Posted on 11/15/2006 10:36:23 AM PST by Dane
2000
Arizona-6
Hayworth 171,446 61%
Nelson 101,697 37%
2002
Arizona-5
Republican Hayworth 86,191 61%
Democratic Columbus 52,192 37%
Libertarian Severin 3,703 2%
2004
Arizona-5
Republican Hayworth 159,455 60%
Democratic Rogers 102,363 38%
Libertarian Kielsky 6,189 2%
2006
Arizona-5
Democratic Mitchell 73,762 51%
Republican Hayworth 67,830 46%
Libertarian Severin 4,754 3%
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Hayworth conceded yesterday.
You might have a point. However that coupled with Grafs loss makes me think there is some data showing that Americans are thinking just a tad different on this issue. Plus look at Colorado and losing the Governors race.
I know the response will be as to Graff well he didnt have RNC money. But I am looking at the monetary support he recieved from PACs and ANti illiegal immigration groups and it was substantial. In fact he was the only person to recieve assistance from Simcox's Minuteman pac during OCt and Novemebr as a example according to FEC filings
So I do think we can see a trend here
Actually none of them were anti-immigration laws. They were anti-big-glowing-sign-inviting-illegal-immigration laws.
Actually david duke's endorsement of Graf was probably his biggest blunder.
What is true is that making illegal immigration a signature issue does not seem to round up many swing voters. I don't think the issue caused many votes to switch either way in either the 5th or 8th district in Arizona.
Exit polling of Arizona voters showed the same thing with 60 percent supporting amnesty.
Jack Abramoff.
Exit surveys and polls during the race suggest this was the #1 issue that did in Hayworth. He was one of the most closely tied to Abramoff.
Jon Kyl, who was also hardline on immigration, sailed to victory in Arizona. He had no Abramoff/scandal issues.
I'm not saying Hayworth didn't lose any votes over his immigration stance. But it doesn't seem to have been the main reason he lost.
How can somebody vote when they are not even citizens of this country?...
Isn't that voter fraud?..
Sorry, what's at work here is the "Cake and eat it too" philosophy, where people want to pass laws, but re-elect "soft" leaders like Napolitano so they can't be called racists.
Sooner or later, they will be forced to choose, and the illegals will lose.
2) Immigration was NEVER brought into the election against Haywort... they tarred him with a)Abramhoff, b) his wife collecting lobby money and 3)stem cells. In the past weeks it was one add after another against him over stem cells and there was a very active blog out of ASU encouraging students tp do everything possible to defeat him....
No where in any of our elections was being tough on immigration an issue, quite the opposite, it's one reason our Dem Governor was relected, because she has been tougher on the border than Mulsil who was a McCain border bott.... we had two more initiatives on the ballot that passed handily: a) English Only, b) no State of Arizona services for Illegal Aliens... the initiave that failed and is a headscratcher was the Marriage Ammendment -- and turnout in Arizona was high for this election because of a and b....
I know you want to make the border issue important in the defeat of Hayworth, but sitting up there in PA you haven't a clue about the mindset in this state ie illegal immigration.
But, I thought Mitchell was more anti-illegal immigration than Hayworth.
He gave up last night.
That allows the majority to think they are "doing something" against illegals while still 'feeling good' that they are not electing "racists." I could be wrong---what do I know?---but it does seem to explain this two-faced approach.
Do you live in Arizona? I don't think so from your post because you haven't a clue about the mindset of the AZ voters.
Amen
He should have run for Governor.
Did Arizona pass a law saying that they didn't want illegals to be able to pay a fine, pay back taxes, and learn english, before getting to the back of a line waiting for citizenship?
Did they pass a law saying they didn't want immigrant workers to be able to come here legally?
Didn't think so.
Graf lost because the RNC dumped all over him when he won the primary and refused to spend one red cent on his election. If he had received support he could have won. His district was in one of our other liberal enclaves... thank God the third (Flagstaff) is mixed into the Navajo Reservation and Prescott so it gets neutered somewhat, because they brought in a ACLU Liberal to run there against Renzi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.