Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

AZ: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 6/29)

Topics: arizona , governor , poll

Rasmussen
6/29/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Arizona

2010 Governor
Brewer (R) 53%, Goddard (D) 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable
Terry Goddard: 53 / 37
Jan Brewer: 59 / 36

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 39 / 59
Gov. Brewer: 58 / 40

 

Comments
hoosier_gary:

Looks like AZ isn't buying Obama's brand of immigration reform. Maybe he should enforce the law instead of suing the state.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I love Arizona!

____________________

Mike E:

This spells disaster for the Dems. Americans want our immigration laws respected and borders enforced. Dems do not.

____________________

Crimsonite:

The immigration law plus its nationalization has only helped Brewer in her race for Governor. Had none of that happened, the race would have been a lot closer or leaning democratic.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Congratulations, a red state is doing well in a red year. I had no idea this would happen.

Enforce the law, please, that's a joke. Republicans want illegal immigrants in their businesses for cheap labor. The justice department under Bush prosecuted less than 10 businesses for hiring illegal immigrants. Mind you, the justice department is apolitical (well I guess I could undermine my own argument because Bush made it political).

Here's the deal, securing the border and kicking everyone out won't happen, not in a million years. Also, no one is sending home parents of American citizens, even though Arizona wants to say children born here aren't citizens if their parents are illegal immigrants. I hate to break to to anyone who agrees with what Arizona is trying to do with that law, but it's 100% unconstitutional. You know, it's in opposition to that document that conservatives say they want to enforce. Read the 14th Amendment if you don't believe me. Screw it, here it is for you.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The plain meaning of the text is abundantly clear. Consequently, the supremacy clause says Arizona can't make any child born here a non-citizen, so that's an instant loser. Even Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would all agree on that. In case you don't believe me here's the supremacy clause "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

You really have to wonder how people can claim to say they are upholding the constitution when most people don't even know what's in the constitution, nor do they even know how to read or understand clauses in the constitution. For example, Article I Section 9 says, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Glenn Beck used this clause to say that foreigners loved this country so much that they would pay anything to get here...blah blah blah. What an idiot. This clause regards slavery and the slave trade. It was a compromise put into the constitution in order to get the slave states to sign onto the constitution. But without proper education, there's no way you could read this clause without knowing what the purpose or meaning of the clause is. Glenn Beck and conservatives (liberals too, I'm just picking on conservatives right now) who say they uphold the constitution but know nothing about it are demagogues and/or idiots. Such ignorance is dangerous. I could site numerous other examples, but then I'd be a law professor, and I really don't want anything to do with that.

So, a path to citizenship is the only way to get immigration reform done. If you include that with some provision to "secure the border" (whatever that means) or with some biometric card and maybe something will get done.

By the way, how do you even secure the border? Can you make it 100% secure? How much man power would it take? How much money would it cost? What about Canada? Do we need to secure that border? How much money and man power would it take to secure that border? What taxes should we cut or programs should we cut in order to pay for a secure border? If marijuana was legal, would that end drug war conflicts, thus, not needing to secure the border? I don't know, you tell me, I'm just asking.

If you can't tell, this is somewhat of a snarky comment. I don't normally like to do this and I try to stay above that stuff, but I'm in a bad mood and I don't really want to read unadulterated, partisan crap without responding and posing questions today. No one else had spoken out so I decided to today.

Feel free to make sarcastic responses back, I don't mind. I probably deserve it, but I don't care, as long as what I said is read. I promise not to do this in the future, and I promise to go back above the fray. But not today.

____________________

djneedle83:

Brewer is going to win by no less than 15%. That's the worst case scenario for upcoming election. Even though SB1070 isn't a great law, it's going to help push immigration reform move forward. Arizona is going to remain a strong Republican hold for decades because it's not allowing a pro amnesty voice into it's political system on all levels.

Arizona is hostage to a 3rd world economy stepping on it's doorstop. The feds haven't done much to seal the Tuscon sector along the border. Thus, the governor wants some help by the feds to implement improved border security. You can hate Brewer, but she's calling out both illegal aliens and those companies that abuse their services.

As a liberal, SB1070 is far from perfect, but you have many Latino neighborhoods in Southern/Central Arizona clearing out in lieu of the law going into effect. What does this say about immigration enforcement? It tells me you have many illegal and mixed status families fearing deportation of certain family members.

I understand that it takes a lifetime to become a legalized citizen, therefore the rules need to be adjusted to equalize the playing field for the most disadvantaged citizens from Mexico. But when everyone sneaks over the border because the rules suck then everyone else picks up the tab. This is where you can scream at the Feds for living in lala land.

It's very realistic that undocumented workers provide a great economics benefit, but those who gain the most benefits are the BUSINESS OWNERS/USERS OF SPECIALIZED SERVICES. Keep in mind their is a heavy socio-economic cost inflicted by those who are in the lowest economic bracket. In my opinion, it's a mixed bag at the end of the day.

____________________

Mike E:

@Gopherguy

"The plain meaning of the text is abundantly clear."

Yep, children born here to illegals are citizens, their parents are not. The children of illegals have the rights and responsabilities of citizens, mommy and daddy do not.

How do we secure the border? Build a flipping wall. It worked in Israel. Put troops on the border. Enact laws like Arizons reasonable one in all states. Deny federal funds to sanctuary city cesspools like San Fran and LA.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I know of no republicans who support illegal immigration to support business. I've said it several times that the Dems blocked the bill in CO to make hiring an illegal a felony offense. That is simply a liberal talking point.

____________________

djneedle83:

There is where you can say John McCain is a freaking tool for being a turncoat on immigration reform. He has turned his back on every true belief in his heart. He's in his 70's and doesn't have the guts to be a Maverick.

He was so close on getting a fair deal done by compromising with the moonbats and wingnuts on immigration with MCcain/Kennedy/Bush/Rove legislation in 2007. We would be so better off as a country if that legislation passed 3 years ago.

After watching the teaparty crowd nominate Angle/Rand/(name your gop wingnut) they make McCain look like a socialist in non-election years. Can you believe McCain voted against the 1.7 trillion dollar Bush Tax Cuts that where completely bunk.

____________________

Wright Wing:

It seems surprising that even though Goddard has comparable favorable numbers to Brewer, she has such a huge lead. It seems like AZ wants to make a statement about their new immigration law to the nation.

____________________

Mike E:

djneedle83.

Good points. Im kind of glad 'Maverick' lost the election. The disaster that is Barry will cement a republican majority for generations to come.

Just think, if his shamnesty bill had passed the current Obama recession/depression would be even worse.

____________________

djneedle83:

If the Democrats had any balls they would create legislation that imposed criminal penalties for companies hiring illegal citizens.

However, the courts will seal the fate on the future of immigration reform starting this month on the SB1070 injunction hearing. I predict the female moderate judge from Arizona will allow the law to be implemented on July 29th.

That's my prediction.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Can you believe McCain voted against the 1.7 trillion dollar Bush Tax Cuts that where completely bunk.

Yeah, people didn't get to keep more of the money THEY earned. Oh wait... how was it bunk again? Oh right, it wasn't.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Only 57% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Another 24% or so are from elsewhere in Latin America. Among the rest are illegal residents from Europe, Asia, Africa.

So how exactly is the "reasonable suspicion" clause in Arizona supposed to work? Because if the person is illegal, there's a 1/4 chance that he or she is white, black, or Asian, not hispanic. Although I'll bet these OTMs (other-than-Mexicans) are largely dispersed throughout the country.

"Build a flipping wall."

Not very popular in the border communities. Their economies depend on each other, at least in TX. Hint: Rick Perry was against a wall, for a "virtual fence." He does well not because he has huge hispanic support, but there is no reason for them to vote against him in large numbers. He has been so silent on the immigration issue it is deafening.

As long as there is demand for whatever labor these people provide, they will find a way in to this country.

____________________

Field Marshal:

If the Democrats had any balls they would create legislation that imposed criminal penalties for companies hiring illegal citizens.

That would never happen since then they would alienate illegal potential voters. See, the Dems only care about future votes and they see, once they pass amnesty, a huge boon of hispanic votes to be bought and sucked up to. Doesn't matter if it destroys the country. That's a secondary concern.

____________________

Mike E:

@djneedle83:
"If the Democrats had any balls they would create legislation that imposed criminal penalties for companies hiring illegal citizens."

They will never do that, in CO they blocked such a move.

____________________

Mike E:

"Their economies depend on each other"

Strawman. Walls can have tightly controlled gates.

"As long as there is demand for whatever labor these people provide, they will find a way in to this country."

Thats why we need a wall and strict penalties for sneaking into our country. If the pain of getting caught outweighs the economic advantages the torrent will dry up.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The below article blows a hole in the "Bush secretly wanted illegal immigration to support business" fallacy.
--------------------------------------

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101001536.html

____________________

melvin:

The Republicans are happy now,but in the longterm they are cooked.I cannot see the Gop ever getting over 30% of the Hispanic vote again.

____________________

melvin:

Brewer is only going to win by 8%.J.D Hayworth took a strong stand on Immigration back in 2006,he was up in the polls by 6% the final week,but he end up losing by almost 30% because the Hispanics came out against him 96% strong.The leaders of the Religious right is pleading for the Gop to support a Immigration bill that would lead to Citizenship, because they know the Republican party will never be able to compete for the Whitehouse in the future.

____________________

Mike E:

The dems are cooked. If they fail to protect our borders I dont ever see then getting more that 30% of the white or asian vote again (or the black vote in an election where there is not a black on the dem ticket).

____________________

melvin:

The Gop is worried about the silent minority,which is the Hispanics, it is so obvious thats why Rupert Murdoch supports a path to Citizenship

____________________

Paleo:

"It seems surprising that even though Goddard has comparable favorable numbers to Brewer, she has such a huge lead. It seems like AZ wants to make a statement about their new immigration law to the nation."

