Hopefully, the fabulous Rubio can win cleanly. Otherwise, he or Crist, preferably Crist, the prick, should withdraw. Obama, and his disastrous Congress, need to be stopped.

Gee, ngavc, has a little unwarranted praise from Mr. Tomasky gone to your head, or have you just decided to inflict your apparently self-evident and self-annointed magisterial conclusions on us plebes in a more direct fashion?

Believe me, rightwing talking points are still rightwing talking points, whether delivered with civility or fake sincerity or not.

The interesting question is whether the Democrats will really back Meek or will instead give their support to Crist. I always liked Meek (he used to do the middle-of-the-night CSpan where 3 or 4 Democrats would take the House floor and act like they were really debating somebody, the sort of thing that first made Gingrich famous), but I wouldn't be surprised that Obama concludes that Meek can't win and that the only way of stopping Rubio is to elect Crist. It could well be the reverse of the '06 CT senate election, where Republicans ignored their own candidate and backed Lieberman. Rubio is a dangerous guy, as I believe MT has pointed out. If he wins, I would not be at all surprised to see him run for President in '12. He is the one pol who combines Tea Party rhetoric with real savvy. Especially if Palin runs, Rubio is a guy who could carry the far Right while still appealing to the Republican establishment as a potentially electable candidate. Obama undoubtedly recognizes (for obvious reasons) the danger presented by a recently-elected Senator who captures the imagination of the electorate as an outsider promising fundamental change in Washington.

Pollster on Florida
Note the three-way race trends, particularly Rasmussen.

Voters have months to learn about Meeks and Rubio, but they may decide the devil you know....

MT want interesting polls?:

1. McCain +26 over Hayworth
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/azdc/79690

2. Rubio winning +3 to both Crist and the Dem guy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/fl/florida_senate_rubio_vs_meek_vs_crist-1456.html

3. And how about this one: AZ Governor up 16 points (from 40 to 56) in 2 weeks after signing Immigration Law

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/28/az-gov-poll-illegal-immigrant-law-boosts-brewer/

4. And this one linked by CautiousOptimistic: 60% nationwide approves of AZ new Law.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/nationally_60_favor_letting_local_police_stop_and_verify_immigration_status

Well, if Obama wants to raise his approval ratings, now we know what he needs to do...follow in AZ steps!

This is just one fresh example of the growing cost to the GOP of allowing their most extreme element to take over what passes for 'thinking' in their ranks.

DemocraticCore, our President needs to fight hard for the Democrat in this three-way scramble, and fight to win. As we just saw with financial regulation, and with health care reform, we gain nothing by soft-pedaling the agenda. The Other Side certainly does not, when they have the power.

'ngavc', please calm down. The country is in good hands, and may well remain in good hands as we repair the damage inflicted by three decades of wrong-headed wacko notions. The people voted for a new direction in two General Elections in a row.

Believe me, rightwing talking points are still rightwing talking points, whether delivered with civility or fake sincerity or not.

Good one. That's why when I want my Liberal BS delivered in style, I read Paul Krugman...I get the same rubbish served with caviar, but excrement nonetheless..

Arizona polls

Unlike Notsofanatic, I prefer to see ALL the polls.

Notso:
here's the history on Presidential polling, during Reagan's term.

At this point in his first term, RR was about where BHO is, trending down sharply. He reached a nadir at about 38 percent. He went on to win re-election. It's what happens when a new President is actually doing something to enact his agenda. People get upset.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

The sheriff of Pima Co. (Tucson area) just announced that he will not enforce this vile new AZ law, here's the quote that says it all:

Dupnik called the law "racist" and "disgusting" and "stupid" and, in his "nuanced judgment" could not be enforced without mandatory racial profiling. Dupnik's reckoning of the legal issue is that he's just as likely to be sued for racial profiling as he is for not doing enough racial profiling, so he's standing pat, and will not enforce the new law.

(Source; HuffingtonPost, today)

Gov. Brewer may be far less popular when the chaos and the costs start to pile up. The Arizona drama has not yet played out.

