Old McCain Losing It on Illegals

[CoolBlue71]

I think so too. Nevada and New Mexico and Colorado went blue the last election. We have a lot of pwt in this state though.

Long response. (Hope you don't mind.)

Nevada and New Mexico are bellwethers. N.M. has had the vote since 1912, and has voted for all winners except 1976 Jimmy Carter (who narrowly missed it by 2.47% after 1972 Richard Nixon won it by 26.50%) and 2000 George W. Bush (who missed it by 366 votes and .006%). N.M. has gone for the winner of the popular vote in 24 of its 25 elections. It has agreed with Nev. in all but the election of 2000 (in which Bush won Nev. by 3.55%). Usually there isn't much difference in the margins between the two in how they vote. For example, Barack Obama carried them in landslides: Nev.: 12.49%; N.M.: 15.13%.

Historically Republican Colorado has been consistently one of the lower-tiered states in the GOP's column (in terms of margins from all states their candidates carry). In 2008, the Centennial State—along with Virginia—finally saw the raw-vote numbers not hold for the Republicans as Obama was able to win over counties that hadn't voted Democratic since 1964 Lyndon Johnson. In Colo., it was Arapahoe (Littleton), Jefferson (Golden), and Ouray (Ouray) counties. He shifted Colo. 13.62 points to win it by an impressive 8.95% (after 2004 Bush held it by 4.67%). In Colo. Obama was just one point shy of winning men (49%), and he won women by 15 points (56%).

You're right—this success for Democrats in southwest and mountain west states are very encouraging.

One other person responded, and I'm not familiar with the individual (no disrespect intended). He was dismissive of the possibility. Then again, pre-Election 2008 folks scoffed at the notion a Democrat could carry Virginia. (It was one of six states, of a total nine, that flipped from Republican to Democratic in which Obama won both the male and female vote.) And Indiana. And North Carolina. And an electoral vote in Nebraska.


On the subject of Arizona: In 2008, John McCain carried his home state by 195,004 votes [8.48%]. (2004 George W. Bush won Arizona by 210,770 votes and 10.47%.) In 2012, for Barack Obama to carry the state of Arizona he would have to flip, say, 100,000 of those votes to edge out whomever the Republicans nominate.

Obama would need to shift the counties more dramatically, particularly with a narrowing of the margins in Maricopa County (Phoenix), which (according to Wikipedia.org) has been "a Republican stronghold since 1948." (McCain carried it by 144,282 votes and 10.4%—2 points above state average.) The President would need to raise the margins substantially in "Democratic leaning" Pima County (Tucson). (Obama carried it by 23,848 votes and 6.0%.)

The last Democrat to carry Arizona was Bill Clinton in 1996. That was, of course, a re-election; but Clinton missed Ariz. in 1992 by only 1.95% (after 1988 George Bush won it by 21.21%), and he won it over four years later by 2.22%. (1996 Clinton missed Maricopa County by only 2.7%, and won Pima County by a landslide 12.8%.)

In 2008, Obama received 45% each of the male and female Ariz. vote. Now the percent of the male vote was impressive. If he had carried the female vote (as was the case in three of the 22 states in the column of McCain: bellwether Missouri, Montana, and Georgia), by, say, 55%, that would've delivered Obama the state of Arizona. So the female vote wasn't as strong I'd like to see; Obama did even better in South Carolina (48%; which John McCain carried by 8.98%) and Texas (47%; carried by McCain by 11.76%). Since these are the three longshot states I really want to see him flip, it would require [Obama] to essentially double his 2008 margin of victory in the U.S. Popular Vote, which was 7.26%, for re-election in 2012.

This is possible given where the current Republican Party is at; who their "contenders" are; their detachment from Americans' lives; and what they offer and represent. (Oh, and for the breakdown of the vote in 2008, which is the key motivating factor concerning Arizona's latest.)

This would be happening in the midst of a major landslide (winning the popular vote by at least 15%—and amassing, for the first time since the 1980s, beyond 400 electoral votes).

 

[JB3]

Long response. (Hope you don't mind.)

Nevada and New Mexico are bellwethers. N.M. has had the vote since 1912, and has voted for all winners except 1976 Jimmy Carter (who narrowly missed it by 2.47% after 1972 Richard Nixon won it by 26.50%) and 2000 George W. Bush (who missed it by 366 votes and .006%). N.M. has gone for the winner of the popular vote in 24 of its 25 elections. It has agreed with Nev. in all but the election of 2000 (in which Bush won Nev. by 3.55%). Usually there isn't much difference in the margins between the two in how they vote. For example, Barack Obama carried them in landslides: Nev.: 12.49%; N.M.: 15.13%.

Historically Republican Colorado has been consistently one of the lower-tiered states in the GOP's column (in terms of margins from all states their candidates carry). In 2008, the Centennial State—along with Virginia—finally saw the raw-vote numbers not hold for the Republicans as Obama was able to win over counties that hadn't voted Democratic since 1964 Lyndon Johnson. In Colo., it was Arapahoe (Littleton), Jefferson (Golden), and Ouray (Ouray) counties. He shifted Colo. 13.62 points to win it by an impressive 8.95% (after 2004 Bush held it by 4.67%). In Colo. Obama was just one point shy of winning men (49%), and he won women by 15 points (56%).

You're right—this success for Democrats in southwest and mountain west states are very encouraging.

One other person responded, and I'm not familiar with the individual (no disrespect intended). He was dismissive of the possibility. Then again, pre-Election 2008 folks scoffed at the notion a Democrat could carry Virginia. (It was one of six states, of a total nine, that flipped from Republican to Democratic in which Obama won both the male and female vote.) And Indiana. And North Carolina. And an electoral vote in Nebraska.


On the subject of Arizona: In 2008, John McCain carried his home state by 195,004 votes [8.48%]. (2004 George W. Bush won Arizona by 210,770 votes and 10.47%.) In 2012, for Barack Obama to carry the state of Arizona he would have to flip, say, 100,000 of those votes to edge out whomever the Republicans nominate.

Obama would need to shift the counties more dramatically, particularly with a narrowing of the margins in Maricopa County (Phoenix), which (according to Wikipedia.org) has been "a Republican stronghold since 1948." (McCain carried it by 144,282 votes and 10.4%—2 points above state average.) The President would need to raise the margins substantially in "Democratic leaning" Pima County (Tucson). (Obama carried it by 23,848 votes and 6.0%.)

The last Democrat to carry Arizona was Bill Clinton in 1996. That was, of course, a re-election; but Clinton missed Ariz. in 1992 by only 1.95% (after 1988 George Bush won it by 21.21%), and he won it over four years later by 2.22%. (1996 Clinton missed Maricopa County by only 2.7%, and won Pima County by a landslide 12.8%.)

In 2008, Obama received 45% each of the male and female Ariz. vote. Now the percent of the male vote was impressive. If he had carried the female vote (as was the case in three of the 22 states in the column of McCain: bellwether Missouri, Montana, and Georgia), by, say, 55%, that would've delivered Obama the state of Arizona. So the female vote wasn't as strong I'd like to see; Obama did even better in South Carolina (48%; which John McCain carried by 8.98%) and Texas (47%; carried by McCain by 11.76%). Since these are the three longshot states I really want to see him flip, it would require [Obama] to essentially double his 2008 margin of victory in the U.S. Popular Vote, which was 7.26%, for re-election in 2012.

This is possible given where the current Republican Party is at; who their "contenders" are; their detachment from Americans' lives; and what they offer and represent. (Oh, and for the breakdown of the vote in 2008, which is the key motivating factor concerning Arizona's latest.)

It isn't possible when 70% of Arizonans support the new law, and the President has said publicly he'll do everything to fight against it. Illegal immigration is a huge issue in the border states, and they will not take kindly to the President attempting to dismantle a law that should significantly curb it.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

I'm curious how much the tea-baggers will enjoy paying triple what they currently are for most fresh food products if their lily white dreams ever come true. People like their posturing at being anti-illegal immigration, but I doubt anybody would be happy paying for the consequences.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm curious how much the tea-baggers will enjoy paying triple what they currently are for most fresh food products if their lily white dreams ever come true. People like their posturing at being anti-illegal immigration, but I doubt anybody would be happy paying for the consequences.

So you change the law.

The first step should be securing the border. The border states ought to team up, ignore Washington, and decide what to do along the edge -- fence, land mines, free-fire zone, RC clubs with planes and such, or whatever. Allow any landowner along the border to secure it in any way he/she wishes, from electric fence to dog packs to ditches full of oil.

Once the border is closed to all but legal traffic, then we can have a national debate about the laws that got us in this position, and the situation of our southern neighbor which contribute to it. But until then, we aren't even really a nation if anyone at all can come and go as he pleases.


I'm pissed about illegal immigration and all those, including Congress, who aid and abet it; in my eyes they're lawbreakers just as much as the people on the ground walking past an artificial line. If I knew a way and had the means, I'd put an end to it in six months (hey, now there's a project for providing jobs!).

