GOP Finds Hot Button in Illegal Immigration: Special Election Could Indicate Democratic Weak Spot

WP: GOP Finds Hot Button in Illegal Immigration
Special Election in Massachusetts Could Be Indicative of Democratic Weak Spot
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 23, 2007; Page A07


Democrat Niki Tsongas won by only 51 to 45 percent in a district that gave presidential hopefuls Al Gore and John F. Kerry 57 percent of the vote. (David H. Brow/AP)

When Republican Jim Ogonowski launched his long-shot bid for Congress, he prepared for an upbeat campaign in his Democratic, working-class district of Massachusetts, based on a winning resume: affable hay farmer, former Air Force lieutenant colonel, and brother of an American Airlines pilot whose hijacked plane slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

But by last month, although opinion polling showed that he was well liked, he was still running 10 points behind Democrat Niki Tsongas with just weeks to go before a special election. The campaign needed a way to go beyond biography, to persuade Northern Massachusetts to vote Republican. They found it in illegal immigration.

On Tuesday, Ogonowski still fell short, but Tsongas's 51 to 45 percent victory was a shocker in a district where both John F. Kerry and Al Gore took 57 percent of the vote, and where liberal Democratic Rep. Martin T. Meehan served comfortably for eight terms. The underwhelming victory of the wife of deceased former senator Paul Tsongas has rekindled Democratic concerns about an immigration issue they had hoped had been put to rest.

"This issue has real implications for the country. It captures all the American people's anger and frustration not only with immigration, but with the economy," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an architect of the Democratic congressional victories of 2006. "It's self-evident. This is a big problem."

Republicans, sensing a major vulnerability, have been hammering Democrats, forcing Congress to face the question of illegal immigration on every bill they can find, from agriculture spending and housing assistance to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102201717.html?hpid=topnews

a LTTE yesterday in the gLobe tried saying the reason the eLection was so cLose was because of iLLegaL immigrants... and that the onLy reason she won at aLL was due to the Large immigrant popuLations of Lawrence and LoweLL, and the affLuent suburbs such as concord who don't have to deaL with this issue yet. of course the man was writing from newburyport of aLL pLaces. :rofl:

the reason it was so cLose was because niki ran a gawdawfuL campaign. seriousLy. it was terribLe.

ognowski was an idiot for focusing on iLLegaL immigration. if he didn't he probabLy wouLd have won.

I wish they would stop portraying the district as flamingly liberal. It is not and has never been a very liberal district. I've lived in MA-5 for most of my life. The only reliably blue spots are a couple of cities in the northern end (Lowell, Lawrence, sometimes Haverhill), and a couple of the towns in the southern end. (like Concord and Acton) Most of the rest of the towns lean Republican. While I was growing up here, it was a fairly conservative, largely Catholic district. Although it has diversified quite a bit since then, it's still one of the most conservative areas of the state.

A lot of the folks who live in the red suburbs of this district moved to those town to get away from all the immigrants in the larger cities. Which is why they probably voted for Ogonowski, who ran a very anti-immigrant campaign.

:hi:

:hi:

shall we say, not so conservative. One of the major reasons for the dissatisfaction with Bush among conservatives is his policy on immigration. I'm convinced McCain would be doing better in the primaries right now if it weren't for the fact that he's seen as too liberal on immigration. So on this particular issue, the Democrats can pick up votes from conservatives just as easily as the Republicans -- all we have to do is point to their record.

The percentages of Kerry and Gore runs were presidential general elections. Under those circumstances voter participation rates in the Commonwealth approach 50% of registered voters. In this recent special election, we had only about 20% turnout. In fact, there was a slightly lower turnout than for the dem primary in the same race. I cannot say if that means some disillusioned dems stayed home after their man didn't get the nom, or if that means that the other side helped to hand us the dem candidate (again) by participating in the opponent's primary, but if the conservatives think they can get and keep momentum by pushing the bigotry angle they're dreaming.

For one thing, it's tough to declare a strategic victory when you lose.
Also, it seems they've created a monster that they can no longer control:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-martinez20oct20,1,3294495,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true