As for J.D. Hayworth: as MT already showed, he may be easier for the Democrat to beat than McCain would be. So please tell your GOP pals to nominate him.

This election is going to surprise a few people.

Unless he's tarred by the state GOP's spending/billing-tanning-salon-visits-to-the-party scandal, Rubio not only won't lose a significant percentage of Republicans to Crist.

Crist's Republican support will collapse, and as an independent he has no party infrastructure to fall back on.

Right now, here is what the Rubio campaign is saying about independents:

[That there are a lot of Florida independents and they are moderates] is untrue. In reality, by registration fewer than 20 percent of Florida voters are Independents. And that number is even smaller when based on actual turn out percentages. In fact, current turn out intensity among GOP voters in Florida is far higher than either Democrat or Independent voters, meaning Independents could make up an even smaller percentage of the actual vote on Election Day....Survey after survey this year has found that voter anger about Washington spending and the growth of government is every bit as high among Independent voters as it is among Republicans.

Plus, right now, Rubio is raising money hand over fist. Crist isn't.

From the Rubio campaign on fundraising:

Fundraising

Last quarter, Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek both treaded water. Their cash on hand basically held steady. Conversely, Rubio raised approximately three times as much as each of them and stockpiled close to two million dollars.

Besides, Crist among conservatives and probably a lot of independents and moderate Democrats was on the wrong side [the teacher unions] of the education reform issue.

Plus, Rubio has handled the Arizona immigration law issue superbly.

So, he is closer to Obama on Race to the Top education reform than Crist, and he stands with Obama (or close to him) on the Arizona immigration issue...yet he's a Tea Party hero.

Hmmm....sounds formidable to me.

Well, you add a little pot stirring here and a little nuttiness there, and pretty soon you might have a real fruitcake. Perhaps the only thing that can save the demos from a real old-fashioned country butt-kicking this fall is the neo-fascist nutjobs. Be interesting to see how it all plays out. I have no idea. And to think in 1990 or so "they" said history was dead.

What Mike and other libs still fail to realize is that the Republican Party's turn to the right is the result of left wing policies enacted by Obama and the Democrats that the American people detest. As a result, it pays to be a more conservative Republican.

'I doubt very much that McCain will lose that primary.'

You're probably right, but doesn't the manner whereby McCain is attempting to turn this around remind you of something?

Many moons ago, George Wallace, following an election defeat, was quoted as remarking, in a muttered aside, 'That's the last time I'll be out-ni**ered in a campaign'.

And to think in 1990 or so "they" said history was dead.

"They" have been declaring The End of History periodically, since Daniel Bell and his end-of-ideology crowd in the middle 1960s and then Francis Fukuyama in 1989.

Funny how these genius, end-of-history preachers always show up at the funeral just before the corpse bolts upright out of the casket and starts kickin' out the jams, huh?

HitemUp:
Or, aka 'the 23rd incarnation of Jengles'? . . . whatever, you may follow that theory, it's a free country.

History is clear, a party which lurches too far from the center will tend to lose. Our President is pursuing quite moderate and centrist policies, and the GOP and you RW bloggers are distorting this picture with all your strength. But facts are facts, the truth will out and the out-of-control nuttiness of the right wing - as in AZ with this new ethnic-profiling law - will eventually trigger a backlash.

We have six full months for this to play out. That may be plenty of time.

KevinNevada-

You need to check your history again buddy. The Democrats tend to lose when they lurch too far from the center. Thats because this is a conservative country, and conversely Republicans tend to do better when they run as conservatives as opposed to moderates. Reagan and Dubya served two terms, while moderates like Papa Bush and McCain (until recently, lol) either only served one term or lost outright.

Our President is pursuing quite moderate and centrist policies, and the GOP and you RW bloggers

Lol. So the GOP and RW bloggers like myself must be rigging all these polls showing decreasing support for the Democrats and overwhelming opposition to their policies, right?

as in AZ with this new ethnic-profiling law

...which enjoys overwhelming support both in AZ and the country at large.

I'm looking forward to reading your spin on the Democrats' disaster in 6 months.

Vicious.. "Funny how these genius, end-of-history preachers always show up at the funeral just before the corpse bolts upright out of the casket and starts kickin' out the jams, huh?"

Yep, it is. Very true. One thing I wonder, though, is this. I won't be around to find out. In the 50s "they" said the commies in the USSR were going to inherit the earth, that we were going to sell them the rope the commies would use to hang us. In the 60s, "they" said the Germans were going to inherit the earth, that their manufacturing superiority was so obviously superior. In the 70s, "they" said the Japanese were going to inherit the earth, that it was so obvious the "greater east asia co-prosperity sphere" was now a happening thing. In the 80s and 90s, "they" tended to quiet down and shut up, because it was obvious that the inheritors de jour were all losers. And now, re-enlivened, "they" are saying that the Chinese will inherit the earth, because 1.3 billion of them cannot be wrong. I wonder..... Obviously, someday "they" will be right. Is today that day? Any thoughts out there? Lord, am I off topic or what? Sorry 'bout that. Outside the box, I am.

ngavc:

28 Apr 2010, 11:10PM
and his disastrous Congress

You're obviously still eating--no thanks to the Republicans. What's disastrous about that?

HitemUp:
History? You wanna debate history?? OK.

You forget 1998. The sixth year of a two-term Presidency, 'history' predicted that the President's party would lose seats in both chambers - but the nuttiness of the Impeachment Fiasco led to Democrats gaining seats in both. In the context, it was an historic repudiation of the GOP.

This is not the strongly-conservative nation you imagine it to be.

Check the link in my '1:04 AM' post above, to see the polling history on Reagan's eight years. At this stage of RR's first term, he was doing worse than President Obama is right now. Reagan's support bottomed out at just 38 percent approval.

Here's the corresponding history for Clinton's years:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Like Reagan, Clinton was scoring lower at this stage in his Presidency, than President Obama is right now. Note the source for all this data: your own fave the WSJ.

I seem to recall this bit of history too: both Reagan and Clinton were re-elected.

Florida Senate race: I checked out JD Hayworth. Am I alone in thinking he looks like Jack Nicholson in one of his more famous roles? Pointy eyebrows, smile lines, wild-eyed stare?

I'm just sayin'....

wik --

Late period Jack crossed with current Stephen Baldwin.

malrox --

I'm not smart enough to add anything to your superb historical analysis, but I like the way you think. Always have.

And of course you're right about China as the new Rising Sun:

And now, re-enlivened, "they" are saying that the Chinese will inherit the earth, because 1.3 billion of them cannot be wrong.

Who's next?

Have no idea, but then I've spent the last 20 years waiting for Castro to die, so I'm going to go with...New Guinea?

Speaking of history, it's not really all that logical that the Democrat and Republican parties each have had conservative and liberal elements. The roots of this lie in history going back to at least the Civil War, and it was probably only natural that as that history receded that conservatives and liberals tended to gravitate from one party or the other, with this probably being most initially apparent with the Republicans. However, how comfortable can many Blue Dog Dems be in a party led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid?

It's not difficult to imagine this evolving further to where one party is truly conservative and the other is truly liberal (at least as far as Americans defined the term), and that there will be an increasing body of elected independents that will ally with one faction or the other depending on the issue at hand. Sort of parliamentary, but with elections still on a fixed cycle. In the meantime, as this evolves the splits may favor either the Republicans or the Democrats in any given race, depending on which side of the spectrum they may split.

Interestingly, while it is true that minorities and immigrants often tend to vote Democratic, it is a mistake to assume this means they favor "progressive" policies. I know plenty of immigrants and minorities who'll take every tax break they can, and they don't exhort their kids to study hard and enter the professions so that they can become supporters of progressive programs. As independents become a more coherent group not represented well by neither party, minorities could become very independent.

by either party I mean.

Tommydog:
the dominant trend the past twenty years, even more, is for both parties to lose members to the 'independents'. Part of that is the American disdain for history; too many voters don't consider the background of a policy or a party, just vote the current trends.

Like many others, you make a mistake considering Harry Reid to be some kind of flaming liberal. He's not, at all.

The voters are especially volatile this year, as you've noted in past comments. But that can easily cut either way by the time this plays out.

The smugness of our conservative pals on this forum may come back to haunt them. You'll note that I'm careful to make engineering-style predictions, with few absolute sweeping words.

while it is true that minorities and immigrants often tend to vote Democratic, it is a mistake to assume this means they favor "progressive" policies. I know plenty of immigrants and minorities who'll take every tax break they can, and they don't exhort their kids to study hard and enter the professions so that they can become supporters of progressive programs.

tommy --

damn good insight there and provocative analysis as a whole. If I weren't so tired, I'd dive all the way in.

For now, though, let me just say that there is a lot of blue-collar opposition--black and white and I'll bet Latina, too--to illegal immigration for economic reasons, especially in this recession, that are obvious.

It's also no secret that, when it comes to religiosity and issues like reproductive rights, a lot of African Americans and Latinas have more in common with working-class whites than with programmatic ultra-progressive mouthpieces like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Among others.

V.M.:
Great post, and Tommy had some good thoughts there too.

Something serious needs to be done about the illegal immigrants. It's not just folks from Mexico, there is a steady stream coming from China too, and a bunch from Canada, the UK and from Down-Under. And illegals from those latter sources can compete for better jobs too.

But the new AZ law isn't the solution. Not at all.

Kevin. I'm aware that the numbers of declared independents has grown over the past generation, but elected independents still are not common. Perhaps they are more common at the local level, I really haven't checked. At present independents are a key group that can put one party or the other in power, but are not significant elected powers themselves. That's what I could see changing, election by election, senator by senator, until they make up a reasonable group themselves, leaving both the Republicans or the Democrats as a minority needing to form coalitions with the independents. it would be interesting to see what the situation would be like if there were ten independent senators. Doesn't seem impossible to me.

VM thanks. I've long thought that many Democrats misread just what their minority support really means.

Illegal immigrants from Canada? You know what they're called? Frostbacks.

http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

As for the Florida campaign, I can understand Meek wanting to keep his head down while Rubio and Crist get savage, but I wonder if he might not be overdoing it a little bit.

If I were Meek, I'd start forcing Crist to jump left or right.

And I would most certainly right now put both both Crist and Rubio on the defensive by raising Holy Hell about Off-Shore Drilling.

That might resonate these days, no?

waco - Talking points are talking points, on both sides, because they reflect what many people feel and believe. That said, the reaction to Crist was visceral, so the comment a little OTT. I really thought Crist would back off.

viereckschanze
29 Apr 2010, 3:24AM
Still eating, probably too much. And of note, the US markets have performed quite well.

Wiki

Unlike Notsofanatic, I prefer to see ALL the polls.

You're not saying he/she cherry picks? Wow, who'd have thunk it.

My take on immigration is this - if you have a rich country bang right up against a poor country it is almost an unstoppable force of nature that there will be people wanting to go from poor to rich.

And of course as long as there are employers willing to hire illegal workers, then that makes the situation even more difficult to control.

How much do illegal aliens cost us? Are they really taking American jobs? I would like to know the answer to these questions before I would support a violation of the constitution.

And of course, we don't actually know if this new policy will work.

Kevin-

You forget 1998.

No, I didn't. I never said Democrats couldn't win elections.

This is not the strongly-conservative nation you imagine it to be.

I said it was conservative, not strongly conservative.

I seem to recall this bit of history too: both Reagan and Clinton were re-elected.

Yes, Clinton was reelected once he moved right and coopted many right policies. If you recall, he got into serious trouble in his first two years because he governed from the left. Remind you of anyone? Reagan's poll numbers early in his presidency were mostly a carry-over from the economic turmoil of the disasterous Carter years.

HitemUp:

I attribute the low poll numbers of both Reagan and Clinton, about 14-18 months in, to the human resistance to change. We're seeing the same thing now. When a new President tries to actually implement the ideas he ran on, it stirs things up.

Now that isn't quite the same thing as ideological 'conservatism'. Liberals can be very 'conservative' about resisting changes to programs and policies which they believe in strongly.

