Posted on 04/27/2006 3:17:35 PM PDT by VU4G10
A new poll from Rasmussen Reports has some bad news for Republicans—well, almost all Republicans. If you’re Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), the news couldn’t be better.
While a generic Republican candidate trails a generic Democrat by 12 percentage points, according to the poll, a third-party candidate who runs on a get-tough-on-immigration platform not only beats the Republican, but also actually runs even with the Democrat. Here’s an excerpt:
The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority."
With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.
If anyone fits Rasmussen’s description it’s Tancredo, who has made a very public name for himself as the anti-illegal-immigration crusader in Congress. And having spent time in both Iowa and New Hampshire beginning last year, he’s posited himself to be the candidate who could play spoiler.
Coming back to reality for just one moment, I should note the rest of the Rasmussen commentary about the poll numbers:
This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.
With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.
I’d recommend reading the full Rasmussen summary as well as my post last night about the new Diageo/Hotline poll on Democrats.
Post without the name calling and your post will be read.
I don't agree with you, but I honor your right to post. No one here is ole boys or ole girls we are freepers. Name calling belongs on some other forum. Butt patting Ole boy, and damn Yankee are both slurs.
According to this poll not voting for the border party is voting for the democrats. The republicans are in a distant third. Boy do I love throwing the bush bots logic back in their respective faces.
Oh for heaven's sake! If I post to you again, I'll make sure to consult the ACLU.
You all like polls when it suits your agenda.
To some, yes. Probably to the majority here on FR.
But note that they like to make that all-important distinction between legal and illegal immigration, which is roughly equivalent to approving of abortion as a birth-control method for single women but not those who are legally married, as if having that piece of paper makes all the difference in the world.
When asked, I doubt that one FReeper in 10 can tell you how many apply, how long it takes, or which authority of the 1986 Immigration Law pertains to the hordes of potential legal immigrants from Mexico (since that's really what we're talking about, not those coming from Sudan or Bali or Korea) which everyone wishes were "legal." All they will say is there are too many illegals, and they are jumping ahead in line, and they need to go home and wait it out.
Temporary insanity? No, I don't think so. It's more on the order of mob hysteria, bordering (pardon the pun) on xenophobia among those who truly worry about "the American culture" being trampled. Pat Buchanan is a perfect example, along with Prof. Samuel Huntington.
The American culture will survive, as it has through waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe, China, Ireland and Southeast Asia. Each wave was met with severe anti-immigrant feelings, racism and social ostracism. Chinese were relegated to a fenced-off section of San Francisco, now called Chinatown, and prohibited from all but menial occupations. The American culture nevertheless survived, as did the Chinese culture, by some miracle.
When the inflation figures come out in a month or two, we'll see if immigration is really the issue some think it is. My guess is by November, it will be the economy, stupid.
He's got my vote... even if I have to write him in.
Wow. That is great news, I haven't seen anywhere. You wouldn't happen to have a link?
Fascinating. BTW can you tell us exactly how you managed to wade through all of the chaff and misdirection thrown out by the xenophobes regarding things like downward wage pressures, overcrowded schools, crime, closing ERs and, in the case of California, 9 billion dollars a year in additional expenses, to arrive at this remarkably concise but no doubt brilliant blanket conclusion?
DUH. That was my point, stupid. Its also what a majority of Americans want.
What was your agenda, by the way? Electing Republicans, wasn't it? Making sure they retained control of Congress? Preventing a bill of impeachment against Pres. Bush? Fair to describe these as *your* agenda?
Then I suggest you start paying attention to polls like this.
Like this?
Not unless I really want to throw away everything we've worked for for years.
Howlin, now its my turn to tell you that not voting for the border party is a vote for the democrats. Your not voting for Tancredo, well thats a vote for Hillary.
Well.
Which is it, a)dissolve the welfare state, or b)close the borders?
It's rather a simple choice for conservatives, isn't it?
But I suspect a slew of people who self-identify as conservatives don't really have any problem with a cradle-to-grave welfare state . . .
Actually I recently heard Tancredo give a speech and it was on recognizing the fact that radical Islam is our enemy. It was a very good speech and I don't recall him even mentioning immigration. It was reassuring as I have been suspicious of him since he stabbed DeLay in the back.
Is that a new party, The Border Party?
How about we elect someone who will do both!
Both. BTW illegals by law are not eligible for direct welfare, notice I didn't mention it. Nice try.
However, they do burn quite a bit of taxpayer dollars in other ways.
It's rather a simple choice for conservatives, isn't it?
Yes it is.
How do you answer my question? No non-sequitors please.
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.