Full throttle on the wrong track (multiculturalism, illegal aliens, represent, Republican)

[blacknight04]

As predicted at the start of Immigration08.com (http://www.immigration08.com/www.immigration08.com - broken link), the GOP immigration wedge strategy became a serious liability for the Republican Party at every level of the electoral contest this year. With the addition of Virgil Goode (http://www.immigration08.com/blog/entry/wall_street_journal_to_immigration_hardliners_face _reality_or_extinction/ - broken link), Immigration08.com's post-election analysis now shows how immigrant hardliners fared in 22 battleground races.
How many races did hardliners win?
Two (http://www.immigration08.com/fencedin - broken link).

Immigration ’08 | Blog (http://www.immigration08.com/2008/blog/blog_entry/full_throttle_on_the_wrong_track - broken link)

In depth analysis of the 22 battleground races can be found in the link below.

http://amvoice.3cdn.net/77076902eaa4..._vqm6id0x0.pdf

[tinman01]

Did they lose due to their stand on immigration or due to backlash against Bush?
Kanjorski won but not due to folks believing that his views on immigration were more appropriate than Barletta's. In fact most people in the area in question agree with Barletta. Callers to talk shows said as much. What caused them to vote Kanjorski was party loyalty and lack of faith in the Republican party. Had Barletta been a democrat he would have more than likely beat Kanjorski easily.

[blacknight04]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Did they lose due to their stand on immigration or due to backlash against Bush?
Kanjorski won but not due to folks believing that his views on immigration were more appropriate than Barletta's. In fact most people in the area in question agree with Barletta. Callers to talk shows said as much. What caused them to vote Kanjorski was party loyalty and lack of faith in the Republican party. Had Barletta been a democrat he would have more than likely beat Kanjorski easily.

The point is, if those same candidates were running on this immigration forum, the hardliners would have won easily. Since the majority on here claim their views on immigration reflect what the majority of voters think....why didn't the hardliners prevail out there in the real world?

[antialphabet]

Originally Posted by blacknight04

The point is, if those same candidates were running on this immigration forum, the hardliners would have won easily. Since the majority on here claim their views on immigration reflect what the majority of voters think....why didn't the hardliners prevail out there in the real world?

While the public isn't necessarily fond of illegal aliens and are concerned over the issue, I think the majority of people don't hold that boiling rage and obsession over immigration that some have on here.

The angry anti-illegals who believe in reconquista are a fringe group, and their feelings don't represent that of Americans. They speak for an interest group, not for Americans. And anyone who disagrees with them is unAmerican.

I hate to be superficial about this, but it's funny when you compare the layout of this site, with those of the opposite sides.

NewsWithViews.com -- Where Reality Shatters Illusion
WorldNetDaily
Multiculturalism - Destroying American Culture

Which site looks like it was designed by angry people with nothing better to do?