Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NV: 45% Reid, 43% Angle (Rasmussen 7/27)

Topics: Nevada , poll

Rasmussen
7/27/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Nevada

2010 Senate
45% Reid (D), 43% Angle (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Harry Reid: 44 / 55 (chart)
Sharron Angle: 42 / 56

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 43 / 55 (chart)
Gov. Gibbons: 37 / 62 (chart)

 

Comments
StatyPolly:

Wasmussen!

____________________

boomer40:

Sharron Angle's image has been absolutely pulverized--she's now at 44%-56% fav/unfav among independents, compared to 58%-42% two weeks ago and 59%-38% a month ago. I'm guessing there's a plan for her but it must be being held under some kind of double-secret probation embargo lockdown.

Someone will need to rescue this woman from herself if the GOP wants a prayer of winning this seat.

____________________

Crimsonite:

Everybody hates somebody sometimes!

____________________

Dustin Blackburn:

Te He he he!!

____________________

Field Marshal:

Reid has done a good job destroying Angle in his ads. Its remains to be seen with Angle can now do the same to Reid given her ads are just ramping up. Although, all those negative ads and the $10 million he has spent has just lowered her unfavorables to what Reids were already sitting at.

____________________

jamesia:

@FM

He exposed her real positions. Heck, he reposted her real website. Several prominent GOP officials in the state have backed him over her. What I mean to say is that there is a lot more at work than aggressive advertising. Yet, even still, $10 million isn't a lot from someone has high up as Reid. He most certainly will get full support from the DCCC. I know you mentioned the amount he spent as a way to spin this poll, but the fact remains that a win is a win in politics.

It's worthy to note that it's a Ras poll, too.

____________________

Wong:

Tea Party quackery has helped to resurrect Harry Reid form the dead in Nevada.

Too funny.

____________________

lat:

Ok Stillow spin it buddy!

____________________

Paleo:

That must have been painful for Rass to put out. Confirms, as if confirmation was needed, that Reid is in the lead. But there's still a long way to go, and his unfavorables are still high.

____________________

cambridge blue:

Tea Party 2010: Snatching Defeat from the Hands of Victory!

____________________

Craig:

As a person who definitely doesnt want Angle to win this race, I'd be very cautious. This looks to be, for a moderate, a choice between the lesser of two evils which will cause a lot of people to stay home. My guess is that favors Angle by at least a few percent.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Her positions of partially privatizing SS, removing offshore drilling restrictions and abolishing the Dept of Ed? Remember, the Reps have been running for decades on eliminating the Dept of Ed (what do they do anyway??). Drill baby drill is also fairly mainstream republican ideal as well as privatizing SS- remember Bush proposed it 5 years ago? No extreme either. In fact, a recent poll by bloomberg found over a third of people wanting it fully privatized and an older poll by gallup found 61% supported some partial privatization.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14815/americans-appear-open-arguments-privatizing-social-security.aspx

Thus, i think most of the outrage and "craziness" attributed to Angle's positions have been driven by Reid and the leftwing media in an effort to save the majority leader. Its fascinating to see who absorbs the propaganda and who doesn't.

____________________

melvin:

Sharon Angle is a complete nut,i don't even think the tea party wants her anymore. Thank God for that judge in ARZ who just struck down the most controversial part of ARZ law as unconstitutional.So you lose Gov Brewer,and also the Republican party.The only parts of the law they can enforce is the part where the public is allowed to sue the police,and the part where a person can go to jail for just sitting there waiting for someone which should have been struck down also.But am so happy the ARZ right-wing Republicans cant just pass a law that discriminate against people only because of the color of they're skin.

____________________

melvin:

I expect the right-wingers and Fox News to go bunkers over this decision,but it was the right decision,and its going to keep other States like Nevada in Oklahoma from passing racist laws like Arizona did.Thank you Judge you did a wonderful job.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

C'mon Stillow, let's see you spin this one!

____________________

Roman:

Rasmussen giving Harry Reid a 2-point advantage??

It's time to push the panic button Sharon.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Reid has a reputation as an effective and tough campaigner. Even when he was way behind, I never took him for granted in this race. He did just spent about half of his warchest just to get to even with Angle, while she had no $$ to respond.

Angle is a good fighter too, and she did come back from way behind in the primary. She was running third not long before her win. She also came back from way behind in the 11th hour to ALMOST win a congressional race a few years ago.

One thing is clear. Tea Party will not have a perfect record. It made some errors and overreached in some cases. But even if they lose this race and some other races, like Rand Paul's in KY, another thing is clearer yet. Tea Party played a major role in moving the nation significantly to the right of where it was just a few short months ago. And despite massive efforts by the "brainiest" Dem leaders and MSM, Tea Party continues to gain momentum, as all the latest polling demonstrates.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Speaking of Gallup, a fresh new all time high for BOBO just announced.

Dis - 49%

____________________

StatyPolly:

Drip Drip Drip

as forecasted

____________________

melvin:

Sharon Angle keeps running away from the Media like she is qualifying for the Olympics,the local media in Nevada is having a field day on this.If Sarah Palin capture the Republican nomination in 2012 you can expect princess barbie will do the samething once America finds out what a loony she is.

____________________

Stillow:

Whats to spin? Once again we have a poll showing Reid capped at his usual 45 percent. KXNT has a poll too with Reid 44 Angle 43....but yet again Reid is at his cap. This polling mirrors almost exactly NJ so far....Christie jumped to an early lead, then polls showed them neck and neck within the MOE. Angle's watermarks remain higher than Reids.

You ugys are still thinking the race is angle vs Reid, tis not. its about Reid and only Reid....he has a ceiling to his support, angle does not. She finally has ads running and they focus entirely on Reid's own claims.

You guys sound exactly like you did all last year during the NJ campaign and I said the same things then about the cap in support was Corzines problem and why he would lose....same applies to reid. It is verrrrry difficutl to win a 2 man race with a cap of support at 45 percent. Reid needs at least 10 percent of the entire elctorate to leave option for senate blank just to break even with angle. Like we saw in NJ, the undecides will break and break heavily to the opposition as they typically do.

____________________

melvin:

StatyPolly: Was George W Bush dis-approval rating with Gallup at 78% drip drip drip,but i expect obama approval rating with hispanics to go up to 70% from 57%, because of what happen in ARZ today.

____________________

lat:

Great spin Stillow! Outstanding horsedump! As always though this "bigot" as you like to call me gives you credit for being consistent. I do like you man, you probably are a hoot to have a beer with.

____________________

Xenobion:

Harry Reid has spent none of his money by the way. Every ally 538 of his has slammed Sharron Angle. The true question will be if he has to spend any of his money.

And for Stillow to mark this is about Reid... it really isn't anymore... The NJ race was a referendum on Corizine as a failed governor marred in scandal. Harry Reid has no scandal unlike half of the NV Republican party. So its now personality politics. Sharron Angle has been branded a reactionary radical and a political wuss. I'd hardly compare her to Chris Christie... maybe a toned down Orly Taitz. lolz.

____________________

VermontWisdom:

I think Ms. Angle is about to encounter some private family matters that require her withdrawal from the race. Hell it worked for Sister Sarah, why not her? She can then go on the speaking circuit and make a fortune.

I'm actually not kidding. I see the Republicans making every effort to get her out and get a warm body in there, who is not a nut, who can defeat Reid who is very vunerable.

____________________

Mark Adlard:

Stillow:

Finally a person with a brain on this site. Except for Mark Blumenthal, of course. This race smacks of NJ so much it is scary. I have said this for about two weeks. The level of third party and none of the above is similar to NJ at this point. I do disagree a little with your analysis.

First, this race used to be about Reid. The verdict is in on Reid and he is at 45% and may go lower with Angle's negative campaign.

Second, the race is now ALL about Angle. She is at 43% plus or minus 2% because of Reid's negative campaign but she has a little over 3 months to convince enough Nevada voters that she is worthy to be a US Senator.

Third, I doubt there will be any face to face debates in this race. It is the one big place where Angle can prove her worth (like Brown or Christie). I agree that if she can convince the 11% other/undecided that she can be senator a majority will break her way right before the election. We will not know this until November.

Fourth, Nevada is a purple state not a deep blue state like NJ. Look at Obama's approval 43/55. This will benefit Angle as well as Sandoval's winning big.

Fifth, Angle is a long time pol. She knows how to run campaigns and will fight hard to improve her image as a serious candidate. She knows retail politics which will help her in October.

Christie pulled it off in NJ so lets see if Angle can pull it off here in NV. The ball is in her court. If she responds well she could win 50-45-5 or better.

____________________

Paleo:

Christie was not considered a far right wack job the way Angle is.

It's always tempting to think the result in one race translates to another. But it rarely does.

____________________

ErikEckles:

This is good news for Reid only in the context that he used to be losing by 12 points or more. An incumbent's reelection while stuck at 45% is hardly a sure thing.

____________________

Gopherguy:

FM,

You responded to Aaron this morning on illegal immigration. I'm going to repost what you said and type my response. My logic is absolutely spot on, so I'd like to hear your take.

"Are you completely daft?

Did you read your own post? The businesses aren't physically bringing them here. Its the other illegals and the migrant workers families who scrape together the money to send the person across the border. You are implying that the business owner is directly subsidizing the crossing which is disingenuous.

I do equate all 12 million at the same level- the level of criminal. Period. There is no buts or although that should follow. Either you respect the law or you don't.

What we should simply create is a guest worker program for agricultural work and construction labor. That's it. The labor/business issue is just as bad. We need to have felony laws against the hiring of illegals. We tried here in CO but the Dems squashed it."

You have one big flaw in your viewpoint. You view illegals as criminals but legals as non-criminals.

Guess what, you're wrong. Almost every single legal resident, if not all, in the United States is a criminal. If you have ever gone above the speed limit while driving you are a criminal, you have broken the law.

If you have ever tried a drug or had alcohol underage you have broken the law, you are a criminal.

You cannot selectively say one group of people are criminals and one group of people aren't. All people are criminals, that would make illegals no less criminal than you and me.

Every person is a criminal, the only difference is most of us aren't convicts. However, if you have ever paid a speeding ticket or a parking ticket in your life, then you have admitted guilt for the offense, thus you are a convict. So maybe most of us are convicts.

So you're right. Either you respect the law or you don't. Clearly, you, me, and every other American has not respected the law at some point just like every illegal immigrant.

So what do we need to do? You say pass very strict laws, secure the border... applying the same logic, you would be willing to have Big Brother looking over our shoulder at all times to make sure no one is disrespecting the law. That means, every time everyone speeds they need to have a ticket issued, regardless of amount of speed over the limit or circumstances. That also means that anyone who has a drop of alcohol under 21 needs to be cited. If we don't do this, then we allow willful disrespecting of our laws. Because we are a nation of laws, we should not tolerate people ever breaking them.

Do you see how your logic, when it's carried out consistently (not wily-nily), leads to all sorts of dilemmas and consequences that no American would tolerate?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Angle is only considered a far-right whack job by mindless myrmidons who soak up the propaganda hand over fist. TEll me what you consider to be "far-right wack [sic] job policies?

Reid also has his racism to counter probably diminishing his black turnout more than was already anticipated without Obama on the ballot.

Harry Reid has spent none of his money by the way.

Who paid for all those ads demonizing Angle with lies and other misinformation? LOL. He has spent $10 million and is planning on spending a total of $25 million for the campaign making it the most spent by a senator per capita in history.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Guess what, you're wrong. Almost every single legal resident, if not all, in the United States is a criminal. If you have ever gone above the speed limit while driving you are a criminal, you have broken the law.

Of course. So if i break the law by exceeding the speed limit, i should be pulled over and given a ticket since the law is the law.

I'm in favor of police pulling over speeders just as i am in favor of police stopping and reprimanding underage drinkers. What i'm not in favor of is selectively avoiding some laws i don't agree with just because it favors me politically. Many say the Reps are in favor of illegal immigration for lower labor costs. While i disagree with that sentiment, I would still say that businesses and the Reps encouraging it, should be punished for it also.

That means, every time everyone speeds they need to have a ticket issued, regardless of amount of speed over the limit or circumstances.

Do you see how your logic, when it's carried out consistently (not wily-nily), leads to all sorts of dilemmas and consequences that no American would tolerate?

That is flawed logic. Our police and other law enforcement actively tries to prevent those crimes from happening. The AZ law is in response to the federal gov'ts refusal to do its job which is specifically stated by law. See the difference?

Because someone speeds and is not caught, you say its okay to ignore someone who breaks the law crossing into the country illegally? That makes little sense to me and i would venture to guess most people.

The police state argument is absurd. If I get pulled over, i am asked for my license. Is that profiling or a police state? Of course not. The AZ law is the EXACT same thing.

All laws should be obeyed and resources should be allocated accordingly based on need. Currently, we don't have a crisis regarding speeding. Highway deaths are at their lowest level since the early 50's. We do however, have a crisis with our borders. We are the only country in the developed world who doesn't secure their border and who can't ask for citizenship status on demand. If we can use that argument over and over for health care (that we are the only developed country without universal care) surely we can use if for our border policy.

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Careful lat. You were sayign the exact same things to me in the old NJ threads...you mocked me every week remember? You explained how it was not possible for christie to win every week.....to your credit, after the election did you finally tell me 'good call". But during the campaign you accused me of spoin, wishful thinking...blah blah....so I would urge you to once again be careful about your rhetoric. Since all that rhetoric did nto help you in NJ and we have very similar circumstances.....you are free to yell spin spin like you did last time, but in the end I will be here smiling again....after you wipe the egg off.

____________________

Stillow:

Mark Adlard: - I live here in NV. for the past 6 weeks all the advertising has been Reid and only Reid. angle just start last week running ads on tv and radio. reid had a 6 week head start on her and all the air time was slanted in his favor for that time.

with that said, Reid is stilll capped at 45 percent. All he has managed to do is lower angle to roughly the same, but during that time she was not fighting back...now she is starting too. We know reid is capped at 45 percent and all his spending and all the lopsides air time has not improved that support at all.

Undecided have a habit of breaking and breaking pretty strongly to an opponent of an uncumbant the longer they stay undecided. If roughly 10-12 points stay undeicded until mid to late October Angle win win pretty easily.

If Reid is not polling above 45 percent by mid october, he cannot win. it becomes a simply numbers game.

In addition, the governors race helps angle. Because Sandoval is crushing Rory Reid by 20 points in most polls....Harry has to hope while they are voting against his son they turn around and vote for him.

My guess is angle wins this with about 52 percent of the vote to reid's 45.

This race smells just like NJ and for an entire year we saw polls bounce around on who is leading, etc....really the only consistent with al lthe NJ polls was Corzine never polled about 45 percent.......just like Reid.

____________________

CommonMan87:

Field Marshal,

You don't get it at all do you? You constantly rant about wanting less government involved in our lives, except when what government does benefits your argument. You want the "evil" government to build you a huge wall across the southern border and pay for it to help "protect" our country, but you don't government to tax you or create programs that help the country as a whole.

The hypocrisy of your arguments is absurd, as you like to put it. Though, this is what I've come to expect from the right wing...win, win, win no matter. Integrity, morals, honesty all mean nothing, just win.

Also, you cite the "left wing" media as helping Reid out. Where are they helping Reid out? Clearly, you have no idea how the media works. First, the media's main job is to make money, and whatever stories produce that, they will report on. Second, the big 6 corporations pretty much control all forms of media and have no shame in letting you know what their agenda is. Please look at the politicians that GE supports the most before you call them leftist...I think they would take issue with your statement. With that, my point with the media is to really know where they stand, look at how they have reported on Obama. He has passed more historic legislation and the most legislation in general in his first year and half than any president ever. It took 100 years to pass health care reform, GLBT rights are finally becoming more a reality with the repealment of DADT, more consumer protections are coming as the result of wall street reform, and an economic stimulus was passed that eased the effects of the recession on people. That's just a few things he has done already. Yet, all we hear about is the economy still sucks, which I agree is still huge, but we are talking about legislative issues that have taken decades to pass that have all passed in a year, and there is still no love for Obama or the Democrats for doing this. Wouldn't a leftish media have a field day promoting the triumphs of this administration?

____________________

CommonMan87:

Also, another thing that must be pointed out with the BS immigration law is that fact that most of us third and fourth generation Americans shouldn't even be citizens if laws like Arizona's actually existed.

During the rush of immigration to this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s many European immigrants came to this country illegally. Our country would not be where we are today without that immigration rush. However, now that "whitey" is threatened and might become a minority in twenty years, we have to close off all borders and kick everyone out.

____________________

Field Marshal:

You don't get it at all do you? You constantly rant about wanting less government involved in our lives, except when what government does benefits your argument. You want the "evil" government to build you a huge wall across the southern border and pay for it to help "protect" our country, but you don't government to tax you or create programs that help the country as a whole.

LOL. Yeah, i don't get it. Wake up buddy. The only thing the government SHOULD be doing is 'providing for the common defense', not bailing out banks, running health care insurance, or owning auto companies.

Your diatribe is a complete rant of useless hyperbole and bumper sticker slogans.

Also, you cite the "left wing" media as helping Reid out. Where are they helping Reid out? Clearly, you have no idea how the media works.

Yeah, i'm wayyyy out in left field stating that the media favors the Dems. I don't know what kind of crazy idea i got that from. Clearly you are living in fantasy land.

If you look at the campaign contributions of Fox, you would still see a majority of them going to the Dems. Are you saying that Fox isnt biased to the right?

And i see you eat gobs of the propaganda that those media are feeding you. For instance:

but we are talking about legislative issues that have taken decades to pass that have all passed in a year, and there is still no love for Obama or the Democrats for doing this.

Uh, Bush II passed just as much legislation in his first 9 months. It took the Dems a whole year to pass one bill. Another 6 months to pass financial regulatory reform. Meanwhile, in 2 years Bush II passed No Child, Medicare reform, Tax cuts, strengthen govt spending on sciece and health, passed the clear skies act, and sarbanes oxley all the while having to deal with the worst attack on our soil since sept 11. So spare me your 'historic' presidency garbage. Its only historic to the fawning press who drool over the feet of the president.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

I give you credit for NJ, but keep in mind that NJ is my home state and I was going with what I viewed to be the case at the time. If you recall I also told you that had Chris Christie been pro-choice and pro-gay marriage I would have voted for him as voting for Jon Corzine was one of the hardest votes I ever had to cast (remember I work on Wall St. so Mr.Corzine was very familiar to me and not in a good way). With all that said Sharron Angle is a loon job that makes Chris Christie look like a comatose choir boy by comparison. We will see what happens, but I am sure The NV GOP is wishing it was Lowden or Tarkanian at this point.

____________________

John1:

@Commonman

Your comments are out in left field, near the warning track, almost gone....

Do you really think the borders should be completely open? Do you really think that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including hispanics and blacks, who want the border sealed do so because they feel "whitey" is threatened? If you do I certainly feel sorry for you.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Melvin
I would think twice about opposing the illegal immigration law. The illegals will soon be competing for your welfare dollars. We all know how much minorities love those welfare programs. No job, no problem. I don't know what type of work you do, if any, however based on your mastery of the English language i'm pretty sure that you're not pushing a pencil somewhere. Additionally all uneducated minorities should be in full support for this law for the sole purpose of protecting their manual labor jobs.

____________________

Ned:

Conservatives are making a crucial mistake comparing this to nj. Christie's unfavorables were no where near where angle's are rite now. I mean goodness they are higher than reid's now, lol. Also nevada voters are very practical. Obama is seen in nevada as very liberal. Many in nevada see a majority leader reid as the only thing stopping democrats from stricter gun regulations. This will help reid as well. Id bet on reid winning reelection this year and in the process dooming president obama's 2012 reelection chances. His only hope for reelection is divided gov't.

____________________

Ned:

Conservatives are making a crucial mistake comparing this to nj. Christie's unfavorables were no where near where angle's are rite now. I mean goodness they are higher than reid's now, lol. Also nevada voters are very practical. Obama is seen in nevada as very liberal. Many in nevada see a majority leader reid as the only thing stopping democrats from stricter gun regulations. This will help reid as well. Id bet on reid winning reelection this year and in the process dooming president obama's 2012 reelection chances. His only hope for reelection is divided gov't.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

If Obama isn't wanted to campaign in PA or Ohio or WV, that is okay. We could use Obama in VT to give a speech this August, and than in Oct for Deb Markowitz who will be our likely nominee.

I think Obama can help in Washington, CA and must keep his own state's senate and governor in Democratic hands.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

TeaPartyRules:
Melvin
A quote from T Party Rules "I would think twice about opposing the illegal immigration law. The illegals will soon be competing for your welfare dollars. We all know how much minorities love those welfare programs. No job, no problem. I don't know what type of work you do, if any, however based on your mastery of the English language i'm pretty sure that you're not pushing a pencil somewhere. "

You know that statement says a lot about just how ignorant you are being. Are you just saying this to shock us or do you have any facts to back it up?

I admit we need immigration reform, and nobody should be getting a free ride if they are working under the table as an illegal; likewise they need to mandate 5 year prison sentences without parole for those who hire illegals. It should be a federal crime.

The bottom line is that illegals are not taking jobs that you or I would be applying for; most white Americans are not applying to be migrant workers or a maid at a motel. How many white women do you see who work as maids at motels? They are usually hispanic or sometimes Asian women who do not speak English that well.

Tea Party Rules: Do you have an intention of applying for one of these jobs? Are you planning on applying as a fruit picker in Florida working 10 hour days in the 100 degree heat?

I saw a a man from a leading fruit company in Southern CA. interviewed on the Colbert report, and he offered jobs to everyone all over his area. He advertised the jobs, and he said that all but 3 of them were US Citizens.

Now, what I am more concerned about than illegals taking our jobs, are jobs going overseas. Our jobs are indeed taken by people in India working for cheap labor overseas. Most computer companies are highering fewer and fewer troubleshooters who are US or Canadian based. This is more concerning to me than anything else.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

farleft
Aren't you thirty something and living in your mommies house?

____________________

CommonMan87:

John1,

Really, my comments are in left field? Here's what the guy below me posted:

"I would think twice about opposing the illegal immigration law. The illegals will soon be competing for your welfare dollars. We all know how much minorities love those welfare programs. No job, no problem. I don't know what type of work you do, if any, however based on your mastery of the English language i'm pretty sure that you're not pushing a pencil somewhere. Additionally all uneducated minorities should be in full support for this law for the sole purpose of protecting their manual labor jobs."

Polling numbers on issues like this are completely worthless with all the misinformation out there. Public polling on issues like this mean nothing because the average pollster isn't gonna follow the news cycle 24/7 and are only gonna hear sound bites about the issue.

And I'm sorry, if you don't think a lot of white people feel threatened because they will soon become a minority you are completely mistaken. You can throw my comments out as much as you want by asking rhetorical questions, but you are clearly mistaken.

Field Marshal,

It's a fact that more legislation has been passed under Obama's first year than any other...look it up.

I've heard you bring up Bush before and his legislation, but if you think his legislation will have the same impact as Obama's, you are clearly mistaken. No child left behind has crippled our education system beyond belief, and it's not like there was a 100 year battle to pass an education bill. Bush definitely passed bills, but they don't compare to what Obama has done. Again, it took 100 years for HCR!

And I'll say it again, the media doesn't favor anyone. Look at your beloved GWB. The press absolutely loved him for his first 6 years. They ate up everything he said and Karl Rove had the media on his whim. To say the media has a bias like that is 100% wrong, and anyone with any kind of sense would realize that.

____________________

CommonMan87:

Clarification, he has passed more legislation his first year since FDR.

____________________

Gopherguy:

FM,

You said, "Because someone speeds and is not caught, you say its okay to ignore someone who breaks the law crossing into the country illegally? That makes little sense to me and i would venture to guess most people."

No where did I say it's ok to ignore someone who breaks the law, you inferred that. I simply analyzed what you said and asked questions. No where did I state my opinion on the matter.

You said, "The police state argument is absurd. If I get pulled over, i am asked for my license. Is that profiling or a police state? Of course not. The AZ law is the EXACT same thing."

I never mentioned the AZ law or profiling. My point was that many traffic laws, drinking laws, and others go unenforced just like immigration does. You said illegals are criminals who disrespect the law, which is unacceptable. I said, following your reasoning that, logically, we should then fully enforce other laws that are not enforced that are routinely broken because it's not acceptable to disrespect our laws. That logic isn't flawed, it's exactly right. You didn't mention that we can allocate resources to enforce other laws to their full extent (by extension selectively enforcing other laws) in terms of a crisis, until after I wrote my response. So, my logic was spot on, you just meant something else that wasn't written, which is completely understandable.

You said, "All laws should be obeyed and resources should be allocated accordingly based on need. Currently, we don't have a crisis regarding speeding. Highway deaths are at their lowest level since the early 50's. We do however, have a crisis with our borders."

Here, you contradict yourself. You said that you want all laws to be enforced. However, you say above that we don't need to enforce some laws as much as we can because other laws are more pressing. I may agree with you, but your not consistent. You want full enforcement of all laws. However, you recognize we cannot fully enforce all laws without some kind of police state. So, are you for selective enforcement of some laws in order to enforce others, or are you in favor of full enforcement of all laws? You contradict yourself so it's unclear.

So you don't get my positions wrong or infer anything from what I say, this is what I believe on immigration. I'd also be willing to clarify anything else if you wish.

We need to penalize employers. Dissolve corporations, heavily fine them, throw their top managers and/or boards in prison. Something along those lines.

Legalize marijuana and you could convince me for possibly some other drugs. This takes the money and power out of drug cartels who cause the violence. Our demand for drugs is what fuels the violence, so why not legalize at least some of it, keep the money here, and rid ourselves of the cartels?

Some kind of employer check that can't be faked. I don't care how you devise it, just as long as it's simple to implement and near impossible to fake.

No splitting up of families. If children are U.S. citizens then the parents get to stay here, at least until the children graduate from high school. These people should also have the ability to become citizens, but taxes, fines and such need to be paid. If we split up families that just overburdens our welfare system with orphan children, which also doesn't make sense.

No border fence. Some kind of "smart" fence, or monitoring fence is fine by me, but there's no need for a border fence. Any physical barrier is a waste of time, money, and resources. Any physical barrier can be circumvented with very little ingenuity.

As for illegals without families. I lean toward the guest worker, "amnesty" provision, but I'm not convinced yet. However, I am convinced that rounding all of them up and shipping them out of the country is not possible. I'm sympathetic to the argument that they shouldn't be here, but it's not feasible to ship them all out. "Amnesty" isn't a great choice, but it's more feasible, the lesser of a bad choice. I'd be open to another option, but I don't know what that would be.


____________________

Farleftandproud:

Obama gets slammed for legislation that got him elected. He has done more in his first year since FDR.

This poll even on Rasmussen will only get worse for Angle, because she is such a far out idiot who won't speak to the media and because they nominated a contreversial candidate, it will encourage more people to vote against Angle. Perhaps if the GOP picked a more ordinary candidate, it would not be stiring people up.

____________________

Mark Adlard:

Stillow:

Christie had the problem of being in a deep blue state where people found it hard to vote for a Republican. You have people who write that they would have voted for Christie if he had been pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. Which is pretty amazing seeing that gay marriage lost in Maine. Maine not Alabama, Maine!!!!How far left are these people.

Elections are simple things in a two party system. It is either Reid or Angle. There are other candidates and for Rasmussen to show them at 7% is the most significant number I found in his poll. Hint: Rascrap (whatever his new nickname is here, please insert) polls with leaners. That is why his undecided numbers are usually low (less than 5% and almost always less than 10%). He polls for second choices as well as how strongly you support your first choice. So his third party numbers are always low as well as his undecideds.

Conclusion: Reid is currently Senator however the people of NV do not want him to be their Senator in 2011 (55% poll for someone else, as well as his 44/55). The only other choice is Angle. However, she has not shown herself qualified nor worthy to be the next Senator. (58% extreme, as well as her 42/56). Reid will win because at least he is qualified, he has been Senator longer than most of us have been alive. If Angle can prove she is qualified and worthy she will win. It is as simple as that.

I hope they have a live debate.

____________________

Stillow:

Mark Adlard: - Well there's no doubt Reid has always been a favorite. he has been around forever and is majoirty leader. The telling fact remains that Reid is simply peaked in support at 45 percent. With the media blitz the past 6 weeks and all the anti angle stuff, his own support has not moved above that 45 percent barrier....he has brought her down to the same, or perhaps a point or two lower....but that is up to her to reverse.

The campiang remains about Reid. As well all know Reid is a soft spoken guy, but a very nasty politician. His name no longer carries the weight it used to here.

I actually ended up supporting Danny T. in the primary, but my vote fo Angle is not actually a vote for her, I am indeed voting against Reid. The people here want him gone. He was once very popular here, but is now looked at with a lot of anger.

Reid has only two paths to victory. he either has to get a credible 3rd party person to run who can garner 8 percent or so on election day hwich is highly unlikely. Or, he has to convince 10 percent of voters not to vote for anyone for Senate...including those voting against his son for governor. Again, unlikely.

Angle is going to benefit from the "anyone but Reid" vote which will probably be enough to push her over the top....espeically since she probably only needs to get to 46 or 47 percent to win.

____________________

Mark Adlard:

Stillow:

I agree that there will be a large "anyone by Reid" vote. However, people will hold their nose and vote for him if they feel he is the ONLY one qualified. That is what Corzine was hoping for in NJ. Christie convinced enough voters that he could do the job and won the late breakers. If Reid can paint Angle as not up to the job as US Senator, the undecided's will break for Reid.

That is why I hope for a live debate, if it is fair. It will convince enough voters that Angle is at least qualified to be US Senator. Let's face it, Reid wants the choice between bad (Reid) and worse (Angle). Angle has to show that she may be bad but at least she is no worse than Harry.

People don't want to fear waking up in January 2011 and saying to themselves what a big mistake I made in voting for Angle. If they fear that enough, I'm afraid that Harry will get more than 45%. He may get 48 - 49%.

Harry will get 3-4% from the "anyone but Angle" vote. She must reverse that perception. If the race is still within the MOE on October 21st, then I would say the odds are in Angle's favor. Harry has to hit her early, hard and often. He must create the perception that Angle is not a viable candidate.

The one wildcard in this race is some obscure lady from Alaska.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Wouldn't a leftish media have a field day promoting the triumphs of this administration?"

LOL, you are banging your fist into a brick wall by trying to argue with a conservative against the liberal media conspiracy. It is a central tenet of their thought since WWII - that there is a power elite that works against them. It's been that way since Buckley published 'God and Man at Yale.' Actually it was around before that. Robert Welch was talking about leftists in the media business in the 1940s.

Obviously our media is not that liberal, at least not by global standards. Journalists are a democratic lot, but so what? Why aren't conservative people going to journalism school then?

I bet southern baptist pastors overwhelmingly vote republican, but I hear few complaints about systematic ideological bias within that very large denomination that reaches millions every week.

____________________

CommonMan87:

I know that no matter what I say, a conservative is still going to believe the liberal media myth. However, if someone is going to make that a point in their argument, it deserves to be addressed, even if it means nothing to that person.

____________________

jmartin4s:

@Stillow
Your argument about Reid being Corzine is complete bs. Corzine never led in a single IVR poll. Reid has now led in two IVR polls (PPP and Rasmussen). IN addition, you claim Reid is capped off at 45%. He polled at 48% in the PPP pol released last week and that poll did not include (none of the above or any third party candidates) meaning even in a two way heat Angle struggles. In addition, Rasmussen just moved the race to lean D in his own rankings. To compare this race to Corzine vs. Christie is just absurd and shows that you are in extreme denial of Angle's downfall. She still may win but the odds of that are no more than 50% and that is being very generous from an analytical point of view.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Ha, baptist pastors do not have the ethical obligation to be unbiased. Our main media outfits with the largest readership/viewership cover up stories that are harmful to their cause on daily basis. All, while pretending to be unbiased reporters.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40308.html


I thought Aaron already admitted to media bias with comments on how those Bush Katrina response approval numbers went down over time. Something like "I guess narrative does drive perception over time".

"Why aren't conservative people going to journalism school then?"

Even if they manage to fool their professors and actually graduate, who's gonna hire them?

My high school kids have to coverup their real ideology in order to get good grades in many of their classes. And they DO get asked to reveal it all the time. My niece graduated Berkley a couple years ago, and her advice was always "you have to say/write what they want to hear in order to get good grades".

I hope your conservative students get a fair shake, Aaron.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Why so few cons in journalism? So few cons in academia?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/

And this is in Georgia, not Vermont.

Sorry about that fox news link. I always try to reference to more "mainstream" sources, but in this case, there are none to be found. Not a big deal story, I guess.

____________________

VA Dem:

It's funny that for all of the hay made by Republicans about the Constitutionality of the HC law, it was the conservative AZ immigration bill that was handily and quickly ruled unconstitutional.

____________________

tjampel:

It's awfully odd that anyone here would argue that the support level of a candidate currently garnering 46.5% among likely voters (when averaged between the last two polls) and who's opponent has 44% has a cap of 45% support.

That Reid will get -1.5 of all remaining undecideds and voters preferring another candidate is even stranger to argue. That means 100% of them would go to Angle and, additionally, 1.5% of Harry's own voters would turn against him behind the curtain. Polls are snapshots of the electorate and the current electorate simply doesn't reflect a 45% absolute cap on support.

That people who see her as an extremist (58% to 68% of the electorate do), will come out and vote for Angle just because they hate Reid so much is also highly suspect. The enemy you know is sometimes better than the one you don't; some of the people who are self-described moderates and who are still on the fence (or those who prefer another candidate) don't want to vote for an extremist period and they think Angle is just that.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that Reid's Ads have bloodied Angle and she'll weaken him with hers too, and that the race will be close.

It's unreasonable to argue that a theoretical cap is a real one when the person who's subject to it has already broken through it, and has a lot of room to improve.

____________________

GoTo123:

Hehe you guys really crack me up.

____________________

tjampel:

Note that the judge who ruled against AZ 1170 was nominate for that position by...drum roll please...John Kyl

She'll probably be getting her first death threat just about....now...

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"My niece graduated Berkley a couple years ago, and her advice was always "you have to say/write what they want to hear in order to get good grades"."

DUH! In every class from Astronomy to Zoology, you're supposed to parrot back what the instructor taught you.

"I hope your conservative students get a fair shake, Aaron."

Haha, most of my students think I'm conservative because of the way I teach, as do my colleagues. My liberal colleagues would be surprised and probably relieved if they saw what I write on here.

I use mostly the "consensus" interpretation ("consensus" historiography refers to the period 1935-1955 when historians were most succinctly expressing American exceptionalism and portraying the U.S. as a "force for good.") This annoys some of my colleagues. Plus I have a unit on the conservative movement when I do get to the post-1945 era, and my last article had to do with conservatives during the Kennedy years. You'd be surprised how many little Glenn Beck or Ron Paul fans come and talk to me offline. LOL, I get a kick out of it. They think because I'm fascinated by conservatives I must be one of them.

I teach that way mostly because it's direct, clear, and concise. More modern, post-modern, or marxist (race, class, gender) interpretati.ons are too nebulous and distracting for undergraduates imo, even though I am partial to them.

I've only had one sharp student who figured me out and asked after that unit, "are you conservative or are you subtly making fun of them?" Perceptive girl.

But since my expertise is primarily 17th century, most of what I teach is not ideological. Their personal opinion of the Thirty Years War, the Glorious Revolution, or Louis XIV is not going to affect their grade as long as they get the facts straight.

Actually quite the contrary. I'm more interested in getting them to think at all, so if they intelligently articulate a conservative viewpoint that is likely to improve their grade, not diminish it. I can't speak for professors at Berkeley.

Plus, if my goal as a member of the liberal conspiracy was convert them to the way I think, why would I be hostile to their current viewpoint? Wouldn't that be counter-productive? ;)

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Tell them what they want to hear" was means strictly ideologically. For example my daughter had to do a presentation to argue either pro or con Health Care reform last year. In fricking Spanish class, of all places. She knew ideological leanings of every one of her teachers. And she felt with most of them, she had to comply with theirs in order to have a chance at getting that A. She is a great shmoozer like you described yourself earlier. Definitely better than either of her parents.

My niece was pre-law at Berkley, and she also meant that you can't reveal your conservative ideology to all the overwhelmingly lib professors or you don't stand a chance of getting good grades. I am talking about writing papers on topics that may expose your leanings. Which are many.

I believe you when you say that it doesn't affect how you evaluate your students, though.

Back to newer topics.

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPoly
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/

I'm utterly unconvinced this student is being kicked out of the program for her beliefs. She's being kicked out to avoid the twin threats of loss of accreditation by ACA (assuming they have such power) and, always more importantly, legal liability.

She's also being kicked out, justifiably, for publicly stating that she doesn't agree with the school's own curriculum, which codifies the ACA Code, regarding how to appropriately engage gay patients.

A school has every right to insist that their students engage in patients (who are free to sue them) in a specified way that they deem to be proper. Stating that you intend to engage them in a way that's improper pursuant to the code, and potentially opening the school to a lawsuit are proper grounds for denying that student access to patients. Denying access to patients means they can't participate in the program.

If she is allowed to do counseling and it's not done in compliance with existing tort law (and/or statutory law, if GA has any applicable statutes) and within ACA ethical standards (let's assume that under ACA ethical standards a counselor must not espouse personal judgments about homosexual, including telling them that they are doing something bad, that God wants them to be different, or that they can and should change their behavior and that she states she intends to do just that) the school should not allow that student to counsel others because her behavior would fall outside of ACA ethics.

If the school knowingly allowed someone who holds her stated views on a gay person there is clearly potential liability for damage caused to such a student who, after being counseled by this student, for example, kills themselves or becomes severely depressed shortly thereafter and has to be institutionalized.

The liability would exist because The university KNOWS how she will counsel others in a certain way (which might make an already suicidal person go over the edge); they know this because she has made her views on it public. She can hold whatever views she wants but has absolutely no right whatsoever to conduct counseling as a student trainee as she sees fit. She must follow the instructions her teachers give her.

If I go to a lawyer and he/she fails to act within the canons of ethics--- for example, tells me to my face that he's not planning to zealously represent me because he doesn't like my political views, he would be severely disciplined by the State Bar (if they believed my allegations)

If a law student is interning through the auspices of a law school and that student says "I don't have to zealously represent clients that are Republicans because Republicans are assholes" that student should and would be kicked out of the program, not because of his/her beliefs, but because such conduct, which they say they intend to engage in violates a specific canon of ethics---the one which provides that a Lawyer shall zealously represent his/her client.

By the way if right wingers think this is political that means that they think those counseling gay people should go right ahead and make them feel they are are intentionally choosing an immoral path in spite of the fact that most research points to the opposite conclusion. I would hope that we're beyond this type of 90s argument by now. Also therapists are definitely NOT permitted to inject God into their therapy sessions (as in "God instills this in you when you're born, at creation, etc, or that He wants you to do this or..."this is unacceptable in the eyes of God") unless the client brings it up or wishes to engage in such a topic (perhaps they are having a religious crisis, for example).

____________________



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