Redstate

That should make it easier.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain favors the path to citizenship and a deceptive increase in permanent legal immigration.

Immigrants bring math and science skills that we lazy Americans can't seem to bother with. Immigrants are entrepreneurs, who are the real job creators - not government. We need more immigrants as a matter of policy. We just need to sign them in the guest book and get on the books so we can tax them fairly.

"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand

but anti-illegal immigration. Nominating McCain will, in his mind, be a mandate for the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill.

The simple answer to your question is that to increase immigration is to increase the number of future Democrats by whatever margin immigrant communities continue to favor the Democrats. I don't know what that margin will be, but the safe bet is that it will continue to be significant.

Generally, you seem to have a very low opinion of natives. I don't know what that is about, so I won't comment further on it, but it is is interesting that in your call for increased immigration you speak of immigrants with math and science skills. This is very typical of proponents of increased immigration, especially conservative ones. So let me ask you this --- why must your desire for more high-skilled immigrants be accomplished with an increase in overall immigration levels? Why not first try to reshuffle the mix to weigh it more towards immigrants with math and science skills? Why not call for and end to extended family chain migration? Why not call for the abolishment of Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Lottery? Why not be more strict with refugee/asylum seekers to weed out fraud, among other things? I wonder how many visas per year those steps alone would free up for more of your preferred high skilled immigrants?

Why not do this first. Why not cut down on these undeniably pro-Democrat sources of immigration to make way for a more merit-based system where the GOP would have at least a slightly better chance to compete.

Why is more the default position for you? Why must it be more? Why not look at reshuffling the current mix first?

And I think you are completely wrong in saying that we need more immigrants as a matter of policy. If the economy can recover from the shocks of 9-11, the internet/tech bust, and corporate scandals, then it can adjust just fine to less immigration.

No one's trying to say that this poll alone should resolve the debate about the GOP candidates.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

He's been running for President since about January 2000. He ought to do better on Name-ID alone.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

And he's doing well and much better than lifelong campaigner Hillary. I agree that in June polls of candidates besides Clinton, Rudy, and McCain were not useful. But now all the top tier have gotten coverage.

This kind of variation didn't exist among Ds in 2004. I think it means something. My guess is that the non-partisan rhetoric of Obama and McCain is appealing to Is. It could be something else, but if it were "centrism" then I would expect Rudy to do better.

Finally, if your name-ID alone analysis was right then Rudy and Clinton would be doing better. Why aren't they?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

he's not Hillary. Has any politician ever had consistent negatives as high as hers?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Hillary's negatives were very high in the minds of the people I knew in Illinois when they were talking about who the next Democratic candidate for President should be.

The answer: find someone almost nobody knows about, who we can nevertheless construct a movement around. That person is Barack Obama.

And that is the most important reason that he's running for President right now. I would tell you more, but then I'd have to kill you. ;)

But actually it's not that serious: it's true. Obama has been carefully managed into this particular slot precisely because of his "new faceness."

And everyone loves those.

If the people want a fresh face, someone who hasn't been in Washingont DC for most of his adult life, the one person we should not nominate is John McCain.

The only topic we will ever hear discussed will be the Keating 5 scandel. The media will murder McCain over that issue.

It's important to understand the circumstances under which Barack Obama rose to prominence and became one of Illinois' Senators and now the "new face" presumptive nominee:

In 2000, the Democrats were *beaten* and they were *angry*. The idea of running Hillary Clinton at that time wasn't something most Democrat insiders in Illinois could even think about. Al Gore had just had his hat handed to him. The Republicans were firmly in command. The idea of a follow-up Clinton Presidency seemed like a bad joke.

People there were casting around for someone who they could use to take back the Presidency. It just so happened that at the time they were also destroying the Republican Governor of Illinois. The Illinois Republicans were historically weak. Barack Obama appeared like a miracle candidate on the horizon. He became the odds-on favorite of the intellectuals in Illinois for U.S. Senate. It was practically unanimous -- because they *didn't expect Hillary to run in 2008*.

They expected Barack to fight as a "new face" because they didn't *want* Hillary to run at the time. Now the Donks are stuck with them both, and somebody has to lose, but that's only because of Hillary's refusal to play by the rules.

That is also why Hillary had a flipout moment the other night and got so tongue-tied over "change" and "belief". Because she understands very well that Barack Obama is a *completely manufactured candidate* who has risen to prominence in her *vacuum*. It makes her very, very angry. She can't stand it.

