...was 8% of the electorate. McCain got only 30%! That's less than the realistic estimate of Bush's percentage in '04 (44% was always unrealistic, due to an exit poll urban oversample--the middle thirties was much more realistic).
It's remarkable given McCain's record on immigration. There's no one with a more favorable record on immigration from the Hispanic point of view. Or is there? Polls show that Hispanic immigrants who have been here the longest are the least likely to favor the kinds of immigration policies McCain pushes, and most likely those immigrants are the ones with higher turnout, since people who are established in a locale tend to vote in higher percentages.
Plus McCain downplayed the immigration issue ever since it all but killed his candidacy in the summer of 2007.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
11/4/08
11/12/07
Immigration and the Dems
An interesting blog post by Gloria Borger from US News & World Report on immigration and the Democratic candidates.
The immigration issue has divided the Republicans more than the Democrats. If you read the letters to the Nation, however, it divides liberals too, a lot.
Both parties are divided, yet the debate the summer before last crystallized the issue in the following way: Democrats = for illegal immigrants, Republicans = against them.
Could this change? In theory it's a new issue and could change. But in practice the extremes have defined the party's positions, and this won't change. When I asked this question to a Washington journalist this past summer, he didn't even understand the question. Republicans are pro-enforcement, Democrats pro-rights for undocumented workers. Even with the Republican President pushing for reform, the party is identified with something very different.
This favors Republicans in the short term. It angers the big agribusinesses that contribute to the Republicans, but will win votes on a salient issue. The electoral promise of Hispanic votes is in the future; in the present it is overrated.
Here's Borger's comments:
Not only was [Hillary] caught without a clear idea of how to handle the matter; the entire dais of Democrats sharing the debate stage with her seemed to be a tad undone by the question—and pleased that she had been called on first. That way, they could jump on her for taking both sides of an issue (a fair critique, to be sure) but delay their own answers long enough to figure out how to straddle the matter.
Independent voters are unhappy that nothing has been done on the matter, and anyone who wants to be president needs to keep independent voters happy. In fact, a recent survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg shows that the top issue underlying the discontent of independents is "unprotected" borders. For these voters, the matter of illegal immigration is a question of breaking laws and not a stalking horse for something else—like racism. The public is practical and wants tougher enforcement. And if the Democrats can't find some way to embrace the principle of the rule of law, then they've got a problem. "We need to have a strategy beyond saying the Republicans are awful," says one top Democratic strategist. "And we don't."
The immigration issue has divided the Republicans more than the Democrats. If you read the letters to the Nation, however, it divides liberals too, a lot.
Both parties are divided, yet the debate the summer before last crystallized the issue in the following way: Democrats = for illegal immigrants, Republicans = against them.
Could this change? In theory it's a new issue and could change. But in practice the extremes have defined the party's positions, and this won't change. When I asked this question to a Washington journalist this past summer, he didn't even understand the question. Republicans are pro-enforcement, Democrats pro-rights for undocumented workers. Even with the Republican President pushing for reform, the party is identified with something very different.
This favors Republicans in the short term. It angers the big agribusinesses that contribute to the Republicans, but will win votes on a salient issue. The electoral promise of Hispanic votes is in the future; in the present it is overrated.
Here's Borger's comments:
Not only was [Hillary] caught without a clear idea of how to handle the matter; the entire dais of Democrats sharing the debate stage with her seemed to be a tad undone by the question—and pleased that she had been called on first. That way, they could jump on her for taking both sides of an issue (a fair critique, to be sure) but delay their own answers long enough to figure out how to straddle the matter.
Independent voters are unhappy that nothing has been done on the matter, and anyone who wants to be president needs to keep independent voters happy. In fact, a recent survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg shows that the top issue underlying the discontent of independents is "unprotected" borders. For these voters, the matter of illegal immigration is a question of breaking laws and not a stalking horse for something else—like racism. The public is practical and wants tougher enforcement. And if the Democrats can't find some way to embrace the principle of the rule of law, then they've got a problem. "We need to have a strategy beyond saying the Republicans are awful," says one top Democratic strategist. "And we don't."
11/3/07
Republicans jump all over Hillary
Hillary's stumble at the end of the last debate was bad. Here's the Republican reaction:
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Suddenly, Republicans scent blood in the water, as a media storm rages over Democratic pace-setter Hillary Clinton's first stumbles of the 2008 White House race.
The New York senator's previously near-faultless campaign hit a hitch at a debate on Tuesday night, over her halting answers on illegal immigration, and the release of her papers dating from her husband's White House terms.
Republican White House hopefuls Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney joined a feeding frenzy sparked by Democrats John Edwards and Barack Obama, hoping to please anti-Clinton conservatives and hurt a possible 2008 rival.
"I've seen Hillary, you know, do a southern accent in the South and talk like a New Yorker in New York and take two different positions on Iran and six different positions on Iraq," former New York mayor Giuliani told Fox News.
"But I never saw her take two different positions in one minute in front of the same audience."Romney also mocked her. "I watched her dancing around the issue. I thought I'd tuned to 'Dancing with the Stars,'" he said on Radio Iowa.
"She just wanted to have it both ways," said the ex-governor of Massachusetts, himself no stranger to charges of political reversals.
Hillary took two different positions on illegal immigration in one minute, yes. This makes her look silly, yes. But it's going to take more than that to move her poll numbers. People are not going to abandon her over one mistake.
Hillary better watch it though. The way these things build is through a totality impression, a host of things makes a candidate fit a certain image. Bush 41's playing golf with bad economic news being reported the same day, Gore's idiosyncratic debate performances, Kerry going windsurfing after he won the nomination. The blow of the last debate landed on Hillary, but there's another round, and she can absorb it by not goofing. Her last goof was right at the end. A two-hour debate; that's so fatiguing. I'm not blaming it on fatigue, I'm just pointing out how hard it is to run for president. She's the front-runner, so she has to be perfect.
Not goofing up is so hard, but it's required for a front-runner. This is why Richardson will never be the front-runner for more than a weekend.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Suddenly, Republicans scent blood in the water, as a media storm rages over Democratic pace-setter Hillary Clinton's first stumbles of the 2008 White House race.
The New York senator's previously near-faultless campaign hit a hitch at a debate on Tuesday night, over her halting answers on illegal immigration, and the release of her papers dating from her husband's White House terms.
Republican White House hopefuls Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney joined a feeding frenzy sparked by Democrats John Edwards and Barack Obama, hoping to please anti-Clinton conservatives and hurt a possible 2008 rival.
"I've seen Hillary, you know, do a southern accent in the South and talk like a New Yorker in New York and take two different positions on Iran and six different positions on Iraq," former New York mayor Giuliani told Fox News.
"But I never saw her take two different positions in one minute in front of the same audience."Romney also mocked her. "I watched her dancing around the issue. I thought I'd tuned to 'Dancing with the Stars,'" he said on Radio Iowa.
"She just wanted to have it both ways," said the ex-governor of Massachusetts, himself no stranger to charges of political reversals.
Hillary took two different positions on illegal immigration in one minute, yes. This makes her look silly, yes. But it's going to take more than that to move her poll numbers. People are not going to abandon her over one mistake.
Hillary better watch it though. The way these things build is through a totality impression, a host of things makes a candidate fit a certain image. Bush 41's playing golf with bad economic news being reported the same day, Gore's idiosyncratic debate performances, Kerry going windsurfing after he won the nomination. The blow of the last debate landed on Hillary, but there's another round, and she can absorb it by not goofing. Her last goof was right at the end. A two-hour debate; that's so fatiguing. I'm not blaming it on fatigue, I'm just pointing out how hard it is to run for president. She's the front-runner, so she has to be perfect.
Not goofing up is so hard, but it's required for a front-runner. This is why Richardson will never be the front-runner for more than a weekend.
9/5/07
Republican debate's first segment reflections
Huckabee had a good joke about Thompson. McCain's joke gets a laugh as well, as does Giuliani's. McCain then ruined it by telling a "joke" that no one laughed at and that he had to tell the crowd was funny. Huckabee had the advantage of going first, but he also has great delivery about "no-show Thompson." Giuliani's joke is perhaps more memorable--Thompson did a good job of playing my job on TV. That's a more memorable line than the Huckster's, though less well-delivered.
Immigration is the first substantive topic. Romney gives a very smooth answer to a very tough question. Hunter gives a smooth response as well. The Huckster continues the strategy of his whole campaign of a kind of David Cameron conservatism--conservative policies combined with sunny, relentlessly positive rhetoric. Tancredo's impassioned response hurts Giuliani and McCain, but the contrast with Huckabee plays into the hands of the Huckster.
Hunter has an applause-line on scandals and the Democrats. He looks comfortable and presidential. Giuliani has a solid response to a gun-control question. It's right down his alley. Ron Paul gets applause for his first substantive answer, a libertarian proposal to get the government out of airport security. Brownback gets to answer two questions on family values, right down his alley.
Immigration is the first substantive topic. Romney gives a very smooth answer to a very tough question. Hunter gives a smooth response as well. The Huckster continues the strategy of his whole campaign of a kind of David Cameron conservatism--conservative policies combined with sunny, relentlessly positive rhetoric. Tancredo's impassioned response hurts Giuliani and McCain, but the contrast with Huckabee plays into the hands of the Huckster.
Hunter has an applause-line on scandals and the Democrats. He looks comfortable and presidential. Giuliani has a solid response to a gun-control question. It's right down his alley. Ron Paul gets applause for his first substantive answer, a libertarian proposal to get the government out of airport security. Brownback gets to answer two questions on family values, right down his alley.
8/24/07
Illegal immigration a hot topic for Republicans in NH
A deep concern about illegal immigration among Republicans is being reported by the Concord Monitor. Tom Tancredo is of course the Republican candidate most identified with cracking down on illegal immigrants and the employers who hire them, to the point of acting more like the representative of an interest group rather than presidential candidate, as 2008 Central has noted. Here's a quote from the article:
"People have a very deep, deep concern about this, and it's not just politicos like me. It is little gray-haired ladies and moms and dads. This has saturated the population," said Shelly Uscinski, Tancredo's New Hampshire campaign manager. "When you see all the presidential candidates have moved to the Tancredo position, you know that it's an important issue."
What's interesting is that New Hampshire does not have too many illegals.
Asked if she'd ever seen an illegal immigrant in New Hampshire, Uscinski said she doesn't ask people their citizenship status and that reporters should do more to find them. "I travel around with my candidate," she said. "I don't really imagine that too many illegal aliens or aliens would be attending Tancredo events.
The heat on this issue could be surprising in New Hampshire, a state of 1.3 million that has a small immigrant population and a tiny illegal one. According to census estimates, the state gained 13,700 immigrants from 2000 to 2006; one expert projects that the state may have a total illegal immigrant population of 6,000 to 7,000.
This should not be surprising. It's much tougher to take on big employers who profit from using illegals. But in the absence of a powerful economic interest in a state which has yet to be deeply affected by the issue, a candidate can hammer away without a lot of opposition. Getting the other candidates to move towards his position on immigration is perhaps Tancredo's real reason for running for president, and it looks like it is succeeding, as Giuliani and Romney tack to the right.
"People have a very deep, deep concern about this, and it's not just politicos like me. It is little gray-haired ladies and moms and dads. This has saturated the population," said Shelly Uscinski, Tancredo's New Hampshire campaign manager. "When you see all the presidential candidates have moved to the Tancredo position, you know that it's an important issue."
What's interesting is that New Hampshire does not have too many illegals.
Asked if she'd ever seen an illegal immigrant in New Hampshire, Uscinski said she doesn't ask people their citizenship status and that reporters should do more to find them. "I travel around with my candidate," she said. "I don't really imagine that too many illegal aliens or aliens would be attending Tancredo events.
The heat on this issue could be surprising in New Hampshire, a state of 1.3 million that has a small immigrant population and a tiny illegal one. According to census estimates, the state gained 13,700 immigrants from 2000 to 2006; one expert projects that the state may have a total illegal immigrant population of 6,000 to 7,000.
This should not be surprising. It's much tougher to take on big employers who profit from using illegals. But in the absence of a powerful economic interest in a state which has yet to be deeply affected by the issue, a candidate can hammer away without a lot of opposition. Getting the other candidates to move towards his position on immigration is perhaps Tancredo's real reason for running for president, and it looks like it is succeeding, as Giuliani and Romney tack to the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
