February 6, 2008

Where would Romney have been without the illegal immigration issue?

Here's the exit poll from the GOP race in California, which shows just how crucial Mitt Romney's public conversion in 2006-2007 to immigration restrictionism was to his having even a chance in this race. Man, people just don't like Plastic Fantastic Man. Without the 29% of the voters who called illegal immigration the most important issue, among whom Romney beat McCain 45%-25%, Romney wouldn't have finished second, he would have been tarred and feathered and run out of California on a rail.

Heck, among the 33% of voters who identified the economy as the most important issue (a not surprising choice on a day when the Dow dropped 370 points), McCain beat Romney 48%-27%, even though Yosemite Sam has seldom paid any attention to the economy. Overall, Romney beat McCain 35%-32% among voters who think "Issues" are most important in deciding their vote, while getting clobbered by McCain 49%-26% among those voting on "Personal Qualities."

Most Important Issue Share of Voters McCain Romney Huckabee Paul Giuliani
Illegal Immigration 29% 25% 45% 9% 6% 8%
Iraq 20% 49% 17% 14% 7% 9%
Economy 33% 48% 27% 10% 4% 3%
Terrorism 15% 42% 29% 17% 1% 10%







More Important to Your Vote
McCain Romney Huckabee Paul Giuliani
Issues 52% 32% 35% 16% 6% 6%
Personal Qualities 45% 49% 26% 8% 4% 7%

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

23 comments:

Hoosier Comrade said...

I'd like to know what "personal qualities" those people voted for. Was it the purple-faced foul-mouthed tantrums? Was it the gleeful manner with which he throws fellow Republicans under the bus?

Frankly, if we're that easily confused by the media into voting for a pro-amnesty candidate who explicitly declares that he doesn't know anything about the economy, then Sam Francis was right.

We are the stupid party...

Anonymous said...

Steve, you make the mistake in thinking most voters are aware, logical and relatively open minded.

In fact, most voters are merely hearded by the MSM or "leaders" to predetermined opinions using base instincts like tribalism, fear, etc to cow them. The responses to the questions you list are merely after the fact rationalizations for decisionmaking processes they don't understand.

How else could you explain the obvious contradictions of voters thinking:

* McCain is the Anti-Bush

* McCain is stronger on the Economy

* McCain is not the biggest GOP flip-flopper (taxes, anti-religious)

* McCain is for honest government and election reform (Keating5)

* McCain would be anywhere good for the economy (massive underclass immigration, unbounded wars, now no taxes)

* Huckabee is the honest paster (countless ethic violations)

* Huckabee is the conservative (supports illegal immigration, freeing numerous criminals)

It all makes one head spin comparing the MSM image of the three GOP candidates and then digging into each persons past starting with wikipedia. I can see why the elites and MSM want import en masse under classes from the 3rd world - it only enlarges the lumpenproletariat.

Anonymous said...

Better to ask where would McCain or Huckabee be without the MSM incessantly squirting ink?

shaun said...

Could you give a prediction for the eventual dem candidate?

JAN said...

You really should qualify this post so people clearly understand that you're talking about people in the very un-GOP state of California. Not very representative of GOP voters in general.

The GOP in California and Mass are as socially liberal (if not more given their emphasis on typically libertarian individual freedoms and relative derth of hardcore Christian fundies) as mainstream Democrats in the rest of the country.

Based on fact or fiction, California GOP voters don't believe McCain's recent hard core conversion to conservatism and want to believe he is the loveable goof they saw on the Daily Show cracking jokes about Bush last year.

Udolpho said...

Most depressing election year ever as the choice is narrowed down to Dubya Two, Lady MacBeth, and Barry Half-White.

Romney evidently lacks the Oprah quality that our electorate so craves so that it can have drama rather than good policy for four years.

Concerned Netizen said...

That's a nice way to put it. The other way to put it is that immigration issues don't mean a helluva lot to most American voters. If it were, why isn't Romney doing better?

I say this with some sorrow - but isn't it true? Please someone prove me wrong. Because whoever wins, it's hasta la vista to Anglo culture.

Rosamund said...

It looks like Romney may be dropping out tomorrow. For those yet to vote, who would you vote for?

Rush Limbaugh said something that struck me as profound about this primary cycle: segments of the Republican party seem more interested in excising some other segment rather than running against Democrats. I think Romney's supporters hoped he would subtly bring us back to the Right and lessen the influence of the Neo-cons but were more or less ecumenical and not on any overt campaign.

BTW, if I had another vote, it would be a protest vote for Paul. I could have done it for Huckles, but he's become more hateful than McCain and he loves McCain too much. Paul may be fringe, but he's the only gracious one left. On the other hand, Huckles rising could lead to a brokered convention where some other figure comes forth....

The Protestant Stand said...

I'm not for McCain by any stretch of the imagination. Duncan Hunter was candidate.

But Mitt Romney position of free trade globalisation, statuary for illegal aliens was no different from Mike Huckabee. He never pledge to build the border fence or stop illegal immigrationand send them home at all. He hypocritically goated Huckabee during the debates, and the was guilty of the same thing.

Romney was so two faced on everything. From abortion, to denial of a SPP North American Union, to harboring illegals in his own state, cuddling the rights of his homosexuals "Log Cabin" Brothers. The man was two faced.

He could not wait to set a deal on more Trade with China through his company Bain Capital.

Romney was going to do nothing to stop illegal immigration. He is the best friend of Illegal Aliens too.

So any support for Romney is a compromise too. No matter what Anne Coulter says. But she's a phony, she was always for Romney from the beginning. The only Man the would have been the perfect candidate on every issue was Duncan Hunter.

But compromised Evangelical Christians and hypocritical greed driven Republicans Conservatives rejected him because of, in spite of all their bemoaning, they are money driven, compromised and lazy. They don't really want any change. Now we end up with McCain or worse. Romney, McCain, or Huckabee it makes no difference.

You Hypocrites!

William said...

He never pledge to build the border fence or stop illegal immigration and send them home at all.

Late in the game Huckabee signed a 15 point pledge from CIS committing to fighting illegal immigration. Romney did not. Whether that's because he didn't want to antoganize Hispanics or because he simply didn't want to I don't know.

I thought Romney was surely the best shot at border sanity we had, but I can understand why a lot of people with my concerns didn't. Based on the polls he didn't even get half of us. I can doubly understand the doubts because here in Utah just about every last damned Mormon politician is an open borders loon.

KlaosOldanburg said...

I don't trust Romney to sincerely go after the the employers, or make the slightest bit of reform to our trade policy/philosophy. Without these crucial elements, effectively enforcing immigration law will require surrendering a frightening amount of power/control to the federal government.

Brad Gilbaline said...

Barry Half-White? Yeah, I like it. But I'm sticking to Mellifluous Mulatto.

Anonymous said...

Anon, McCain offers a stronger version of Bush committed to "Victory" over Muslims.

For more than thirty years Muslims have been getting one win after another over America: 79 Hostages, Beirut, Somalia, Iraq the first time (Saddam was still there), Iran and so on. Meanwhile we get lots of terror abroad and at home -- they finally knock down the Twin Towers.

When McCain joked about "Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to the tune "Barbara Ann" most people thought it was a good idea. They loathe Iran and want payback. When McCain ripped Paul a new one that he doesn't want to trade with AQ, all they have to offer is Burquas, and won't fly with them because they only have one-way tickets, reaction went through the roof.

Americans understandably loathe and despise Muslims who have attacked them for more than thirty years. McCain has tapped into that (largely by accident) and it's likely the ONLY reason he's winning.

Steve's right, without illegal immigration as his issue Romney would be have gone out early, say IA. McCain is a terrible candidate and a disaster but he can pick up on what most people here can't: Americans want Muslims hit hard enough, so that they'll leave us alone.

Anonymous said...

I have to say, the fox election coverage was fairly astute, while CNN continued with it's "pump head" format, directed at slouching boomers suffering post-bypass mental decline (i.e. "moderates"). Did anyone notice that CNN repeatedly flashed, apparently unwittingly, a Satan Disciples, "SD" gang sign as a graphic during Larry King's interview of Snoop Dogg?

Lucius Vorenus said...

Udolpho: Romney evidently lacks the Oprah quality that our electorate so craves so that it can have drama rather than good policy for four years.

Other than believing that Jesus & Satan are brothers [and having been pro-abortion until just a couple of years ago], Romney's biggest problem is that he doesn't know how to talk common.

He might have had a fighting chance if he had bothered to learn how to work the word "Y'all" into everyday conversation.

As in "How's y'all's team doin' in this here bowl game?"

"Whach-y'all think of this here election?"

"Now y'all be sure to git out-n-vote, come Tuesday, ya hear?"

Throw in a little bit of a temper, and an evil eye, and he'd have the ladies swooning.

Hoosier Comrade said...

Anonymous said...

Americans understandably loathe and despise Muslims who have attacked them for more than thirty years.

If Americans did, as you claim, loathe AND DESPISE muslims, then there would be a greater objection to their continued immigration. There would be signs of "intolerance" or "hate speech" in America. There really isn't any of this and there isn't really any anti-Islamic movement.

Middle Americans were duped by the neocons into fighting a war of aggression. Hopefully, and there's really no reason for hope at this point, they'll be smart enough to avoid being swayed by hateful drivel like what you're sputtering into yet another war of aggression.

And, I say as a proud American in good standing, that if we do go into a war with Iran, that I hope we lose. I hope we lose every war of aggression that we engage in.

We Hoosiers were copperheads in the War of Northern Aggression, and this Hoosier intends on being a copperhead in this here War of Neocon Aggression.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier pretend all you want. Lettuce McAmnesty who was getting derisive hoots last summer over his laughable contention that no one would pick lettuce at $50 an hour (which is 100K per year before taxes) is now the front runner.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories -- it keeps people from dealing with the objective reality. Evil Neocons did hypnotize the public. The public does indeed loathe and fear Muslims and wants payback for nearly thirty years of humiliation. You can ask President Carter on that score.

You can back Iran against America all you want. Most Americans feel otherwise and the evidence is overwhelming: Dems pander to their base but fear the consequences of ending the war which they could have done at any time.

Reagan in 1980 was perceived as a nasty, nutty old crank. He still won over the Peanut Farmer because Americans don't like a big dose of national defeat. Regardless of how it's peddled.

As far as Iran goes, we are very likely to get war with them. The same way we were likely to get our Embassy taken over in 1979. Iran is divided, and the easiest way for a faction to "win" is to sink a few US ships or even a carrier group at the Straights of Hormuz, which is well within their capacity. They'd get crushed afterwards of course but thirty years of appeasement to acts of war by Iran have encouraged them.

"War of Aggression?" That's frankly idiotic -- 1979, Khobar Towers were aggressive acts of war in violation of all "international law" and were unanswered. Yes Hoosiers were traitors to the Union, and the Nation. And supported Slavery, a great evil and shame. They have much to answer for and nothing to be proud of on that account.

For most people Patriotism is not an option. They love their country, and that's what helped McCain win (barring a miracle) the nomination despite his odious qualities.

Hoosier Comrade said...

Anonymous,

Hoosiers didn't support slavery. Indiana was not a slave state. We rejected both slavery and statism. We didn't want to own them or have them around - just ask James Loewen.

You deride my proposition that the neocons drove the nation to war as a "conspiracy theory". I'm not invoking ZOG or Protocols or anything. I cite solid peer-reviewed research (Mearsheimer and Walt) in my contention. I'm striving to be as objective as possible.

I don't believe I'm alone in rejecting your perception of the world as one enormous boardgame in which the transgressions of a handful of zealots over a thirty year period warrants a war against "Muslims". It's like you just don't get that war causes death. It's like a video game for you - the taking of Muslim life as meaningless as stomping a koopa troopa.

As for my "patriotism", I get bored with semantics games - so let's make a deal. Let's go ahead and define patriotism as wanting to go kick Muslim ass. Then we can all agree that you are a patriot and I am not one.

savvygoper said...

Hoosier, I'd like to say that metaphorically you've been living in a cave for the past century and a half and have just come out, and thus look very, very stupid with your "war of northern aggression" and I "hope we lose" to Iran. The fact is though that you were stupid when you went into that cave, and sure as hell are even more stupid since you've came out.

Unfortunately, the "war of northern aggression" is behind us, or else traitors like yourself would hang from the gallows as they did in those times.

Hoosier Comrade said...

savvygoper,

You think it's unfortunate that the Civil War is over because you would like to see me hanged!?

You act like I'm somehow "behind the times" and stupid because I strongly reject the direction America is heading in. As if Thomas Jefferson and Robert Taft lost the argument to Kristol, Podhoretz, and Wolfowitz.

Your jingoistic support of imperial wars and eagerness to have me hanged for thought crimes betrays precisely how American you aren't.

I'm going to go crawl back into my Traditional America Cave, now. There's nothing stopping you from dragging me out of my cave and hanging me from those there gallows. That is, if you're as comfortable engaging in violence as you are in voting for others to be forced to do it on your behalf.

savvygoper said...

hoosier, anyone who bemoans the confederacy losing is indeed "behind the times." Aside from your fatuous remark about that, my point is this.

Maybe you are unaware that wishing for us to lose a war with Iran, thus resulting in very high death tolls for our military of course, puts you very close to pond sum in my book. I notice how you weakly backed off your "hope we lose position" because it was indefensible.

There is no thought crime if you are openly advocating something in a public forum that is treasonous in a time of war.

Cf. your last fatuity- there is no such thin as a vote for violence. There are votes for politicians who then enact policy. Perhaps you are not as aware of national civics as you are with preening for moral superiority. You might find it useful to read Thomas Sowell once in a while, especially a brilliant section in his book Quest for Cosmic Justice where he discusses the need to claim moral superiority of anti-war quislings like yourself.

Hoosier Comrade said...

savvygoper,

I wasn't implying moral superiority over people who vote for military action. I was implying moral superiority over people who vote for and support placing our troops in harm's way for something as petty and vindictive as "getting back at Muslims".

The "hope we lose" comment was inappropriately harsh and it was a mistake to word it as such without clarification. If we do engage in an unjustified war of aggression against Iran, I hope we stop doing that. I hope we change our minds and go home. I hope we do not meet our objective.

Saying that "I hope we lose" kinda implies that I wish for harm to come to our troops. I don't.

You're the one championing our instigation of a war which will drain our treasury, spill our blood, and make us less secure from an entirely new generation of embittered insurgents.

I'm not anti-war, but I'm certainly against wars which clearly don't serve our interests. You're the one collaborating with a foreign power in an initiative which is not in American interests. So perhaps YOU'RE the true quisling.

savvygoper said...

hoosier, your ability to pyschoanalyze every supporter of the war as "wanting to get back at muslims" suggests a high level of arrogance and ignorance of the debate. Frankly, the US has sat on our hands following previous terrorist attacks, and after 9-11 it was high time to myself and many others that doing nothing was no longer and option.

By definition any war has a price in blood and treasure, only a utopian leftist idiot should need to that to be explained. There are arguments to be made on a cost-benefit basis with foreign wars in the Middle-East, but aping leftist anti-war hysterics, along with moral preening is a poor way to do so. And which foreign power is the us collaborating with?