The fact that Obama hasn't been a "lifelong campaigner" means that he's essentially a blank slate. There's not much in his record for people to attack. That was precisely the thinking that got him into this situation to begin with, because the people I knew who looked at Obama with weepy eyes wanted a completely blank slate they could build something around to take back the Presidency in the aftermath of what they viewed as a monumental catastrophe.

He and the state GOP destroyed themselves. Jim Ryan was a corrupt Secretary of State and is now in Federal prison. Remember who ran against Obama in 2004? The Illinois GOP, in their infinite wisdom, ran ALAN KEYES. That's how weak the party is in the Land of Lincoln. We had to import a man that is totally out of step with Illinois voters to get whacked by Barak Obama.

Also, in my opinion, I don't think the right attack against Obama is to say he is an empty suit or a manufactured candidate. He was a professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a successful community organizer and spent several years in the Illinois legislature. It's not like he walked in from central casting. My fear is that in claiming that there is no substance may backfire if voters decide that there is actually some substance. Obama is a dangerous candidate that will be tough to beat. I happen to think only McCain has a good shot, but whoever it is will have a formidable opponent.

Jack's candidacy imploded due to a sex scandal that was revealed when the contents of his divorce papers were revealed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(Senate_candidate)

Obama's opponent was Alan Keyes for Senate as I said. However, the corrupt governor was George Ryan. D'oh! Unfortunately, Jim Ryan got smeared because he had the same last name as our illustrious jail-bird governor, George. Jack Ryan actually was supposed to be Obama's opponent but then got derailed by a sex scandal.

Finally, if your name-ID alone analysis was right then Rudy and Clinton would be doing better. Why aren't they?

In Ohio? Why? Have they run in Ohio before?

Whereas didn't McCain already run for the GOP nomination in Ohio? In 2000? I mean, Bush won the primary (didn't McCain drop out of the race just before or after that Super Tuesday?), but he's still already gotten some 520K more votes in that state than any of the other contenders - Republican or Democrat.

Just saying.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Liberal media support of McCain would end if he gets the nomination. So, using today's polls as a reason to nominate someone who has been siding with the Left on important issues like tax cuts, free speech, immigration is a bad idea. As National Review editor John O'Sullivan wrote recently,

"On almost every other policy [besides Iraq] McCain has spent the last seven years spitting on conservatives — on taxes, on campaign finance, on immigration — and in the last few weeks some conservatives have been hailing delightedly this as rain. How will they like the downpour if McCain wins?

among those on the other side of the aisle, even among reporters.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

They are completely fixated on Obama. They're not going to abandon Obama for McCain.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

In early 2004, the polls showed no real difference among the top Ds against Bush. This makes sense b/c the election was mostly a referendum on Bush. They varied a point or two.

To be honest, I haven't seen this kind of variation in Presidential head-to-head polling before. Note that I have only followed these things since 2000/2004.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm going from memory (I know!) but the whole reason for Ds chosing first Howie then Johnnie was "electability!".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

FWIW, I never understood the "electability" reasoning. Going back, I think it was based on him being a veteran. Whatever it was, they did NOT base it on any data. The polls shows each D in a statistical tie with Bush and no real difference. I had expected Lieberman to be more competitive, but even he was in the same 1-3 point difference.

That's why I've been so interested in the state by state head-to-head polls this year. The variation is huge. It's not just these new OH and IA polls. It's in KS, CA, FL, etc, etc.

I don't think it's a conclusion. But these are the base numbers when the general starts. I'd prefer to start up 7 than down 12 in a prime swing state.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Evidence?

Bah. Why do we need evidence? Just trust me, ok?

That's his philosophy, in short.

Where is Franz?
He needs to chew on a newbie.
_________________________________________________
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore

Of course the same could be said of most of the R candidates and that doesn't stop most of the commenters.

More importantly, his impression is one many have. It is just incorrect. Polls didn't show Kerry as electable. People seemed to think a veteran would be the most electable. I can see the logic, but there wasn't data to back it up.

All things equal, I think a veteran (esp. a true war hero like McCain) does gain a few points. But Kerry had other negatives that hurt and his veteran credentials were nullified by his actions after the War.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

When I rely on my memory, I say so. When I have links, I provide them. When I'm wrong I admit it.

