In New Hampshire, 44% of Catholic Democrats voted for Clinton; 27% for Obama; 24% for Edwards. On the Republican side, 39% of Catholics voted for McCain; 39% voted for Romney; 8% for Giuliani; 7% for Huckabee.
Recently, I asked a Republican and a Democratic pollster why no one is talking about the big Catholic vote for Hillary (only 2 points lower than the percent she got from women). They felt that it was not so much a "Catholic" vote for Clinton as a vote by white working-class voters who were Catholic. She got 47% of those earning less than $50,000 vs. 32% for Obama. These voters are concerned about the economy for which Obama does not yet have a clear message. They felt that Clinton's message should not be "experience" or "change," but "I care" (the old "I feel your pain").
These pollsters, who were not involved in pre-election polling in NH, were negative on campaign consultants. One noted that "McCain's campaign took off when all his consultants left him to join Romney." They believe that the media get it wrong because they talk to consultants in each campaign who the media falsely believe know what they are talking about. One opined that Romney and Giuliani never had a chance at the Republican nomination and have simply been distractions.
Why were the polls wrong on Hillary? Lots of theories:
One scholar commented that we have seen this split (young and highly educated vs. working-class Democrats) before: Stevenson, McGovern, Hart, Dean vs. Humphrey, Mondale. To win, you have to get the working-class Democrats. Nevada will be interesting with the unions endorsing Obama.
Time will tell.
Thomas J. Reese, S.J. is a Senior Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will not be posted. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review our editorial guidelines.
Comments
Five myths about the recent anti-immigration talk in America
Juan Marinez, Cristo Rey Parish
January 15, 2008
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-
ed_oppenheimer_col_0115jan15,0,2074416.story
It's time to debunk the biggest myths of the anti-immigration
movement that have swept this country over the last two years, and
may still have an impact on the 2008 presidential race: that they
are not anti-Hispanic nor oppose legal immigration, but are only
against "illegal" immigration.
Before we get into why most U.S. Republican presidential hopefuls —
with the exception of Sen. John McCain — and cable television anti-
immigration crusaders on CNN and Fox News are deceiving the public
with their claim that they are only against "illegal" immigration,
let me tell you what brings me to address this issue.
Last week, after I wrote about the loss of "anti-immigration"
candidates in the New Hampshire primary, I was instantly flooded
with more than 100 e-mails that almost unanimously criticized me for
labeling Republican hopefuls Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and others
as "anti-immigration" candidates.
They are not "anti-immigration," but anti-"illegal" immigration, the
readers said, almost in unison. So here goes my respectful response
to this and other big myths of the anti-immigration movement:
• Myth No. 1: "We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented
immigrants should get in line for visas." That's deceptive because
you can't demand that people get into line when, for the most part,
there is no line to get into.
While the U.S. labor market is demanding 1.5 million mostly low-
skilled immigrants a year — and will demand many more in coming
years, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly educated — the
current immigration system allows into the United States an average
of one million legal immigrants a year, and most of them are already
here.
"There is a huge mismatch between what the U.S. labor market needs
and the supply of immigration visas," says Frank Sharry, head of the
National Immigration Forum, which advocates both secure borders and
a path to legal residence for many of the 12 million undocumented
immigrants in the United States.
On top of that, most anti-immigration groups want to reduce legal
immigration. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),
a favorite of radio and cable television Hispanic immigrant-bashing
news shows, wants to reduce legal immigration from the current 1
million a year to about 300,000, with a 20-year cooling-off period.
• Myth No. 2: "Anti-immigration advocates are not anti-Hispanic."
Maybe many aren't, but when was the last time you heard anti-
immigration Republican hopefuls or cable television talk show hosts
lashing out against illegal immigrants from Canada?
In addition, the escalating immigration hysteria has created an ugly
environment that affects all Hispanics — both legal and
undocumented — in many parts of the country, as recent studies by
the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have
shown.
"We are seeing more discrimination and harassment," says Michele
Waslin, of the Immigration Policy Center. "Anybody who is Hispanic-
looking or has an Hispanic last name is being treated as an
undocumented immigrant."
• Myth No. 3: "We are a nation of laws, and the law says you have to
enter the country legally." Yes, but we are also a nation of
immigrants. And, by the way, nearly half of all undocumented
immigrants enter the country legally, and overstay their visas.
• Myth No. 4: "Building a border fence will solve the problem."
Wrong. As long as the per-capita income in the United States is five
times bigger than that of Mexico, and as long as the U.S. labor
market demands millions of low-skilled jobs that Americans won't
fill, people will jump over the fence, dig tunnels under it or come
through Canada.
• Myth No. 5: Those of us who criticize anti-immigration groups
are "amnesty" and "open borders" supporters. Baloney. I, for one,
support both border protection and an earned path to legalization
for millions of undocumented workers who pay taxes and are willing
to learn English.
My conclusion: Let's call things by their names, and agree that most
opponents of a comprehensive immigration package are anti-
immigration.
The only way to solve the current immigration crisis will be to
legalize undocumented workers who have paid their dues, and to
increase economic integration with Mexico and the rest of Latin
America in order to reduce poverty and emigration pressures south of
the border. The rest is, for the most part, populist demagoguery.
Oppenheimer is a Latin America correspondent for the Miami Herald.
Send e-mail to aoppenheimer@herald.com.