This seems a bit odd.

The Journal ran a big, A1 story today about how awful the political landscape is for Dems heading into November. I know, not exactly ground-breaking territory, but the topic is certainly fair game.

But look at how the Journal backed up its doom-and-gloom claim [emphasis added]:

Just months ago, Georgia's Rep. Jim Marshall faced only faint headwinds as he sailed toward the midterm elections. The former Macon mayor--and one of Congress's most conservative Democrats--had plenty of cash and no significant Republican opponent.

But in a reflection of his party's fortunes nationwide, Mr. Marshall's prospects have dimmed of late. The three-term congressman now faces an energized foe and the focus of the national Republican Party in a race that polls indicate is increasingly tight.

And which “polls” did the Journal reference?

But a recent Republican poll showed Mr. Marshall leading state Rep. Austin Scott by just five percentage points, within the poll's 5.7% margin of error. His overall support was just 44%, a bad sign for an incumbent.

So the “polls” showing the Republican candidate doing well was really a single poll. And it was a Republican poll.

And watch as the Journal did the same thing again in the same article:

Another seat that has tilted recently in the Republicans' favor is Pennsylvania's 8th District in the northeastern suburbs of Philadelphia, where two-term Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy is neck-and-neck with the man he beat in 2006, former Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick.

A Republican poll released last week showed Mr. Murphy lagging behind his opponent, 41%-48%. The Democratic Party is expected to sink significant money into the race.

Yep, another example of another Republican candidate doing well. How do Journal readers know? Because a Republican poll says so.

I'm not suggesting that lots of Democratic candidates aren't in trouble this fall. But should the Journal really be touting Republican polls to make that point?