A previous post showed Numbers USA figures on how immigration restrictionist Republicans won reelection at higher rates than House Republicans as a whole. This led to the question of what rate did House Republicans who were not in Tom Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC) win reelection. On the Audacious Epigone blog crush41 has crunched the numbers more carefully than the Numbers USA folks and found while only 5.9% of Republican IRC members lost 16.7% of non-IRC Republicans lost.
Transferring the caucus status of seats thrown up for grabs due to a would-be incumbent not running for re-election to the Republican candidate trying to fill the seat (with the would-be incumbent followed by the candidate who ran to fill his spot), Republican members of the IRC suffered a loss rate of 5.9% as a group (six of 101) . The victims were:
Republican Congressional members not party to the caucus suffered a loss rate of 16.7% as a group (22 of 132).
JD Hayworth's loss has been pointed to by Open Borders supporters as proof that immigration restriction harms election prospects. But all 4 measures aimed against illegal aliens on the Arizona ballot won by overwhelming majorities.
Arizona voters have approved four ballot measures affecting illegal immigration by about a 3-to-1 advantage.
The four Legislature-referred ballot propositions related to illegal immigration are said by supporters to be necessary protections for Arizona’s taxpayers. But opponents have characterized them as bad policy at best and mean-spirited at worst.
More on those landslide votes here.
Renember: Republicans ate it in this election primarily because of Bush's handling of Iraq. Ethical problems also contributed to Republican losses. I also suspect a rising backlash to the effects of outsourcing, rising imports, and other pressures on the lower classes are pushing lower class whites back toward the Democrats. Populists are not driven more by economic than moral issues.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2006 December 07 09:44 PM Immigration Politics|