Guliani or McCain would continue to push the immigration ticket AND give “bipartisan” protection for the Democrats. At least with Hillary/Obama the Dems would have to take full responsibility for their actions on immigration.

And of course with G or M it would be buckle up for four more years of the “global war on terror!.”

However, there is more hope than you think. In the end, I don’t believe Obama would win a general, even against Romney. You only need to scratch the surface a bit more to see a lot of flaws with Obama. Obama has not been exposed to real scrutiny, yet.

So, all you really have learned from this is the fact that Hillary would probably beat Romney in a general. But we knew that.

I would still rather have Romney run and at least have a chance that the election takes a unexpected turn then have Guliani or McCain run again Hillary, which gives me no real choice whatsoever.

The 30-33% for deportation of illegals is consistent with what I have seen before. I consider this to be an incredibly high number considering how literally everyone in the public debate refuses to discuss deportation and virtually every restrictionist prefaces his statements by saying, “Not that I want to deport everyone, but…” The numbers for reducing legal immigration are also similar to things I have seen before. It really is illegality that bothers a lot of people more than the effects of immigration. Very few want to be considered “anti-immigrant,” so they are willing to crack down on those here illegally but many don’t want to bother with reducing legal entries, especially if they think that making legal entry more difficult will encourage more illegality.

This is not to rule out voter irrationality, but I think in this case these results don’t necessarily contradict one another. Of course, arguably those who favour “comprehensive reform” are engaged in an entirely different kind of irrationality.

Since today seems to be Poll Analysis Day, Dan, I’m curious to hear your take on the new NYT poll that’s out (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070525poll.pdf), especially as regards immigration. I find the results rather baffling. Of course the NYT picked up on the questions that showed support for more immigration, but someone with an opposite bias could have found answers that support the idea that the American people are mostly intolerant nativists. For example, #42 (90% wanted “fundamental changes” or “completely rebuild[ing]” our immigration policy), #51 (61% thought illegal immigration was a “very serious” problem), and #56 (70% think illegal immigrants weaken the economy), are heartening. On the flip side, #46 (only 35% think immigrants are making society worse), #50 (only 35% want to decrease legal immigration), and #61 (only 33% want to deport illegal immigrants), are seriously at odds with what I’ve read before about the attitudes of the American people. I wonder if people are trying not to express their politically incorrect attitudes on some questions, as they often do in polls. One of the most revealing results in support of that hypothesis might be the disparity between #44 and #45. Only 28% were willing to admit to the “nativist” belief that “most recent immigrants… cause problems”, but 53% imputed that belief to “most other people”. That would suggest that wanting to appear politically correct might have skewed other results in the poll. Can you explain the inconsistencies, or is there just more “voter irrationality” here?