Then we deal with the laws. For starters, if we ended the idiotic subsidization of violent crime throughout the hemisphere we mendaciously label the "War on Drugs", the border would become a lot safer. Second -- well, for reform of the actual immigration laws, see my prior post.

 

[poolerboy]

"Illegal" immigration. Nuff said.

A man of few words.

Many...MANY are coming across to commit crime.

Please note the difference between "many" and "majority." Moreover, I find it's very often the case that a very angry US citizenry vilifies immigrants for being here, rather than blaming the business owners who hire and exploit them, the U.S. government which lets them enter the U.S. and profits greatly from them, and the Mexican government which is happy to see them immigrate out of their country.

You don't have to believe it

Good because I was just about to ask your for data and numbers.

but where do you think the drugs are coming from?

What is the estimated percentage of undocumented workers linked to narcotrafficking praytell?

Thank goodness AZ has the nads to do something about it.

Even if it means endorsing racism to accomplish that goal?

We need to reform the path to citizenship and thus weed out the criminal element. Believe it or not there are many Latinos that are just as upset with illegal immigration as the so-called "racists" that merely want the law to be upheld.

Likewise there will be, because of this new law, Latinos who could be charged with a crime if they fail to report their undocumented loved ones or if they knowingly transport them. The issue isn't as facile as you've seem to think it.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Illegal" immigration. Nuff said. Many...MANY are coming across to commit crime. You don't have to believe it but where do you think the drugs are coming from? Thank goodness AZ has the nads to do something about it. Nothing is being done at the federal level. States have a sovereign right to do something themselves and frankly I hope all of the border states do so!

We need to reform the path to citizenship and thus weed out the criminal element. Believe it or not there are many Latinos that are just as upset with illegal immigration as the so-called "racists" that merely want the law to be upheld.

Don't link illegals to drugs so blindly. I saw a special on this, where border patrol officers explained that many illegals coming in will carry drugs as a way to pay their "coyote", and then never do it again. They're used as mules on a one-way trip.

The illegals truly involved in the drug situation don't stay here and never get a job here; they bounce back and forth, occasionally stealing a gun or two here to use back in Mexico, more often acquiring military-grade weapons from corrupt Mexican army officers and running them this way.

But Arizona's approach would help against them; shut down illegal entry on that stretch of border, and the ping-pong border-crossers would find themselves a bit inconvenienced. Better, though, would be to stop subsidizing crime via the mendaciously labeled "War on Drugs".

 

[Kulindahr]

Likewise there will be, because of this new law, Latinos who could be charged with a crime if they fail to report their undocumented loved ones or if they knowingly transport them. The issue isn't as facile as you've seem to think it.

In legal terms, the issue is simple: we either enforce the law or stop pretending we're a sovereign country (or change the law).

In human terms, no law is ever simple. Laws meant to help people increase the burdens on the poor all the time; laws meant to keep society organized increase crime; laws meant for noble-sounding purposes lead to murder.

But in very basic terms, this is a war: these people are deliberately breaking the law to come here, and are thus in essence invaders. The border should be treated as a border, and the action should be to repel invaders. Yet that's not the only place the action should be directed, and that's where many "Seal the border!" people become hypocrites: employers who hire illegals, cops who look the other way, and politicians who dither, are all 'aiding and abetting the enemy'.

Looking at it in those terms, we need a negotiated settlement that would address the status of illegals currently here in order to satisfy both justice and human realities, address the economic issues that drive employers to hire illegals, and address the situation with drugs which is tied in with a tangled web.

I've already given my ideas on those.

 

[MercuryJones]

One doesn't necessarily have to be a tea-bagger to be in favor of supporting our laws.

True. But teabaggers are the very model of wanting mutually exclusive things simultaneously, such as "Keep the government out of health care, hands off my Medicare" and, most likely in this scenario, "Illegals out, keep food prices low".

 

[MercuryJones]

The idea that the AZ law is designed to foster racism is simply propaganda. Believe what you will. We have laws that need to be enforced. Period.

I'm more curious about how illegals can be identified by appearance, including footwear.

 

[Kulindahr]

True. But teabaggers are the very model of wanting mutually exclusive things simultaneously, such as "Keep the government out of health care, hands off my Medicare" and, most likely in this scenario, "Illegals out, keep food prices low".

So are liberals. for example, they pass regulations so the poor can have good housing, and thus deprive the poor of good housing. They pass regulations to help workers have quality jobs, and thus take away jobs. They pass regulations to require companies to keep a quality workplace, and thus force companies to shut down workplaces.

 

[MercuryJones]

So are liberals. for example, they pass regulations so the poor can have good housing, and thus deprive the poor of good housing. They pass regulations to help workers have quality jobs, and thus take away jobs. They pass regulations to require companies to keep a quality workplace, and thus force companies to shut down workplaces.

This is true, though to my thinking it is more often about unintended consequences than outright mutually exclusive demands. That is, it may be possible to have minimally acceptable health and safety standards without eliminating housing or jobs. It is not, however, possible to eliminate Government from health care and leave Medicare unchanged.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is true, though to my thinking it is more often about unintended consequences than outright mutually exclusive demands. That is, it may be possible to have minimally acceptable health and safety standards without eliminating housing or jobs. It is not, however, possible to eliminate Government from health care and leave Medicare unchanged.

Good point, though I'd call it "ignoring logical consequences", since anyone with a basic grasp of economics could predict (and they have predicted) these results.

 

[MercuryJones]

Good point, though I'd call it "ignoring logical consequences", since anyone with a basic grasp of economics could predict (and they have predicted) these results.

I don't wish to be disagreeable, but do feel this is a critical point: it is more a question of proper balance than logical consequence. One can have reasonable health and safety standards that do not eliminate housing or jobs. I would argue that such standards are desirable and improve both jobs and housing. The question is more about at which point do such standards become counterproductive.

So on this point I have rather more sympathy and respect for those trying to stay within such a balance, even if it's in error at times, than persons making logically incoherent statements.

All this said, there are some left wingers as incoherent as the teabaggers.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't wish to be disagreeable, but do feel this is a critical point: it is more a question of proper balance than logical consequence. One can have reasonable health and safety standards that do not eliminate housing or jobs. I would argue that such standards are desirable and improve both jobs and housing. The question is more about at which point do such standards become counterproductive.

So on this point I have rather more sympathy and respect for those trying to stay within such a balance, even if it's in error at times, than persons making logically incoherent statements.

All this said, there are some left wingers as incoherent as the teabaggers.

The balance depends on recognizing logical consequences. I encounter liberals all the time who don't grasp that the mountain of regulations for housing drive the cost up -- they insist that the builders "take it out of their profits"...' People with that level of understanding, and they abound in the regulatory apparatus, have no ability to understand what balance is, let alone try to implement it. They first have to grasp that when you add a cost to a product, the price goes up -- period.

My balance would be in allowing housing to be graded by levels, dividing it by decades in which the technology behind the basic standards came along. I know lots of people who would be thrilled to have an '80s-level house, because they're stuck in '40s-level since they can't afford 2010-level!

 

[CoolBlue71]

True. But teabaggers are the very model of wanting mutually exclusive things simultaneously, such as "Keep the government out of health care, hands off my Medicare" and, most likely in this scenario, "Illegals out, keep food prices low".

… The same teabaggers who are unware of the term teabagger.

… The same teabaggers who don't know where their Medicare comes from.

… The same teabaggers who are predominantly Republican and pretend to be independent.


Entirely too much deference has been given the tea-baggers' movement.

 

[JB3]

… The same teabaggers who are unware of the term teabagger.

… The same teabaggers who don't know where their Medicare comes from.

… The same teabaggers who are predominantly Republican and pretend to be independent.


Entirely too much deference has been given the tea-baggers' movement.

The same could be said for the grass roots movement that got Obama elected...

 

[MercuryJones]

The same could be said for the grass roots movement that got Obama elected...

Other than that there are a lot more people who elected Obama than identify as teabaggers.

 

[jdbadboy]

I'm curious how much the tea-baggers will enjoy paying triple what they currently are for most fresh food products if their lily white dreams ever come true. People like their posturing at being anti-illegal immigration, but I doubt anybody would be happy paying for the consequences.

Most tea baggers are old and aren't going to have to live for very long with the consequences of their actions.

 

[lambdaboy]

Lets all first remember that more than 95% of us came as imigrants as my6 mom and dad's family did.

Second if it was not for people picking oranges for us cheap you could nto afford them.

The majortiy of these people work there ass's off the3 arrogance of some of you makes Mc Cain look like a sweet guy.

Berlin Wall, Israeli Wall Arizona wall where is the difference!

 

[JB3]

Lets all first remember that more than 95% of us came as imigrants as my6 mom and dad's family did.

Second if it was not for people picking oranges for us cheap you could nto afford them.

The majortiy of these people work there ass's off the3 arrogance of some of you makes Mc Cain look like a sweet guy.

Berlin Wall, Israeli Wall Arizona wall where is the difference!

Ridiculous. This comment takes the cake as being the most ridiculous posted in this forum in the immigration debate.