2006 December 04 Monday
Immigration Restrictionists Beat Other Republicans In Election
Numbers USA has crunched the numbers to look at how Republicans in Congress did in the recent election based on their positions on immigration. The immigration restrictionists did better than other Republicans in getting reelected.
- About 7% of the Members of Tom Tancredo’s Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats in the election;
- But among all Republican seats in Congress, the rate of loss was about twice as high a rate—12%.
Where an A means the strongest voting record for immigration restriction the ones with F grades fared the worst.
Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their
Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress
- 9.6% with an A grade lost;
- 25.0% with an F grade lost;
- 9.2% with a B grade lost;
- 6.4% with a C grade lost;
- 9.5% with a D grade lost.
Exit polling failed to show any sign that voters disliked the immigration-reduction positions of the Republicans they were turning out of office. Rather, the polling found they were voting primarily on the basis of scandals and the war.
One has to consider the factors that cause Republican reps to take more or less restrictionist positions may also increase and reduce their chances of getting reelected for other reasons. For example, a district that is majority Democrat that is represented by a Republican probably has a more moderate or left-leaning Republican. So one would need to take these numbers and then look at the districts where candidates lost and see what other characteristics these districts share. For example, Republicans do well in districts that have higher white populations and higher percentages of married couples with children.
Courtesy of Numbers USA you can send a free fax to both your US Senators and Congress Rep in support of immigration restriction and against amnesty and against a temporary workers program.
Leave it to the indefatigable activists at NumbersUSA to cut through the smoke the open borders media has been creating over the Midterm elections. The GOP lost because of ethical lapses and the disastrous Iraq debacle, not immigration. The House's Immigration Reform Caucus, led by Colorado's Tom Tancredo, shrunk by 6.7%, while the GOP actually lost 11.5% of its seats in the House. Pro-sovereignty Republicans were tarnished by the Iraq war (in the hysteria about Hayworth's defeat, his adamant support for the Iraq invasion has mostly been glossed over), but they didn't take it in the chin like the party as a whole did.
As a look at the verbiage on immigration reveals, not a single candidate--Republican or Democrat--advocated amnesty or railed against "xenophobia". Instead, they decried the failure of the Bush Administration to do anything about porous borders and promised to make securing the border a top priority. Consequently, legislators in both the Republican and Democratic parties have become less friendly to the open border agenda than they were prior to the elections, although the leadership for both remains commited to realizing them. Pelosi has already been shot down early with Hoyer's ascension to Majority Leader. Hopefully her failures will continue.
If all the republicans had been in Tancredo's caucus, and the national party had been correspondingly supportive, the democrats would still be on the outside perhaps.
If having several wars going on does not work, maybe they should consider whether they have any meat and potatoes issues like immigration and affirmative action, for the Reagan democrats.
Free trade was a loser electorally, and internationalism in general made republicans look disloyal and unpatriotic, when they were hoping to use patriotism and rallying around war efforts, but that sort of contradictory message doesn't get through.
The media and Republican strategists keep pointing out J.D. Hayworth's loss in Arizona as a telling sign that a restrictionist position is a losing proposition, but they ignore the fact that the four ballot measures concerning illegal immigration in Arizona won by large margins in all counties.