Hype Watch: In House races, Republicans lost 8 percentage points among Hispanics between 2002 and 2006. They also lost 8 percentage points among whites, notes Polipundit. How does this prove that the House Republicans' immigration stance cost them Hispanic votes?
Kaus's question answers itself. Republicans lost 8 percent of the Hispanic vote. White votes have nothing to do with which party picked up Hispanic votes. Kaus links to a Washington Post article. Which he hopes his readers won't bother checking.
"A lot of the Republican candidates chose immigration as the wedge issue, and polls seem to bear out that it was an error for them to do that," Cortés said. "And I think Mel Martinez, because of his life story, is a perfect person to help them find their way back from that era."
Kaus then contends that the New York Times "Hispanic exit-poll numbers for 2002 actually don't add up." Most likely, a highly number of Hispanic men than women were polled. The poll was conducted in 33 states on November 7, 2006.
Is anyone besides Kaus trying to claim that Republicans didn't do poorly with Hispanics? I haven't heard Republicans making that argument. Kaus maybe so sensitive because he went on his anti-immigration crusade.
Sen. Frist is quoted saying that 40% of the 12 million illegals have been here less than five years. ... The actual sight of millions of illegals having to leave the country might have a deterrent, they-mean-business effect that could counterbalance the inevitable incentive effect (on potential future illegals) of the deal's partial semi-amnesty.
Kaus wants a huge mass exodus that would be costly and make the news. Has Kaus thought how internment camps will play in the media? Plus, the agriculture lobby wouldn't stand for it. The immigration debate is dead for now. There is no political benefit for Republicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment