Perhaps not as much as we think.

Recent news from the AP and David Postman indicates things are tighter than originally hoped for in the race between Cathy McMorris and Peter Goldmark, or as indicated by September's primary. Yet, while the national mood is certainly not helpful to Republicans, one question needs to be raised: where are the independent polls validating the conclusion this race is close?

There seems little doubt that Peter Goldmark has raised money quickly after a late start into the race, thanks in no small part to out-of-district liberals (McMorris had raised over $800,000 before Goldmark even got in the race this spring based on FEC reports, more than he has raised for his entire campaign through September 30th). Yet, the only two polls in the race that have been reported are both partisan Democratic polls, by Lake Research Partners, one released in August, the other in October.

Note two things, the latter poll has McMorris' lead actually increasing to 7%, up from 2% in the first poll. Second, both polls have catch phrases that should ward off serious political analysts, such as:

With enough resources to communicate Goldmark's strong messages, inform voters about McMorris' voting record, and drive home the potent contrast between Goldmark's priorities and Cathy McMorris' special interest agenda, this seat is winnable.

And, "after both candidates get their messages out, Goldmark pulls into a virtual tie..." Anytime polls talk about "resources to communicate" and candidates getting "their messages out," instead of straight questions then the poll isn't to be trusted, no matter who paid for it. That's even before one considers Lake is using tiny sample sizes with high margins of error, such as a 350 likely voter sample with a 5.2% margin of error for the second poll.

This is all worth noting when one considers the idea postulated here:

One of the Democratic strategies this cycle is to flood the zone with partisan and suspect polls showing as many House races as possible in play to piggy back on the national generic polls that show legitimate bad news for Republicans.

Is that what is happening in this race? Has Goldmark has found a way to make the netroots swoon, and hype unreliable partisan polls? Where's the independent proof the race is truly that close? Notice how virtually every House race on this list, including Dave Reichert's, has a good number of independent polls available to at least get some gauge on the race. Where are those for the 5th Congressional District?

Even claims of certain gloom for Republicans because of nationwide trends are worth questioning. A recent Gallup poll showed Republicans just as motivated as Democrats to vote this year. In addition, recent generic Congressional ballot polls are of dubious value given the peculiar Democratic composition they've been employing. Both of these data points help amplify this worthwhile discussion on the utility of generic v. individual polls. Short story: generic polls make for an interesting national news stories, but don't tell you what's happening on the ground in competitive races.

McMorris' path to re-election is no doubt more complicated than envisioned early this spring when Goldmark was a nonentity, without a campaign bank account, but questions should continue be raised about how successful Goldmark can ultimately be. McMorris has experience winning a highly competitive race in both the primary and the general elections in 2004 by large margins (as noted by the Spokane Spokesman Review in its endorsement of McMorris this year). McMorris ran ahead of both President Bush and Dino Rossi across her district in 2004, and far in front of Goldmark in September's primary, despite robust Democratic turnout advantages statewide.

Sure, both sides have increasingly heated ads on the air, as one would expect in a race pitting a decently funded challenger against a freshman incumbent, whose first victory was in a hotly contested election. Beyond that exchange of unpleasantries though, the only momentum one can see for sure in this race is the excitement of the netroots, and Democratic donors. While the corresponding infusion of cash no doubt has made some inside the Beltway eager to send more money to eastern Washington, with the NRCC now following the DCCC's injection of resources into the race, has it actually made the race competitive? Is there any tangible evidence to prove the race is truly close?

That would certainly be worth seeing right now.