Check it out.

A legal challenge seeking to keep independent Jim Schneller off the ballot was withdrawn from Commonwealth Court late Thursday, shortly after a judge issued a key ruling against supporters of Republican candidate Pat Meehan, whose campaign spearheaded the challenge. The resolution of the case in Schneller’s favor is a setback for Meehan, who now stands to lose at least some votes from a conservative who has dabbled in the so-called Birther movement and espouses many Tea Party ideals. And it’s a win for Democratic nominee Bryan Lentz, whose supporters helped Schneller get on the ballot in the hopes that he could siphon votes from Meehan in the contentious race.

Schneller, who represented himself and at one point asked the court to declare the state’s election law unconstitutional, could not immediately be reached for comment late Thursday.

James Colins, the Cozen O’Connor attorney representing Meehan’s camp, voiced dismayed by the outcome.

“I am disappointed with today’s rulings regarding the validity of Mr. Schneller’s petitions,” Colins said in a statement. “We pursued this case based on evidence that these petitions were not circulated in accordance with the law. The court has made its decision, and I respect that. However, I continue to believe that Mr. Schneller’s candidacy was disingenuously bolstered by Democrats, and he would not be on the ballot if it were not for a coordinated effort by the Lentz campaign.”

The significant help Schneller received from Lentz’s supporters only added bitterness to a race already filled with it. It also reignited an argument over nominating petitions that started in the spring, when Lentz’s campaign brought a ballot challenge alleging fraud in Meehan’s petitions. The challenge failed in court, but Meehan’s nominating petitions remain under investigation by the state attorney general’s office. Ever since then, the temperature in the state’s most competitive House race has remained red hot.

The withdrawal of the ballot challenge Thursday was brought about by a series of decisions by Commonwealth Court Judge Shelly Friedman earlier in the day. After Schneller seemed to imply to a local newspaper that his petitions had not been notarized in the presence of those who gathered the signatures as required by law, Meehan’s supporters were granted the right to take depositions—a relatively rare occurrence in ballot challenge cases. During those depositions, it was established that Lentz’s supporters did indeed witness notarization of the petitions, even though the notary public didn’t record them in her logbook as is required. Friedman ruled against the Meehan camp in deciding that those signatures were still valid.

Friedman also ruled that signers who gave the wrong municipality would still be counted, so long as the street address given matched the address at which they were registered.

After that, only the signatures of those who signed petitions for another candidate in the race, as well as other line-by-line challenges, remained to be litigated. The numbers—and the likelihood of getting Schneller under the required threshold—were not on Meehan’s side. So the challenge was withdrawn, canceling a hearing scheduled for Friday morning and closing the case.

Still, Meehan’s campaign continued to make its argument that Lentz played dirty.

“Jim Schneller’s candidacy has been nothing more than a deceitful and desperate attempt by Bryan Lentz to manipulate a race he is trailing in,” Meehan campaign manager Bryan Kendro said. “However, we respect the ruling of the court and do not feel it is a responsible use of taxpayer dollars and the court’s time to continue to pursue the challenge to Mr. Schneller’s petitions.”

Lentz’s campaign, for its part, continued to argue that the whole ordeal underscores an allegiance by Meehan to the conservative wing of his party.

“The Lentz campaign welcomes Jim Schneller to the race,” Lentz campaign manager Kevin McTigue said. “And while Jim Schneller and Pat Meehan battle for the support of the far-right, Bryan Lentz remains focused on growing the economy and job creation in the 7th district.”

The memo from pollster Gene Ulm of Public Opinion Strategies says that a survey of 400 likely voters conducted late last month found Burns garnering 48 percent of the vote, compared to 43 percent for Critz. But the margin of error is 4.9 percent, making the race effectively a dead heat.

The full survey questions and crosstabs were not available, making it impossible to independent assess the merits of the poll. But the results track closely with a detailed survey that was recently released by by the conservative group American Action Network.

Internal GOP polls also saw Burns winning in the days before the May 18 special election, but Critz ended up winning by more than seven points. After the Critz win, some Republicans began to think the rematch was a lost cause. But indicators of lagging economic growth that have Democrats worried and Burns’ ability to pour loads of his own cash into the race—if he chooses to do so—have kept the seat in play.