Nice attempt at manufacturing what would appear to be a quote from me. It's not. It's your worthless opinion masquerading as something it's not.

You just made first place on this week's Idiot List.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore

He's much more choosy about his diet.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore

.

As I saw my first "McCain polls better" headline today, THAT was the first thought that came to me.

*“Be prepared! Find the bastards. And pile on!”*
Karl Rove - "(T)he motto on the unit coin of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the Blackhorse."

Dole was ahead of Clinton in the summer of 95. So, going based on polls isn't a very good way to go, in my opinion. Public opinion changes when it is confronted with new information.

Look at IA where Bush won in 2004, a new poll this week shows Obama destroying all the Rs. McCain is the closest and he loses 55-38. Rudy loses by 40.

And IA has seen all the candidates a lot (although not as much as Rudy). So if public opinion changes as it is confronted with new information, it seems to shift to Obama. That could be very bad for Rs.

Note that even during the pro-Obama shift, the order of the Rs stays roughly the same even though Huck and Romney campaigned in IA and McCain didn't really.

An interesting piece of data.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Rudy is disliked by the New York media; McCain is liked by media.

But once the nominee is settled, the media will go after any GOP nominee. The media won't come to McCain's defense when the Democrats go through McCain's over 20 year career in Congress and find all sorts of Dole-like votes to exploit for political advertisements.

McCain, like Dole, has a long paper trail. So, in the long run, McCain could end up being less electable than the other candidates.

And in another 6 months, this will be old news and there will be a new theme.

And McCain has little substance that the conservative core of the GOP can rally around.

But I've been waiting 8 years for someone who is actually against the pork barrel corruption going on in Washington and has a record to prove it.

And if "core" Rs don't support someone who supports our troops in Iraq fully, wants to succeed there, and has the military experience to foresee the success of a new strategy, then we have the wrong core.

Further, "core" Rs should care about limiting spending not just tax cuts. The scope and size of government is out of hand and it's nice to have a candidate who has a record of opposing Medicare Part D and other efforts to expand government.

Finally, a pro-life, pro-same-sex marriage candidate who doesn't turn off secular voters should be a major plus for Rs. The Rs can have a candidate with a SoCon record but an ability to win over Is in a difficult year.

There is no perfect candidate. I know you spend most of your time following these threads to attack McCain, but regardless of your primary choice, I hope even you can see how much better McCain is than Obama or Hillary.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain "isn't perfect?" Boy is THAT an understatement.

McCain LOVES to use the power of government - he just likes to use it to advance his pet projects, such as limiting my free speech rights.Same sex marriage is an expansion of government, also. I wasn't aware that Sen. McCain was in favor of it, but that certainly isn't surprising to conservatives.

I will vote for McCain over the other Democrats, but I won't like it and you won't find me arguing very forcibly that others should do the same. Especially since Barron's named him the worst GOP candidate for the economy (I think that's before they were taking Huck seriously).

The Republican Main Street Partnership's Chafee Award-winner John McCain never hits his stride so solidly as when he is opposing Republicans - especially conservative Republicans.

I reject the notion that I have to vote for an anti-free speech, pro-illegal immigration, anti-tax cut candidate who is willing to throw great conservative judges under the bus in the senate in order to get the above conservative positions in a candidate.

John McCain disgusts me, and he disgusts a lot of core conservatives. I'll probably vote for him if I happen to pass by a polling location on Election Day, but I wouldn't blame anyone who couldn't rouse themselves to go down and do the same.

Then again...I live in Texas and he'll probably win here anyway. So...I might just not vote for him so that if he is elected and does all of the things that we've grown to know and hate him for, I can at least say that I didn't vote for him.

He is better than Huck.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

absentee

That was a typo, right? As far as I know, McCain claims to oppose gay marriage, but also opposed the FMA on federalist grounds. He also said he opposed the FMA because a federal court had not yet done what Mass' state sup court had done. Of course, it is almost inevitable that the Sup Court will vote to impose gay marriage/civil unions some day, so it would be interesting to know what action McCain would favor in such a scenario.

I think one reason McCain got on board supporting the failed Arizona marriage amendment of 2006 was to beef up his credentials for conservatives. I wonder, though, if he used his 'straight talk' cred to counter the lies that the Left successfully used to derail the amendment.

