When politicians draw quality opponents, they have to respond with quality campaigns or they lose.

Well, Missouri 6th District Congressman Sam Graves drew a quality opponent in former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes and he responded by running the campaign of his life.

The latest KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll confirms that fact. It shows Graves sporting an 18 point lead over Barnes. Barnes at one point reduced Graves’ lead to 4 points. It’s been all downhill for her since then.

Graves was deemed by some national pundits to be one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the country. What happened?

You can’t blame Barnes’ campaign. She had a solid plan and she raised a lot of money to implement it. She also had a solid record as mayor to sell to voters.

But the political geography of the district was tough for her. She lives in the Northland of Kansas City, not a very good base in a rural district that stretches over 26 counties.

Barnes also suffered political damage in the 2007 Kansas City mayoral contest. Mark Funkhouser’s attacks on her administration’s spending practices set the stage for Graves to blast her as a liberal big city mayor.

Many people assumed that Graves would run a scorched-earth, values-based campaign. When he ran an early commercial attacking Barnes’s “San Francisco values,” a lot of folks just nodded and thought, “Yep, here it comes.”

But Graves shifted when Barnes started to make headway. He started to run a more traditional Republican campaign that focused on the increase in spending and debt in Kansas City during her administration.

Voters in the Kansas City area had heard the liberal Funkhouser raise those issues. It hardly seemed rude, then, when the conservative Graves followed suit.

Graves also ran a commercial featuring his daughter, Emily, that helped soften the rough-edged image he had acquired in previous campaigns.

Barnes’ campaign seemed to fade a little.

It’s crucial to Barnes’ hopes that she run well in towns in Kansas City’s orbit. Look to the numbers in places such as Smithville, Excelsior Springs, Kearney, and the small part of eastern Jackson County in the district. If she doesn’t run well in those areas, it’s light’s out for her campaign.

But let’s not get into the blame game if Barnes loses. She’s a woman of substantial achievement and she ran a good campaign.

Let’s instead credit Graves. He showed that he’s got a political A-game. He brought it to this fight.

Saturday, November 1, 4:15 p.m.

Republican Nick Jordan is mounting a serious challenge to Kansas Third District Congressman Dennis Moore. The KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll conducted on October 25 and 26 shows Moore holding a 53% to 42% lead over Jordan.

Here’s Jordan’s big problem: The poll shows Moore defeating Jordan among independent voters by a margin of 58% to 28%.

Folks who don’t know better say that Moore wins because of the votes of moderate Republicans. That’s just wrong. Moore wins because of his grip on the huge number of unaffiliated voters in Johnson County. Jordan has to win a larger share of those voters in the closing days of the campaign or he’ll be toast.

The poll numbers are otherwise pretty good for the challenger. He’s clearly bringing a lot of Republicans home after the debacles of 2004 and 2006. That’s crucial.

So Jordan is making a race of it. That’s not a surprise. Jordan is the strongest opponent Moore has faced.

Jordan has rightfully touted his work on the legislation that created the Kansas Bioscience Authority as an example of his ability to legislate in an imaginative way.

He otherwise has a mostly conservative record in the state legislature. In the waning days of the campaign, Moore’s been hammering Jordan on aspects of that record, particularly in the area of education. That will make Jordan’s effort to win over independent voters more difficult.

Jordan has generated impressive national support for his campaign. President Bush came to town to raise funds for him. So did House Minority Leader John Boehner. And Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole, the chairman of the House Republican campaign effort, has come to the area twice to campaign for the challenger.

So why is Jordan trailing by 11 points?

Well, first of all, Moore has been on Johnson County ballots since what seems like Old Testament times. He defeated Republican incumbent Margaret Jordan for Johnson County District Attorney in 1976.

Moore’s been on a countywide ballot for three district attorney races, an unsuccessful attorney general race, two community college board of trustee races, and five congressional races. That generates a lot of name recognition.

Moore invariably has good staff and his constituent services generate praise.

His voting record places him in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. He’s incurred the wrath of organized labor by supporting free trade legislation. He’s supporting organized labor, though, on the controversial proposal to do away with secret ballot elections on the question of union organizing.

Here’s the bottom line: Dennis Moore is one tough incumbent to beat. He’s a Democrat who’s prospered in Republican Johnson County. That’s because independent voters support him in huge numbers.

If Nick Jordan doesn’t start rallying more of those voters soon, Moore will be cranking up another victory celebration sing-along on Election Night.

Tuesday, October 28, 6:30 p.m.

Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon is poised to defeat Republican Congressman Kenny Hulshof in the race for Missouri Governor. The latest KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll shows Nixon with a commanding 55% to 38% lead over Hulshof.

Nixon’s wanted the governorship for a long time. In fact, he’s wanted to be something big in Show Me State politics since he was a young stripling of a politician.

Nixon took on incumbent United States Senator Jack Danforth in 1988, just two years after winning a state senate seat. “Saint Jack” drubbed him.

Nixon ran for attorney general in 1992 and defeated David Steelman in a political bloodbath of a campaign.

But that victory didn’t stop Nixon from dreaming of bigger things. In 1998, he ran against United States Senator Kit Bond. He lost.

You get the picture. Nixon has been willing to take big risks in his political career. And he hasn’t let the little problem of suffering a defeat or two along the way deter him from pursuing the biggest prizes in politics.

It looks like Nixon’s perseverance may pay off in 2008.

Hulshof’s been unable to make much headway. Nixon’s 55%-38% lead in the latest poll isn’t very different from the 57%-33% lead he had in our May poll. Why hasn’t Hulshof made more progress?

Well, first there’s the Matt Blunt factor. Blunt grabbed more than $10 million in donations for his expected reelection bid before he withdrew from the governor’s race in January.

His stunning withdrawal demoralized his supporters. It also left Hulshof at a tremendous money disadvantage. Once Blunt withdrew, Nixon’s fundraising soared. Hulshof’s fundraising has been ok, but hasn’t come anywhere near matching the pace of Nixon’s contributions.

The simple fact of the matter is that Blunt sucked the political oxygen out of the Missouri GOP.

Then there’s the Sarah Steelman factor. Hulshof defeated the state treasurer in a hotly contested Republican primary.

The patching-up process after a tough primary is never easy. It certainly wasn’t easy after this one. Steelman says that she has endorsed Hulshof on two separate occasions. For whatever reason, though, the combatants in this fight weren’t able to generate the kind of party-unity-photo-ops that political operatives like to see.

I don’t want to overstate the impact of the primary aftermath. Let’s face it, President Bush is carrying a heavy job disapproval rating in Missouri. And that has produced some mighty heavy baggage for Hulshof.

But let’s give credit where credit’s due. Nixon’s waged a smart campaign. He’s raised a ton of money. He’s shored up his political base among African-American voters. He’s made all the right moves.

And most importantly, he’s never let the dream of winning the big one die. Missouri voters may make his dream come true on November 4.

Tuesday, October 27, 9 p.m.

Updated, Friday, October 31, 10 a.m.

Kansas Senator Pat Roberts appears to be cruising to victory over challenger Jim Slattery.

You can’t say victory is assured. Too many of Roberts’ Republican colleagues are struggling in their reelection bids. It’s a tough year for Republicans.

You can say, though, that Roberts is firmly in the driver’s seat as the campaign enters its final week. The latest KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll shows Roberts with an 18 point lead over Slattery. That’s the way it’s been for months.

A lot of folks thought Slattery, a former Democratic congressman, might make the race interesting. He’s an articulate candidate. Democrats were wildly excited to have him.

What went wrong?

Well, for one thing, Slattery made a serious miscalculation: Pat Roberts is in no way a divisive figure among Republicans. Roberts hasn’t been part of the bloody and largely pointless intraparty battles that have given the upper hand in Kansas to Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Democrats feast in Kansas on Republicans who’ve engaged in those battles.

Roberts isn’t one of them. He mastered the politics of inclusion a long, long time ago. His father, Wes Roberts, was an important Republican leader in Kansas in the 1950’s. Wes Roberts was friends with Dwight Eisenhower, for goodness sake.

Roberts’ inclusiveness paid off when Slattery tried to win the support of the so-called Sebelius Republicans. He made phone call after phone call and came up with virtually nothing.

There were other flaws in Slattery’s campaign plan. Roberts boasts strong support in rural Kansas. The Slattery people thought they’d break that down by hammering Roberts on gas prices. Rural folks, particularly in Roberts’ western Kansas base, didn’t buy it.

In the meantime, Roberts went on the attack. His campaign manager, David Kensinger, who is Senator Sam Brownback’s major domo in the Sunflower State, devised a brilliant plan: The Roberts campaign would remind folks at every turn that Slattery had been a lobbyist and lawyer in Washington, D.C. for the past fourteen years.

It undercut Slattery’s argument that Roberts had been in Washington since men walked on the moon and should be retired.

Slattery’s poll numbers tanked and have never recovered.

Still, you have to give Slattery credit for taking on Roberts. You also have to give a lot of credit to the Kansas Democratic Party for recruiting such a quality candidate. It’s a clear sign of that party’s growing strength.

Kansas Republicans should consider themselves fortunate that Roberts was up this year. He’s the last link to the days when Kansas Republicans had moderate Senator Nancy Kassebaum on the one hand and more conservative Senator Bob Dole on the other and loved it.

It will be tougher after Roberts. The politics of inclusion haven’t been much in favor in the Kansas GOP in the last decade.

Sunday, October 26, 10 p.m.

A KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll released today shows that proponents of the 3/8 cent sales tax for light rail in Kansas City have a fighting chance to win.

That’s the good news for light rail supporters. The bad news is that the poll suggests that the vote will be very close. Let’s take a look.

The poll shows that 39% of likely voters in Kansas City say that they’re certain to vote for the ballot issue. That’s a pretty good core group on which the light rail campaign can build.

The opponents, on the other hand, have a core group of 29% of likely voters who say that they are certain to vote against the proposal.

When SurveyUSA asked the undecided voters to state whether they leaned one way or the other, the totals shifted to 46% in favor of the light rail proposal and 35% opposed. Nineteen percent of likely voters remained undecided.

So the light rail proponents are on their way to victory, right? They only need five more points, right?

Well, it’s not that simple. Here are a couple of important rules to remember about ballot issues.

Rule 1: There’s reason to worry if your ballot proposition polls at less than fifty percent. That’s because it’s generally more difficult for ballot issue supporters to pick up a large number of undecided voters.

I emphasize here that the poll shows that light rail supporters do only need five more points to win. I’d rather be in the position of the supporters, for sure. But that brings me to . . .

Rule 2: Undecided voters on ballot issues usually break more heavily for the “No” side on Election Day. It’s unlikely that the light rail camps are going to split the undecided voters evenly. The “No” camp will pick up more voters in that category.

So, let say that the undecided voters on light rail split 4 % “Yes” and 15% “No.” You’ve got a tie vote.

Light rail supporters have a strong base. But historic voting patterns on ballot propositions tell us that the opponents can pull out a victory.

Undecided voters are up for grabs. “Leaners” could be swayed the other way. This one will be determined in the closing days of the campaign.

Tuesday, October 21, 3:40 p.m.

John McCain got aggressive in his final debate with Barack Obama. It’s doubtful, though, that he changed the trajectory of the campaign.

McCain set the tone early when he said that Obama was engaging in class warfare.

McCain also chastised Obama for linking him to President Bush: “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”

Obama was forced to defend his relationship with ’60’s radical Bill Ayers. It’s hard to know, though, if the Ayers issue will have legs in tough economic times.

McCain attacked Obama for his support of Acorn, the public interest group that in some states has engaged in questionable, even fraudulent voter registration practices. I thought Obama was winged a little bit in this exchange.

It was hard in this format, however, for McCain to really sustain an attack.

Let’s also give credit to Obama. He’s a very formidable debater. He may stumble a little but he rights himself quickly. He did that several times tonight.

He also exhibited considerable command tonight of a variety of domestic policy issues. His explanation of his health care policy, for example, iwas pretty impressive.

One thing’s for sure: Joe the Plumber is now famous. Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, talked to Obama at one of his rallies.

McCain first talked about Joe when he maintained that Obama would raise his taxes. He brought him up again when he discussed health care. Now the media can have a field day following up with Joe.

I liked McCain’s aggressiveness tonight. I just doubt that it can make much difference in this economic environment.

The numbers favor Obama at this point. Battleground states of one month ago are now firmly in his column.

McCain, on the other hand, is being forced to defend small leads in traditional Republican strongholds such as Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina.

That’s bad math for John McCain, even after an aggressive debate performance.

Wednesday, October 15, 9:40 p.m.

John McCain is the political equivalent of a cork bobbing on the ocean. He’s at the mercy of the financial crisis gripping the country.

That’s because in tough economic times, voters punish the party in power in the White House. It may not make sense but it’s a historic reality.

So when McCain took the stage tonight for his second debate against Barack Obama, he faced long odds.

Obama opened by saying we’re in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That’s arguable at this point but it gave him an opportunity to blast the Bush Administration. It also played to voters’ fears.

McCain mentioned energy independence, lower taxes, and spending reforms in his opening. He said that the government had to do something about declining home values.

McCain partly flubbed his answer on who he would nominate as Secretary of the Treasury by mentioning that financial guru Warren Buffett was supporting Obama. Huh?

McCain went after Obama “and his cronies” on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. However, McCain didn’t sustain the attack by explaining the role of the mortgage giants in the crisis.

McCain did a pretty good job again blasting overspending and earmarks. Obama responded well by criticizing McCain on tax policy.

Obama acted like the candidate in the catbird seat in this debate. He was restrained in his answers and didn’t take the bait when McCain went after him. He did well in the town hall format that McCain favors.

McCain scored some points when he criticized Obama’s tax policies.

Obama wasn’t anxioius to tackle moderator Tom Brokaw’s question on reform of entitlement programs in Social Security and Medicare. So he rebutted McCain’s tax arguments instead.

Hmmm, maybe Obama watched Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate last week.

About one hour into the debate, neither candidate had drawn blood. More importantly, not one question had been raised about national security. Obama gains in that situation without saying a word.

The first national security question focused on how the economic crisis would impact America’s ability to be a peacemaker. When it rains it pours for McCain – he couldn’t even get a clean opening question in his area of strength.

Obama was pretty smooth in the national security portion of the debate. McCain scored more points in this part of the debate but you have to wonder if he moved voters.

That’s McCain’s big problem. In this economic environment, the candidates take on a stick figure quality. It’s not about the candidates, it’s about throwing the party in power out on its ear.

Oh, by the way, I scored the debate a draw. That’s not good for the guy who’s bobbing on the ocean.

Tuesday, October 7, 9:45 p.m.

Democratic nominee Joe Biden won the vice presidential debate tonight on points. He didn’t hit any home runs but he gave a consistently solid performance throughout the evening.

Sarah Palin did very well. She was game and made no major mistakes. And she got stronger as the debate moved away from economic issues.

Palin did something else that I thought was effective: she spoke directly to voters. That was a smart move. Biden usually directed his comments to Gwen Ifill, who, incidentally, did a good job as moderator.

Let’s break down the performance of the candidates.

Openings are important. Biden did well when he answered the bailout question by linking economic problems to the eight years of the Bush administration.

I also liked Palin’s suggestion that folks should ask people at a kids’ soccer game what they think of the economy. That harkened back to her hockey mom references at the convention.

But she couldn’t sustain an attack on Obama on economic issues. That was a problem because the early part of the debate focused on the economy.

Palin scored some points on energy issues. She is clearly more comfortable on those issues than on economic policy.

The candidates had an interesting exchange on the civil rights of gay couples. Their positions appeared to be similar. That may trigger some discussion in the days ahead.

Palin did a nice job on the subject of Iraq. Her accusation that Obama’s policy on Iraq is a “white flag of surrender” will be red meat for the Republican base.

Ironically, Palin got stronger on foreign policy issues. Many commentators had predicted that she would struggle on those issues.

But she spoke forcefully on her ticket’s commitment to Israel. She also spoke clearly on the subjects of Iran, Afghanistan and Darfur.

Mind you, Palin didn’t whip Biden on these issues. But she showed that she’d done her homework and that she could comfortably address national security issues.

Both candidates gave strong closing statements.

This debate won’t decide anything. Both Biden and Palin did well.

At this point, the economy is the issue on voters’ minds. That’s a huge advantage for Barack Obama.

And that’s the daunting reality confronting John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Thursday, October 2, 9:45 p.m.

Tonight’s debate between John McCain and Baraclk Obama was supposed to be about foreign policy.

After the tough week McCain had, though, the big question was how he would perform. So, how did he do?

He did very well. Obama did well but, I think, not quite as well as McCain. He was overly cautious.

But here’s what Obama did: He showed that he belonged on the stage. That was a very important political achievement.

Let’s take a look at some highlights.

Both men had pretty good openings. It was smart for Obama to link the economic crisis to the Bush administration.

It was smart for McCain to talk about bipartisanship in the development of a bailout plan.

And it was really smart for moderator Jim Lehrer to point out that neither man had answered his question: Do you support the bailout plan?

McCain and Obama were having none of that. We’re still not sure where they stand on the bailout.

McCain did a good job blasting overspending and earmarks. You could argue that he more effectively attacked Republicans than Obama did.

Obama missed a chance to nail McCain when the Republican nominee gave him an open-ended invitation to say how he defined who was “rich.”

That was a consistent problem for Obama. He was a little too restrained.

McCain on the other hand was anything but restrained. His proposal to freeze most spending will open up a new line of debate in this campaign. It will generate controversy.

That’s ok with McCain. He’s behind. He has to try to dominate the conversation.

It’s hard to argue that either man “won” the exchange on the war in Iraq. Both men stated their positions pretty well. You probably picked a winner based on your personal view of the war.

Obama appeared knowledgeable, however, on the policy choices in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was important for him to do that.

Obama scored points, in my view, in the discussion on Pakistan. He confidently explained the circumstances in which he would order an attack on Al Qaeda strongholds in that country.

Here’s the irony of this debate: Obama’s performance got stronger in the pure foreign policy segments of the debate. That’s the area in which Obama’s credentials have been called into question.

Presidential debates are odd political animals. This one was no exception.

McCain, I think, won the debate. He was bolder and scored more points on most of the topics.

However, Obama achieved some very important political goals. We may find in the coming weeks that that was enough to hand him a far more important victory: winning the general election.

Posted from Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 10:50 p.m. EDT, Friday, September 26

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin appears to be making her presence felt in the race between former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes and incumbent Congressman Sam Graves.

The latest KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll in the 6th congressional district contest shows that Graves now holds a nine point lead over Barnes. That’s a five point improvement for Graves since the last KCTV5/SurveyUSA poll seven weeks ago.

Ok, so what’s the evidence that Palin is a factor in Graves’s improved standing?

The poll, conducted on September 17 and 18, shows Graves now leading among women voters by 3 points. That’s hardly a big lead. But consider this: In the poll seven weeks ago, Barnes led among women by a whopping 17 points.

That’s a huge swing. It’s hard to attribute it to anything other than Palin.

She’s having that kind of impact elsewhere. Polls in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan all show that Palin is helping McCain among women voters.

Other polls have shown an improved standing for Republican candidates generally in the wake of Palin’s nomination for vice president. That may help explain Graves’s improved numbers among women voters.

The important question at this point is whether the Palin Effect will be temporary. She appears to be energizing the Republican base. That’s probably a permanent development.

On the other hand, her appeal to independent women voters may not last. She has a debate with Joe Biden on October 2. If she performs poorly, her support among those voters will likely drop off.

Barnes is responding to the Palin challenge. She’s hitting Graves on bread-and-butter issues that are appealing to women.

This much is clear: Barnes won’t unseat Graves if he wins a majority of women voters on Election Day. Guaranteed.

Monday, September 22, 8 p.m.