The poll memo, which was moving through political circles Thursday and was also reported by CQ Politics, says President Obama continues to suffer from low approval ratings in the district, where conservative-leaning Democrats have long held sway.

Click here to see the poll memo.

The 30-second spot is Carney’s second of the campaign, and it started airing in the northeast Pennsylvania district late last month.

“Made in America,” Carney says in the ad. “It’s a source of pride and an engine of growth, but it hasn’t been happening enough.”

Sporting a big cash advantage against Republican Tom Marino, Carney first went on the air in early August, and is expected to continue his TV blitz through Election Day. The race is currently No. 10 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

See the ad below.

In late summer of a crucial midterm election, two political fundamentals are abundantly clear, while two others are almost equally unknown. All four bear enormously on the next presidential election and the fate of the nation over the next six years.

Abundantly clear is that:
1. National Democrats are facing electoral carnage, possibly of monumental proportions, that could cost them the House and even the Senate;
2. The Obama presidency seems increasingly imperiled in its second year; many believe he could not be reelected if he had to face voters this year instead of two years from now.

Abundantly ambiguous are two related political fundamentals:
1. How bad is it going to be for Democrats in the 2010 midterms?
2. What will Obama do to salvage his presidency in the aftermath of the inevitable reverses to be sustained in November?

The how bad will it be question seems to offer only a series of equally horrific scenarios for Democrats. Past midterms provide a guide, and that guide suggests that the president’s party almost always loses congressional seats in the first midterm, an average of 30 in the House and five in the Senate since 1938. Only one president in that interval (Bush in 2002) didn’t lose House seats in his first midterm.

Moreover, it has been worse for presidents running in bad economic times and during war. Obama carries both of these disadvantages in 2010. Since 1938, presidents running in such times have lost an average of 44 house seats in the midterm. The Democrats now control the House by just 39 seats.

But these dismal prospects are not the worst of it. To them is added Obama’s personal unpopularity. The president’s approval ratings are stuck under 50 percent and are unlikely to move up any time soon.

Ominously for Obama, a president’s approval rating in the midterm year is highly correlated with electoral losses for his party in Congress. Obama’s unpopularity rivals Bill Clinton in 1994 (46 percent approval), Jimmy Carter in 1978 (49 percent approval), and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966(44 percent approval).

In short, the carnage for Democrats in 2010 is likely to be broad and deep—affecting Democratic candidates at both state and national levels. So to the first unknown—how bad will it be—the answer is most probably very bad indeed. The losses could reach historic magnitudes.

The second unknown is by far the most interesting and the most difficult to forecast. What will Obama do about it? What he ultimately does will determine whether he has any chance for a second term.

For Obama, there are three recent options or strategies employed by comparably embattled Democratic presidencies. Call them the bad, worse, and worst strategies because Obama at this point probably has no really good options.

The “worst” strategy was employed by Johnson in 1968. Faced with an unpopular war, hemorrhaging party support and voter unrest, he simply announced he would not run again. The political consequence of that strategy was Richard Nixon’s election, eight years of Republican rule, and, of course, Watergate.

The merely “worse” strategy was Jimmy Carter’s. After modest 1978 midterm losses, Carter entered his final two years facing an insurrection from liberals in his own party. Unlike Clinton 20 years later, he adjusted hardly at all to public opinion, changed few of his policies, and consequently steadily lost popularity for both his domestic and foreign agendas. He ended his term disastrously in the midst of a bungled hostage standoff with Iran.

The “bad” strategy and “best” was Bill Clinton’s in 1994. Voter anger that year over Clinton policies was widespread. Consequently, the GOP captured both houses of Congress. Many believed the Clinton presidency was over. It might have been, but Clinton shrewdly assessed the damage, saw his limited options, and moved to the center faster than you can say “triangulate.” The result two years later was another term and a revitalized party.

Which of these strategies might Obama employ? Maybe none. While each of these earlier presidencies provides a roadmap, they were all traveling different roads. Obama faces a set of conditions and circumstances unique in the modern presidency—a recession bordering on a depression, unprecedented peace-time debt, and an unpopular war. To get out of this one he might have to invent his own strategy.

Indeed, Obama has done just that throughout his life. During his career, he has faced challenges and overcome obstacles. His historic presidential campaign in 2008, becoming America’s first black president, eloquently showcased his immense capacity to overcome adversity and emerge a winner after all. All of those trials probably helped prepare him for this one. But none of them have tested him as he will be tested after Election Day.

The writers are, respectively, a professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College and a managing partner of Michael Young Strategic Research. Politically Uncorrected, their syndicated column, is published here regularly.

Alex, who has been the heart and soul of PoliticsPA for over a year and is one heck of a reporter, was just hired by the National Journal, He’ll start work in Washington toward the end of the month.

Congratulations, Alex. You deserve it.

But Callahan says he’s not worried about running against the political tide.

“I don’t know that it’s a bad year for Democrats, I think it’s a bad year for incumbents,” Callahan said in a video interview with CQ-Roll Call. “So I think in an anti-incumbent environment, in a district that’s a [Democratic-leaning] district, running against someone who’s been a career politician and a Washington DC three-term incumbent, I like my chances. I think it’s actually a good year to run.”

The Lehigh Valley race is currently No. 5 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

See the interview below.

A party official told pa2010.com that Kaine will give the speech Wednesday at Houston Hall. Gov. Ed Rendell will be in attendance.

“He’ll make the sharpest contrast that he has made to date on the direction the country would go if Republicans had their way,” the Democratic officials said. “Kaine will use Pennsylvania races as a case study as he paints a very stark picture of what this country could look like under extreme Republican rule with leaders like Pat Toomey and Tom Corbett who have spent their lives fighting for corporate interests over the needs of middle class Americans.”

Kaine’s appearance will come just days after his visit to southeast Pennsylvania this week. Party leaders have also planned back-to-back appearances by Kaine and Vice President Joe Biden on “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” respectively, according to Politico, which also reported on Kaine’s plans.

Some things have changed, some things haven’t.

• It looks like the Democrats are in even more trouble than I imagined they’d be. Who would have thought both Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey would be flirting with double-digit leads, and that Democrats would have a real chance of losing up to half-a-dozen House seats in Pennsylvania alone? No one pretends there’s no Republican wave coming any more.

• The Democratic strategy appears to be to run away from the issues and try to scare people about the Republican candidates (as in Kentucky or Nevada) or else to resort to simple trickery (as in the increasingly pathetic shenanigans emerging from Bryan Lentz’s and Dan Onorato’s campaigns). Such tactics might work in individual cases, but they are likely to backfire in others. If anything, they threaten to anger independent voters without meaningfully increasing the enthusiasm on the Democratic side.

• While the Republicans look strong right now, there is a serious danger of overconfidence, both in the elections themselves and their aftermath. Anyone who attends Republican meetings knows that the party is much longer on resentment of President Obama than on clear and constructive ideas for what to do once in power. There is, moreover, a wide and growing gap between establishment Republicans and Tea Party insurgents, one that is less pronounced in Pennsylvania than in other states, but which will directly impact the party’s ability to function should it take control of Congress. The enthusiasm about “Speaker Boehner” should perhaps be tempered with that old adage: Be careful what you wish for, because it may come true.

Scranton City Councilman Pat Rogan endorsed Barletta’s campaign against Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-11) Thursday, calling the Hazleton mayor “the best person to represent the people of Scranton.” Rogan ran unsuccessful council campaigns as a Republican before being elected as a Democrat last year, and is now the chamber’s vice president.

“This isn’t the time to simply vote a straight-party ticket on Nov. 2,” Rogan said in a statement. “I encourage the people of Scranton to look beyond the party label and at Lou Barletta’s policies and his record and his opponent’s policies and his record. There are very clear differences that make Lou Barletta the best choice for Scranton.

Barletta is trying to unseat Kanjorski for the third time in eight years, in a contentious race that is currently No. 2 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

“Our country is heading in a very dangerous direction,” Rogan added, “and Lou Barletta will help get us back on the right path.”