Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NV: 48% Reid, 44% Angle (Ipsos/Reuters 7/30-8/1)

Topics: Nevada , poll

Ipsos/Reuters
7/30-8/1/10; 600 registered voters, 4% margin of error
462 likely voters, 4.6% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Reuters story)
Update: Toplines

Nevada

2010 Senate
Likely voters: 48% Reid (D), 44% Angle (R) (chart)
Registered voters: 52% Reid (D), 36% Angle (R)

2010 Governor
Likely voters: 50% Sancoval (R), 39% Reid (D) (chart)
Registered voters: 43% Sandocal (R), 42% Reid (D)

Job Approval / Disapproval (among RVs)
Gov. Gibbons: 26 / 68 (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

I sort of had a feeling, Nevada was going to pick someone who is crazy like Sharron Angle. Does anyone know if Nevada has open primaries? Nevada almost seems the reverse of SC, and did all the liberal Democrats come out to vote for Angle?

It is hard to believe that even the Nevada GOP would do something so stupid. The fact she is such a socially conservative nut, was what seemed strange.

I would have expected the GOP to have nominated someone more like a strictly business fiscal libertarian like a Rand Paul. Harry Reid's voting record is fairly conservative for a Democrat, especially on social issues. I would have expected a more libertarian nominee. This is Sin City, not Iowa!

____________________

Dave:

Wow, crazy numbers on those registered voters.
I honestly believe there's plenty of time for Angle to turn it around though.

____________________

lat:

Hey Stillow,

You were saying something about Harry Reid not being able to break 45%? Are you including the margin of error in that calculation?

____________________

CompCon:

Very interesting. Angle is within the MOE of Reid in likely voters.

It is also extremely interesting that there is such a huge gap in the likely voter model compared to the registered voter model. Reid shows a 16 point lead with registered voters but only 4 points with likely voters?

That same big difference between LV & RV also holds true with governor. Sandoval only has a 1 point lead with RV but an 11 point lead with LV.

The Obama lawsuit against AZ can't be helping either Reid here either. 63% want a law just like the one in AZ. That includes 44% of democrats who want the AZ law.

____________________

Steve:

Harry Reid has a 87%-13% advantage among registered voters who are not likely to vote. Apathy problem?

____________________

Steve:

Interesting toplines. Support for Arizona immigration law in Nevada is 63-34% in favor, with 47% strongly favor and 26% strongly oppose. Among independents, 52% strongly favor, 7% strongly oppose.

____________________

jmartin4s:

Sharron Angle hasn't led in a poll for four weeks and Reid has broken the 45% cap in two polls. What do you have to say about that Stillow???

____________________

Xenobion:

Harry Reid has broken the fictitious 50% glass ceiling. I must say on top of running the senate and running his re-election campaign he is quite the political force to be reckoned with.

3 months out, what's going to stop the Sharron Angle implosion/meltdown? We still hardly know anything about her other than stuff she says is taken out of context. She's starting to sound a lot of like Harriet Myers...

____________________

Farleftandproud:

No you are giving her too much credit to compare her to Harriet Myers. Myers was considered by progressives to be a moderate pick, there is nothing but a madwoman about Sharron Angle; dodging reporters and interviews, and she is supposed to serve the people if elected? You have to answer to all your residents if you are elected to serve, not just those who agree with you.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

"[Sharon Angle] made another peculiar remark during an interview with Fox News on Monday evening, explaining that she wanted "to have the press be our friend," and "ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.""

She's done . . .

____________________

melvin:

Have you noticed the GOP is pulling away from Angle,and Rubio,because the GOP finally realize the teaparty cant win in Purple or Blue States.I guarantee you the Rubio and Angle supporters are going to blame the Republican party if they're candidate go down in defeat,which is going to divide the Republican party.

____________________

Stillow:

What is the party ID in this tiny sample? I had to laugh when I saw Sandoval / Reid at 43/42. I cannot fidnt he party ID, someone else find it? for all I know this poll could have 400 Dems in it to get the skewed numbers.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm quite surprised that between Tarnakan, Loweden, and Angle how many crazies ran. It almost makes me a conspiracy theorist to think that Reid handpicked 3 idiots to run against him on top of getting that Tea Party candidate Ashijin or whatever in there.

____________________

Stillow:

I read it again, they do not list the Party ID....so ha! Can't trust pollsters who hide their party ID. The 43/42 Sandoval/Reid number makes it look pretty obvious they waaaaaay oversampled Dems and undersampled R's and I's. Unless or until they publish the Party ID, this poll is owrth mroe as a liner for my cat's litter box than doing any kind of real analysis.

____________________

Xenobion:

Interview dates: July 30 – Aug 1, 2010
Interviews: 600 registered voters; 462 likely voters in Nevada
258 Democrats/Lean Democrats; 268 Republicans/Lean Republicans
Margin of error: + 4.0% for registered voters; + 4.6 for likely voters
+ 6.1% for Democrats (RV); + 6.0% for Republicans (RV)

Bad news bears...

____________________

Stillow:

Where am I missing that breakdown at?

____________________

Xenobion:

Bernoulli's law would still hold true for this sample size as well. Bigger really doesn't get any better... especially in a state like NV.

____________________

StatyPolly:

This is the second Ipsos/Reuters poll of any kind that's posted on Pollster.com. They used to be Ipsos/McClutchy, I guess.

Here is the first. If you read the comment section, you can tell that people think this pollster has no clue on what they're doing. A bi-partisan opinion. Either that, or they're making $%!^ up, like R2000.

/blogs/us_national_survey_ipsosreuter.html

Not that Angle is not in a heap of trouble, regardless. She's been a horrific post-primary candidate so far.

____________________

melvin:

Now the GOP wants to take away citizenship of children who parents came here on a visa.Well Michelle Mailken i guess that makes you a illegal immigrant.

____________________

Dave:

The one thing I take heart in is that Angle has a history of coming from behind. She started off a ways back in the primary as well. Honestly, her ad campaign should just basically be :"Come on guys it's Harry Reid! Remember him? You hate him! Come on!"

____________________

Xenobion:

Eh my bad, posted this in the wrong poll

Crosstabs:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=9783

____________________

Field Marshal:

I'm quite surprised that between Tarnakan, Loweden, and Angle how many crazies ran. It almost makes me a conspiracy theorist to think that Reid handpicked 3 idiots to run against him on top of getting that Tea Party candidate Ashijin or whatever in there.

Yeah, everyone is a crazy that has an R next to their name, right? LOL.

____________________

nick283:

Had a nice helpful illegal immigrant who had been caught a couple times for DUI kill a nun while drunk driving... Such a good thing that they didnt kick him out when they caught him before, huh?

____________________

melvin:

Update: Michelle Mailken just told a Conservative blog she is not a anchor baby.The Democrats are going to have a field day on this one.What a f---ken hypocrite she is.The Republican party is full of hypocrites.Arizona and Virginia is full of them.

____________________

Field Marshal:

melvin,

I don't usually respond to lunatics but i'll set the record straight on Malkin. Her parents were not here illegally. They were here on work visas when she was born. Her father was a doctor here for residency.

Don't forget to actually swallow your meds.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Reid has polled more than 45 percent twice in recent weeks. Both times he's at 48.

Also, FM, MOE applies to both polls so technically the Murray race is a dead heat.

____________________

melvin:

Did you know Target and Walmart have donated over 3 million dollars to Republican candidates compared to 100.000 for Democrats. The Supreme Court ruling is starting to show how damaging this is going to be for the Democrats.Obama should have blasted the court, in called them out on this.

____________________

melvin:

FM:Did you read my post on that? The GOP wants to strip Citizenship from children of people who came over here on a visa also.So i guess that makes her a anchor baby.

____________________

Field Marshal:

An anchor baby is a child that is born to a mother who enters into the country illegally with the intention of having the child here in order to stay based on their citizenship. That is not what her parents did. Yes, i read it and i agree with the Republicans on it.

____________________

kevin626:

"Stillow:

I read it again, they do not list the Party ID....so ha! Can't trust pollsters who hide their party ID. The 43/42 Sandoval/Reid number makes it look pretty obvious they waaaaaay oversampled Dems and undersampled R's and I's. Unless or until they publish the Party ID, this poll is owrth mroe as a liner for my cat's litter box than doing any kind of real analysis."

Rasmussen doesn't publish there party ID. I take it you don't trust them either?

____________________

melvin:

Correction FM,only one of her parents came here on a visa,but who cares,am just trying to make a point to the people who supports what the GOP is trying to do.We are all children of immigrants,so don't judge people if until you get to know them.

____________________

kevin626:

"An anchor baby is a child that is born to a mother who enters into the country illegally with the intention of having the child here in order to stay based on their citizenship. That is not what her parents did. Yes, i read it and i agree with the Republicans on it. "

While you are right that Malkin isn't an anchor baby. It doesn't mean that repealing the 14th amendment wouldn't affect her citizenship if it was applied retroactively.

____________________

Xenobion:

Not exactly my comment Field Marshal. The three stooges that ran against Reid bumbled and fumbled with gaffes to put Biden to shame. Sorry to call it like it was but nice try to pin me on being anti-Republican across the board.

____________________

nick283:

Wow, way to make an issue out of something that is never going to happen. The 14th amendment won't be repealed, however it might be interpreted to mean that children off illegal immigrants born while their parents are illegal are not citizens because the amendment says born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Children born to illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof when they are born since their parents are here in violation of the law. Why are you liberals so happy to have people here in violation of our laws? Are there other crimes where you are so defensive of the people committing them?

____________________

AlanSnipes:

nick283:
Why do you assume that illegal immigrants committ crimes?
That would be a funny way of trying to stay here isn't it.
You could go to jail and not be able to work for below the minimum wage that your rich white employers pay, not to mention an increased chance of being deported.
So it is not in the interest of illegal immigrants to committ crimes, it's just more right wing bashing people for their own problems. You have to blame somebody, you can't possibly blame it on the fact that you supported Bush, can you. Because Conservatives NEVER take RESPONSIBILITY for what they do. Blame someone else, I am a victim!

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Children born to illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof when they are born since their parents are here in violation of the law."

They are subject to U.S. jurisdiction if they are on U.S. soil just like anyone else. You might want to read the very next sentence: "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."

It says PERSON wrt equal protection, not CITIZEN, meaning that the laws apply equally to anyone on U.S. soil.
If someone is born on U.S. soil that makes them citizens, period, unless you want to push through a new constitutional amendment.

Anyone committing DUI with no documentation twice should be in jail. Why is that person not in jail? By your logic, illegal immigrants must have some sort of get out of jail free card because they don't have documentation. If that's the case, I'm going to throw out all my id's and start robbing banks! Officer, I don't have a social security number or a Driver's License, you have to let me go! Right.

What you want to do is make existing in the U.S. without proper documentation a crime. That will never happen.

____________________

nick283:

Them being in the United States is a crime. Also, they do have a higher incarceration rate than the population as a whole, but the crime i was referring to was being in the US in violation of our law. Yes, I blame the illegal immigration problem on illegal immigrants and those who stop enforcement of our immigration laws. I don't really get what you think I am blaming them for other than not respecting our laws.

____________________

nick283:

Hey, Aaron, first of all that is talking about a STATE denying life liberty or property without due process of law. Some would argue that this was done to apply the bill of rights to action by state government. You don't give any reason there for someone who is in the United States illegally to be a citizen. I am not saying that this would apply to any non-citizen having a child, just to those here illegally. Heck, if we can find that this clause guarantees a right to abortion, surely we can find it doesnt give children of illegal aliens automatic citizenship

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"but the crime i was referring to was being in the US in violation of our law."

The crime was entering the U.S. illegally. Their existence in the U.S. is not in and of itself illegal. This is the position Chris Christie took as NJ Atty Gen.

Let's see where this logic goes, shall we?

There are approximately 12 million people in the U.S. without proper documentation who may have made an illegal crossing in the past. That's the crime you want to prosecute them for. Punishment if found guilty is deportation.

What are the logistics of this? We've established that they all have equal protection regardless of citizenship. So they have to be processed through the justice system.

Here's what has to happen.

We have to have mass prosecutions of 12 million people. We don't have that capacity, but let's assume civil rights were curtailed somehow and we simply put them in deportation processing when found without proper identification.

We have to round them up - that means police raids. They just can't go from arrest to deportation. They have to be processed even if they can't plea not guilty for whatever reason. Their existence in the U.S. is illegal, so they can't just stay living their illegal existence... where will they be housed? 12 million is a lot of people. Hitler couldn't even KILL more than 6 million in a decade.

The only way is a massive internment camp system that would house and outprocess about 600,000 per year to get them out in 20 years. We had trouble housing 200,000 Katrina refugees - they had to be dispersed throughout the country. Imagine what three times that would be like.

One they're outprocessed, who will take them? I doubt Mexico will just accept them no questions asked. They don't need 600,000 new poor people coming in every year. They would probably fight it in international court.

What will happen to their property? Their kids? Those little American citizens would have to become wards of the state, creating a massive dependent population.

Obviously that is impossible.

The ONLY solution is to tighten up the border (I support more troops/patrols/cameras, & some fencing, but not walls), implement strict employment checks and insitutute heavy penalties (jail) for hiring an illegal person for cash payment, and provide a path to citizenship for the 12 million, and implement a documented guest worker program because the cheap labor is essential for market capitalism.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Sorry to call it like it was but nice try to pin me on being anti-Republican across the board.

Yeah, don't know where i got that crazy idea.... lol.

____________________

Field Marshal:

While you are right that Malkin isn't an anchor baby. It doesn't mean that repealing the 14th amendment wouldn't affect her citizenship if it was applied retroactively.

Its impossible for the congress to retroactively apply a law eliminating anchor babies. Even for this anti-constitution congress.

____________________

kevin626:

"

While you are right that Malkin isn't an anchor baby. It doesn't mean that repealing the 14th amendment wouldn't affect her citizenship if it was applied retroactively.

Its impossible for the congress to retroactively apply a law eliminating anchor babies. Even for this anti-constitution congress."

I know that. That's not the point. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if Malkin was an 'anchor baby' or not, she still wouldn't be a citizen w/o the 14th amendment.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Anti-constitutional, that's a great right-wing platitude that sounds spiffy, but it's completely meaningless. I assume by anti-constitutional you mean HCR. Well, conservatives can cry all they want but the law is settled. The commerce clause allows this to happen. We have 80 years of more than 100 years of precedent on this. I'm not just talking a few cases of precedent that Citizens United overturned but dozens of cases. Hundreds if not thousands of laws have been passed through the commerce clause by every Congress since the 1930's. So, if you don't like the commerce clause you probably would be ok with undoing hundreds of laws passed by Republicans who have relied upon it to pass laws. I suspect you would be unwilling to do so, so let's not whine about it. Furthermore, just so we're clear, warrantless wiretaps are definitely unconstitutional, as were detentions of "enemy combatants" even the current Supreme Court says so. Therefore, conservatives who say this Congress is anti-constitution and not the last Congress (or any other Congress that has used the commerce clause, which is all of them as I said above) is lying or dishonest and can admit to being hypocrites any second now.

Also, Aaron is exactly right on his assessment on what would happen if we decided to deport all 12 million, or more, illegal immigrants. It's simply impossible for us to do. We'd have to destroy our constitution to do it. Even if we did that, we don't have enough manpower, money, resources, judges, lawyers, to even dream of dealing with such a scenario. Yes, we have millions here illegally. But there is no possible way we can round up and deport them. It would be intellectually dishonest to even suggest if could be done in a timely fashion. That's why you only have two choices with illegal immigrants. You can keep them in the shadows, or you can grant them citizenship through taxes, fees, etc. It's not possible to deport them.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I can't believe that Angle is for real? Than again I was shocked at the GOP when they marketed Palin for the first time with the Katie Couric interivew. Angle was on Fox news and she told the interviewer that she wished that the media would "try to be your friend". Even the interviewer who is probably conservative questioned Angle. THe media is never your friend, and they should ask you tough questions even if they are on your side.

Chris Matthews has people he likes on the program, but he asks them tough questions, and hammers them to try to show the public at how tough they are.

The GOP has no respect for the public and really thinks they are stupid. This was clearly true with Palin and is blowing it again with Angle.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Should say "We have more than 100 years of precedent on this."

____________________

Farleftandproud:

When the conservatives say HCR is unconstitutional I would like to ask, why wasn't Medicare repealed 45 years ago? Why wasn't medicaid repealed. What is unconstitutional about that. You righties say "right to life is constitutional" if that is true, the right to have life which means, right to access to medical care should also be a right. The hypocrisicies go on and on and on and on.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL. Man, i wish more liberals were like you Farleft.....

____________________

nick283:

I agree that it would be difficult to deport all 12 million illegals and that its not the best way to deal with the problem. We need to make it so they don't have an incentive to be here or come here in the first place. In other words stop giving the children citizenship, stop providing benefits to those who are here illegally, and make it more difficult for them to work here. I don't know why you think the 12 million (or however many it really is) who are here now are more special than anyone who comes later.

____________________

Dave:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrMaps/20100803/ballot_Issue_map.asp?eid=256&oTypeID=20&Tuesday,%20August%2003,%202010

Might want to watch this one tonight. A "Yes" vote was to reject the individual mandate in the Obamacare bill.

____________________

JMSTiger:

Back to the Reid-Angle race.

Fact is, a plurality of Nevada Republicans decided to go with Angle and in doing so, slit their own throats. Sharron Angle is a horrible candidate and it took someone like her for someone as unpopular as Harry Reid to get reelected. Had Tarkanian won the Republican primary, Reid would be completely dead in the water. Way to go Nevada Republicans!

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Dave

So far, with 17% reporting, "Yes" is passing with 74%. St Louis and Kansas City are not in yet though.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Deporting 12 Mil illegals logistically impossible?

No need to deport. They will self-deport if the landscape is less friendly. Go after employers, landlords, schools.

As far as anchor babies go, both sides have good arguments. I don't even have much of a problem with granting those babies citizenship, as is the current polity. Leave the anchor alone, but CUT THE CHAIN. Baby is legal to stay, but not parents.

Cruel? No. I don't advocate separating babies from parents. They can take the baby back to wherever. Or leave it here with legal family members, friends, foster care. Additionally, the baby can always come back to US when of age. Just don't allow the anchor wag the boat.

____________________

tjampel:

nick283:

you repeat your idiotic theory that someone...anyone born in this country and present in this country (other than a diplomat's child, perhaps) is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United states...that is to say, they are entirely beyond the reach of the US.

You failed to explain what you meant by this before. Are you going to explain to us this time how this is possible? Do you understand what jurisdiction is?

As for your other ideas maybe some statistics will help.

Illegal immigration, as well as the number of illegals in the country is way down from its levels in 2000 according to Gov't numbers published by a Bush administration survey published in 2008. It's been estimated by the US Census that the number of illegals further dropped between 2008 and 2009 from 11.6 million to 10.8 million.

Despite these facts, and because it's such a good political issue for the right (lots of fear to stoke) far more money is being spent by this Gov on it now than in 2001, when BushW came in (when it was a far worse problem). Furthermore we have the highest number of border patrol officers in place ever, and also have 1200 Guardsmen coming in.

Another facet of this administration's approach to illegals in the workplace has been to target employers. In fact, far more employers have been arrested under this liberal admin than under W during any similar period of time.

As for the lawlessness at the borders meme, it's pure fiction. Look at El Paso; it's right at the border. Directly on the other side (in Mexico) there's one of the highest crime rates in the world, with people being murdered every day and gangs running rampant and terrorizing officials and police alike. In El Paso, however, the murder rate is less than half the national one, property crimes are lower than the national rate, burglery AND robbery are both less than half the national rate.

Specifically the violent crime rate is 461/100,000. It's 1106.8/100,000 in Houston and, as expected in Detroit, a town with no Mexican or other major immigrant problem I'm aware of (unless it's those pesky Canadians) the violent crime rate is a stratospheric 1924.1/100,000. So border town, supposedly being overrun by Mexican drug gangs has less than 1/4 the violent crime rate of a town with no border issues (other than Canadians overstaying their visas, I guess).

Oh yeah...btw...sorry to inform you...

Crime, both violent and property-related is down in AZ for the 4th year in a row.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Well, with 98.5% precincts reporting, MO prop C is 71.5% YAY.

Guess it didn't get more popular after the passage. At least not in the showme state. This is the first chance actual VOTERS had a go at it. As opposed to just polls.

In other news, GOP primary voters outnumbered Dems by almost 2 to 1 in statewide contests.

Racist pigs all.

____________________

StatyPolly:

MO voters are not the brightest bunch. What's not to like here?

http://www.house.gov/brady/pdf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf

With all that redundancy goodness baked right in, what could go wrong?

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ StatyPolly

Every county in the state voted against the healthcare mandate except for St Louis city and Kansas City city. And this is considered a swing state. This is just a preview of the environment for 2010 for the Democratic Party.

By the way...

Number of Missouri voters in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary- 315,787

Number of Missouri voters in the Republican U.S. Senate primary- 577,612

____________________

lat:

Wow! You know you are in trouble when you are the gop candidate and you have the national review of all publications questioning your sanity. This latest looney tunes remark by Sharron Angle regarding the press would be laughable if it were not so frightening. This woman is an absolute and utter nutjob. Someone up there must like Harry Reid...

____________________

Dave:

71.1% the final percentage voting yes on Prop C.
If I may sum up my thoughts: "Ahahahahahahaah".

Don't they know how historic this legislation was?! Racists.

____________________

John:

"Every county in the state voted against the healthcare mandate except for St Louis city and Kansas City city. And this is considered a swing state. This is just a preview of the environment for 2010 for the Democratic Party."

Perhaps, but it probably more show how the republican base is energised (and how the democrat base is not.) In 2006 both primaries were at about 350k. That disparity should really worry the democrats. In terms of the ballot, it would be difficult to read too much into it by itself, given how skewed the turnout is, (coupled by the fact it is most likely to be overturned by the courts.) It can hardly be seen as representive of MO, since only 850k voted on the ballot and almost certainly over 2 million will vote in november. (2.4million voted in 2008.)

____________________

tjampel:

Field Marshal:

"An anchor baby is a child that is born to a mother who enters into the country illegally with the intention of having the child here in order to stay based on their citizenship."

So it's NOT an anchor baby if you get a tourist visa and fly here and head right for the nearest hospital to deliver? Seems to me that the designation anchor baby does not depend on the manner in which the mother entered the country; it does matter on the intent in entering this country.

From Wikipedia:

"According to the Double-Tongued Dictionary, edited by American lexicographer Grant Barrett, the term "anchor baby" means "a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose United States citizenship."[5] In response to a reader's proposed alternate definition seeking to limit the definition of the term to children of illegal immigrants, Grant Barrett states:

...it is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration...[5]"

____________________

Field Marshal:

So it's NOT an anchor baby if you get a tourist visa and fly here and head right for the nearest hospital to deliver?

I would say no but i agree its based on the intention of the mother/parents. The typical definition is used in regards to illegal immigrants.

"Anchor baby" is a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to describe a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. It is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who as a U.S. citizen through the legal principle of jus soli, may facilitate immigration for relatives through family reunification."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

____________________

CompCon:

@AlanSnipes:

"Why do you assume that illegal immigrants committ crimes?"

That argument always cracks me up. I heard an illegal immigration advocate on the radio once counter the argument that they had already broken the law by entering the country illegally say, "But they are only breaking laws that aren't fair and shouldn't exist in the first place."

Wouldn't that be great if everyone got to pick and choose which laws they thought were fair and only obey those?

____________________

tjampel:

Field Marshal:.

"Anchor baby" is a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to describe a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. It is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who as a U.S. citizen through the legal principle of jus soli, may facilitate immigration for relatives through family reunification."

But then Wikipedia referred to the article that I cited. Why does it make any sense to define anchor baby based on status. If anyone comes here, rich or poor, documented or not, solely for the purpose of dropping a baby, in order to secure the rights and privileges of a US citizen what's the difference.

Both could be made a crime. It seems that both should be treated as one in the same. If you want to deal with the problem in a fair way and in a bipartisan one you should agree with me on this. If you want to win an election much better to claim this is a problem with illegals. Fact is that it's not; in fact the "anchor-baby-tourism" industry caters to those with 20k or so.

____________________

RussTC3:

Party ID Breakdown

Ipsos/Reuters asks respondents their lean. These respondents would be considered Independents in other polls.

So here are the Party ID breakdowns (RV and LV) grouping the Lean respondents into the Independent category:

Registered Voters
Democrats 37
Republicans 31
Independents 26
Dem +6

Likely Voters
Democrats 34
Republicans 35
Independents 27
Rep +1

The likely voter screen is very favorable to Republicans.

____________________

MikeyA:

I'm still not convinced this is good for Reid.

I've said it before because of the enthusiasm gap and the hatred for incumbants any incumbant, especially Dem, needs to have a 5% buffer on their opponent before I'd consider them safe.

I see this as good news for Angle because with all of Reid's $$ he hasn't pulled far away from her and her base is still more enthused.

____________________



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