During the hot presidential primary season, polling firms focused on presidential primary outcomes and not too much on congressional elections.

Now there are several new polls on Senate races each day that provide a glimpse of the contests.

There are some very interesting developments in the past few days.

Most surprising – a Kentucky poll showing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) dead even with his challenger, businessman Bruce Lunsford. This is the second poll in a week showing Lunsford catching up.  It is rare for party leaders to lose re-election battles in their home states, but it happened to Tom Dashle in South Dakota a few years back.

In Georgia, while some polls show incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss with a comfortable lead, two recent polls — one listed below — show a margin of as little as two points.

In another unexpected development, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), who appears to be spending all his time campaigning nationally for John McCain, is now only 9 points ahead of his little known challenger, Bob Conley (D). While no one believes that Graham is seriously threatened, he may have to spend more time before the home folks instead of strolling the country arm-in-arm with John McCain.

In two other Senate contests, Oregon and North Carolina, the Democratic challengers may have taken narrow leads over Republican incumbents.

In fact, political guru Stu Rothenberg has moved the Oregon Senate race to “lean takeover” for Jeff Merkley (D).

Nationally, most polls show Barack Obama with a narrow lead after trailing a couple of weeks ago.

Could there be a similar trend in Senate contests?  Stay tuned, and check back frequently.  This compendium will be updated almost every weekday.

Full polling data is here.

Rep. Thelma Drake’s (R) attack on Glenn Nye does not seem to be hurting the Council backed candidate.  As we blogged the other day, Drake criticized Nye for taking a tax exemption on a house he wasn’t living in.  The only problem is that Nye …

A new poll this week shows freshman Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) locked in a tight race with the Republican she defeated in 2006.  Shea-Porter surprised the political world in 2006 when she upset Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley by less than 5,000 votes….

With Sen. John McCain perceived as having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in voter confidence on foreign policy issues, Obama showed confident poise in his positions during the first presidential debate last Friday.

The first 40 minutes focused on the candidates’ approaches to fixing the American economy due to the ongoing market crisis. Obama focused on closing corporate tax loopholes, combating greed and corruption on Wall Street, and implementing tax cuts for the middle class. McCain chastised earmark spending increases as the source of America’s economic woes.

As the debate switched to foreign policy, McCain repeatedly asserted that Obama “does not understand” the challenges the United States faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain claimed that Obama’s support for direct talks with rogue nations would legitimize those regimes that want to cause the United States harm. Obama was quick to respond, highlighting that treating those we disagree with contemptuously only emboldens their motives. He used Iran and North Korea as examples.

On the issue of Iraq, Obama was quick to point out that he was correct in his judgment that Iraq was an unnecessary war and that the real central front in the war on terror is in Afghanistan, a conflict McCain has treated dismissively. McCain countered by stating that “The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not.” The squabbling between the two candidates on this issue highlighted the ‘judgment vs. experience’ debate that has been a theme of the race for months.    

One of the highlights of the first debate was when Obama expressed his dedication and desire for urgent action to secure loose nuclear weapons and strengthen other non-proliferation measures. As he previously outlined in response to questions from Council for a Livable World, Obama said that the issue of non-proliferation is important because “The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” Obama has pledged to work extensively with other nations – including Russia, despite its recent aggressive actions in Georgia – to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials.  

The next presidential debate, in a town-hall format, is on Oct. 7th at Belmont University in Nashville. Prior to this debate will be the highly anticipated vice-presidential debate this Thursday, Oct. 2, at Washington University in St. Louis.  Many are looking to see if Gov. Sarah Palin can perform in an unscripted national debate against the unpredictable, knowledgeable, and always charismatic Sen. Joe Biden.  

Cross posted from Iraq Insider

Ambassador Peter Galbraith, Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Council’s sister organization, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, just published his latest essay in the New York Review of Books. The title says it all: Is This a ‘Victory’?

Galbraith’s assessment of the ongoing sectarian disputes in Iraq is fantastic. He excels at explaining the hidden motivations behind different Iraqi leaders’ seemingly altruistic actions.

Galbraith’s essay also is extremely relevant within the context of the presidential race. I regularly take umbrage at John McCain and other surge enthusiasts’ constant use of words like “victory” and “defeat.” I posted last week about what George Kennan might say on the matter. The week before that I couldn’t help but remind people that General David Petraeus said that he did not know that he would ever apply “victory” to Iraq.

In the foreign policy debate last Friday night, McCain again used the word victory without defining what exactly that means for the United States in Iraq. “We came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded,” McCain said on Friday. “This strategy has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor.”

Galbraith, on the other hand, grapples with the uncertainties:

Less violence, however, is not the same thing as success. The United States did not go to war in Iraq for the purpose of ending violence between contending sectarian forces. Success has to be measured against US objectives. John McCain proclaims his goal to be victory and says we are now winning in Iraq (a victory that will, of course, be lost if his allegedly pro-surrender opponent wins). He considers victory to be an Iraq that is “a democratic ally.” George W. Bush has defined victory as a unified, democratic, and stable Iraq. Neither man has explained how he will transform Iraq’s ruling theocrats into democrats, diminish Iran’s vast influence in Baghdad, or reconcile Kurds and Sunnis to Iraq’s new order. Remarkably, neither the Democrats nor the press has challenged them to do so.

[snip]

John McCain says that partly because of his persistent support of the surge, we are now winning the Iraq war. He defines victory as an Iraq that is a democratic ally. Yet he advocates continued US military support to an Iraqi government led by Shiite religious parties committed to the establishment of an Islamic republic. He takes a harder line on Iran than President Bush, but supports Iraqi factions that are Iran’s closest allies in the Middle East. He praises the Awakening and but seems not to have realized that the Iraqi government is intent on crushing it. He has denounced the Obama-Biden plan for a decentralized state but has said nothing about how he would protect Iraq’s Kurds, the only committed American allies in the country.

George W. Bush has put the United States on the side of undemocratic Iraqis who are Iran’s allies. John McCain would continue the same approach. It is hard to understand how this can be called a success–or a path to victory.

Galbraith’s realistic analysis or McCain’s empty slogans? You be the judge.