Immigrant Bashing Will Be The GOP Campaign Issue In 2008

This is obvious. Matt Stoller writes:

I spoke to a New York state party insider who told me that candidate numbers have been dropped ten points in local elections to be held tomorrow because of immigration, across all major voting blocs. The right-wing speaks entirely in coded language about tribalism, and it's beginning to hurt our candidates badly.

I am curious about Stoller's conclusion that it is hurting. In Western New York, I suppose it is hurting. But what about in areas with significant Latino populations? Is it hurting there? Or is it helping Dems? I find Stoller's formulation problematic in the extreme. Indeed, one need only read Stoller's partner, Chris Bowers, to see why:

[L]ooking through exit poll data, it appears that [Kerry and Dukakis] performed almost identically among one of the larger demographic groups in the electorate: white voters. The only real difference between the outcome of the 1988 and 2004 elections does not seem to be that Kerry did any better among particularly demographic groups, but rather that demographic groups more favorable to Democrats formed a larger share of the electorate. In fact, Kerry actually did worse than Dukakis among Latinos. If John Kerry had won Latinos by the same 70%-30% margin that Dukakis did, then he would have at least pulled to within less than a percentage point on Bush, and possibly even won the popular vote.

Stoller seems to be misunderstanding the moment imo. Standing with Latinos on immigration MUST be part of the Emerging Democratic Majority strategy of the Democratic Party. This is precisely why John Edwards' weasel words on the subject are so troubling.

< Rudy's Memory Loss on Crime Reduction | When Washington Was Fun?? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's pretty clear that Spitzer is being hurt (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    But I don't know if we're going to be able to draw large conclusions.

    I can't help but feeling that this is another one of those "wedge issues" where the people are just wrong.

    Spitzer has been hurt (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    but why? Was his cave in the issue?

    Was his original stance? Will it last?

    Will people in NY vote on that issue?

    Which ones?

    I know one group. Latinos.


    I suspect it is as it appears (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    he's been hurt because non-liberals don't much like the idea of giving licenses to illegal immigrants. Will it change some votes in 2010 when he stands for reelection? I don't know. It will probably only help him with latinos, but I don't know whether other groups (white ethnics?) will hold it against him.

    Excuse me, but John Kerry won (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    Election fraud is not something easily defeated when it is so easily accomplished with paperless electronic voting, intimidation, purging, etc.

    The last two presidential elections were stolen.  Period.  We can talk til the cows come home about strategy, yap yap yap, it means sh*t when put up against how easy it is now to manipulate and steal an election.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:53:09 PM EST
    When one gets out of the campaign hype and all the blather, you realize that we have no reason to trust that our votes are being accurately counted.  Or that the machines counting them are secure.  It's a depressing and infuriating state of affairs.

    And here is the group (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    Look at California (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by janinsanfran on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    We're the national future on this. In 1994 Pete Wilson ran on fear of immigrants (literally, with ads that intoned 'they keep on coming...')

    Freaking Arnold aside (and he is an aside), we've become a reliably Blue state since, despite a pathetic, inert Democratic party apparatus.

    Not quite right (none / 0) (#12)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    Prop 187 won easily and Wilson won his last governor's race easily as well. The state voted for Clinton in 1992 before the race baiting began. The demographics of the state bode well for Democratic policies (some say pandering) since Hispanics and African-Americans make up such a large percentage of the vote. Arnold won with a 'centrist' message as well as his noteriety.

    San Diego County, of course, is very much (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:03:42 AM EST
    more conservative than San Francisco City and County.  But in San Diego, according to the local paper, the UT, Latinos are not all of one mind on these issues.  Immigrants who have been here awhile and become established don't necessarily favor leaving the gates open.

    No immigrant left behind (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Sanity Clause on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:09:54 PM EST
    NOTHING will stop politicians from preaching fear and hatred to feed their greed and arrogance. As long as they can chant the slogans, they can drum up the fear and hate that work so well to motivate voters of a certain ilk, background or naivete. Will the voters still respond to such empty rhetoric? Of course they will - and immigrants are only one of the target populations. We'll also see a revival of anti-gay marriage resolutions, anti-abortion campaigns, anti-school integration, and anti-affirmative action speeches.  

    There are issues to be dealt with for which Congress is suitably equipped, yet still remarkably ineffectual. Health care, tax reform, the war in Iraq, the budget deficit, adequate funding for human service programs at home and abroad. What's the Democratic immigration reform agenda - and how do you sell it to the public?

    The immigration "problem" can't be solved with walls, or guns, or drivers licenses, or unenforceable laws. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. The problem is not that the immigrants are "here" and not "there" - the problem is that our respective governments have failed to serve their respective people. If the US had spent the last hundred years spreading worker's rights and fair labor standards throughout the world, or at least throughout the hemisphere, or at least into Mexico, instead of encouraging Corporate America to export jobs to take advantage of exploitative working conditions, maybe we the people of all the Americas would have manufacturing jobs north of the border and a living wage south of the border. We won't need more border patrols if we work to eliminate the social and economic barriers that separate us. But the Republicans don't care if there's a solution - they only want to maintain a forum for veiled racism and implicit threats.

    SC wrote: (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:38:33 AM EST
    The immigration "problem" can't be solved with walls, or guns, or drivers licenses, or unenforceable laws.

    And why not?

    BTW - Everyone's ancestors came from someplace else. The issue is having a country. To do that you must have a border, and a culture. Lose either and you no longer have a country.

    The question then, is what it is replaced with.
    Assimilation of new immigrants works when the new arrivals are in small enough numbers to be accepted by the existing populace, and not so large as to have limited exposure to the existing populace. Large groups are resistive to assimilation and frightening to the local population. Plus, in today's world marketing to the new arrivals in their native language and the ease of communications between them and those left behind slows assimilation.

    If the US had spent the last hundred years spreading worker's rights and fair labor standards throughout the world,

    This has been a complaint of the Left for years and years. Whenever the US opposed a dictator who was huggy huggy with the Soviets he was always defended by the Left. See Castro. See Che. See Uncle Ho.

    And yet when we now are trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, the Left is up in arms and demand we leave and let them have their "civil war." Does the Left think Iraqis don't deserve freedom?


    I agree with you about (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:50:23 AM EST
    regulated borders. The "no borders" slogan is foolish in the extreme-- stupid politics and worse policy.

      You should stop there however, and not delve into "loss of culture" claims. Adding people from other countries to our country does not destroy our culture. It will change our culture to an extent but many people believe the changes would be good ones (and the past history of our country lends strong support to that belief) . The extent of change is also overstated (with sensible immigration regulations) because the change is not unidirectional. Immigrants are and will continue to be "changed" by adapting to the existing culture just as much if not more than they "change" the existing culture.



    Decon (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    My proposition was, and is, that it is the numbers and the short time frame that is the problem. Done to fast and with too many people the results can easily turn into ghettos and the balkanization of the country. That is especially true in today's political landscape, and the easily maintained connection to the friends and family left behind.

    As to change vs destroy... If I destroy a light bulb it certainly has been changed. I deliberately used "destroy" to highlight the problems, and the cause, I stated above.


    Trying to establish a democracy in Iraq? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:53:34 AM EST
    Hahahahaha! Good one! We'll get you booked in to the improv any day now.

    Does the Left think Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Hilarious! Even better!

    Well, it would have been if you had thought it up all by yourself, but you know how it is. No one wants to saddle you with unwarranted expectations.

    The world's finest military launches a highly coordinated shock-and-awe attack that shows enormous initial progress. There's talk of the victorious troops being home for Christmas. But the war unexpectedly drags on. As fighting persists into a third, and then a fourth year, voices are heard calling for negotiations, even "peace without victory." Dismissing such peaceniks and critics as defeatists, a conservative and expansionist regime -- led by a figurehead who often resorts to simplistic slogans and his Machiavellian sidekick who is considered the brains behind the throne -- calls for one last surge to victory. Unbeknownst to the people on the home front, however, this duo has already prepared a seductive and self-exculpatory myth in case the surge fails.

    The United States in 2007? No, Wilhelmine Germany in 1917 and 1918, as its military dictators, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and his loyal second, General Erich Ludendorff, pushed Germany toward defeat and revolution in a relentless pursuit of victory in World War I. Having failed with their surge strategy on the Western Front in 1918, they nevertheless succeeded in deploying a stab-in-the-back myth, or Dolchstoßlegende, that shifted blame for defeat from themselves and Rightist politicians to Social Democrats and others allegedly responsible for losing the war by their failure to support the troops at home.
    In today's Iraq -- again the McCain version -- Gen. David Petraeus is the new Abrams, finally the right general for the job. And his new tactic of protecting the Iraqi people, thereby winning their hearts and minds, is working. Victory beckons at the end of the "long, hard path" (that evidently has replaced the Vietnamese tunnel), unless the American people run out of patience, as they did back in the late 1960s.

    McCain is no Hindenburg. Yet his almost automatic displacement of ultimate responsibility from the Bush administration and the military to the American people indicates the traction the stab-in-the-back myth has already gained in mainstream politics. For the moment, with hope for some kind of victory, however defined, not quite vanquished in official circles, our latest dagger-myth remains sheathed, its murderous power as yet unwielded.

    Always remember ppj: If We Lose Iraq, You're to Blame


    Maybe you can explain, ppj (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:55:30 AM EST
    What blaming the people who opposed the Iraq invasion for the ensuing debacle has to do with this thread anyway?

    Other than as a trolling opportunity?


    If you don't see the (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:49:29 PM EST
    connection to SC's comment I am certainly not going to try and explain it to the troll of trolls himself.

    Are you saying Edgar trolls your comments? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    Even Dadler recognizes that the actions of the Left cost us in Vietnam.

    Now if he can, why can't you?


    BTW - You probably don't remember, or maybe it is don't want to remember, WWII had many problems. And we pretty well destroyed Germany and Japan before we converted them to democracy.

    What we didn't have was the leader of the Senate saying that the War was lost and demanding we bring the troops home.

    Do you think maybe that would have encouraged our enemies?


    Complete Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    Your confusing recognition with cause.

    This comment of yours insults the intelligence of 12 year olds.


    Dukakis ran in 1988, (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    Dukakis ran in 1988, Kerry in 2004. That was 16 years. Hard to see how anyone can actually claim to "know" anything from those numbers.

    I also wonder if Latinos who are US citizens really want open borders and illegal aliens.. Perhaps we'll find out in a year...

    Spin City (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by diogenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:00:44 PM EST
    Didn't Obama say he supported illegal immigrants getting licenses during the debate?  This article skewers Edwards for weasel words, doesn't mention Hillary's weasel words, and gives Obama no credit.

    What did you expect? (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    Fair and balanced??



    I'd suggest (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:27:00 PM EST
     that to thoughtfully analyze the political ramifications for the general election, one would need to assess the impact in potential swing states. A position that contributes to either the failure to pick up a closely lost state from 2004 or retain a closely won state is not helpful politically even if it might mean (which is extremely doubtful) a net gain in raw national vote totals.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    There will be elections after 2008. The national trends will be extremely important.

    If Latinos become a 75% Dem voting bloc over time, then a permanent Democratic majority will be assured.

    Ask Karl Rove if you do not believe me.  


    Or Ask His Biggest Fan: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:17:12 PM EST

    I have asked Rove (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    to send you a cure for bed wetting. You use the words in your comments so regular I finally figured out you have a problem that only he can fix.

    You've tested this cure on yourself, of course. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:04:36 AM EST
    And you have empirical data "proving" its efficacy.

    Of course you do. You weren't just trolling. Of course.


    Does Rove sell this "cure" (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    to all the suckers... sorry, I mean Bush supporters? Is it a required purchase? Or something you voluntarily bought?

    Which (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    Is why the Democrats are pandering to the Latinos. The party that panders the best will get their votes.

    Say yes to open borders with Mexico and Central America in the future. Not saying this is good or bad, just stating an opinion.


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    You ad I and  (gasp!) the WSJ Ed Board agree on this.

    Course you are kidding. I am not.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    Here in Texas Ciro Rodriguez was helped greatly by Republcian's immigration stunts.  Bush had been making serious ground with Latinos since the 90's and it was erased all in one year.

    As far as Edwards, and Dodd for that matter, what is troubling is their position, they are both pretty clear on what they believe.

    What is troubling about Clinton? Sure she starts off with the right position, but all it took is two minutes of an attack from Dodd on the right and she was throwing Spitzer and Hispanics under the bus.

    So yeah this will be a big issue in 08, and we need a candidate that will do the right thing, not throw one the members of our coalition under the bus at the first sign of heat.

    taking my advice (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:14:12 PM EST
       I see you are taking my advice on how to make up your own facts. Say that John Edwards double talks, then just keep repeating it over and over, like its proven fact.  Hey but the link might be a little much.  Now people can click on it and see that in fact he didn't doubletalk, he is just wrong.  


    Please stop this already (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    Edwards words on the subject are quoted by me.

    I do not call you a liar just because you simply do not understand the words.


    um (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    example 1
    JGarza is being dishonest.

    example 2

    Sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:05:02 PM EST
    I am unfair in my criticisms of Clinton.
    You are simply dishonest on this.

    example 3

    That is NOT what she wrote (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    She mimicked an African american use.

    You are being dishonest


    really you don't?

    as far as your quotes, i have never disputed he said that, i only pointed out when i read them, it was clear to me he didn't support DL's for undocumented residents.  I think any moderately intelligent person can derive that. so no double talk.


    I was wrong to call you dishonest (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    It is apparent that you have no idea what I am writing about.

    My apologies.


    What else does the GOP have? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kindness on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    They can scare their flock with gays getting married, Islamists attacking us here, or dirty, nasty commie Democrats who will give up the farm to foreigners.

    Pick a scare, any scare.

    People I talk to here... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:17:45 PM EST
    on Long Island and the boroughs hate Spitzers license plan, both people normally pro and anti immigration.

    They also aren't happy about how ICE handled some immigration raids in Nassau County, the police chief even threatened not to cooperate with ICE in the future...though they've since smoothed things over a bit.

    So immigrant bashing will win the GOP some votes, and lose them some votes.  I figure it's a wash.

    Immigration (none / 0) (#39)
    by jon87 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:32:04 PM EST
     Many religious people, Christians and Jews, believe in using tough measures against illegal immigrants.

    Anyone who oppresses illegal immigrants is not following the clear teaching of the Bible:  "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."  Leviticus 19:34)

    "Thou shalt not vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."  Exodus  22:21,)

    I found some great material on this subject at a website called www.howtotalkback.com