Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny report on the ground game in their Sunday New York Times article “Candidates Digging for a Deeper Pool of Iowa Voters.” See also Scott Helman’s report “Ground game is key for Democrats,” focusing primarily on the front-runners campaigns in The Boston Globe.
Also in the NYT, Patrick Healy’s piece, “Iowa Saturated by Political Ads” discusses ad spending of the candidates and 527’s and notes that candidates are expected to triple the amount spent in 2004. And Jeff Zeleny also co-authors with David D. Kirkpatrick a round-up of the candidates’ messages on the last weekend before the launch of primary season. See also Todd Beeton’s MyDD post “Romney v. McCain: The New Hampshire Ad Wars.” As this week’s guests on Meet the Press, Huckabee and Obama get the functional equivalent of a huge free ad, a nice edge — if they do well.
A just-released Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll, conducted 12/26-29, reported by John Whitesides has Clinton with 31, Obama 27 and Edwards with 24 percent of likely caucus goers. Biden and Richardson were at 5 percent, while Dodd and Kucinich had 1 percent. On the GOP side, it’s Huckabee 29, Romney 28 and McCain at 11. Thompson, Giuliani and Paul each got 8 percent. Both parties had 6 percent undecided. Clinton had a big lead in percentage of her supporters who described their support as “very strong” (76 percent), compared to 65 percent for Edwards and 56 percent for Obama. However, Edwards was the most popular “second choice” with 30 percent, compared to 25 percent for Obama and 12 percent for Clinton.
Another poll of likely caucus goers, conducted by the American Research Group 12/26-28, has Clinton at 31 and Obama and Edwards at 24, with the rest of the Dems in single digits, according to Alexander Mooney of CNN’s Political Ticker. But the ARG poll has Romney ahead of Huckabee 32-23 percent, with McCain trailing at 11 percent. Mooney reports on yet another poll, a Quad City Times poll conducted by Research 2000 (released Friday), that has Huckabee 34 percent, Romney 27 and Thompson 11 percent. The Quad City poll has Edwards and Obama tied at at 29 percent, with Clinton at 28 percent.

Robert Borosage has one of the better round-ups of the closing Iowa arguments of the Dem presidential front-runners at the HuffPo.
Kathy Kiely’s USA Today article “Democrats focus on getting out supporters,” takes a look at turnout issues and demographic considerations being addressed by Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa in the closing days of the Iowa primary campaign.
No major surprises in the 12/26-7 Lee Enterprises newspapers Iowa poll (sample size 500 ‘likely caucus-goers,” 4.5 m.o.e.), with Obama, Edwards and Clinton still in a stat tie, with Richardson 4th, followed by Biden. Edwards is up 5 since the Lee poll two weeks ago, Clinton is up 4 and Obama is down 4. Huckabee now leads Romney by 7 and Thompson is a distant third.
The Cedar Rapids Courier has Jens Manuel Krogstad’s report on how “Bhutto’s Assassination Jolts Presidential Politics.” The Politico rounds up the presidential candidates’ latest comments on the Bhutto assassination. See also Patrick Healy’s “Crisis Overseas Is Sudden Test for Candidates” in today’s Grey Lady, Peter Walsten’s L.A. Times article “Assassination May Shift Focus of Presidential Race” and E. J. Dionne Jr.’s WaPo op-ed “A Crisis Intrudes in Iowa.”
The Wall St. Journal‘s Amy Chozick reports on the presidential candidates’ efforts to reach Iowa’s 37,000 registered Hispanic voters.

Jason Zengerle reports in TNR’s The Plank that Biden will hold a press conference on the Bhutto assassination
Swing State Project‘s DavidNYC has DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen’s target list of 40 GOP-held House of Reps seats, with “leading” Dem challengers and ’04 and ’06 D-R percentages. Reader comments are also worth a gander.
Progressives considering making a contribution to Ron Paul’s campaign should first read Kos‘s post, “The overt racist in the GOP field” (with more than 700 comments this far). Digby elaborates here.
Larry J. Sabato’s “Senate Sensibilities” (posted 12/13) update on the ’08 Senate campaign has interesting maps, charts and commentary on key Senate races.
Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, rolls out a post-election “road map for the start of a new America” in his article, “The Democrats’ Strategic Challenge.”

