the ‘heart-head’ choice, Lawrence narrows the focus some to how the candidates are playing the electability card in Iowa.

You have to wonder if the closing weeks leading up to the Democratic primary season is the best time to promote a new book about George McGovern’s campaign. Nonetheless, Alternet is running an excerpt from Bruce Miroff’s new book The Liberals’ Moment, pondering the legacy of McGovern’s 1972 — there’s no other word for it — debacle. Yet the McGovern campaign was an important training school for Dems who were more successful in the future, and Miroff has much to say about the future of the Democratic Party. There’s a lot for Dems across the Party spectrum to argue with here, and that’s just in this excerpt.

Timothy Noah’s Slate article “Decoding David Brooks,” sheds some fresh light on the New York Times columnist’s most recent screed attempting to rescue Reagan’s legacy from the taint of racism (See also J.P. Green’s post on the topic here and The Atlantic.com‘s discussion lead by Matthew Yglesias here). Noah says that Brooks’ column was really a bank shot at fellow New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has often noted Reagan’s endorsement of “states’ rights” at his 1980 campaign launch in Philadelphia, MS. Apparently there is some sort of unwritten code that Times columnists can’t attack each other by name.
Big mistake for Brooks, whose regular shtick is more in the vein of wry/snarky op-eds about American culture and class. In his ‘Conscience of a Liberal’ blog, Krugman fillets and shreds Brooks’ implied message that Reagan was innocent of racial antagonism, and Krugman does it all without mentioning Brooks’ name. Yglesias comments on the whole Brooks-Krugman dust-up and his readers join the fray here.

No Democratic Presidential candidate has won Virginia since 1964. But a combination of demographic trends, local issues, Republican screw-ups and some solid rebuilding work by the state Democratic Party have combined to give Dems new hope for winning VA’s 13 electroral votes next year.
For those who want to savor or better understand the Democrats victories in the Virginia elections last week, we have a trio of articles from Virginia websites. First, most Dems won’t relish her conclusion — that a “right-of-center message” will win VA’s electoral votes next year — but there is some interesting detail on key issues pertaining to local Democratic victories in Margaret Edd’s “6 lessons from the 2007 ballot” in the Virginian-Pilot. Also check out Michael Sluss’s Roanoke Times piece “Democrats see a possible blue Virginia,” arguing that a centrist appeal is the key to future Democratic victories in the state. Finally, Tyler Whitley and Jeff E. Schapiro of the Richmond Times-Dispatch have the oppo take in their interesting article “Va. GOP debates direction to take: Party’s conservatives and moderates disagree on why Senate shifted to Democrats.”

John Bresnahan has a Politico piece on a new funding strategy for Democratic congressional campaigns that should arch a few brows: Here’s the nut graph:

With a huge cash advantage over the National Republican Congressional Committee, Van Hollen and Emanuel are cautioning their colleagues that the DCCC wants to have money to put into 40 challenger races next year — and if these vulnerable Democrats are not facing serious races or any effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to unseat them, the DCCC will spend its resources elsewhere.

It’s a bold move, and one which appears to be based on the confident assumption that a mega-victory in ’08 is in the making for Donkeys. May it prove to be so.

We’re liking Jacques Steinberg’s article “Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left” in today’s New York Times. Apparently, it isn’t just the public opinion polls that show a tilt towards progressive values. As Steinberg notes,

…MSNBC already presents a three-hour block of nighttime talk — Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” at 7, Mr. Olbermann at 8, and “Live With Dan Abrams” at 9 — in which the White House takes a regular beating. The one early-evening program on MSNBC that is often most sympathetic to the administration, “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson at 6 p.m., is in real danger of being canceled, said one NBC executive…

Bill O’Reilly still draws about 1.5 million more viewers “most of the time” than his liberal MSNBC time-slot competitor, Keith Olberman. But Olberman has increased his ratings by a third during the last year and:

On some nights recently, Mr. Olbermann has even come tantalizingly close to surpassing the ratings of the host he describes as his nemesis, Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, at least among viewers ages 25 to 54, which is the demographic cable news advertisers prefer.

Evidently, talk show viewers are increasingly leaning left with their remotes — and their time.

Jill Zuckman, Chicago Tribune national correspondent has an informative update on New Hampshire’s “seismic shift” to the Democrats, a significant development, considering Gore would have won in 2000 with the Granite State’s 4 electoral votes.Zuckman provides useful insights into demographic trends and key issues in NH.
Oppo researchers should have a gander at the Sunlight Foundation’s “Insanely Useful Websites,” referred by papicek in his Daily Kos post “Action: 2010 Planning Begins Now.” Papicek’s post is more focused on nailing “Bush Dogs,” but the Sunlight Foundation‘s links will work just fine for tracking Republican shenanigans as well — a good launching pad to “follow the money.”
Erin Ferns has a link-rich MyDD post, “Voter Fraud That Isn’t: Tricks of the Voter Suppression Trade,” on that nasty little GOP compulsion to which Dems should pay more attention BEFORE elections.
Another interesting read: Garance Franke-Ruta’s perceptive post at Tapped on “dog whistle” messaging and the “secondary conversation” about women’s political empowerment.
Ever get the queasy feeling that both the MSM and the progressive blogosphere are spending way too much ink, bytes and time prattling on about Rudy Giuliani, while Mitt Romney is quietly racking up gains where it counts? If so, you may be quite right. See posts about the Mittster’s big mo here and here.

The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph has been running a sort of political strip-tease during the last week, each day unveiling 20 names on two 100-name lists: “The Most Influential U.S. Conservatives” and “The Most Influential U.S. Liberals.” The names are all ranked with a couple of paragraphs, written (and ranked) by Tony Harnden, explaining why each individual is so influential, and the two lists are completed with today’s release of the top 20 of each set of rankings.
Readers may be interested in some of the choices and descriptions of their influence, but there is a lot to argue with, as well. For example, the top five conservatives in order are Rudy Giuliani; General David Petraeus; Matt Drudge; Newt Gingrich; and Rush Limbaugh. For the liberals, the top five are, in order: Bill Clinton; Al Gore; Mark Penn; Hillary Clinton; and Nancy Pelosi.
There are quite a few howlers on both lists. The best howler on the top 100 conservatives has to be Chuck Norris, ranking 71st, ahead of Charles Krauthammer (77th); Pat Buchanan (80th); Bill O’Reilly (82nd); Peggy Noonan (83rd); Ann Coulter (84th); Clarence Thomas(85th); Michelle Malkin (93rd); and Henry Kissinger (95th). Of the top 100 liberals, a good howler is ranking Barbara Streisand 77th, ahead of Robert Borosage (78th); Howard Dean (84th); Ted Kennedy (85th); and Bob Shrum (93rd). Joe Lieberman makes both lists.
The value in both lists for political strategy is the identifying of influential behind-the-scenes-types and the descriptions of their influence. The rankings, however, are highly subjective, impressionistic and generally useless for anything besides water-cooler chat.