You stated that only the Dem's could get in trouble by going too far towards their extreme. I pointed out that the Republicans ruined themselves through the extreme nonsense of allowing Sen. Helms and his pet attorney Ken Starr to set the agenda for 1997, and pushing the Impeachment Fiasco to the very limit.

The result was an historic repudiation by the voters. A solid spanking, as I recall.

In any case, our President Obama is not in any regard the extreme liberal he's been painted as. A 'socialist' would never have re-appointed Bernanke, brought Geitner and Summers in to run fiscal and economic policy, opted for the very moderate HCR bill that was passed or ordered the free-market-friendly changes to NASA that we just witnessed. (In the latter case, BHO is shutting down a Bush-era socialistic boondoggle, and ordering NASA to work with the private sector to reach low-Earth-orbit.)

Now back to the topic at hand, which is the three-way Senate race in Florida. I won't predict that result. I'm sure you will. There are too many variables in play here. If Crist has real support that will hold with him, then it's a crap-shoot.

***
That's all for me today. TTFN. Gotta work.

HitemUp:

One little PS: OK, I can't resist.

To your:

Reagan's poll numbers early in his presidency were mostly a carry-over from the economic turmoil of the disasterous Carter years.

I can say precisely the same thing about President Obama's poll numbers right now, after the even more disastrous Bush-Lite Years.

Goal!

Kevin-

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx

Owned.

Kev -- thank you for the kind comment above. I too have to be off of here soon for the day. Sorry to say.

elena -- yes, I too would like the real numbers. What I was talking about in my post above was widely shared working-class assumptions across ethnic-group lines about the economic consequences of illegal immigration.

For example, I work in an area that is in the heart of the poultry industry, farmer-growers, as well as huge production plants.

Those poultry plant jobs are mostly not plum ones, and they attract immigrants, many (probably most) of whom are illegal, as is shown every time the INS raids one of the plants.

Everyone I know says the same thing, "Yeah, they take jobs that a lot of Americans won't take anymore." But they also all ask, "But how many of those turkey/chicken plant jobs are being taken away from our own people in this region."

And these people aren't dumb. They see how illegal immigration in the form of cheap labor battens some corporate bottom lines, too.

The anger and resentment is real, and not just because of job loss, real or perceived.

As I said, there is an unlikely for this area number of illegal immigrants.

And, trust me, those same average working folks harbor even greater resentment over the way social services, the ones they are fond of saying they pay for with their hard-earned tax dollars, go to illegal immigrants.

This is hot-button issue for a reason, and, amongst a lot of working people, the anger is raw, real and understandable.

It contributes mightily to politically and socially destablizing notions about government's ineffectiveness. Those notions certainly don't seem to be terribly helpful to our side these days, now do they?

Here's a question I've had asked of me, "What if there is immigration reform and amnesty is part of it? What will that do to the costs of ObamaCare?"

I reply, "We're already paying off the books for that emergency care 'insurance coverage' anyway, so..."

The icy glare that says how can a nation that can't control its borders be trusted to administer something as grave and vital as health care stops me dead in my tracks.

No. Immigration reform in this country isn't politically viable until a president and a unified Congress send the troops to the border that are needed to stanch the flow and crack down on the employers who benefit from it.

When that happens, but not until, will we be able to rationally discuss this issue and grant the amnesty and path-to-citizenship that this situation cries out for.

lol - I just got a JD Hayworth ad on the Guardian (he's within five points!), presumably because Tomasky mentioned him. I was tempted to click on it just so his campaign would have to pay for the click-through, but decided that would be against the Google spirit.... I presume they were hoping some of our fellow commentators, more rightwing, would see it. ;-)

Back to Crist as indie (Smithereens?) candidate...

From Mike Allen's morning Politico Playbook:

--PLAYBOOK FACTS OF LIFE -- Crist?s big problems: 1) As the sitting governor, he?s the wrong kind of independent in an anti-incumbent year; 2) Numerous sources tell us that big-donor Republicans are going to ask Crist for their checks back ? ?especially,? reveals one Florida expert, ?after the legislative session and his veto period run out.? 3) Crist believed his good press (including the notion that he was going to be a presidential candidate) after he delivered Florida for McCain, and he stopped being nice to people. ?I get people calling, just yowling about how upset they are with him,? said one longtime associate. ?Charlie was someone who always returned a call, or had someone return the call. He?s stop and have a conversation with you. And then he started to believe all the press, and he started treating people with the kind of disdain that comes from arrogance.?

As Gary Younge has pointed out before, how can one support the free movement of capital across national borders, but not the free movement of labor aka people? Either you're pro free market, or you're not. Nor just when it benefits you or your country.

Personally, I'd like limits and regulations on both. Would I like a foreign country (Murdoch's a US citizen) to control all the basic infrastructure (communication, transportation et al) of the US? No. Own all the real estate? No. Provide all the workers? No. At some percentage the tipping point is reached and I think most Americans would be quite uncomfortable with that.

imo, there's a lot of colonialism disguised as 'investment' in developing countries which ends up being close to the above. These countries send their best students to the US to be educated so they can start and run businesses back home, but the US tries to get the best ones to stay in the US. Brain drain. Then we have to listen to Americans whispering that 'some people' just aren't capable of running a functioning democracy.

but decided that would be against the Google spirit..

wik --

This falls into the dog bites man category, but you are far more principled than I.

:)

VM, I believe someone more principled than I would not have mentioned the idea crossing my mind at all. ;-)

Meanwhile just follow along at home: Arizona and Florida.

wik --

And thank you, as always, for the indispensable links. I shall, indeed, follow along at home the way I once did on ancient TV that adorable bouncing ball over the lyrics of Mitch Miller-performed standards.

:)

ViciousMisanthrope
29 Apr 2010, 3:57PM

Here's a question I've had asked of me, "What if there is immigration reform and amnesty is part of it? What will that do to the costs of ObamaCare?"

I reply, "We're already paying off the books for that emergency care 'insurance coverage' anyway, so..."

VM - In 2004, the cost of illegal immigrant healthcare was about $500/person. That's 1.4 billion (2004) for 2.8 (2006) million immigrants. Find me a $500 Obamacare premium. ACA makes amnesty prohibitively expensive. And get ready for Joe Wilson to holler,"I told you so." BTW, Medicaid payments for emergency care are highly discounted.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_IllegalImmigrantsJTF.pdf

Talking points are talking points, on both sides, because they reflect what many people feel and believe.

ZOMBIES believe talking points. Both sides have em - one side throws them out for their base, and the other uses them as a crutch. We all know which is which. Furthermore, dems/liberals who are with it, mentally, know that talking points are just hot air.

Wiki and Elena....

I dont cherry pick polls. Those come straight from RCP or links of it. Wiki, I do in fact check Pollsters.com even more frequently than RCP average...so Im not sure what your point is. The one you link about McCain, still says the same thing that the one I posted ,few more or less by the different pollsters, but still the same thing that McCain is winning the other guy. Not that I care...

Im really surprised to be accused of cherry picking in a website where Daily Kos rules and Gallup is no longer considered a credible source.

This is the same site that on 1/19, MA senate race when every other pollster had Brown on +5 above, MT only mentioned Daily Kos that had him "tie".

So please dont accuse me of cherry picking; and Pollster.com is indeed the best source.

These countries send their best students to the US to be educated so they can start and run businesses back home, but the US tries to get the best ones to stay in the US. Brain drain.

What's your souce for this? Because in my case, having worked with many US funded projects that included the provision of higher education in the US, as a way to help developing countries by providing what's called "interchange of experience" or "transferral of knowledge" - these programs were specifically designed so that students could go back to their respective countries and apply their knowlegde over there thus helping development...

Result? Around 90% of those individuals not only decided to stay, but in most cases USED the program with the specific intentions of staying in the US.

So what you are saying is LIE. THe US does not steal brains...are the brainies of those countries the ones who beg us to come here...or the ones, whom when provided with the option of working here or going back, choose to stay; noone forces them...

In case you dont know, 2 types of visa, the H1b and the Js which are provided to Professional Workers and Students respectively are mostly converted into Resident Visas (green cards).