I think in a normal year, the ethical troubles of Charlie Rangel — coupled with the reports of the Sestak and Romanoff job offers and the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and other lingering scandals — could be a potent political message, on par with Democrats’ 2006 “culture of corruption.”

But this isn’t a normal year, and I figure that while voters will not approve of Rangel and the rest, the impact on most races outside the political figures caught directly in scandals will be minimal. The economy and jobs loom too largely in the public’s mind; they’re worried about how they’re going to pay the rent or mortgage and whether their job will be around next year. They may not like Charlie Rangel ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow, but his misdeeds will seem far away compared to those pressing worries, other than the fact that it’s further evidence that members of Congress are more interested in helping themselves than helping a troubled country.

What’s rather fascinating about 2006 in retrospect was how the Democrats persuaded the country that a dramatic change was necessary, even as U.S. economy performed pretty well:

The U.S. economy turned in a surprisingly strong performance last year, new data show, growing 3.4 percent despite higher interest rates, high oil prices and the sharpest housing downturn in 15 years.

The report from the Commerce Department, showing that economic growth picked up in 2006 from the 3.2 percent growth of 2005, dispelled any lingering doubts about the momentum of the economy going into this year. Many economists predict growth will slow this year, but gone are the recession worries of last summer.

“Nothing, other than an external shock, will derail the economy this year,” said Eugenio J. Alem?n, senior economist at Wells Fargo. “The economy’s in good shape.”

Unemployment and inflation fell last year while wages and salaries rose at their quickest pace in five years, according to a series of recent government reports. 

The unemployment rate in 2006? Between 4.9 percent and 4.5 percent. That sounds like paradise right now.

Yet 50 percent described the economy as “not good” or “poor,” and those folks voted, 77 percent to 21 percent, in favor of Democrats in House races. Another 49 percent described the economy as “good” or “excellent,” and those folks voted 70 percent to 28 percent in favor of Republicans in House races.

After the 2006 election, Pelosi pledged, “we pledge to work for an economy that enables all Americans to participate in the economic success of our country.”

A reader who used to live in McMahon’s district — Staten Island and a portion of Brooklyn — offers this assessment of his campaign’s compiling a list of “Jewish donors” to GOP rival Mike Grimm:

I grew up in the 13th District, and my parents and family still live there.  The NY 13th used to be a heavy Italian and Irish district, with some Jewish neighborhoods. About 15 years ago, immigrants from the Middle East — mostly Syrian, but some Palestinian and Horn of Africa — started to populate the district. Now, in parts of Brooklyn and Staten Island, there are more Middle Eastern markets than salumeria’s or delis.  I go back a few times a year. It is very common to see veils (and the occasional burqa), and traditional Middle Eastern Arab culture (such as open air markets), walking down the streets.  There are mosques in some parts of the district, and believe me, that was completely unheard of 15 years ago.  I don’t think it is a majority of the district or even particularly close, but it is significant, and the Jewish neighborhoods in the 13th District are long gone (Stephen Solarz, our old representative, would not have a chance today). McMahon may be crazy like a fox — he knows his district and his words may have resonance in that district. The traditional population may not care that much, and the new residents likely agree with the expressed views.

According to this list, Staten Island has 18 synagogues and 3 “Islamic centers.” There has been controversy about plans for a new mosque on Staten Island this summer. (This is separate from the “Ground Zero mosque” controversy.)

UPDATE: Another reader offers a counter-argument:

Your reader who suggests the McMahon campaign’s ‘Jewish money’ email was some sort of pander to Muslims is spinning a bizarre theory. The Census bureau does not collect information on religious affiliation, by law. But Staten Island, which provides the bulk of NY-13, was only 1.9% of Arab descent as of 2007.  Also, recent immigrant groups always have lower political engagement and turnout than longstanding residents, partly because some of the immigrants are non-citizens. Pandering to this small Arab community, much of which doesn’t vote, would be a moronic strategy. Note also that McMahon’s list was not disseminated directly to members of the public but to the New York Observer, an outlet highly unlikely to be sympathetic to concerns about a Jewish conspiracy behind the Republican campaign.There’s no need to look for some grand, sinister strategy here. It was simply bad judgment on the part of McMahon’s campaign.

Another reader thinks the demographic shift is overstated:

I also grew up in the 13th district on Staten Island and I only recently moved across the pond to New Jersey.  While Staten Island has certainly become increasingly diverse since I was born there about 30 years ago, I think your reader dramatically overstates his case.  The fact is that Staten Island is still very Italian and Irish, and there are still significant Jewish neighborhoods.  I cannot speak to the Brooklyn part of the district, but your odds of finding a salumeria on Staten Island far exceed any Middle Eastern markets.  Part of McMahon’s strength has been his ability to be independent from the national Democrats and his ability to have a more conservative image than the national party.  I am not sure this gaffe changes that very much, but if anything, it does make him look less competent and more partisan.  Given the conservative underpinnings of the district, anything that portays McMahon in a negative light makes his life more difficult.  That said, I still think McMahon is the favorite in this district that tends to like their incumbents.  Grimm (or his primary opponent) will probably need a pretty big GOP wave to suceed here.

The fact that McMahon’s staff thought the New York Observer — a very inside-baseball, gossipy city weekly — would find the information useful instead of offensive or troublesome is a particularly bizarre wrinkle. The decision to say “Look at all of his Jewish donors!” to the Observer — how many of its writers, editors, and staff are Jewish? —  is so spectacularly bizarre that I can’t begrudge someone looking for some other explanation or logic to the decision . . .

Quinnipiac’s latest poll in Florida’s Senate race . . . looks a lot like the previous ones:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist leads the three-way race for the U.S. Senate seat with 37 percent, followed by 32 percent for Republican Marco Rubio and 17 percent for Jeff Greene, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.  If U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek wins the Democratic primary, Crist’s lead would be 39 percent to 33 percent for Rubio and 13 percent for Meek.

Raise your hand if you foresaw a Democrat getting 13 percent in a three-way race for Senate in Florida.

If Greene is the Democratic nominee, one factor working for Rubio is that billionaire Greene and Charlie Crist will be competing for the same voters, and Greene will probably finance millions upon millions of negative ads hammering Crist. One factor working against Rubio in that scenario is that Greene has enough money to run millions in negative ads hammering anybody, and if the race appeared to be coming down to Rubio and Greene . . . well, Jon Corzine’s career shows you how far a personal fortune spent on negative ads can take you. On the other hand, “real-estate mogul who made beaucoup bucks on the housing collapse and brought Heidi Fleiss to Passover” might seem just too weird, even for Florida.

A fan of Rubio offered some arguments to me, noting that over the past three months, Crist has had an enormous earned media advantage but that has so far failed to change the dynamics in the Senate race. Indeed, Rubio stopped advertising when he “won” the primary and is stockpiling his resources for a big autumn push, so trailing by a few points is not a terrible place to be.

This fan of Rubio points to Quinnipiac’s observation that if the Democrat gets into the mid to high 20’s, Crist’s chances of winning decrease substantially. Crist is also on the wrong side of public opinion on Obamacare . . . at least for today.

Rasmussen puts Toomey up 6 over Sestak.

Perhaps the most eye-opening figure in the poll? Twenty-seven percent see Toomey’s views as “extreme,” while 39 percent see Sestak the same way.

Also:

Support for Sestak has remained in the 36% to 40% range in matchups with Toomey back to February, except for a brief surge after his mid-May victory over incumbent Arlen Specter in the state’s Democratic Senate Primary. During that same time frame, Toomey has received 42% to 47% of the vote.

With figures like that, it appears the Democrat’s chances are Toomed.

Today’s Jolt is heavy on the news that Rep. Mike McMahon (D., N.Y.) is in hot water after a staffer distributed a list of his Republican rival’s donors under the heading “Jewish money.”

This is one of those classic, “are you kidding me?” (or an off-color variant) stories: “Mike Grimm, a G.O.P challenger for Mike McMahon’s Congressional seat, took in over $200,000 in his last filing. But in an effort to show that Grimm lacks support among voters in the district, which covers Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, the McMahon campaign compiled a list of Jewish donors to Grimm and provided it to The Politicker. The file, labeled ‘Grimm Jewish Money Q2,’ for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home. ‘Where is Grimm’s money coming from,’ said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon’s campaign spokeman. ‘There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees.’ As a point of comparison, the campaign also provided in-district and out-of-district fundraising totals from McMahon and Grimm’s G.O.P primary opponent, Michael Allegretti. However, they did not provide an out-of-district campaign filing from Grimm, but only a file of Jewish donors to him.”

Politico offers McMahon’s attempt at damage control: “”These comments were entirely inappropriate and there is no place for this kind of behavior. I was outraged by these unfortunate remarks which were unauthorized and are in no way indicative of my beliefs or of my campaign,’ said Congressman Michael E. McMahon. ‘I am proud to represent an incredibly diverse community and to enjoy an incredibly diverse base of support. Any comments that could serve to divide our community along religious or ethnic lines have no place in our community or my campaign. I sincerely apologize for her comments, and as she has since been terminated from our campaign, there will be no such incidents in the future.’”

Somehow I’m not surprised that McMahon’s defense on all this amounts to “I know nuss-ing! Nuss-ing!”

You know what, Congressman? I don’t believe you. The idea of isolating and separating all of the donors who are Jewish or suspected of being Jewish is so creepy, so chilling, so disturbing in its historical overtones, that I have a hard time believing that this sprung, out of the blue, in two staffers’ minds. Certainly the decision to distribute that list to a media entity in the belief that it would generate negative coverage of Grimm suggests a bizarre and unnerving sensibility of what constitutes a scandal in McMahon’s campaign.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that McMahon’s campaign is not a hotbed of anti-semitism, a benefit of the doubt that he has not yet earned. At best, this suggests his operation is riven with folks who have the worst of an Al Davis “just win, baby” mentality; it’s not that they hate Jews, mind you, but they thought this would make good way to somehow hurt his opponent and appeal to the anti-semitism of others. It’s not that he sought to foster suspicion and hatred of Jews, mind you, merely that he sought to profit from it politically.

Ditch him, New York. The House already has Jim Moran.

I said the last Rasmussen poll showing Sharron Angle trailing by 2 — down from ahead by 3 in early July and ahead by 11 in early June — was “abysmal” news. Today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal poll showing Angle down 1, 43 percent to 42 percent, is actually pretty good news, all things considered.

Before the inevitable “Jim, you’ve lost your mind,” I think a key factor to focus upon is the trends within each individual pollster’s results. Rasmussen suggested a steady slide. This new poll is from Mason-Dixon, one of the longest-running and best-established pollsters. In their last one, Reid led, 44 percent to 37 percent.

So in Mason-Dixon’s sense of the race, Reid still can’t break 44 percent and has slid a bit; Angle has stopped the bleeding and is actually getting back some of those supporters who were wavering. (Angle’s biggest lead in a Mason-Dixon poll was 5 percentage points, back in January.)

I’d like to see some other polls show the same trend before I declare disaster averted. And Angle’s still in a race where she has to demonstrate she’s a better option than Reid, not merely an alternative; I’m wary of Nevada’s “none of the above” being listed on the ballot. But this has got to be the most reassuring trailing-by-1 poll of this cycle.

A finance director for a House GOP congressional candidate reveals the e-mail header that generated the biggest response during his candidate’s campaign so far: “NANCY PELOSI.” That’s it. Nothing more, no rest of sentence, no headline, not even a verb. Just her name. 

I would describe this candidate’s district as non-urban and socially conservative but Democrat-leaning.

Finally, a poll showing a House Democrat incumbent ahead:

Democratic U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler begins the general election season with a 14-point lead over Republican challenger Andy Barr, although 37 percent of those surveyed have yet to form an opinion of Barr, the latest cn|2 Poll shows.The cn|2 Poll of 503 likely voters in the 6th Congressional District showed Chandler receiving support from 46.1 percent, while 32.2 percent said they planned to vote for Barr. Another 20.9 percent were undecided.

Barr has his work cut out for him, but he has an incumbent below 50 percent and Barr’s favorable/unfavorable split is a healthy 41.7/19.2.

Obama’s job approval/disapproval in this district is 46.6/50.3.

Frank Pallone, the Democrat who represents Edison, New Jersey, was not around for President Obama’s sub-shop visit in his district yesterday.

Congress was in session. But how often does the president come to New Jersey’s 6th congressional district?

The GOP candidate who seeks to unseat him, Anna Little, did appear with protesters yesterday.

I think the Republican party of Virginia does some of the best web videos. But can they turn this into a 30-second ad?

I’m sure you recall, “In an election for US House of Representatives in Virginia’s 5th Congressional District today, 07/20/10, Republican State Senator Robert Hurt defeats incumbent Democrat Tom Perriello 58% to 35%, according to this latest exclusive WDBJ-TV poll conducted by SurveyUSA.”

I chuckled when I read this by Moe Lane, because I’ve had similar thoughts:

At the end of July 2006, I remember being . . . fairly optimistic about the Congressional elections. Oh, I knew that there were going to be problems. It was year Six of a Presidential administration, and the Other Side was kind of fired up. And, sure, the economy was slowing down a bit — we were all the way down to 5% growth that quarter! — but at least unemployment was ticking along at less than 5%. It would have been better if it had been at 4%, but we were still dealing with the remains of the 9/11 disruption. And, yes, the problems down in the Gulf were going to have an impact, and there were scandals in Congress. You had to expect losses in an off year. Still, the idea that we were going to lose both Houses? Maybe we’d come close to losing one — but the national election committees were flush with cash, they were on top of the situation, and it was their jobs on the line. Surely we wouldn’t lose either branch of Congress; no way we could lose both.

Does all of this sound familiar?

I’m looking at the latest, “Hey, things won’t be so bad” argument offered by senior Democrats over at Greg Sargent’s blog. Breaking down some of the arguments:

Republicans will need to win 39 seats to take back the House. Democrats will win at least four Republican seats (the best opportunities include: LA-02, HI-01, IL-10, DE-AL, FL-25).

I would have put Joseph Cao, that Republican representing that New Orleans district, on the extremely endangered list, but “Cao led state Rep. Cedric Richmond (D) by a 51%-26% margin, according to a survey conducted May 27-June 2 by LA pollster Verne Kennedy.” That poll doesn’t guarantee Cao survives, but it suggests the race is not the slam dunk the DCCC thinks it is. Obviously, Hawaii’s Charles Djou won’t have an easy campaign, but observers aren’t putting his seat in even the top ten seats most likely to switch. In Illinois’s 10th district, Republican Bob Dold and Democrat Dan Seals are even in fundraising and a poll back in March put Seals up by only 3. It’s a similar story in the open-seat race in Florida, which is an R+5 district, by the way.

Holding Delaware’s lone House seat will indeed be tough for the GOP, but none of these races are the gimmees for the Democrats that this memo pretends.

This cycle, there are only 20 Democratic open seats, including several that are in safe districts. If Republicans have a great election night, they would still only win 50 percent of the Democratic open seats.

Er, no. Right now there are 10 open-seat races on friendly territory for the GOP: NH-2, NY-29, TN-6, TN-8, IN-8, PA-7, AR-1, AR-2, KS-3, LA-3. I’d say if this is any kind of a wave, Republicans can win in MA-10, WA-3, MI-1 and WI-7, and if there’s a really big GOP wave they can win RI-1.

As a result, the real number of seats Republicans will have to pick up to win a majority is at least 43. To win 43 seats, the NRCC would need to put 70 to 80 seats in play. The NRCC have simply not put that many Republicans seats in play and do not have the resources or caliber of candidates to do so.

Really? Where does it say you only win roughly half the seats in play? If this is indeed a nationalized wave election, the competitive races won’t be breaking down 50-50. (Besides that, I found 99 House races that I would classify as potentially competitive. Even if you think my bar is too low, you can take out one quarter of those races and still be in the DCCC’s danger zone.)

Put another way, if 13 House Democrats — many members of the classes of 2006 and 2008, with no major scandal or personality defect — trail their challengers at this moment, then where will most Democratic incumbents in swing districts be after another few months of high unemployment? Michael Barone, in a piece that generously mentions me, wonders how many House Democrats know they currently trail and are keeping the evidence hidden:

Today, a lot more Democratic incumbents seem to be trailing Republican challengers in polls. Jim Geraghty of National Review Online has compiled a list of 13 Democratic incumbents trailing in polls released over the last seven weeks.

They’re from all over the country: one each from Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota; two from Virginia; three from Pennsylvania. Most if not all of these incumbents are personally attractive, hardworking and ethically unsullied.

Some of these poll numbers are mind-boggling. Tom Perriello, a 727-vote winner in Virginia 5 in 2008, has been running two weeks of humorous ads showing what a hard worker he is. A poll shows him trailing Republican state Sen. Robert Hurt 58 percent to 35 percent.

In industrial Ohio 13, which Barack Obama carried 57 to 42, a poll shows incumbent Betty Sutton trailing free-spending Republican Tom Ganley 44 percent to 31 percent.

As Geraghty notes, we haven’t seen polls released by many other Democrats on Republican target lists. Most are conducting polls; many have reason to release favorable results if they’re available. This looks like a case where the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I find myself in agreement with Nate Silver.

Posting will be a little light later today as I head up to New York City to appear on “Hannity” tonight.

UPDATE: I’m told the segment will air Friday evening.

It appears this was the wrong year to be a member or former member of the U.S. House of Representatives running for statewide office in Florida against a guy with gobs and gobs of money.

Florida businessman Rick Scott holds a 43 – 32 percent lead over State Attorney General Bill McCollum for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, according to a Quinnipiac University poll of likely primary voters released today.  Another 23 percent are undecided and 43 percent of those who do name a candidate say they might change their mind.

In the race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, businessman Jeff Greene has jumped to a 33 – 23 percent lead over U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, with former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre at 4 percent.  But 35 percent are undecided and 54 percent of those who name a candidate say they might change their mind.

Just remember, on June 4, Time wrote a piece on Meek entitled, “How Florida’s Forgotten Democrat Could Win the Senate Race.”

He’s going to have to do better than 23 percent in his own primary.

The Arizona law isn’t quite popular in New York state, but it’s not unpopular, either:

New York State voters are divided on Arizona’s new immigration law, as 41 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove of the law, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Approval is 69 – 17 percent among Republicans and 45 – 39 percent among independent voters, while Democrats disapprove 64 – 22 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.  Men lean to approval by a narrow 47 – 44 percent, while women disapprove 43 – 36 percent. By a broader 50 – 37 percent margin, voters do not want New York State to adopt a law like Arizona’s as independent voters shift to 46 – 38 percent against such a move.

Quinnipiac also notes:

Immigration reform should focus on stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants, 58 percent of New York State voters say, while 32 percent say reform should focus on integrating immigrants into society.  Here there is no gender split as women back enforcement 60 – 30 percent, while men want enforcement 57 – 35 percent.

This poll from the Public Policy Institute of California offers some strikingly high “undecided” numbers:

Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (34%), with 23 percent undecided. Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42% to 33%). Preferences follow party lines, with independents split (30% Brown, 28% Whitman, 30% undecided). (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.)

Most likely voters (79%) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina, and 22 percent are undecided. Those who view candidates’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) as Fiorina (18%). Among those who say candidates’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37% to 37%). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina, and 25 percent are undecided.

Both of these races are winnable for the GOP, and I’m trying to think of the last time I saw a three-term Senate incumbent getting 39 percent. (Perhaps Harry Reid on one of his bad days.) But clearly, both Whitman and Fiorina have a lot of work ahead.

From the Arizona discussion in today’s Jolt:

Heaven forbid we actually try a new approach to dealing with illegal immigration, and see if it works. No, we need to litigate this change in policy all the way up to the Supremes before we can take it for a test drive. . . .

This is the sort of decision that Andy McCarthy was born to dismantle. He concludes, “However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.”

That was my take: legally, this is frustrating for those who want a tougher line drawn on illegal immigration. But politically, this probably hurts the amnesty crowd, watching the federal government sue and win restrictions against the state government to prevent them from doing something that the public overwhelmingly wants the federal government to do — well, if he were alive today, Kafka would be telling us he couldn’t get his head around it.

William Jacobson, writing at Legal Insurrection, has a particularly grim assessment: “The decision has to be viewed as a near complete victory for opponents of the law, as it restricts the state from routine and compulsory checks of immigration status as a matter of legislative mandate. The decision would not, as I read it, prevent police from checking immigration status in a particular case, but would prevent a statewide system to do so. The result of the decision will be to have a chilling effect on law enforcement officers who, in the absence of the law, would have checked immigration status based on reasonable suspicion anyway. Enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona, as a result of the decision, will be even more difficult than prior to S.B. 1070.” Later he elaborates, “At a legal level, it is true that nothing has changed. S.B. 1070 never took effect, so no law was lost. At a more realistic level, everything has changed. States have been left helpless to deal with the anarchy created by the failure of the federal government to enforce border security. Whereas yesterday it was unclear how far states (such as Rhode Island) could go, today states are powerless . . . With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.”

I’m still left wondering how the state government can preempt a federal action that is largely not being taken.

A few readers disagree with my glum assessment of Sharron Angle’s circumstances, but fewer than I expected. As I noted, Harry Reid still has lousy job-approval numbers. Pretty terrible ones, in fact, and it appears Obama is going to be an albatross in this state. And sure, Reid is spending a ton on negative ads — except he spent a ton in preceding months with no effect on the polls whatsoever.

Three thoughts on what Angle ought to do . . .

Appeal to Independents: Angle is one of the most conservative lawmakers in the state, and while Nevada is souring on Obama and has plenty of Tea Party activity, it is not a classic red state. It’s a more purple one, and so Angle needs to offer something to the voters who are sour on both Reid and traditional Republicans.

One of the issues I thought might give her trouble was her past enthusiasm for that drug-treatment program with ties to Scientology. But most people don’t give a moment’s thought to how authorities can help imprisoned criminals overcome their additions. You don’t seek out effective prison drug-treatment programs unless you have a deep vein of compassion for the condemned and a desire to help those who have fallen about as far down as they can get. Angle could/should “play against type” and talk, in depth, about what drove her to want to help those whom society has dismissed as hopeless, and provide a serious second chance for those who have made bad decisions with terrible consequences for their lives and loved ones.

I’m picking this as an example. Angle would do well to demonstrate some area where her past stands and votes contradict the right-wing caricature of her that Reid is trying to paint.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: This anecdote made me just lay my head on the desk for a while:

A local actress named Dee Drenta asked Angle what she would do to help people find work. But instead of seizing what seemed like an easy chance to explain her jobs plan, the candidate revealed that she didn’t have one.

“It really comes from the statehouse to incentivize that kind of stuff in our state,” Angle said. “Truly, the lieutenant governor, Brian Krolicki, you should have this conversation with him. That’s his job, to make sure that we get business into this state. My job is to create the climate so that everybody wants to come.”

The woman gave her a puzzled look. “I’m sure you’re probably planning on working with these people to do these things,” Drenta said, hopefully. “Because it’s the end result that matters, whether it’s specifically in the job description or not.”

Unemployment in Nevada is 14.2 percent. Angle is going to get variations of this question over and over again between now and November, so she had better have a kick-butt answer to that question. I don’t care if she prefers a payroll-tax suspension, deferring or eliminating capital-gains taxes on new start-ups, domestic oil and natural-gas drilling, or getting some of these stalled trade deals passed, but she must have something to tout as a jobs-creating idea.

Jujitsu: One problem with Angle is that, according to Rasmussen, Nevadans think she’s extreme. What’s the opposite of extreme? Mush, evasiveness, slipperiness, opacity. One big reason Reid is in trouble is that the agenda he’s working to enact in Washington is the opposite of what Nevadans want. I suspect Nevadans don’t think Angle will ever lie to them, nor will they ever doubt where she stands on anything. She may have some opportunity for a variation of the Kerry vs. Bush dynamic, contrasting a flip-flopper or lawmaker who misleads his constituents on his true views and agenda with a lawmaker who is always clear and never equivocates, and whose values are indisputable.

How potent is the issue of illegal immigration? This potent:

In the first six months of 2010, every state in regular session considered laws related to immigrants or immigration. . . . As of June 30, 2010, 44 state legislatures passed 191 laws and adopted 128 resolutions. Five bills were vetoed, for a total of 314 enacted laws and resolutions.

Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas are not in regular session in 2010.

Nancy Pelosi’s latest fundraising e-mail could probably double as one for the NRCC:

Speaker Pelosi just sent this message to DCCC supporters:

Friend –Thank you for helping Democrats surpass our grassroots goal for the crucial 100 Days Deadline. Your generous support has enabled us to begin the final 100 days of this election from a position of strength. I cannot thank you enough.However, just as soon as word came of the contribution that put us over the top, we received news of a disturbing surge in Republican fundraising. House Republicans are now claiming to have had their strongest fundraising in five years.

Then again, this is Nancy Pelosi. She doesn’t like any kind of surge.

Harry Reid now leads in the Rasmussen poll, 45 percent to 43 percent.

The firm now classifies the seat as “Leans Democrat.”

I’ve talked to Nevada Republicans who aren’t giving up. Some of them say that Angle is getting a bit better at message discipline, focusing on emphasizing her message instead of getting drawn into what Reid and his allies want to talk about. She’s bringing in new staffers, and she still has an easier task, of simply convincing Nevadans she’s better than an incumbent whom they have decided they don’t like.

But this is an appalling poll result when Rasmussen finds 49 percent of Nevadans “strongly disapprove” of Obama’s job performance, and 48 percent “strongly disapprove” of Reid’s job performance, and 55 percent describe their financial situation as “getting worse.”

What’s hurting the Republican? For starters, an astounding 58 percent find Angle’s positions “extreme.”

If only someone had foreseen Angle’s challenges in the general election.

As I should have expected, a lot of readers are responding to the Inception discussion in today’s Jolt.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT (Skip to the next item if you don’t want surprise twists revealed!)

The main argument to my theory that what we see as reality is actually reality is the main character’s children. We see the two young children from behind in a flashback that occurs some time ago (long enough for them to miss their father a great deal, not long enough for them to forget him); at the end, he sees them in the same pose and, some readers argue, the same clothes. Thus, he’s in a dream, where he is reunited with his children and in fact hasn’t missed a moment of their lives.

Yet according to IMDB, different actors were cast to represent the children in the two scenes, suggesting that about two years have passed:

Claire Geare . . . Phillipa (3 years)

Magnus Nolan . . . James (20 months)

Taylor Geare . . . Phillipa (5 years)

Johnathan Geare . . . James (3 years)

I concur that the children look similar, and there is a dreamlike quality to the way that they’re playing in the backyard in the precise spot he last saw them. But by casting different children (including a bit of nepotism!), it seems clear that writer/director Nolan intended to show that time has passed since that flashback.

Fans of Ohio Democratic Senate candidate Lee Fisher won’t like this ad from the GOP’s Rob Portman, but when you say, “Ohioans should hold [me] to [my] promise to take an aggressive approach to helping businesses locate in the state or expand operations already here,” people tend to do just that.

Over in Politico it is written:

Most people agree that [California Sen. Barbara] Boxer, despite her fundraising prowess and deep network of donors, will require an infusion of DSCC cash. Her rival, Republican Carly Fiorina, is another partial self-funder, but she won’t have the same level of cash to throw around as her ticketmate, gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman. Still, the polls suggest the race is tight, and a long-serving incumbent is at risk. “They don’t want to lose Boxer, and they don’t want to lose California,” Sheinkopf said, noting how expensive it is to win back a lost seat in the Golden State because its media costs are so prohibitive.

Boxer has $11 million on hand, and has an 11-to-1 cash-on-hand advantage over Fiorina. (Keep in mind, Fiorina can at least partially self-finance.) By comparison, in Ohio, Democrat Lee Fisher is faces a 9-to-1 disadvantage to Republican Rob Portman, and in Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey has $4.5 million to Joe Sestak’s $2 million on hand. In other words, there are other Democrats who will really, really need DSCC funds this cycle; you have to wonder how they’ll feel about the national committee pumping funds to a candidate sitting on so much cash.

I have gotten to the point where when I see good news for a Democrat candidate in the PPP poll, I figure it’s probably just a shift in the partisan divide in their polling sample.

One of my regular correspondents, Number Cruncher, checks in on their latest numbers in New Hampshire:

They blame Palin for the reason why Kelly Ayotte, has lost, four of her seven point lead over Paul Hodes. However, in reading the poll I think a more obvious answer can be deduced once you read the cross-tabs.

First, I checked the “Who did you vote for last time”, I always find this one interesting, because about 6% of people forgot they voted for Obama. This cross-tab is the one I read for my own amusement.

So next we go to Obama personal approvals: While Obama is slipping nationwide, somehow he has made a remarkable turnaround if you trust PPP’s latest poll. In fact his Approve/Disapprove is at a far more respectable 49-47 (+2); in the prior poll it was 47-48 (-1). Could all those polls across the country be wrong? We have a three point turnaround to the positive — hurray the recession is over! I wonder how that would play into Ayotte losing 4 points over April?

Next stops are Party ID and Political Philosophy, both trending more favorably for Democrats and Liberals since the April poll.

PPP Party ID in July: 35% Democrat, 29% Republican, 36% Other (D+6).

PPP Party ID in April: 32% Democrat, 30% Republican, 38% Independent (D+2).

That alone should pretty much tells you why Ayotte lost 4 points. For the record, the exits in 2008 indicated party ID to be Democrat 29%, Republican 27%, and Independent 45%. (D+2).

Next stop: What is your political Philosophy?

In April: 37% Conservative, 20% Liberal, and 43% Moderate

In July: 30% Conservative, 23% Liberal, and 47% Moderate.

So let me get this straight: Liberals have gained 3% and Conservatives lost 7% since April? For the record, the exits in 2008 showed 26% Liberal, 28%, Conservative, and 46% Moderate. In 2004 the exits indicated 30% Conservative, 21% Liberal, and 49% Moderate. Even if PPP argues that their more recent poll is more in line with past elections, it doesn’t change the fact that the reason Ayotte’s polling numbers decreased is that PPP samples 7% less Conservatives and 3% more Liberals. Simply put, its not Palin who caused Ayotte’s polling numbers to go down, rather it’s that PPP sampled more liberals and Democrats this time around than they did in April.

I guess when you’re a partisan pollster you can take a poll and tell whatever story you want. PPP is a Democrat pollster. That being said: I find it interesting that a Democrat pollster is so interested in discrediting Palin from endorsing candidates. If she is truly so polarizing and thus a drain on Republican candidates, why not just keep your mouth shut?

PPP also has a new poll out in California, showing Democrat Jerry Brown leading Republican Meg Whitman in the governor’s race, 46 percent to 40 percent, and Democrat Barbara Boxer leading Republican Carly Fiorina, 49 percent to 40 percent.

Their sample splits 46 percent Democrat, 34 percent Republican, 19 percent independent. The CNN exit poll of the state in 2008 was 42 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican, 28 percent independent.

An electorate with fewer independents in it would normally be plausible as you change from a presidential election year to a midterm. But more voters are identifying as independents this year, and the economic hard times might mitigate the regular drop-off. It’s not impossible that the California electorate will be more Democratic this year than it was in 2008, but I am skeptical.

UPDATE: A Republican operative well-versed in California politics emails in to contend that there’s a good chance PPP oversampled voters in two groups more likely to favor Democrats in its California poll: Hispanics and African-Americans: “In 2008, Latinos comprised 18 percent of those voting, but 20 percent of those surveyed by PPP were Hispanic. CNN’s exit numbers did show that 10 percent of California voters in 2008 were African-American, but without Barack Obama on the ballot, there’s a good chance that PPP’s 8 percent number could be off, too.”

This individual says that the proportion of Hispanic, and African-American, voters is expected by many California political operatives to be lower than does PPP. I think that interpretation makes sense, but I’m not going to go nuts over a 2 percent shift. I think the party ID is the more troublesome factor in this sample.

I said on Twitter, “Obama’s in a Edison, N.J. sub shop to show how he helps small businesses today. For security, all customer access will be shut down.”

I exaggerate, but only slightly:

Kari DeFalco thinks Wednesday will be an exciting day on Plainfield Avenue when the nation’s commander-in-chief arrives at a nearby sub shop.

But her business, she said, will likely not be a beneficiary of President Barack Obama’s visit.

“I think it’s wonderful (that he’s coming); it’s extremely exciting,” DeFalco said Tuesday inside DeFalco’s Automobile Service Center, which she owns with her husband Bill. “But the problem is what it does to the businesses around here. It really makes it difficult.”

Obama is slated to participate in a roundtable discussion inside Tastee Sub Shop to discuss the national economy and efforts to boost small businesses.

DeFalco voiced a concern shared by other business operators: With their part of Plainfield Avenue closed off, business will likely take a temporarily hit.

“They’re going to prohibit us from being able to do any kind of business in and out with the trucking,” DeFalco said.

As of midday Tuesday, some of Tastee Sub Shop’s neighbors said they hadn’t yet been told by authorities which roads would be closed and when.

Look, I realize the security of the president is a paramount concern; the last thing anybody wants is some nut getting near the commander-in-chief. But the necessary security apparatus and perimeter has now grown so large and controlling that the president is a mobile one-man negative enterprise zone, bringing all economic activity within a certain radius to a halt wherever he goes. I don’t pretend to have a good solution; but it’s particularly ironic that when the president does an event about helping small businesses, he ends up temporarily hindering local small businesses.

Besides, I’ll bet Chris Christie has kept a lot of New Jersey sub shops in business all by himself.