But you are right in that McCain would be much better than Hillary, Obama, or any other Democrat running. The Right showed it would revolt against Bush over immigration, so hopefully they'd do the same if a President McCain revived his and Ted Kennedy's amnesty bill, which I would fully expect him to do. Anyway, we could expect Obama to push for ahead for amnesty to, so McCain is no worse there. On taxes, I think there is a chance McCain would fight to keep Bush's tax cuts, while Obama or Hillary would repeal them immediately if they could. While I don't believe putting good judges on the Sup Court would be any sort of priority for McCain (especially if knew he would not run for a second term), there would nonetheless be a chance to get good judges from McCain, while with Obama or Hillary there would be no chance at all; we'd be guaranteed horrible activist judges with those two or any other Democrat. McCain would probably be good on the Wars, while the Dems would not. McCain would probably be good about pork spending, while the Dems would not.

So yeah, all in all, McCain would be better than any Democrat, unless of course a Democrat victory and the subsequent leftwing agenda served to revive and revitalize the conservative movement for victory in 2010 and 2012, but the problem with that is the amount of damage that could be done in 4 years. The Sup Court, for example, would be lost yet again for many years to come.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

You really can't rely on polls like that one too much. It's like asking people, "If the election for the 2020 presidential race were held today, who would you support Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning?" It's next to meaningless because it's hypothetical and it's based on little information. The average voter isn't as familiar with Obama and McCain as they will be in October of this year.

It could be a contrast of age, etc. But I think that misses why Obama and McCain are doing well nationally. The one thing they have in common is a non-partisan rhetoric. Obama always tries to appeal to Rs, Ds, and Is. Clinton peddles the "I've fought Rs and won" message. McCain similarly tries to win Is and Ds as well as Rs (and it hurts him with some Rs).

If those two are doing well, I think the non-partisan rhetoric is a big part. The low Congressional and Presidential polling numbers are a function of frustration with the partisan lens on every issue. I don't think Obama or McCain can change it much, but they appeal to people who want to change it.

For what it's worth, there are some other head-to-head polls that include OH and show McCain doing well there compared to other Rs against Obama. I don't think this one is an outlier.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Bush Sr in 1988. But then Bush Sr and Lee Atwater released their ads targeting Dukakis for his weekend furlough policies. (You listening, Mike Huckabee?)

The bottom line is that these polls that we see now are based on people not having much information about the candidates. McCain has been in Congress so long that by November, people will not think of him as the non-partisan guy who took on Bush and those neanderthal Republicans. He will be the neanderthal Republican.

Better to go with a fresh face.

Romney will be Australopithicus Afarensus. In any case, these polls are by far from what November 08 will be, but they are far from meaningless as well. And in any case, given that this is a tough year for us, we can't afford to start so far behind.

Media will play down MI and FL. Note that the Ds have a real race in NV and it will matter. Clinton was up 20 last week, will that hold up? I dunno.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The DNC voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates because they violated the rules in moving up their primary dates. Thus, Hillary will not get their delegates. And, since there are no delegates at stake and the elections are not being contested, it is doubtful that either will receive much media coverage.

If those states vote for Hillary (which they will), rest assured that she will make certain that those delegates are seated. Plus, there are powerful senators like Levin and Stabenow who will make sure that happens too. Michigan is the home of the big labor unions - the DNC won't seat them.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

They already voted that their delegates are invalid.

If they were to change their minds after the election it would have massive repercussions. There is no way they could do this.

The DNC told both Florida and Michigan exactly what they will do if they moved their primaries into January. They ignored them and the DNC stripped their delegates.

Some state legislators are going to suffer for this act of stupidity.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Michigan and Florida's delegates have been invalidated by the Democratic Party. So she is going to win, because she is the only one on the ballot, but the delegates won't count.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/12/01/its-official-no-democratic-deleg...

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

to the pre-game warmup polls?

A year ago, Dick Morris said that only Condy could beat Hillary.

...from a personality perspective.

is something I hadn't considered before, but is very valid.

This is the same problem the Democrats have when someone in the media throws them a hardball. They have become so accustomed to softballs that the ball gets by them before they even know they were supposed to react.

Also, to your final comment, you're right. None of the Iowa polls taken the night before the caucus got it right. How are head-to-head polls nine months before the final election supposed to mean anything?

[shakes head dumbfoundedly]

Is worthless until Labor Day. It would be foolish to choose our nominee based on general election polls almost a year out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !