Why 2010 Won't Be Like 1994. (It'll Be Bigger.)

I might be setting myself for a healthy serving of crow on November 3rd, but I get a distinct feeling that the GOP may be headed toward to a seat gain in the House of epic proportions -- somewhere over 50 seats and well above the historical high point for recent wave elections (the 50-55 seats we experienced in elections like 1946 and 1994). 

All in all, I don't think a 70 seat gain is out of the question.  

I'll admit that a lot of this is prediction is pure gut. I probably sounded crazy when I said Marco Rubio kinda had a shot against Crist a year ago, and that Scott Brown kinda had a shot against Coakley, but if anything I wished I'd been even bolder in those predictions given the roller-coaster volatility of this political environment.

Not all elections are created equal. In most elections, most incumbents have an impregnable advantage and elections are fought between the 40-yard-lines. 

This is not one of those elections. 

It's true that people are pissed, etc. etc. It's true that Republicans benefit from an enthusiasm gap, etc. etc. But when you see numbers like dissatisfied independents lining up 66 to 13 percent behind the Republican candidate for Congress, and Republicans leading by 20 among very enthusiastic voters, all the momentum -- not most of it -- is in one direction. That last bastion of political stability -- incumbent advantage -- is inoperative in this political environment as incumbency has been become tantamount to a four letter word. Just 49 percent would re-elect their Congressman, compared to 40 percent who would throw the bum out. That's significant. Usually, people want to throw Congress over the ledge while toasting their Congressman

There are a number of structural reasons I think things line up in favor a tsunami-like event: 

The-politics-is-just-getting-crazier thesis. Crist-Rubio. Scott Brown. NY-23. How many situations have we been faced in the last 12 months where the side once given less than 10 percent odds has surged to become the favorite, if not the winner? That's a function of political volatility and voter anger, but it's also a reflection of the fact that the stakes are higher. 

Bailouts, stimulus, health care not baked in yet. Voters have not had a chance to render their judgment on the 50% expansion of government power and influence since September 2008. Both candidates for President in 2008 supported the TARP bailout. The stimulus was slipped in after the election, and Obama never campaigned on a package of that magnitude. 

Voters now strongly disapprove of the three great government expansions of the last two years -- TARP, the stimulus, and the health care bill. The political impact of these events has not yet been reflected in the partisan makeup of Congress in any competitive race except one -- the Massachusetts Senate special election.

The case for a tidal wave can be summed up as follows. There have been great changes in the country since the last election that voters resoundingly reject, and combined with still high unemployment and voter anxiety, the conditions are there for a much greater than usual counter-response. (In 1993-94, Bill Clinton was only able to trim marginally around the edges compared to the last months of Bush and then Obama, and the economy was much stronger than it is today.) 

We can safely double Cook and Rothenberg. Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg are the deans of House race prognostication. Their current model projects a seat gain somewhere in the low-20s. Election Projection largely mirrors this. But a 20-30 seat projection is based on woefully incomplete information: you're pretty much only factoring in the obvious McCain seats with Democrats elected in 2006 or after, or open seats, and largely guessing based on fundraising numbers because there has been next to no polling done in individual House races yet. 

[UPDATE: A reader writes in to note that Cook has been talking up seat gains of between 30-40 seats for a month or more.]

Cook and Rothenberg also tend to be conservative: if a district is Democratic for any reason, they probably won't move it to toss-up or lean R without a string of polls with the Republican in the lead or some sort of phenomenal candidate recruitment disparity. Scott Brown wasn't projected by anyone to be a lean takeover until the very end. 

The traditional political tip sheets don't reflect newly competitive candidates with a living, breathing Republican candidate against long-term Democratic incumbents in conservative seats for the first time in ages -- candidates like Rick Berg in ND-AL, Sean Duffy in WI-7 (disclaimer: client), Morgan Griffith in VA-9, and the primary winner in MO-4 against Ike Skelton. 

There is a tendency to underestimate waves. This wave has been on the horizon for a while, but those who were around in 1994 will remember how it took everyone by surprise, with even a more mild 40-seat gain needed to take control regarded as a remote possibility in October. The media -- particularly this media -- will always underestimate waves, and doubly so with Republican waves. 

This was also true to an extent with the Democrats in 2006. The Democrats' 30-seat gain was the high end of mainstream projections, but things really turned south for Republicans in late September with the Mark Foley scandal. In September, Republicans were seen as an even bet to keep the House on Intrade, and the bar the Democrats needed to clear then was a piddling 15 seats. Right now, Intrade already has Republicans as close to an even bet to take the 40 seats they need to claim the majority. 

Finally, and this is more of an intangible macro-level effect, does the fact that the 2010 wave has been far more well discussed in advance than the 1994 wave make it more or less likely to exceed expectations? New media has certainly made it possible to organize and move information faster than in 1994, but what about the Democrats ability to get inside this cycle? 

We are coming off two successive, ahistorical Democratic wave elections. Democrats have managed to swing something like 52 House seats in the last two elections. They are at an historic high water mark, as President Obama recently acknowledged. 

The fact that Democrats were able to pad their majority in 2008 would not have happened but for the fact that Obama changed the electorate. As I noted right after the election, Republicans in Congress were killed by the fact that young people voted straight ticket -- for Obama and then for Democrats in Congress. 

One could argue that 2008's political environment wasn't any for crappier for Congressional Republicans nationally than 2006 -- and in some ways it was better since we managed to pick off some seats, yet the surge in youth and minority turnout produced a double Democratic wave. 

I don't think I'm making an Earth-shattering statement when I say that the Obama coalition will not be there in 2010. In fact, one could argue that if one simply returned to the dismal, scandal-ridden 2006 environment with that same electorate, we'd be 10 to 20 seats better off than we are now. Now, start factoring in stuff like Republicans tied or leading in the generic ballot, which they hardly ever were even in years the successfully held the House, like 2002 and 2004. And more tellingly, the bumper crop of good candidates that's stepped forward after the drought of 2006 and 2008. 

I've argued thus far that political whiplash may be greater this year. But in truth, it may not be that much worse than the utter Republican collapse from 2004 to 2006. That collapse produced a loss of 30 House seats. But the starting point was a stable equilibrium established over 5 successive election cycles without a double digit gain in seats by either party. The starting point in 2010 is a very unstable one where Democrats have accumulated more than 50 new seats in four years, over 20 of them somewhat artificially because of the Obama coalition. 

The A-factor. Much of this argument so far has been a paint-by-numbers look at the national environment and the reasons why Republican gains may be underestimated. But what will supercharge our gains -- taking a 40 seat gain and stretching it into a 50, 60, even 70 seat gain -- will be continued voter anger and frustration with Washington which manifests itself in record-low Congressional job approval numbers after two successive elections when Americans voted for "change." 

In this kind of election, we will probably be talking about half a dozen to a dozen takeovers on Election Night that weren't on anyone's target list, that didn't see a dime in national advertising, that it was just assumed Democrats would win 60-40. There will be moments like Dan Rostenkowski or Dollar Bill Jefforson losing their seats completely out of the blue. 

Where? I'd look to any seat where the incumbent Democrat has done something to anger voters locally (flip-flopping on HCR seems to be a common theme) where we've got a strong candidate. In Massachusetts, we seem to have attracted good candidates in the wake of Scott Brown, and I could see Niki Tsongas and Barney Frank getting real races (Brown carried both their districts). Other sleeper districts include NY-1 (Rob Bishop), TN-5 (Jim Cooper), and FL-22 (Allen West vs. Ron Klein), where, oh by the way, we lead.

Even if I'm being optimistic, there is a certain logic (that the netroots have employed in a few election cycles now) of more traditional "smart money" going into the most winnable seats, and the online grassroots playing to expand the map. This year the perfect opportunity to put such a plan in action. If it's true that no Democrat is safe, we need to be looking at the seats that aren't even on the Cook and Rothenberg reports, or at best, on the very edges, for potential pickup opportunities to invest in. In the 30 to 45 days of the cycle, there should be a moneybomb every day to one of these targeted districts designed to drag them into contention and create a "terrorism effect" for every Democrat on the ballot. 

This first starts with good information. Earlier tonight on Twitter, I started a conversation about building a target list that would rank ALL 253 Democrat seats by likelihood of a Republican takeover, similar to what exists in Britain right now. Let's start thinking of where we can knock the Dems off balance and extend what are sure to be considerable gains. 

Good resources for House races: Election Projection and Key House Races.


Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)


Example for PA

Here's an example for PA races:

1 and 2--no chance, Philly seats

3-definite target, Dahlkemper voted for Obamacare, went against heavily pro-life constituents, challengers right now aren't that strong, but need to reach out and fund them

4-Altmire has done a reasonably good job of avoiding bad votes (no on cap and trade, Obamacare), so he will be harder to defeat. The district is half blue-collar Dem, half white-collar Republican, so the right challenger could win.

5--safe GOP

6--I think Gerlach will hold on if he won in 06 and 08

7--Probably our best pickup opportunity. Meehan is one of the GOP's best recruits in this cycle, period.

8--Under the radar seat that we definitely need to target. Fitzpatrick lost in 06 through no fault of his own. Bucks Co. didn't really swing hard towards Obama, its probably now the most conservative Philly collar county. We need to elevate its prominence.

9--safe GOP

10--Prime seat to flip. Carney is only there because Sherwood choked his mistress. Marino is another former DA. Seems very likely we pick it up.

11--Even in 08, Kanjorski barely held off Barletta. I can definitely see us winning this. I think there's a lot of baggage that Kanjorski has due to his age.

12--I think Burns wins the special election. This could be the congressional district fastest trending towards the Republican Party in the entire country. Probably the odd seat out in redistricting.

13--Long shot we may want to explore. PVI of D+7, which would be hard to win, but then again, Mass. as a whole is D+12, and we won that. This is one of the hidden seats the article had in mind.

14--Not happening. Pittsburgh seat.

15--Dems have a reasonably strong challenger, but incumbent GOPers aren't losing this year.

16--safe GOP

17--Another seat we need to elevate. Republicans win the seat nationally, but supposed 'moderate' Dem holds the seat. Tie him down with all of the national Dem baggage and find a good challenger. Could flip.

18 and 19--safe GOP

Here's the order I would guess right now, before the challenger candidates are locked in stone, in which the seats will flip (not counting 12): First Tier: shocked if we don't win710 Second tier: very likely could win with right candidate11 (already have a good challenger, which is why its tops)31748 Third tier: good risk to take, large wave could flip13


...and let's list reasons why GOP's 2010 gains won't match 1994

Six months is a long time in politics so let's list a few reasons why Dems might fare better than Ruffini thinks.


1.Obama's job approval seems largely driven by the state of the economy. Those ratings seems to have bottomed out in mid-February and Obama will most likely continue to make slow but important gains if the economy improves.

2.Concerning health care, it's very much a similar story. While HCR opponents would like to think the public is at least as angry today as it was in January after Scott Brown's win, the overall strend since then is a slow but steady gain by the pro-reform side. Particularly if the economy improves, I would expect this issue to fade into the background as most of the costs and benefits will kick in later.


3. Incompetent GOP leadership under Michael Steele & co.. Somehow, the Obama Administration hasn't experienced any signigicant gaffes, leaks or scandals while it seems every week there's some insulting Republic National Committee PowerPoint leak, bondage club visits, sex hotline offending Richard Land. Will these guys really be capable of plotting a coherent strategy to exploit Democratic weakness, the same way Rahm Emmanuel and Howard Dean did for the Dems in '06?

4.The double-edged sword of Tea Party rage. Will we see a lot of Scott Brown success stories six months from now, or more fiascos a la Doug Hoffman as the GOP establishment and Tea Partiers cancel each other out? 

5.The impact of the looming debate on immigration. The list of conservative politicians and pundits who already have expressed worries about the Arizona bill is very long indeed. Will it boost Latino turnout in November?

6.What will the Obama Administration do on the 2010 campaign trail? These guys have accomplished far more than Bill Clinton did, at this point in 1994. Like Reagan did in '82, Obama can frame the election as a choice between the failed policies of the previous Administration while begging for patience.


Like Ruffini, I have no idea what will happen six months from now. But I agree with what Charles Krauthammer said the other day: Republicans shouldn't be overconfident about how  well they'll do in November. It won't simply be Scott Brown times 70.



Good list. Also, the Republicans are currently handing

the Democrats a golden opportunity to paint them as the defenders of Wall Street.

Democrats lie on a regular basis

Dodd, who exempted AIG from regs and put a Wall Street bailout slush fund, and Obama - who got more money from Goldman Sachs than any other candidate - attacks the GOP for defending Wall Street?!? It's only thanks to a completely biased and uncritical media that they could get away with such hypocritical and dishonest garbage.

I do thank the GOP for at least standing up against the Permanent Bailout ... but the blizzard of Crappy Regulation by Democrats, passed under false pretenses (they say they are doing X, but are actually doing Y) looks to be happening again, as it was with every other bill passed by this Worst - Congress - Ever.


Dodd as Example

But here's another example where Ruffini's optimism doesn't pan out: Dodd's retiring. His seat was initially considered a prime GOP pickup - until Linda McMahon turned out to be weak hash and Dems recruited the Attorney General whose poularity is around 70%. Now it's considered pretty much a likely Dem hold. I think generalized polls about voter dissatisfaction - which underscore why Tea Party energy has some force behind it - don't get to the choice that most people will actually have come election day: the incumbent in their district, or some new person, possibly with baggage of their own. There's little doubt that Dems will lose seats, possibly with some significant pain; but it's hard to put together the actual list of actual seats that woul get you anywhere near the 70 Ruffini's talking about; to do that you need much more active recruiting, a far more attractive set of alternative ideas than Republicans have offered up to now, and a commitment to fight everywhere to win. The GOP is playing on the margins, and going for the low hanging fruit. Marco Rubio is proof of nothing, since Republicans could have won the Florida Senate seat with Crist, they just don't like him. In a 3 way race, they may yet wind up with Crist (though I think Rubio could limp to 40% in a 3 way race, making him the world's most instantly vulnerable incumbent on the next go round). Optimism, a sense of passion... conservatives certainly should hold on to that going into this race; but the reality is, the elements are not in place for such an enormous electoral reversal. And it's inviting failure to get too optimistic about what can and can't be accomlished.

At one time, Dodds seat was considered "Most Vulnerable"

When Dodds poll numbers were in the high 30% last year, the dems were scrambling for replacement workers. 

During the special elections, I noticed a strange trend.  The Democrats are starting to put up Election road signs, and leaving the words "Democrat" off their signs......look for it.   Republicans ID themselves, the Democrats are starting to hide their affiliation.

Crist is an example of the Tea Party influence, and the RINO's being Identified for their Obama support, their weakness on Deficit spending, etc....   Any McCain profile politician is going to have it tough, and the ones that want to survive will have to turn  in their RINO badges and listen to the will of the people, like McCain.

I think you're ID'ing a current Trend, but I think Obama has the Power to move even more voters in the Tea Party direction, and we have months to go yet before Rubio runs against two weak opponents.   My dog wouldn't push the Crist vote button at this point, and I  would suspect another Obama desperate bribe/payoff to Crist to have him jump in as an independent to help prop up the Democrat.  Its the Chicago way, and shows "desperation"

Otherwise it just doesn't make sense for Crist, like Liberman's switch, and it certainly doesn't look like it will yield the same results as Liberman's switch.

22 states oppose unconstitutional healthcare mandate

Obamacare is opposed 58% to 39%, opposition grows not shrinks, states are signing on to oppose this, the MAJOR SCANDAL that the Obama admin lied about the numbers which were sitting on the HHS secty's desk which would have made the bill IMPLODE ... Obama lied, healthcare freedom died.

Meanwhile - Obama approval is upside-down, majoirty now KNOWS that the stimulus DID NOT WORK as the 6 MILLIONS PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS LOST UNDER THE DEMOCRATS are not coming back.

The Democrat agenda has been a dangerous and bad one and the 'success' of passing bad bills is to destroy the hopes of the country.

People are PO'd and you are living in a bubble if you dont know that.


HELP! my CAPS ButTon HAS taken OVER MY cOmPuter!

HELP! my CAPS ButTon HAS taken OVER MY cOmPuter!  I think it was manufACTUred by an ILLEGAL oversEAS alienS.  caN someone tell ME HOW to turn it off?  I'M too stupid to realize that facts should be enough AND YOU don't need to intERSPACE with CAPITALS to MAKE A LAME point.


When you see Caps, I'm yelling real loud, so you can hear

When you cannot dispute substance, you start on the syntax and spell check critique.

I do it more to irritate and identify who is an English major and/or an Academic on the other end of the conversation.   It doesn't irritate the normal "Joe the Carpenters", only the elites and the haters who think they can tell others what to think and how to type. 

I think I've spotted another one.

Similar lists were drawn up in 2007 detailing why Hillary

Similar lists were drawn up in 2007 detailing why Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats are banking on two things: getting the Obama-voters to turn out for a mid-term, and campaigning on a record of getting stuff done. Conventional wisdom says neither of these are going to work.

But conventional wisdom also said that Obama did not have a chance in Iowa.

Obama REGRET voters

If you havent run into Obama regret voters - you need to. I have. MANY OF THEM.

They are the reason independents are going 60-30 for Republicans.

They didnt want trillion dollar deficits, nor government takeover of healthcare, nor jobkilling cap-and-trade, nor more Government takeovers.

They were sold a bill of goods about Obama, thought he'd be what he promised in the campaign. They didnt vote for a tax-and-spend socialist race-baiting weak-kneed-to-dictators thin-skinned lying weasel.

But that's what they got.

And BOY are they ticked off about it!

Yeah... try to get the Obama coalition back to the polls. Just try. THEY WONT GET FOOLED AGAIN.


Pro-Life support is not going to change in 6 months

Polls: Elections Could Yield Landslide for Pro-Life Movement Washington, DC -- Two new polls show the November mid-term congressional elections could yield a landslide for the pro-life movement.

As pro-life groups look to replace the aggressively pro-abortion Democratic leadership that gave Americans the health care bill and its taxpayer funding of abortions, polls show change is coming.

Ask Stupak what he thinks about November, 2010.   OH, he retired, nevermind.


The number anti-choice voters has not changed since

2008. Try again.

You try again, and put up some numbers, Pro Life = Majority

Pro-Lifers have the Majority in American, I think its pushing 60% or more.   So, Majority rules, coming your way.

Better Yet, Tell Stupak to get back in the Race, You think he's a WINNER..........


Only 22% of Americans think abortion should be illegal

in all circumstances http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

And even Rasmussen acknoledges that abortion ranks last in the list of people's concerns. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues

If memory serves, in 2008 only 5% of voters said it was the most important issue.

4speed fail.

2008 numbers LOL. How many think Feds should pay for it ?

No Federal $$$s to pay for Abortions....Until the ObamaCare Bill.
2010 the numbers are changing.
But hey, put out some more 2008 surveys....LOL

4speed asks for numbers, gets numbers, can't cope. LOL.


I see your 2008 numbers, and raise you with 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10 2009, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

Don't make me look up 2010 current numbers, you won't like them.

What a tool you are. Your "raise" is the same poll I cited

in my first link. Can't ask for more proof than that with regard to your limited intellectual abilities.

OK, 51% of Americans call themselves "Pro-Life". So what does that mean? Almost nothing - becasue as I have demonstrated, 78% disagree with your Taliban position that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and furthermore it ranks at the bottom of the list of the voting priorities.


Then you don't mind me quoting "your" poll again ?

The Rasmussen survey, released on May 5, asked a different question than the others and found that 58 percent of Americans say abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Just twenty-five percent disagree and the rest had no opinion.

So why are you ONLY quoting the rare under 50 % numbers if its the same poll....AND....you try and discredit and explain away the "51 % Majority" questions ?

Sounds like you're the Spin Tool, I quote your own poll and you then seek to discredit it. LOL.

You are cherry picking and misrepresenting and yet STILL

failing to make your case that there is going to be an anti-choice wave this November.


I don't "cope" with polls, I read them

I just thought the 50 +% numbers you disregarded were more interesting than your 22 % minority opinion Spin.


I totally believe you.

Anti-Choice = support Obama's anti-choice healthcare bill

Obamacare denies healthcare choices in many ways,

including the unconstitutional healthcare mandate that denies the choice of individuals not to have health insurance.

Don't mix in pro-life voters with the anti-choice Obamacare people.



Literary-critical observations

Kiddie selfservatives do not much care to be made sport of, and around here, Dr. Bones, the kiddies fall rather toward the 12 end of the K-12 spectrum than towards the K end, which means that some of 'em may actually understand some of the jokes as well as detect the general tone of cultivated despite.

So on the whole I think it best to scribble over chez nous and only drop a non-golf link here.

I remain, sir, your servant, ever desirous that you may enjoy

   Healthy and affordable days.


States show the way

We need to also look at state-level races - Govs, State Reps, State Senators,


Gov Christie is doing an admirable job, and showing the way it can be done.

Independents and conservatives alike can see the stark contrast between Republican competence and leadership (Christie) and Democrat arrogance (in DC).


Welcome FreeT

The Next Right was experiencing some lefties grabbing the Steering wheel, and tryin to go left.


Thank God for the T Parties!

Thank god you ran them off. They're probably still lurking in the bushes with all those homo sexuals, illegal immigrants, and abortion doctors. Just the other day I thought I saw one hiding in my back yard!  I heard Arizona is going to write a law where if you can't recite the second amendment backwards and the third from right to left, skipping every other word that begins with a letter of the alphabet that is before M,  you must be a leftist and will be rounded up and taken the home land security-obama care-ford funded death camps? Has anyone else heard that?

Bob, It was FDR that "rounded up" Americans (no rumor)

American Citizens were last "rounded up" and taken to internment camps by FDR, a Democrat president.....and I think it was Racist because it was only Japanese Americans..........So SHADDUP and read some history, Dufus.

What a bunch of Emotionally driven Lefty BS coming out on the Arizona enforcement of the Federal Immigration law.  70% of Americans in a UPI National Poll like the Arizona law.  

Consider yourself totally out of touch with mainstream America, Boob.  Desperate measures by  desperate Obamabots.

As always, you miss the point.

The left universally condemns the Japenese interment camps as a disgraceful violation of the rights of American citizens. The bill that became the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, officially apologizing to those who were interred, was introduced by Democratic Speaker of the House Tome Foley

Illegal Immigration is a violation of the Rights of Citizens

The left condems the actions of former Democrats, well thats a start.  

Maybe you can't READ, there is one hell of a Crime wave in Arizona, and the Crime is coming from the South, and it gotten so BAD, Arizona has passed a law to FIX IT.

Graph this Reality:

Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and jails. On April 7, 2007, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one-and-a-half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.


More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-six percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time.

Sixty-one percent of those defendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%, 2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previously been convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses.

Twelve percent had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor.

Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in ten had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions.

Fifty-six percent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under half of those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged with unlawful entry, and just over a quarter of those charged with misuse of visas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminal histories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than 70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times.


Crime in Arizona

The crime rates in Arizona are at their lowest levels in 25 years - that is for property crime as well as violent crime.

Similarly, the crime rates in the other border states - Texas, New Mexico, and California - are at their lowest levels in a decade.

I would hope so, with 55,000 Illegals in Jail

Now you're really spinning.   Is 55,000 Illegals arrested for crimes a good number for you ?

Crime stats are good, lets keep the border open and the Prisons full.  

IIlegal crimes against Illegals are going unreported, dummy.   I wonder if Mexico has 55,000 Americans in jail ?   How about Canada ? 



"But here's another example

"But here's another example where Ruffini's optimism doesn't pan out: Dodd's retiring. His seat was initially considered a prime GOP pickup - until Linda McMahon turned out to be weak hash and Dems recruited the Attorney General whose poularity is around 70%."

Linda McMahon was weak hash all along, but Chris Dodd would still be in the race if not for Rob Simmons.