Thread: 4 Year Flashback

Flashback 4 years. This information is a little aged, but still worth considering, especially if you're a Democrat politician:

"Hispanic Voters Unmoved By Pandering on Immigration

November 8, 2002

As the dust settles after this week’s mid-term elections, a consensus has developed that there was no bigger loser than House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri. In what had to be the worst campaign strategy since Walter Mondale proclaimed that he would raise people’s taxes if he was elected president, Gephardt declared that, should he become Speaker of the House, there would be a massive amnesty for many millions of illegal aliens. The not-to-be Speaker of the House, and soon-to-be former Democratic Leader, thought that this strategy would send America’s rapidly increasing Hispanic voters flocking to the polls to cast their votes for Democrats, and perhaps even launch his own 2004 presidential campaign.

Gephardt’s gamble turned out to be a huge disaster for the Democrats. It failed to energize Hispanic voters, and added one more reason for a public deeply concerned about national security (among them many Hispanics) to side with the Republicans. The results of the 2002 elections put to rest three popular notions:

That support for liberal immigration policies and lax enforcement of rules against illegal immigration is the key to winning Hispanic votes.

That Hispanics will punish politicians who take a firm stand on immigration limits.
That the rest of the electorate doesn’t care about this issue.

An analysis of the 2002 vote clearly shows that Hispanic voters base their voting decisions on the same factors as other people. Issues like economic security, jobs and quality education for their kids are critical to determining who can capture Hispanic votes. For the vast majority of Hispanic voters, a candidate’s support for high levels of immigration and lax enforcement of laws against illegal immigration are, at best, a neutral factor.

Among the rest of the electorate, the same basic bread-and-butter issues are foremost on voters’ minds and, in a close contest, support for lower levels of immigration and firm enforcement of laws against illegal immigration can help a candidate win office. In the post-September 11th world, support for immigration enforcement is seen as critical to homeland security, which, for obvious reasons, is cited by more than half the voters as a top priority.

Though Hispanics remain overwhelmingly Democratic for economic reasons - they typically find themselves at the lower end of the economic spectrum - in races where their vote was significant, the evidence strongly suggests that a candidate’s stance on immigration did not effect the Hispanic voter one way or the other.

In California, the Hispanic vote was critical to Gov. Gray Davis’ re-election, even though Davis had, only five weeks before the election, vetoed legislation that would have allowed illegal aliens to obtain California driver’s licenses. In spite of the bluster from organized Hispanic ethnic groups and Hispanic politicians in the legislature that Davis would be “punished” for the veto, it did not hurt him appreciably among Hispanic voters.

In Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush has taken strong measures to crackdown on illegal immigration after it was shown that lax policies on driver’s license issuance were taken advantage of by several of the Sept. 11th terrorists, Bush did extremely well (by Republican standards) among Hispanic voters. In addition to tightening up on issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Florida also entered into a first-of-its-kind law enforcement cooperation agreement with federal immigration authorities. In addition to support among Cuban Americans — which Republicans generally enjoy — Bush received the support of 51 percent of “other” Hispanic voters in the state, which is highly unusual for a Republican. Bush’s earlier support for lax immigration policies, it should be noted, is cited as one of the key reasons for his defeat when he ran for governor the first time in 1994.

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry garnered about one-third of the Hispanic vote in that state, in spite of his opposition to granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Perry’s numbers were down slightly from those of George W. Bush in 1998 (Bush won 39 percent), but Perry was facing a Hispanic challenger.

Conversely, a strong stand on limiting immigration and controlling illegal immigration turned out to be a positive among security-conscious voters all across the country. In races where candidates took a strong stand on this issue, especially if they drew the connection to national security, they were helped significantly.

In Colorado, Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, perhaps the most vocal and high profile critic of current immigration policies, was swept back into office, even though he received blistering attacks from ethnic interest groups, his political opponents and the media for his stance on immigration. The Rocky Mountain News noted that there was no backlash against Tancredo for his opposition to mass legal and illegal immigration. Even Tancredo’s opponent, Democrat Lance Wright conceded that in spite of warnings that Tancredo’s “approach maybe was too aggressive, more polarizing than it needed to be, [voters] weren’t too concerned about it.” In fact, it has turned the third term congressman from suburban Denver into a national figure.

In Georgia, where immigration has emerged as a hot issue in recent years, the positions taken by the Republican challengers for governor and the senate helped them upset the incumbents. Defeated Gov. Roy Barnes was instrumental in killing post-September 11th legislation that would have tightened up on the issuance of Georgia driver’s license to illegal aliens. This position was highly unpopular among Georgia voters and may have derailed what some thought would be a national political career. Similarly, Saxby Chambliss, who was a strong supporter of immigration limits and tough policies against illegal immigration while he was in the House of Representatives, used the national security issue to overtake incumbent Max Cleland in the senate race.

In Tennessee, the state legislator who fought (unsuccessfully) to repeal that state’s lax driver’s license law was elected to Congress last Tuesday. Republican Marsha Blackburn ran hard-hitting campaign ads making the connection between illegal immigration and the rising costs for social programs in Tennessee. She won with 71 percent of the vote.

In North Carolina, where driver’s licenses also became an issue, the state house member who was most identifiable in opposition to granting licenses to illegal aliens rode that issue into the state senate. And Elizabeth Dole, who voiced strong support for measures barring illegal aliens from receiving most social benefits when she ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000, was not harmed by that position. In fact, her opponent for the U.S. Senate, Erskine Bowles, never raised the issue in his campaign — a clear sign that his research indicated that doing so would work to Mrs. Dole’s benefit.

Conclusions

The evidence from the 2002 elections shows that support for mass immigration and rewarding illegal immigration is not a position that energizes and rallies Hispanic voters to either political party. Hispanic voters are far more concerned about other issues that affect their daily lives.

Conversely, support for excessive and poorly-controlled immigration and rewarding illegal immigration is a position that engenders strong opposition from other segments of the electorate, who see it as a threat to their physical security, a drain on their tax resources, and a detriment to their way of life. In political races where many voters have a difficult time choosing between the candidates on other issues a candidate’s position on immigration may be the determining factor. Support for less immigration and tighter enforcement of immigration laws can tip the balance in the candidate’s favor, while those perceived to be weak on immigration generally lose the swing voters who decide the outcome of a tight race.

In short, there is no evidence that even one close race was determined by significant shifts of Hispanic voters towards a candidate who favored amnesty or mass immigration."

Perhaps some of the Democrats sitting on the Hill should refresh their memories, because a lot of them have been doing some serious pandering of late. Illegal immigration affects us all, legal immigrants and United States Citizens - no matter if you're black, white, brown, or yellow.