Update 11:15PM est: Deb Fischer is starting to pull away in the senate primary race in Nebraska, and has been declared the winner of the GOP Primary. AG Bruning, the establishment pick, was expected to walk away with this race as little as two weeks ago. It's Fischer 40.2% to 36% for Bruning. Tonight's math formula is Palin > the establishment > Jim DeMint + Freedom Works + Club for Growth.

Update 10:37PM est: Deb Fischer takes the lead in Nebraska. 38.6%-37.2%. Ted Cruz smiling, Dan Llijenquist glad to be last int he primary cycle. Tons of momentum could be headed his way

Update 10:25PM est: Returns show the gap now just 1.2% with 38.1% for Bruning, and 36.9% Fischer.

Update 10:15PM est: With 32% of the vote in, Palin-backed Senate candidate Deb Fisher is within 3% of establishment pick Bruning. The lead has narrowed to 39-36%. Stenberg, who was endorsed by most other tea party groups, is in distant 3rd at 21%. Palin power? Note: The only two general election polls done featuring Fischer vs Democrat Bob Kerrey had Fischer winning by 10 and 12 points, despite low name recognition.

Original Post: In the May 15th Nebraska Republican primary for Senate, John Bruning was the establishment favorite. Jim DeMint and a number of tea party organizations backed a second candidate, former Attorney General Don Stenberg. But days after a poll found a third candidate, Deb Fischer, trailing by 16 points, Sarah Palin gave a surprise endorsement of the underfunded underdog.

Many naysayers have dismissed Palin's influence, instead suggesting that her endorsements had little effect as the candidates were rising in the polls anyway. But the coincidences are far too many and the number of out-of-nowhere candidates to win (or come darn close to winning) are simply too plentiful to ignore. In 2010, it was Governor Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Joe Miller in Alaska, and Karen Handel in Georgia (among many others) who were given big boosts in their eventual underdog primary bids.

Most notably, Sarah Palin did not endorse a candidate for President in 2012, though both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum claimed at one point or another they had her support. (Palin stated she voted for Newt in Alaska, but her "keep the race going" strategy was hardly a ringing endorsement.)

In addition to Fischer in Nebraska, Texas Republican Ted Cruz is touting his Palin endorsement as he attempts to pull a Rubio in Texas and defeat the establishment candidate in the Senate Primary. Two weeks ago, Richard Mourdock ousted longtime US Senator/professional RINO Richard Lugar in the senate primary in Indiana. While many expected to win late, his Palin endorsement was most buzzworthy and his 20+ point margin was much greater than anyone anticipated.

The 2010 tea party rebound in Wisconsin has helped put the state back into battleground status for 2012. Could Republicans sweep the gubernatorial, senate, and presidential race in 2010? The most recent Wisconsin polls find:

+ Scott Walker has a 5-point lead in his recall election battle in the Governor's race. This reflects the exact margin he won by during the 2010 tea party revolution.

+ Former Governor Tommy Thompson has a commanding 12-point lead against his Democratic opponent in the senate race, while Mark Neumann leads by 2. The seat is being retired by Democrat Herb Kohl and could be the second senate seat steal for Republicans in Wisconsin since Obama's 2008 victory.

+ President Obama has fallen below 50% in the state, and Mitt Romney's deficit in the state has fallen from 17 points in March, to 9 points in April, to just 4 points now. Obama's current lead in the state is just 49-45%. He won the state 56-42% just four years ago.

Does anyone really even care that much about gay marriage? If you can't find work, are paying $4 a gallon for gas, have a loved one fighting in Afghanistan, and are struggling with rising food costs, is this really what anyone cares about? It's very relieving to know that the economic crisis is over, because the only thing the Democrats want to talk about is birth control, gay marriage, and Mitt Romney's 1980's road trip with his dog, Seamus. So with Obama's orchestrated gay marriage roll out, Americans have to suffer yet another distraction from everything Obama has done (and failed to do) over the past four years.

But shouldn't gays be more insulted than anything over Obama's laugh-out-loud "evolution" on the issue? Everyone knew Obama was lying during the 2008 campaign when he claimed to believe marriage was between a man and a woman. If he were courageous, he would have been honest then. But it didn't matter. Obama was embarrassed of his position on gays and lied about it. Honestly, his opposition to gay marriage was about as sincere as his pledge to not raise taxes (ha), to not hire lobbyists (haha), or to go through the budget with "a scalpel" (not enough ha-has in the world).

The internal polling for Obama must be brutal. His political strength -- the under-30 crowd -- can't find work and the newness of Obama has worn off. He's trailing Romney, a supposedly wooden, woman-hating, unlikeable, out-of-touch rich guy by 3 and 4 points according to Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking polls. (But worry not, two other polls give Obama leads by oversampling Democrats by 9 and 8 points).

So here we are. Obama has suddenly "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage, and is now bullying those who held the same position he did just a few days ago. And with Obama's announcement came his promise to do absolutely nothing. For the first time in history, Obama comes out with a federalist argument on an issue, so at least that is some progress. And with a few sweet-talked words, the money poured in and Obama's 2008 gay marriage base has come back home. And he didn't even have to actually do anything in return. As Condoleezza Rice once commented about being a black, female republican: "I'd rather be ignored than patronized." Obama believes that there are enough single-issue voters who will once again fall for his sweet-talking campaign tactics, as he makes the same promises in 2012 that he did in 2008. He could be right.

Not surprisingly, the top 10 business-friendly states, according to analysis by the magazine Chief Executive, are also some of the most conservative states in the country. Hanging at the bottom of the list are liberal, union-run states.

Ranking in the top ten are Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Utah, and Arizona. Moat of these states have low taxes, business incentives, right-to-work laws, and conservative legislatures or governors. They are all also top Romney-targeted states in the upcoming elections.

The bottom ten are California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Hawaii. These states tend to have higher taxation, big labor influence, and liberal leadership. Also, all 10 voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008.