Thread: Anti-immigration strategy fails

Anti-immigration strategy fails
By ANDRES OPPENHEIMER Miami Herald

Here are the three things that I found most interesting about Tuesday's New Hampshire primary in which Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain won upset victories that threw the 2008 presidential race into uncharted territory:
• First, the anti-immigration card didn't work in New Hampshire. Contrary to expectations, McCain won despite virulent attacks by fellow Republican hopeful Mitt Romney and others that he was being too soft on the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

According to exit polls, immigration was not among the three most important issues for Democrats, and was tied for third place among Republicans.

''McCain's victory is good news for those of us who support a comprehensive immigration reform,'' says Democratic Party pollster Sergio Bendixen. ``His campaign couldn't be destroyed by those who claimed he was not being aggressive enough on immigration.''

McCain had been a leading sponsor of a 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have both increased border security and provided an earned path to legalization to millions of undocumented foreign workers. Romney, Mike Huckabee and other Republican contenders said that the proposal amounted to an ''amnesty,'' and are calling -- some more explicitly than others -- for the massive deportation or induced departure of all undocumented immigrants.

Granted, McCain benefited from New Hampshire's electoral rules, which allow independents to vote in either party's primary. Still, independents -- whose votes will be critical in the presidential race -- were not lured by anti-immigration fear mongers.

''The anti-immigrant dog barks, but it doesn't bite,'' says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington D.C. group that supports middle-of-the-road immigration reforms. ``Romney has invested millions of dollars to become the hero of the anti-immigrant forces, but that hasn't translated into votes in Iowa nor in New Hampshire.''

Pollsters predict that immigration will remain an important campaign issue, especially in congressional elections. But there are growing doubts on whether it will be a defining issue in the presidential race.

''What New Hampshire proved is that good candidates who run on other issues and do not demagogue on immigration can win,'' says pollster John Zogby, of Zogby International.

• Second, the New Hampshire results will increase the overall importance of the Hispanic vote in the 2008 elections, especially among Democrats.

Without a clear winner in Iowa and New Hampshire -- which have very small Hispanic populations -- Hispanics will play a larger role as the race moves to Nevada, Florida and other states where Hispanics account for more than 10 percent of the voters.

And if the race is still wide open by Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, Hispanics may become the key factor in deciding its outcome. Among participating states will be California, with nearly 20 percent Hispanic voters; New Mexico, with 36 percent Hispanic voters, and Arizona, with 12 percent Hispanic voters.

• Third, Clinton's win on Tuesday was vital for her campaign, but hardly a memorable performance. Watching Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama making their respective speeches at the end of the night, it looked like Obama had won and Clinton had been the runner-up.

While Obama improvised a Martin Luther King-like speech that energized his supporters by building on the theme that ''something is happening in America,'' Clinton read a carefully drafted speech in which she said she was starting a new phase of the campaign in which she would speak from the heart.

Obama will remain a formidable opponent in weeks to come, as sympathizers of third-placed anti-free-trade candidate John Edwards may move to the Clinton or Obama camps.

My conclusion: The New Hampshire primary represented a victory for candidates with across-the-board political appeal, such as McCain, Clinton and in a way Obama, and a crushing defeat for real or campaign-season demagogues, including Romney and Edwards.

Hopefully, as the race moves on from nearly all-white states to the more diverse South and West, candidates who embraced the anti-Hispanic immigration cause will realize that it may cause them more harm than good.

So far, the anti-immigration constituency has made a lot of noise but has not delivered the vote.


I disagree with this drival... They figure if they keep saying it enough times, we'll give up and it will become true.

Pollsters predict that immigration will remain an important campaign issue, especially in congressional elections. But there are growing doubts on whether it will be a defining issue in the presidential race.

MORE BS. IT WILL BE THE MOST DEFINING ISSUE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

WE ARE NOW HAVING THE MSM BRAINWASH MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT. HA!

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONLY APPROXIMATELY 1% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO VOTE. WE HAVE ONLY JUST BEGUN! WE WILL ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT WILL ENFORCE OUR LAWS!

Of course THIS is what the mainstream media and open borders lobby would like the voters to believe, therefore this is what they print and talk about. Unfortunately for them, New Hampshire's primary results are not going to be the indicator for the rest of the country.

Notice the mainstream media has backed off Huckabee somewhat in the past few days. He was BIG news when he won in Iowa. Also note that Wyoming caucus results have barely garnered a mention. I'm sure we can guess why. One percent of the voters in this country have cast their initial votes. A lot can happen with the other 99 percent having yet to do so!

``His campaign couldn't be destroyed by those who claimed he was not being aggressive enough on immigration.''

Give me a break! NH is far from representative of a majority of the country on immigration issues. The 'campaign' is far from over - just wait until McCain gets to the southern states.

He only won one state, and a liberal one at that. Good grief.

...Consider the source.

It's WAY too early to assume ANYTHING about the patterns of voting.

With only, what 3 states done, and having 2+ winning candidates on each side (Rep, Dem) someone is making bold assertions that any pattern exists?
Uh, I don't think so.

Hey, the Iowa caucuses are over, let's just call the election and be done with it .....

Oppenheimer is an open borders freak from Argentina. I think we should deport his ass back there.

Originally Posted by ICEChargerRT

''The anti-immigrant dog barks, but it doesn't bite,'' says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington D.C. group that supports middle-of-the-road immigration reforms. ``Romney has invested millions of dollars to become the hero of the anti-immigrant forces, but that hasn't translated into votes in Iowa nor in New Hampshire.''

Slimeball Sharry is wrong as ususal. Romney got 30% of the evangelicals in Iowa to vote for him instead of Huckaby, because of immigration. Romney won Wyoming because of immigration. He didn't win NH because there are what, only 1000 illegals in NH? Just wait until California votes, Romney will win here.