Kerry's drop in the New Hampshire tracking polls just touched statistical significance, dropping from 14% at the beginning of the month to 10% now, while Dean's drop is also flirting with significance (39%-35%) and Clark has made a strong and measurable surge (12%-21%). The nut graf from today's tracking poll, laying out the most serious problem facing Dean as the spectre of a meaningful Democratic convention (where at least two candidates are battling for the slot) looms:

Likely Democratic primary voters saying they will vote for Kerry or Lieberman are more apt to have unfavorable opinions of Dean. Of the 10% saying they will vote for Kerry, 17% have a favorable opinion of Dean and 75% have an unfavorable opinion of Dean. Of the 8% saying they will vote for Lieberman, 31% have a favorable opinion of Dean and 46% have an unfavorable opinion of Dean.

While we're at it, here's the critical piece from yesterday's tracking poll (covered by TPM) dealing with possible Dean-ish dirty tricks:

Over the past 2 days of calling, a number of older respondents registered as undeclared voters have reported that they have recevied telephone calls from a campaign informing them that they will not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary because they missed the deadline to switch parties. A respondent discovered, however, that when she told the caller that she was thinking about Howard Dean, the caller told her that she would be eligible to vote.

So, someone's running a push-poll stamp-out-the-vote (SOTV) action to reduce turnout amongst a demo that Dean isn't particularly strong in. It could be led by either the GOP (who really wishes to face Dean, of course), or by Dean -- but it's more likely to be a rogue precinct or group within either of those organizations. In any case, coupled with the discovery of Dean infiltrators in Kerry's camp and allegations of a Dean plan to stuff the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state Deanies (thank you, Dan Savage), this could cause some heartburn for the Big Dean Machine.

However, Tom Harkin's surprise endorsement of Dean -- which also managed to take the edge off some unfortunate revelations from the Dean of 2000 -- will probably go a long way to restoring momentum to Dean in Iowa. (I left Iowa just before the Harkin news broke, so I can't say how it's playing there, but Harkin is essentially viewed as the corncob kingmaker.)

 
Recent polls out of Arizona show the Dems have a hard row to hoe for this year's election. If the numbers solidify for BC04, the only winning strategy for the Dems will be to try and pick off southern states for the win. The Arizona details page has been updated with the poll results obtained from the article body.

 
Adam Nagourney's view of the candidates in his take on Sunday's Dem debate in Iowa: Edwards is "low-voltage;" Lieberman made an "entreaty from across the stage" for Dean to unseal his Vermont records; Kerry "scrunch[ed] up his face" when questioning Dean.

And Dean? Why, he's the "candidate of the day. "None of his opponents challenged him" when he said that Iraq didn't pose a danger to the United States. When Lieberman challenged Dean to open up his gubernatorial records, Nagourney said that Dean "declined" to do so in the past (contrasted with what is usually characterized as the "refusal" of the White House to open its own records).

A particularly egregious example of what seems to be a pro-Dean bias in Nagourney's work can be seen in this exchange:

"When you were asked by The Concord Monitor about Osama bin Laden, you said you couldn't prejudge his guilt for September 11th," Mr. Kerry said, scrunching up his face and turning incredulously to Dr. Dean. "What in the world were you thinking?"

Dr. Dean responded by citing the primacy of law.

"As an American, I want to see Osama bin Laden get what he deserves, which is the death penalty," Dr. Dean responded. "But I was asked that question as a candidate for president of the United States. And a candidate for president of the United States is obligated to stand for the rule of law."

First, Dean did not "cite the primacy of law," he argued that the American legal system should take precedence over the use of military force in a matter of national security. To take Dean's statements to their extreme, Dean would seem to be suggesting that it would be wrong to fire a TLAM on a suspected bin Laden hideout, since to kill a person without determining guilt would be prima facie immoral.

Second, isn't Dean reaching new levels of evasion in his waffling? "As an American," he wants to see bin Laden dead, but "as a candidate for President" he's "obligated" to feel differently? Adam, where's the outrage?

 
The institution of the American family continues its precipitous plunge: Blame FOX.