SurveyUSA's released a bunch of new state presidential polls for Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, Minnesota, California, Alabama, Kansas, and Massachusetts. There's some rough news for the GOP in Ohio and Missouri: McCain trails both Obama and Clinton in states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004. No Republican has won the presidency without Ohio. Hillary Clinton is polling stronger in Ohio: she leads McCain by 10, but Obama only leads him by 3. McCain leads Clinton strongly in Kansas, but his lead over Obama is smaller. Massachusetts has a very interesting result. Clinton leads McCain by nine there, but Obama only leads McCain by two points: 48-46. So Obama seems at the moment to be more competitive in some states, but, in states like Ohio and Massachusetts (despite the backing of MA governor Deval Patrick and both MA senators Kerry and Kennedy), he seems to lag behind Clinton. For the moment at least....

UPDATE: A reader wonders if the SurveyUSA poll for Missouri might be weighting Democrats too much, claiming that a 14-point gap in Democrat-Republican identification (41-27) to be unusual for polling in Missouri. And, if you check SurveyUSA's last presidential head-to-head polling for Missouri, on January 14, you see only a 7-point identification gap (38D-31R). Under those conditions, McCain wins against both Clinton and Obama (winning by 10 points over the latter). Of course, a seven-point swing in five weeks could happen, but those numbers could swing back, too. Just a detail to keep in mind....

Huckabee, at least, is still talking about a brokered Republican convention. Guess whom he thinks that convention would nominate....

Clinton and Obama laid out their positions on immigration (video here) in yesterday's debate. Both reiterated their support for "comprehensive immigration reform," and Obama again says that he finds some of the tone in the immigration debate "racist." Debate transcript here. Mickey Kaus parses some of Obama's and Clinton's statements on a border fence: "Is voting for a fence and then denying you were actually voting for a fence the old politics of Washington or the new politics of hope? I get confused."

The Audacity of the Usual: Jim Geraghty transcribes part of a recent speech in which Michelle Obama assures us that her husband will force us to work:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Geraghty (ever the opponent of change) wonders where the president has the Constitutional authority to prohibit "your lives as usual." Though Michelle Obama seems in that speech (more transcription and analysis here) to be attacking the politics of "fear," she herself seems to be trying to make the usual lives of citizens (whatever those "usual lives" are) objects of fear and loathing. She also emphasizes the rhetoric of compulsion in this address. Obama will "require," "demand," and "never allow you" to do certain things or even to feel certain ways.

The UK offers plans to make the citizenship process more rigorous.

Utah considers a new bill to punish the employers of "illegal immigrants," and, in Indiana, another employer-enforcement bill moves forward.

Barack Obama tries to clarify what his wife said about her feelings for the United States:

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America," he said. "Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama said: "Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Some aren't persuaded.

Exit poll confusion: Geraghty's hearing reports that Wisconsin, based on two rounds of exit polling, could be a big Obama win of 60-40. But some exit poll data also show the woman vote to be very close: either Clinton winning by 1 or Obama by 2. For Obama to gain an overall victory of 60-40, he'd have to achieve something maybe like 70%-75% of the men's vote (assuming that women do really make up 57% of Democratic voters today)--a gender gap recent polls have not found. Will this data stand up? There's almost two hours left for voting in Wisconsin, too, so things are certainly in flux....other exit poll data here.

UPDATE: Full exits here. Obama seems to have dominated among many demographic groups. He tied women with Clinton and won men 67-31.

David Bernstein finds some Obama quotes from the 1990s. One is about economics, and the other is about gun control. Obama's had an unclear past on gun rights (at one point, in 1996, his campaign said he favored the banning of handguns, but Obama's campaign now says that he never believed that--he now says that the ban on handguns would not be "politically practicable" at the moment). He now says that he believes in the individual right to bear arms but also says that he believes in the "commonsense regulation" of this right. What does Obama think to be a "commonsense regulation"? He supports the Washington, DC gun ban, and the quote Bernstein's found from 1999 offers some other policies that Obama apparently thinks are "common sense" (e.a.):

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park.

So if a burglar steals a gun from your home (unless, perhaps, the gun is secured in a gun safe) and injures someone with it, Barack Obama thinks that you should be charged with a felony? And the five-mile anti-gun-store school-and-park radius would effectively ban the sale of guns in all urban areas, many, if not all or most, suburban areas (a single school zone would, after all, mean at least seventy-five square miles of anti-gun territory), and, I would guess, a great number of rural areas. Obama's "commonsense regulations" (at least circa 1999) would significantly restrict the ability of the vast majority US citizen to buy guns legally. Indeed, for some, it would effectively be a gun ban.

Enforcement wave continues: New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (D) is proposing a law that would punish employers who employ the "undocumented":

A top state Democrat plans to introduce legislation that would penalize New Jersey businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said his proposal is aimed at companies that provide opportunities for illegal immigrants to "undermine family, educational and health care support systems."

"Companies that knowingly hire illegals are destroying job opportunities for the working men and women of New Jersey," said Sweeney, D-Gloucester. "The practice has to be stopped."

The law would require New Jersey businesses to verify the legal status of their employees. Businesses in violation of the law would face a 10-day suspension of their business license for the first offense and permanent revocation for the second.

Rasmussen shows a tight race in Wisconsin and a strong Clinton lead in Ohio:

Wisconsin (Feb 13, 855 LV)
Obama 47
Clinton 43
Undecided 10

Ohio (Feb 13, 754 LV)
Clinton 51
Obama 37
Undecided 12

Quinnipiac also shows leads for Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Clinton seems to be contesting Wisconsin, which is probably a good strategy for her. I don't know what her internal polls are saying, but public polls seem to suggest that she could prevent another Obama blowout in Wisconsin. She could even be close enough to possibly win there. She'd probably be in better condition heading into the March 4 primaries as a Wisconsin victor. Obama's widely expected to win Hawaii next Tuesday, so a Clinton loss in Wisconsin would give Obama a 10-primary winning streak.

While this Wisconsin poll doesn't have such good news for Hillary Clinton in her nomination fight against Barack Obama, this Ohio poll has much more promising numbers for Clinton, giving her a 17-point overall lead. Though she is tied with Obama among men, she has nearly a 30-point lead among women. She leads Obama in all age categories and only lags six points behind him with independents (42%-48%); she has a 21-point lead among Ohio Democrats.

State laws punishing the employers of "illegal immigrants" seem to be very effective at encouraging "illegal immigrants" to leave the state--whether for their native countries or other, more "undocumented"-friendly states. In Oklahoma and Arizona, two states which have passed employer-enforcement laws, the "undocumented" seem to be leaving in large numbers. For example, in two Oklahoma cities:

In Tulsa, Okla., the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 15,000 to 25,000 illegal immigrants have left the area. One builder estimated that 30 percent of the Hispanic work force left Tulsa.

"There's been a tremendous impact in Oklahoma City," said David Castillo, the executive director of the Greater Oklahoma City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "We've had several companies close shop and leave the state. Banks have called us and say they're closing 30 accounts per week."

Arizona also seems to be experiencing an outflow of the "undocumented."

Where are they going? Maybe Texas:

Texas' reputation as a welcoming destination has experts predicting more immigrants will come to Houston and other cities in the state. Texas has not passed any statewide law targeting the employment of undocumented workers.

"Texas is still very much an entrepreneurial place, where you can find your place in this economy," said James Hollifield, a Southern Methodist University professor and migration expert. "It's not an immigrant's paradise, but if you work hard and keep your head down you can get ahead."

Ortiz, a native of southern Mexican state of Tabasco, said he left Phoenix eight months ago working 60 to 70 hours a week as a nursery worker. While now he can only pick up two to three days a week of yardwork and barely earns enough to send back to his family, he prefers to be in Texas.

"Here, they let you work. Over there, they won't. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn't -- it's better," Ortiz said of Houston.

Another comprehensive try: I don't have too many details on this, but Roll Call's reporting (behind subscription wall) that top House Democrats are planning on putting forward a "scaled-down" attempt at immigration "reform." It seems to be moving along (e.a.):

It says that Hispanic members — including Rep. Joe Baca — are seeking five-year visas for illegal immigrants who pay fines and pass criminal background checks. Baca, a California Democrat chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Baca said the prospects for a compromise package were discussed in high-level meetings that included Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who chairs a key immigration subcommittee, Roll Call said.

The paper added: “It’s unclear if the behind-the-scenes discussions will actually result in a bill coming to the floor, but Democrats say drafts of legislation already have been written and are being vetted behind the scenes.”

(H/T Hot Air)
These rumors also emphasize the importance of Congress in discussions over immigration law and legislative battles in general. The presidential race gets the most centralized media coverage, but Congressional races matter quite a lot, too.

UPDATE: Brian Faughnan suggests that this 5-year legalization may be paired with Heath Shuler (D-NC)'s enforcement-minded SAVE bill. House Republicans, he says, are resistant to any measure that could be read as "amnesty."

The Pew Research Center has released a new report on the effects of immigration upon national demographics. It reports that in 2050, under current immigration rates, 19% of the total US population will be immigrants, well above the "historic peaks for immigrants as a share of U.S. population" (nearly 15% in 1890 and 1910). It also includes some demographic models for the US in 2050 if the immigration rate increases or decreases.

A bill punishing businesses for hiring the "undocumented" (Senate Bill 335) has passed the Indiana state Senate:

Perhaps the night’s most passionate argument came from Sen. Brent Steele, who blasted lobbyists for suggesting that Indiana’s economy would suffer if the state’s estimated 85,000 illegal workers were not available to work in fields, on construction sites and at restaurants.

Steele, R-Bedford, said that sounds as if it’s OK to overlook lawbreakers for the sake of profit.

“What are we saying ... to our kids?” Steele asked. “It would be the same as saying to our kids that it’s OK to sell drugs as long as you make a profit.”

As for complaints that some businesses would not be able to survive without illegal workers, Steele said: “I don’t want those kinds of businesses in my state.”

Senate Bill 335 in its present form would allow the attorney general’s office and local prosecutors to investigate written complaints against businesses accused of hiring illegal immigrants. Employers found to have violated the law face a three-tier punishment system: warning, suspension and revocation of its license to operate.

It passed 37-11 in the Senate. It will next be voted on by the Indiana House. The bill's author says that the bill is about human rights.

A federal judge upholds Arizona's new immigration-enforcement laws. Opponents of the law are appealing. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.

Emily Bazelon wonders about the possible Supreme Court nominees for a potential Obama administration with some of Obama's legal advisers:

One of Obama's close advisers on legal matters, Cass Sunstein, is a proponent of judicial minimalism—the theory that judges should hew closely to the facts in the cases before them rather than issuing forth with bold and sweeping opinions. So I wondered if Obama might favor moderate judges over strongly liberal ones—a translation to the bench of his calls for unity and bipartisanship, in other words. But Minow and Tribe rejected that. And Sunstein himself has written that given the roaring conservative voices currently on the court and its shift to the right, minimalism isn't necessarily the best posture for the next justice. "I clerked for Justice Marshall, and while I don't agree with him on everything by any means, there is an argument that the court would benefit from someone with a vision of equality and liberty," Sunstein said. "That is clearly absent."

On Obama's staff, that absence is also keenly felt. How to fix that? "We'd want a nominee who would do what John Roberts did," one staff member said. "You go through the process and say 'Hey, I'll look at each case as it comes.' You have a moderate temperament. You're affable and everybody likes you. And then you get up there, and after a year and a half, you vote on the opposite side from John Roberts in every single case where that's warranted and it matters."

The judicial version of Barack Obama, perhaps?

Some Rasmussen polling may have a sliver of good news for a worried GOP. Voters surveyed trust the Republican party more than the Democratic party on national security, Iraq policy, immigration, and taxes (just barely):

On other issues, Republicans now have a 9% edge of 49% to 40% on National Security and the War on Terror, (Very Important to 66%); a 3% edge on the War in Iraq, (Very Important to 58%); a 4% edge on Immigration, (Very Important to 50%); and a 2% edge on Taxes. This is the first time since tracking began in the fall of 2006 that the Republicans have had an advantage on four separate issues.

Every issue is considered at least Somewhat Important by a majority of respondents; Abortion, for example, is Somewhat or Very Important to 60%, but is Very Important to only 39%. The issue of Taxes is at least Somewhat Important to 84%. But it's Very Important to only 54%.

The Democrats currently enjoy a much larger advantage on their own strongest issues, Health Care (54% to 32%), which is Very Important to 61%; and Education (51% to 34%), Very Important to 62%. But a month ago the GOP could not claim even a thin margin on a single issue, managing only a tie on National Security. Then, the Democrats led by double digits on six issues. Now, they lead by double digits only on Health Care and Education.

The Democrats have a six-point lead on the Corruption issue—where, as usual, a big slice of voters (30%) are Not Sure which party they can trust more. The Democrats are also favored by eight percentage points on Social Security, (Very Important to 64%); and by eight points on Abortion.

The voters surveyed also trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy.

Some scientists are concerned about the sun's cycle of activity:

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Scientists want to do more research on this phenomenon.