The latest tally on the public option in the Senate: 50 likely supporters and 40 likely opponents, with 10 members — all in the Democratic caucus, and all necessary “yes” votes to overcome a filibuster — on the fence.

This shouldn’t be surprising. In his two successful bids for governor, Pawlenty has received 46 percent and 47 percent of the vote. The reason? Minnesota’s Independence Party, which elected Gov. Jesse Ventura in 1998 but usually acts as a spoiler, typically for the Democrats. And since edging toward a presidential bid, Pawlenty has made hard rhetorical shifts to the right — such as suggesting that health care reform might be unconstitutional — that have been ripped apart in state newspapers. In this, Pawlenty is similar to Mitt Romney — a success in his own state who would not be able to carry it after tacking hard right to become the GOP nominee.

Clearly, there was momentum for the GOP this summer that has slowed or reversed in autumn. The party used that momentum to get top candidates into key Senate and House races, which will reap benefits if voters are angry at the Democrats a year from now. But the 1993-1994 scenario is not, so far, repeating itself. We’ll have a lot more clarity about this in two weeks, after votes are counted in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey and in special congressional elections in California and New York.

Here’s how Research Director Steven Camarota puts it in his latest “Backgrounder“:

A new survey by Zogby International finds that people in Mexico think that granting legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would encourage more illegal immigration to the United States. As the top immigrant-sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants, views on immigration in Mexico can provide insight into the likely impact of an amnesty, as well as other questions related to immigration.

But to gain some useful insight, it’s important to look at the actual question that Zogby asked the 1,004 Mexicans polled, which was: “If the U.S. gave permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants (migrantes indocumentados), do you think it would make your friends and family members more likely or less likely to go to the U.S. as indocumentados, or would it make no difference?” 56 percent of Mexicans polled said they thought it would make people they knew more likely to go.

In fact, “permanent legal status” for new illegal immigrants is not what anyone in Congress is contemplating, but that’s what this latest CIS “Backgrounder” implies. Advocates for comprehensive immigration reform have been pressing for a law that would grant legal status only to certain immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for at least several years. New immigrants would not qualify for legal status, but would have to apply through the channels provided for in any new law, which would likely be based in large part on the needs of the labor market.

“The general thing that the restrictionists do and will continue to do is try to make the case that as soon as you do this, the floodgates are going to open and life as you know it won’t ever be the same,” said Wendy Sefsaf, communications manager for the Immigration Policy Center. “That’s the argument they make every single time.” But even President Reagan’s “amnesty” program back in the 1980s required immigrants to have been in the United States for several years before they’d qualify, she noted. And the State Department would make that clear in Mexico and elsewhere when any new immigration law is passed in the United States.

It’s worth noting, too, the second question asked by the Zogby poll, and Mexicans’ answers. “If at this moment, you had the means and opportunity to go to live in the U.S., would you go?”  59.6 percent of Mexicans said “no.” Only about a third of those polled said “yes.” So it turns out that even if they were given the opportunity — which they won’t be — all those people in Mexico wouldn’t stampede across the U.S. border after all.

Back in March, when he unveiled his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Obama said the goal was to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” He elaborated by saying that achieving that end, in Afghanistan, required a counterinsurgency approach. His senior aides, who devised the strategy, were explicit about it. But in recent months, and particularly since June, when Gen. Stanley McChrystal described his view of the war to Congress, the administration has emphasized the counterinsurgency aspects of the war, like bolstering Afghan governmental and economic capacity, while conceding — honestly — that al-Qaeda itself maintains a minimal direct presence in Afghanistan. That can seem a lot like mission creep. And that, in turn, can cause the public to wonder why an eight-year war of marginal relevance to the core concern — destroying al-Qaeda — in which the U.S. keeps losing ground ought to get more troops devoted to it.

One other thing from The Post. Notice this quote:

“I want to hear from the president, and not just on combat troops,” Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) said in an interview. “Combat troops is like the public option” in health care, he said, quoting a conversation with Levin this month when they traveled together to Afghanistan. “Everybody can understand combat troops.”

Kaufman is Vice President Biden’s handpicked successor to that Delaware senate seat and Biden’s trusted longtime aide. That quote is sure to carry weight in the White House and be interpreted as Biden giving a public nudge to his boss.

The numbers are ticking up due to the inclusion of a number of new, positive polls. CNN has the president’s approval rating at 58 percent, up from 53 percent. Rasmussen Reports has Obama at 52 percent, his highest rating since mid-July. (When RR showed Obama slipping to 45 percent, it got a Drudge Report banner headline.) On Friday, the Research 2000/Daily Kos poll showed Obama’s numbers rising from 53 to 56 percent.

So has the end of the August town hall revolt and the impact of Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress been pumping up his poll numbers? I quote from a new email from Gary Bauer to his American Values mailing list.

The latest Rasmussen poll finds that President Obama’s approval rating has improved considerably since his address to Congress last week. It’s normal for a president to get a “bounce” in the polls after a major speech. How long it lasts remains to be seen, but any improvement in the polls for President Obama will strengthen the resolve of congressional liberals to ram healthcare “reform” through Congress as soon as possible. And we are resolved to defend our values at every opportunity.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

“After 145 interviews 66 say Wilson calling Obama liar makes them more likely to vote for him,” wrote Jensen. “59 say less likely, 20 say no diff.”

Then: “167 interviews- was Obama lying about covering illegal immigrants? 88 yes, 60 no, 19 unsure.”

The conclusion: “[B]ased on what we’re seeing so far sounds like Wilson’s constituents are with him on this one. The dial moved more toward people saying the incident made them less likely to vote for Wilson but still pretty evenly divided … Voters there do think Wilson’s action was inappropriate, but agree with the sentiment.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Take this latest one Sam Stein reports on for The Huffington Post, showing that 77 percent of Americans think it’s important to have a “choice” between government-run health insurance and private coverage.  That poll comes from Survey USA. Meanwhile, Rasmussen Reports  found just 34 percent of Americans support a health care reform plan without a public option. Okay — so far, so good.

So how is it that Rasmussen’s last poll on health care reform found that only 42 percent of voters supported the Democrats’ proposed health reform plan, when that plan still clearly included a “public option”? Back then (last week), the whole Democratic proposal for health reform was sinking, leading President Obama and some members of his administration to start backing away from the government-run option and proclaiming their newfound flexibility.

Well, that Rasmussen poll referred to the Obama plan as simply “the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats.” It seems significant that none of the Rasmussen questions included the word “choice” in them. And as pollsters for NBC found earlier this week, without the word “choice,” only 43 percent of the public favored “creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies.”

Meanwhile, another Rasmussen poll earlier this month found that “51% of the nation’s voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies.” I guess that’s when they’re not offered a “choice” between the two.

If this confirms anything, it may be that Americans just don’t like to commit. MoveOn.org, which commissioned the SurveyUSA poll and supports the public option, was wise to that.

Still, as Stein notes, when read an actual description of the president’s health care plan (when it still included the public option), 51 percent of SurveyUSA respondents said they “favored” the approach; 43 percent opposed it. Asked the same question by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, 53 percent of respondents said they favored the president’s plan, and 43 percent opposed it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41 percent would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38 percent would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate.

Overall, the GOP gained two points this week, while the Democrats lost a point in support. Still, it’s important to note that the GOP’s improved position comes primarily from falling Democratic support. Democrats are currently at their lowest level of support in the past year while Republicans are at the high water mark.

The thing is, you don’t hear as many Republicans citing these polls as you did in February, because we have new data: the special election in New York’s 20th Congressional District. No serious political operative thinks that the Republicans are gaining ground and the Democrats are losing it. If that was the case, the Republicans would have picked up that upstate New York seat.