Saturday, November 3, 2007
Linda Chavez Or Audacious Epigone: Of These, Who Analyzes Honestly?
Chavez lays out some numbers as follows:"Hispanics represent about 15 percent of the population, but only about 8 percent of voting-age citizens, and barely 6 percent of those persons who actually voted in the 2004 election. But Democrats could easily target Hispanic voters and significantly increase their numbers, just as they have blacks in previous elections...". Then quotes a study which looked at the hispanic precincts of THREE congressional districts, extrapolating therefrom to the other hundreds, but deceitfully, very much contrary to the general pattern demonstrated by Audacious Epigone[Dec. 7th '06 Oct.4th '07] and others; that immigration hardliners among Republicans were less than half as likely to be unseated as the softies. Contra Chavez, hispanic voters will likely not henceforth be tempted by Republican imitators of echt-Democratic policies; as always and with all groups, they will buy the real deal and not the imitation brand, if that visamongering is more than a blip on their screen. Our political elites are unprecedentedly out of step with the electorate on this issue of the status of the illegals, and so much so that, one could suspect that these promiscuous race-working elites have an infectious disease, and clean-living Republican voters do not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Six of 101 (5.9%) Immigration Reform Caucus Republicans lost their seats in the '06 elections.
Among Non-IRC members, 22 of 132 (16.7%) Republicans were defeated.
Chavez is as tendentious as Nadler, who similarly argued for Hispanic pandering by looking at a couple of select districts that kinda-sorta supported his position (although even of the three he chose, the losing Republicans have been replaced by Democrats that are about as restrictionist as their vanquished opponents were), even though these select districts are not at all representative of the nation as a whole, or the vast majority of districts therein.
Thank you, AE, this saves me from having to go through a lot of entries from months ago.
AND congratulations on your original contribution to the data on this very issue which has turned out to one of major controversy for our nation. Your approach is honest, that of Chavez is propagandistic hack publicity for credulous irresponsible journalistic mentalities who will never look at the facts themselves.
John,
Thanks.
What would be funny if it weren't so tragic, is that she makes a comfortable living off spewing this utter nonsense, while people who take an honest approach have to balance how vociferous they are with how much food they are going to put on the table.
Post a Comment