One-fourth of potential NH voters did not live in the Granite State in 2000, reports Clynton Namuo in the Union Leader. More than a third of the new residents came from Massachusetts. Namuo adds that many of them are retirees and tax refugees, a fact which may have a pivotal impact on the NH GOP primary.
Rep. Tom Tancredo is probably going to pull out of the GOP presidential race on Thursday, according to M.E. Sprengelmeyer’s report in the Rocky Mountain News. Hard to say who Tanc will endorse, but his withdrawal should produce a slight boost for immigration hawk Romney. No doubt Tancredo will take credit, with some justification, for making immigration the GOP’s pet issue. Sort of “anger, resentment and xenophobia are now rising — my work here is done.”
Liz Mair has a report on the effort to crank up the youth vote in The Politico. Mair sees Obama as the prime beneficiary of the increased interest of young voters in the ’08 campaign, and his campaign is more focused on mobilizing young voters than any other.
Bill Scher’s TomPaine.com post “Record-Breaking Obstruction: How It Screwed You,” makes it easy for Democratic congressional candidates looking for a good litany of the Republicans’ obstruction of needed legislative reforms. As Scher concludes “…we know we can’t rely on the media to tell the full story, it’s up to us to spread the word.”
Those bored with the Iowa horse race polls should take a break and check out Paul Waldman’s American Prospect article on best v.p. choices for the leading presidential candidates of both parties. Waldman also discusses the strategic benefits of picking a running mate right friggin’ now.

Editor and Publisher has a Special Report up, “Do Political Bloggers at Newspaper Sites Now Drive 2008 Campaign Coverage?” by Joe Strupp. Since E & P is “America’s Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry,” as the masthead notes, the narrow focus is understandable. The article is mostly about the advantages of rag blogs vs. print stories, but it does provide some interesting observations, such as the political blogs rank near the top in hits of all the blogs at major newspapers, and the L.A. Times ‘Top of the Ticket’ blog gets 200K page views per month, which is not all that impressive compared to some of the non-newspaper political blogs.
The article, though interesting in terms of shedding light on the future of newspapers, has a “glass is half empty feel” about it, leaving many readers wanting to know more about the influence of non-newspaper political blogs. For the other half of the story, check out Terry McDermott’s “Blogs can top the presses,” posted, somewhat ironically on the L.A. Times website, to their credit.

Alexandra Alter’s “Reading the Mind Of the Body Politic” in today’s Wall St. Journal should be of interest to those following the buzz about Drew Westen’s “The Political Brain.” Alter’s article, which includes photos, graphics and a video, focuses on efforts to apply Westen’s ideas in current political campaigns. For example:

Last Sunday at a San Francisco hotel ballroom, EmSense researchers fitted five volunteers, all undecided Republicans, with battery-powered headsets made of elastic and lined with bits of copper. As they watched the debate on a big screen, the wireless units, which the company calls “EmGear,” collected data on their skin temperature, heart rate, eye-blinking and brain activity and beamed them to a bank of computers. The data were run through a formula created by EmSense to identify whether a response was positive or negative.
When John McCain ran through a list of Hispanic politicians who had endorsed him, the company says the brain-wave frequencies of the test subjects stayed flat, indicating a lack of interest. When Mike Huckabee argued that withdrawing troops from Iraq would create a power vacuum for terrorists, the volunteers’ adrenaline spiked. Fred Thompson’s discussion of health care caused a pattern of brain activity that suggests the viewers thought about what he said, but didn’t like it. The company, which says it plans to begin contacting campaigns later this month, says it could help candidates vet advertisements or hone their language and delivery in speeches.

Alter discusses other innovative experiments by neuromarketing campaign consultants to mine the subconscious and emotional responses of voters. A good read also for those interested in the newer frontiers of political attitude research.

In his WaPo op-ed column”Homespun Meets Hard-Line,” Michael Gerson sheds some disturbing light on the real Mike Huckabee. Gerson says Huckabee made “a moral blunder of the first order” in accepting the endorsement of anti-immigrant extremist Jim Gilchrist, founder of “The Minuteman Project”:

Gilchrist is not just another voice on immigration. He is one of the most divisive figures in the most divisive debate in American politics. In 2006, responding to pro-immigration demonstrations, he told the Orange County Register, “I’m not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this. I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that.” Note the oily formulation — not promoting, but also not criticizing, the resort to political violence. “I’m willing to see my country go into battle if necessary,” he added, “for our sovereignty and to be governed by rule of law.”
Gilchrist has called for the impeachment of President Bush over the issue of border enforcement. He has made noises about running for president as a third-party candidate because of his disdain for Republicans.

Gerson sees Huckabee’s embrace of immigrant-bashing as a sloppy maneuver to top Romney. We look forward to hearing Huckabee explain to Hispanic voters how much of Gilchrist’s agenda he supports.

Republicans held on to both House seats in yesterday’s special elections to replace deceased GOP congressmen in Ohio and Virginia. Although Democrats hoped for an upset pick-up in Ohio 5, both seats are located in Republican stronghold districts. Democrat Robin Weirauch lost Ohio 5 to Republican Bob Latta by 56.8 to 42.9 percent, about the same percentage she received in her ’06 run for the seat. However, Dems can take some quailified comfort from the results, as Stuart Rothenberg explains:

Democrats…forced Republicans to spend heavily to defend a solidly Republican district. Part of the Democrats’ 2008 House strategy obviously is to force the NRCC to play in as many districts as possible, bleeding the under-financed GOP dry and, possibly, sneaking off with a few extra seats next fall.
The NRCC was able to hold the Ohio district, in part, by outspending the DCCC. It will not be able to do that very often next year. But before you give the DCCC a trophy for forcing the NRCC to spend money on the race, remember that the Democrats just tossed away $250,000 in Ohio 5 and have nothing to show for it.

The NRCC spent about $400,000 to hold the seat according to The Toledo Blade wrap-up. As DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen put it,

Spending 20 percent of their cash on hand to retain one of the most Republican districts in the country — priceless.

Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, adds “The GOP had to scramble to win a special election that should have been a cake walk.”
But Rothenberg cautions against reading too much into the special elections:

Given that GOP special election nominees held reliably Republican seats, all the results prove is that Democrats will have a hard time winning solidly Republican districts next year. That suggests that Democrats aren’t likely to gain another 30 or 40 seats in 2008, hardly an earth-shattering conclusion.

Ohio 5 has been held by the GOP since the 1930’s. The DCCC spent $0 in the VA 1st district race, which Bush won with 60 percent of the vote in ’04. The Republicans held the VA seat by a 61-37 percent margin.

Candidates across the nation are no doubt taking note of the new Pew poll of Hispanics. The poll, conducted October 3 to November 9 (m.o.e. 2.7) was all good news for Dems. Some key findings:

Hispanics now say they favor Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 34 percent, compared to a margin of 21 percent in July 2006
Pew estimates that there will be 8.6 million Hispanic voters in ’08, up by a margin of more than a million since ’04
In four of the six ‘swing states’ Bush won in ’04 by a margin of less than 5 percent, Hispanics are in a position to be a key ‘swing vote’ in the electorates: NM (37%); FL (14%); NV (12%); and CO (12%)
44 percent of Latino rv’s say Dems have more concern for their issues, compared to 8 percent who say Republicans have more concern.
Younger Hispanics are slightly more likely to favor Democrats.
79 percent of Hispanic voters say immigration is a “very important” issue, up from 63 percent in June ’04.
Although Latinos are 15 percent of the U.S. population, they are 9 percent of the eligible national electorate, but they are expected to be only about 6.5 percent of the electorate in ’08.

The Clinton campaign should also be encouraged that she was favored by 59 percent of Hispanic voters, compared to 15 percent for Obama and 8 percent for Richardson. Clinton has experienced some loss of African American support to Obama in the weeks since the Pew poll, but it is unclear whether Hispanics are also beginning to trend toward favoring Obama and/or Richardson.

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.'”