Not surprising when you consider the pollster. This race is going to be a lot closer than that. Pollsters, especially Republican-leaning ones like rASS, tend to underpoll Latino voters. They will come out in higher than normal numbers to vote for Goddard.

But, yes, non-Latino voters probably do want to make a statement to the rest of the country. Much like white voters in southern states did in the 1960s when they elected the likes of George Wallace and Lester Maddox. Scapegoat politics can be good politics.

____________________

lfivepoints69:

Anyone who want to crack down on the criminal illegal alien invasion needs to vote for Democrats. John "amnesty" McCain, Ronald "biggest amnesty in history" Reagan, and George "amnesty for all big business employers of aliens and for aliens themselves" Bush are the reason that the illegals have taken over Arizona and the rest of the nation. Get the big business Republicans out of office and arrest all employers who import illegal aliens to America.

____________________

Paleo:

The biggest reason for the influx of immigrants from Mexico the last decade and a half is something neither Republicans nor (most) Democrats want to talk about. NAFTA. It drove millions of agricultural workers and farmers off the land and into the cities. And from there, north.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/nafta_and_illeg.html

____________________

DFW freethinker:

Aaron and I are both from Texas and do not agree on much. However, I do agree a big fence is probably not the best solution. I think the following very simple steps would work for everyone, and could be a good compromise. Immigration is good for our country, but we really do need to say when and who.

1) Only allow immigrants that we have a job for and their immediate family members. Fine employers that do not use E-verify and hire people without a right to work. I use it everyday at work and there is no reason every employer in this country cannot.
2)Streamline the legal immigration process into a process of a few weeks with less paperwork and competent staff to take care of it. No benefits of any kind for anyone not here legally afterward.
3)Control ALL ports of entry with the military. This would include borders, airports, seaports, and the coastlines. If you have a legal reason to be here, you are in. If not, you get forced back to your last country and not put in a detention center on the taxpayer (some of whom are legal immigrants) dollar.
4) Increase the legal immigration number.

____________________

dpearl:

I don't understand the claims that "Democrat administrations want open borders and Republican administrations want sealed borders" since the data show exactly the opposite. The rate of illegal immigration was very low in the Clinton years went way up under Bush and has now decreased again.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

@melvinYou may be partially correct but the main reason the religious right is fighting for amnesty is because white American is fleeing the church and becoming more secular. Meanwhile, many immigrants from Mexico, ther latino countries and Africa and elsewhere are filling the church pews in large nmbers.

Additionally, the Bble admonish Christians to help aliens, therefore, the gospel supports receiving aliens and even feeding them. A lot of liberals wrongly think conservatoves are Christians. Usually white Christians tend to be more conservative and xenophobic while minoties who are Christians tend to be liberal. One think that I know for sure: Minority Christians are very socially conservative but liberally economically while white Christians tend to be conservative both socially and economically, statistically. Which one will Jesus agree with? I think if you read the New Testament carefully and with open mind, you're likely to come to a conclusion that Jesus Christ will be liberal economically. I don't think Jesus Christ will support capital punishment (an old testament concept known as an eye-for-an-eye. I don't think Jesus Christ will support allowing the rich keep all their monies although they benefit more from the world material, natural, human and economic resources than the poor. I don't think Jesus Christ will support lining up poor mexicans, who are here just to find work and feed their families, on the street and shipping them back to Mexico or jailing them. Christ wont support such a ddraconian law. While Democrats are more empathetic to the poor, republicans believe let the rich keep all their monies and the poor go hungry. I have listened to a conservative preacher who was trying to use "infringement of the law of the land" arguments against immigration reforms. However, I don't think such analysis holds water when Jesus interpretation of man-made laws are brought into context in issue relating how we reat aliens. So far those aliens are not criminals but their reason of being here is economic, I don't see any Biblical verse that support such conservative interpretation. I welcome contrary arguments from conservative Christians here.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Strawman. Walls can have tightly controlled gates."

I was born and raised on the border. You restrict the movement across the border and you kill those communities. After the stricter rules following 9/11, the state bent over backwards to create all kinds of exceptions for people who need to pass through everyday.

AZ is somewhat different - its border is a desert and those border towns sprung up fairly recently. In TX most of those towns on the Mexico side existed long before there were significant American towns on the TX side. They prospered BECAUSE of each other, not in spite of each other. The border is an arbitrary line through a highly connected region. You don't seem to realize that. A wall would do nothing but force the illegal migrants into boats, tunnels, or into train or truck compartments to be smuggled across, while detrimental for the regional economy.

California has a wall. Does it do them much good?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Control ALL ports of entry with the military. This would include borders, airports, seaports, and the coastlines."

They beefed up the ports of entry after 9/11 as well as the airports, etc... There are also border patrol checkpoints about 70 miles inland on each highway leading away from the border. Those have been there at least since the 70s-80s. Yet the greatest number of illegals entered during 03-08. Why? There were jobs for them.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR