2008 December 02 Tuesday
Republican Immigration Restrictionists Had Fewer Electoral Losses

Audacious Epigone shows that once again House Republicans who are members of the restrictionist Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC) experienced fewer electroal losses than Republicans who were not part of the IRC.

The ten seats given up thus constitute a 9.5% loss rate among Republican IRC members. They are:

Renzi, AZ
Musgrave, CO
Keller, FL
Feeney, FL
Sali, ID
Walberg, MI
Hayes, NC
Kuhl, NY
Drake, VA
Goode, VA

How did their non-restrictionist counterparts fare? Of the 97 non-IRC Republicans, 15 gave up their seats this election cycle. That comes to a loss rate of 15.5%. The losers are:

Everett, AL
Shays, CT
Weller, IL
Gilchrist, MD
Knollenberg, MI
Saxton, NJ
Wilson, NM
Pearce, NM
Porter, NV
Fossella, NY
Walsh, NY
Chabot, OH
Regula, OH
English, PA
Davis, VA

This repeats the pattern of 2006 where 5.9% of restrictionists lost while 16.7% of non-restrictionists lost. As Audacious points out, the result is that the Republican Party is becoming more restrictionist in Congress.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 December 02 10:37 PM  Immigration Politics

HellKaiserRyo said at December 3, 2008 12:25 AM:

Good counter tread... although I am not a conservative, I welcome this.

It is also predicable to say that immigration restiction would be an attactive political proposition in adversity. I think such behavior can be explained with the framework of evolutionary psychology and the way natural selection's preferences for in group bias (as explained in the work of Jonathan Haidt).

Robert Hume said at December 3, 2008 6:23 AM:

Davis (VA) didn't lose, he just didn't run. He would surely have won if he had run. But I don't know any reason why your main point is not correct.

Ned said at December 3, 2008 10:56 AM:

Excellent report and analysis. As usual, the WSJ ran a totally misleading editorial yesterday mentioning the anti-immigration Republicans who lost but totally ignoring the pro-open-borders GOPers who also lost (in proportionally greater numbers).


Although we don't usually think of the WSJ as part of the New York Times-Washington Post-CBS-NPR etc. MSM, when it comes to immigration, the WSJ is just as bad and equally adept at ignoring facts and twisting data.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright