The Candidates
Featured Archives
Immigration: The Last Wedge Issue
Over at RedState, Erick Erickson waxes poetic about GOP dominion over the deep south. Says Erickson:
Last night, Mississippi and Louisiana finished what states like Georgia and South Carolina started. They succumbed to the Red Tide (no, dang it, not the Crimson Tide sucessfully beaten back last Saturday. Geaux Tigers!).
In Louisiana, in a historic defeat for the Democrats, Bobby Jindal made it to the Governor’s Mansion without a runoff. In Mississippi, last night, the GOP picked up all but one state wide seats, returning Haley Barbour to the Governor’s Mansion for a second term.
Like Georgia in 2004, this is a first for Mississppi since Reconstruction. The death of the Republican Party seems greatly exaggerated.
That’s all good and well, but GOP hegemony in the region that stretches from Texas up into the Carolinas is anything but a sign of changing Republican fortunes. In fact, Tuesday’s elections demonstrated that the country is basically divided in the same manner that it has been for the past year. In November of 2006, Republicans held firm in the deep south and plains states while Democrats made massive gains in the Northeast and Midwest, and modest gains in the West and border states. In fact, while Republicans didn’t pick up a single House seat in the 2006 midterm, the only two Democratic seats on the table for the GOP come Election Day could be found in the State of Georgia. I’m glad Republicans are doing well in the deep south, but it’s simply incorrect to imply that GOP successes in this region mark a turnaround from the post-2006 status quo.
The truth is, 2007 was a continuation of 2006. Democrats made gains in Indiana, Kentucky, and Virginia, three states that were red in 2004 but that padded Democrats’ congressional majorities in 2006. Anyone who thinks that the once-red border states aren’t in play next year need only examine Virginia, which now sports a Democratic governor, one Democratic U.S. Senator, a Democratic state Senate, and which is about to elect another Democratic U.S. Senator next year. Moreover, the Republicans’ grasp on the Virginia House of Delegates is far from solid. Virginia could easily go blue next year. And if Indiana, the most Republican state in the Midwest, continues to give Democrats more and more power, just imagine the state of the GOP in Ohio, which is probably the second-reddest state in the Midwest, but still decidedly less red than Indiana. In other words, if Indiana’s getting bluer, so is Ohio, and Ohio was purple already.
More proof that Republicans remain endangered outside the deep south comes from a bevy of 2008 Senate polls that show GOP-held Senate seats in the Northeast, Midwest, and West prepared to flip to the Democrats next year. In New Hampshire, the reddest state in the Northeast, former Gov. Shaheen is about to unseat Sen. John Sununu with a vengeance. In Minnesota, Sen. Norm Coleman is within single digits of a mean-spirited, washed-up comedian who has never held public office. And in Colorado and New Mexico, voters seem prepared to give two open Republican seats to Democrats. Of course, all of this means that former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who is leading all of his opponents by a mile in the Virginia Senate race, will have lots of company during orientation for freshman Democratic senators in 2009. Again, the trend is clear, and is unchanged from a year ago: Republicans are doing well in the South and Southeast, Democrats are winning the Northeast, the Midwest, the West, and the border states. Guess which combination makes a majority. Go on, take a wild guess.
There are two silver linings for Republicans as we head into next year’s race. The first has to do with the presidential race. Democrats are going to pad their margin in the U.S. Senate, maintain a solid House majority, and keep the majority of governorships. But the presidency could go either way, provided Republicans wisely select their nominee. Rudy Giuliani is currently polling statistically even with Hillary in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. I suspect he is also doing well in New Jersey and New Hampshire. No other GOP candidate is going to put the Northeast in play. Given that we’re going to lose territory in the Midwest and border states (Ohio? Virginia? Missouri?), the ability to win blue states is essential for an electoral majority next year. Similarly, a ticket focused on holding the Southwest and bringing in the Upper Midwest — say, McCain/Pawlenty — would limit red-state defections to a few states along the Ohio River and would replace those lost red electoral votes with purple ones from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and maybe even Michigan. This race has been a long and wild ride, but the fact remains that there are still two GOP candidates who could give Hillary Clinton a run for her money, and I do hope that Republicans are smart enough to nominate one of them.
The other silver lining for Republicans evidenced by this year’s elections, as well as from Hillary’s small but real slump in the polls following the last Democratic presidential debate, is that Democrats may have an Achilles Heel in the immigration issue. Hillary’s numbers have been dropping both in the race for the Democratic nomination and in general election matchups against the Republicans ever since she voiced support for New York Gov. Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. This set Hillary back in her attempt to redefine herself as basically a Rockefeller Republican and rekindled voters’ fears that Hillary is far more liberal than her pragmatic, technocratic husband. Similarly, on Tuesday night, New York, which threw out scores of Republicans in 2006, actually saw Democrats lose ground as voters punished the state party for the Clinton/Spitzer nuttiness on immigration that is too liberal even for deep blue New York. In other words, all of the trend lines set in 2006 remain unchanged except when the immigration issue rears its head. At that point, Republicans experience an uptick in support. Immigration is the new wedge issue.
As such, I would say Republicans have two trump cards in 2008, despite electoral trends that favor Democrats in almost every region of the country. Our first trump card is our ability to nominate a presidential candidate who does not emanate from the GOP base region of the South/Southeast, who is cast against type, as it were, and who doesn’t have to fight a losing battle to win every border state, but who can instead put blue states into play. Our other trump card is that immigration is a big issue and it’s the one major issue this cycle where Republicans are closer to the pulse of mainstream America than Democrats.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Great article, as is typical of you, DaveG.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Which of course means we should run screaming from Sen. McCain.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Did anyone else read the Huckabee article in Salon.com? Thought his response to the “Is Mitt Romney a Christian?” question was interesting…
How can Huckabee say that he has been subjected to more questions about his faith than Romney…. That is just unbelievable.
“You have declined in a couple of interviews to say whether or not you feel the Mormon religion is a legitimate type of Christianity, or a type of Christianity. I have spoken with a number of evangelicals, and one of them was talking about her concern [regarding Mitt Romney] of having a president who might not be praying to the God she believes in. The other concern I have heard is having a president who would lead people not to be saved in other Christian faiths by promoting another very evangelical religion. Do you share any of those concerns?”
“You know, I just don’t think that’s an appropriate issue for me to get into, the nuances of the Mormon faith. And it is not the sole criteria by which I think a person should be judged fit or unfit for the presidency, any more than I think people ought to necessarily make it the defining issue for me. I am very comfortable answering questions about my faith. I am probably the only candidate that has been subjected to this sort of detailed questioning about faith. I don’t think Romney has even been. And my faith is a pretty mainstream view of the world and of the Bible. But I accept that as part of the whole process. I just think all of us should be prepared to answer questions regardless of what our views are, and let people sort that out. But that’s why I don’t feel comfortable in saying, “Let me tell you what this guy believes.” You know what? I don’t know what he believes. Even if I knew what his church believes, I don’t know that I can say what he believes until he expresses it.”
November 9th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Immigration IS the hot burning issue of this election cycle. It is so because, while being primarily a domestic concern, it also has foriegn policy inter-play with serious national security overtones.
The “sanctuary cities” intra-squabble among Republicans, in my opinion, is counter productive. Given that immigration is a federal responsibility which, by all accounts, is not being well attended, causes the states to get into areas that must compensate for federal shortcomings.
Giuliani has said from the beginning, that given the state of affairs resulting from the lack of enforcement from the feds, one has to deal in real time with the ramifications of such a dereliction, particularly with regard to one’s city or state of which one is in charge.
This issue, to me, should be handled on a macro level so it does not devolve down to a micro issue for the states. Obviously giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants is wrong but trying to find a way to know who is in your state/city is right for security reasons alone.
Rudy shares the same sentiment that I do, in that if the feds would have done their job, this wouldn’t be a problem that affects us on a local level socially, criminally or finacially.
Border enforcement using physical and technological resources, a compstat-like overview of hot spots and a person who understands why it is so important for that to work, as it should, the former mayor of NYC has said that it is possible to gain control of the borders within three years.
Anyone who may have an indication to roll one’s eyes, please note that the “ungovernable city” was turned around when everyone (Rep’s and Dem’s alike) believed in the conventional wisdom of the time.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:10 am
GOP took over Mayors office and city council in Indinapolis,running even in Colorado Senate race,running even in New Mexico Senate wih all but Richardson, Gained mayors offices and legislative seats in New Jersey.
All’s not that bleak,DaveG
November 9th, 2007 at 1:36 am
shawzinski,
I couldn’t decide whether to laugh in disbelief or shake my fist at the computer screen. That has to be the stupidest thing Huckabee has said in this race.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:40 am
I’m not sure I understand what you guys are seeing wrong in what Huck said. Is it his belief that he has endured more questions than Romney? I suppose that’s debatable, but none of us really knows the number of questions each has been asked. Maybe Huck feels he’s asked that so often it’s gotta be more than anyone else. Who cares? I’m not sure it’s worth shaking your fist at the screen. Or are you upset that he wouldn’t discuss Romney’s faith at all? I applaud him for that – he’s saying it’s not up to him to judge anyone else’s faith. Good for him – the question was obviously meant to trap Huck into making a controversial statement about Mormonism, and Huck wisely chose to stay out of it. Or am I missing something else you guys read into his answer?
November 9th, 2007 at 3:07 am
I would tend to think McCain does better as far as the long term health of the party. Rudy might win, but I think you are going to see a weakening of our influence in deep south. The deep south is one thing we got going for us, we should be careful risking all of that in a dangerous atempt to get the northeast. There is no gurantees that we get enough of the north to offset losing the South. I don’t really think we would lose the south during this one election, but we might, and overall Rudy would seem to do damage to the overall coalition. With McCain I bet we don’t lose the South, and some of the recent anaylsis seems to suggest that McCain is actually putting states into play that we have a shot at – making them competitive, while Rudy is taking states out of the no shot column into the really long shot column. I think McCain might actually be able to make the best general election claims.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:28 am
[...] DaveG sees the writing on the wall: things don’t look good for the GOP next year. The truth is, 2007 was a continuation of 2006. [...]
November 9th, 2007 at 4:06 am
Well Huckabee basically likes to hint that you should vote for him because he’s a Christian. Here’s the key line:
“And my faith is a pretty mainstream view of the world and of the Bible. “.
Maybe I’m a bit sensitive being an agnostic, but I can’t but help to think this is a way of saying that Romney’s religious views are NOT mainstream and thus one should not vote for him. i remember the Huck saying something like this at the values voters conference as well.
I will not vote for Huckabee. As much as I find him to be a nice guy, his fiscally moderate policies at best and extreme social conservatism really turn me off.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am
“immigration is a big issue and it’s the one major issue this cycle where Republicans are closer to the pulse of mainstream America than Democrats.”
You sure about that?
From WaPo / ABC poll today:
51% would support “a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements;” 44% oppose.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Ajay I guess you could interpret it that way, I however, interpreted it to be a matter of him defending his fundamentalist approach to Christianity – such belief as Creationism and such.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:57 am
The Republican Party is on its way to becoming irrelevant to the political process. Demographic changes in the U.S. are going to make the Republican unimportant to the election process in a couple of decade but the incompetence and stupidity of the Bush Administration had just sped up the process.
A Republican running for office has no credibility of immigration because President Bush pushed for open borders and amnesty. President Bush along with the miserable leadership of former Speaker Hastert and Senator Frist have destroyed the ability of any Republican to run as a fiscal conservative or as a good government candidate.
The Republican party has no issues, no leadership, and little potential for change. Look at the current group of ill-informed empty suits running for President as Republicans. Most of them seem unable to manage their own campaign staffs, let alone run the executive branch in the future. Just look at how many issues that the candidates run away from instead of talking intelligently from a conservative/moderate position.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Tano — You sure about that?
From WaPo / ABC poll today:
51% would support “a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements;†44% oppose.
I think it’s more about distribution of beliefs throughout the country and who is casting their vote based upon the issue. Conservative Republicans are more likely to vote based on the issue.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I’m so sick of hearing about how conservatism and the
Republican party is gone because we lost one election. historically the President’s party always
does poorly in the sixth year of his presidentcy. 2007 has been a generally good year for
Republicans. We won two out of the three governors races. President Bush’s approval rating has
gone up wail Congressional Democrats have plumited to an all time low. And just remember that under
George W. Bush republicans have won three out of the last four elections. Not bad. Not bad at all.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:41 am
TennJoe -
You can’t reason with DaveG. He will say and do anything to get people to believe that the GOP is finished. So we lost some elections? So what? We also won some elections. Even losing the KY Governorship is not a critical blow – since Fletcher had a corruption skeleton walking around.
Superdestroyer – you seem to be taking the liberal view that everyone running is
a holdover from the Bush administration. The facts say otherwise. You may be able to paint McCain with that label, but none of the others.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:53 am
It should also be noted that Republicans won as mayor in New Hampshire’s 2 largest cities (Manchester re-elected) and Nashua. Also, the picture is not as bleak for Sununu as everyone would have us believe. Additionally, both of the US Reps are facing very tough opponents (regardless of who wins the GOP nomination in those races). In Manchester, the GOP mayor and state GOP party were outspent like 300%. The GOP in NH realizes what we did wrong in 2006 and things are certainly looking up for the GOP in 2007 and 2008.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:15 am
rayinNH,
Do you really believe that the Republicans will carry NH in 2008 or are you just carrying water for the Republicn party?
ACT Blog,
Just look at the results in Virginia. The Republicans have no credibility in coming out against illegal immigraiton. How many Senate or House hearings were there on immigration from 2000-2006? None. The Republicans will talk about immigration but have no credibility. Too many voters believes that nothing will be done after the election anyway.
Republicans need to find candidate and leaders who have crediblity instead of the Giuliani or Romeny types who change their positions when the consultant and pollsters tell them to change.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am
superdestroyer,
There’s nothing much wrong with the Republican Party that getting guys like you out of it won’t fix. There are positive demographic trends for the GOP that more than compensate for the trends going away from it. In 2004, Bush carried 97 of the 100 fastest growning counties in the nation. Population growth is highest in the South and the West, and come redistricting time, blue states will lose , on net balance, more than 10 more congressional seats. More children are being raised in Republican households than in Democrat households, which, on a per-family basis, have fewer children. Romney and Giuliani are fighters who will expose the lies of the Democrats effectively during a campaign. The war issue is receding, and will actually be a plus by the time the general comes around, if the issue is played right. Hillary is a weak candidate who can be easily defeated in the general, but who is too far ahead to be denied the nomination…a perfect scenario for us. Our party will win if we expect to, and lose if we don’t. So it’s time to jettison the dead weight and get on with the business of saving America.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I do not like how much Huckabee is playing the religion card. And getting more questions than Romney about religion? Alaska Jake, where have you been? The Religious Right is an important part of the Republican party, but just a part. First urging voters to apply the religious test at the Value Voters Summit, than the publicity pastor who says God endorses Huck, and then this “I’m from the correct faith” interview garbage. There is something from the dark middle ages in this mentality.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
This is the same thing that Rudy was trumpeting on Shawn Hannity yesterday.
His message: “I’m the only one who can put all 50 states into play to beat
Hillary”. To really get into this strategy, you have to be a pessimist
and embrace a negative message. It doesn’t play well with most Republicans
who tend to be upbeat. When the TV ads go up and Rudy trumpets this message, it
helps if you believe it is all gloom and doom for the Republicans. The
prinicples of strong families, strong economy and a strong military
need to take a backseat to “Beat Hillary, at all costs”. Rudy needs to
emphasize the positive aspects of his campaign and not beat on Hillary so much.
Talk about how he will make America better rather than have this seige
mentality that we need to hold off the terrorists and the Democrats because
they are going to win a lot of seats in Congress and cause problems. I don’t
want to just hold off the terrorists and the Democrats, I want to go
into their territory and take over like we are doing in Iraq and Louisiana.
Rudy’s strategy is a defensive one, similar to the one that failed in Iraq
when our troops confined themselves to their great big camps and didn’t really
defend the populace. I want an offensive strategy where we go out, get among the
people, and win over hearts and minds.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
This is the same message that Rudy gave on the Sean Hannity show yesterday.
That message is “I’m the only one who can put all 50 states into play and
beat Hillary”. But it is a negative, defensive message. There is nothing
in it to indicate how he will make America a better, stronger or more
prsperous place. It is a defensive position, and one that agrees
with his previous actions on immigration and the line item veto, being
let’s take care of #1 that is beat Hillary and forget about what is really
best for the country. I don’t like this type of shortsighted policy. It is
similar to the failed one we had in Iraq where we hid in our big bad
compounds, going out on patrol on occasion, but with no real strategy of
success, just looking out after #1. I want a strategy in which the country
will be made stronger in every way, not one is which we concentrate on some
evil person that needs to be taken out. That is not vision. The succesful
strategy in Iraq is the one in which we quit looking out after #1, but
went out among the people and won hearts and minds like we are doing now
in Iraq and the Republicans are doing in Louisiana. That’s what
Republicans need to do, not retreat from their principles and hide behind
Rudy Giuliani. Rudy needs to have a more positive message and talk about
ways his presidency will make the country better rather than constantly
harping on his popularity and pummelling Clinton. That will never work.
We need an optismistic, positive message and a good messenger. If he does
that, the polls will swing his way in New Hampshire.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Dave,
Most of those fast growing counties are in Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. They are growing because of very high birthrates among blacks and Hispanics and massive immigration. Do you really think that Harris and Bexar Counties in Texas will stay Republican while their white populations shrink and their Hispanic populations grow?
If you think that Republicans can be viable in the future, then you must have a strategy for the Republicans to regain control of the State House in California and Illinois. I would love to read such a plan.
As far as redistricting is, the Democrats can easily eliminate 30 Republicans in the U.S. Congress due to redistricting. There will probably be almost no Republicans north of Virginia and you will have to get close to Richmond, VA to find safe Republican districts. Do you really think that specter, Collins, and Snowe will not be replaced with Democrats when they retire?
It will take more that Alabama and Utah for the Republicans to survive. I have not seen a candidate yet for the Republicans who seems capable for thinking about anything other than themselves. Just look at Mass. when Romney for governor. The number of elected Republicans did not increase. Romeny did not mentor anyone and was quickly replaced with a liberal Democrat after he left. The same applies to Giuliani. He mentored no one except may a few felons.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
#22 superdestroyer
“The number of elected Republicans did not increase. Romeny did not mentor anyone and was quickly replaced with a liberal Democrat after he left. The same applies to Giuliani. He mentored no one except may a few felons.”
The problem with your bottom line logic is: That Romney and Giuliani EVEN got elected in Democratic strongholds makes them UNIQUE. There are few others that can imitate that feat. Blaming them because some one didn’t come behind them and pull the same thing off does not suggest their weakness, but rather their strength in appealing to the opposite side of the aisle, at least somewhat…
November 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Shawnie,
It also shows the limit of their strengths. Look at the number of people in politics who started with people like Gerald Ford or Howard Baker. There are no Republican leaders like that today. The current crop of empty suits and consultant puppets have demonstrated no leadership ability. No one who has served in the Bush White House or on the Congressional staffs in Congress from 200-2006 has a future running for office as a Republican. They are all tainted by the failures of the current leadership. President Bush is so selfish that he mentored no one.
The Republicans need to find leaders who can actually lead. Is there no governor out there who has added Republicans to elected office while serving. Is there no Republican who has an eye for talent. Or do the Republicans have to settle for the idiot children of the idle rich who attend Regents University or Patrick Henry College?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
[...] Dave and Matt Ortega debate Immigration as a wedge issue, Hillary Clinton feels the fallout of the [...]