Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Utah an Early Test on Immigration

For political observers searching for clues about the influence of immigration on the Republican electorate, today's Utah primary should provide some insight.

Not known for its competitive elections, Utah is hosting the marquee primary of the day between 3rd district Rep. Chris Cannon (R) and real estate developer John Jacob (R). Jacob has made the campaign a referendum on immigration, arguing that although Cannon voted for the more strict House immigration bill, his willingness to compromise on a guest-worker provision, which is favored by President Bush, makes him out-of-step with the Republican base.

"Immigration is at the forefront and [this race] is going to have national repercussions," said Hayden Hill, a spokeswoman for Jacob.

While Utah is the best race of the day, there are several runoffs to watch as well. In South Carolina, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer (R) faces off against Mike Campbell, the son of the late Palmetto State Gov. Carroll Campbell (R).

Read on for the need-to-know information on today's primaries and runoffs:

Utah's 3rd district: For the second cycle in a row Cannon faces a serious primary challenge from a candidate attacking his stance on immigration. In 2004, Cannon defeated former state Rep. Matt Throckmorton 58 percent to 42 percent in the primary. Jacob's challenge is significantly stronger. At the state convention last month, the challenger received 52 percent of the delegates' votes to 48 percent for Cannon. (In 2004, Cannon won 57 percent of the convention vote -- just missing the 60 percent necessary to avoid a primary altogether.)

Two polls have been released in recent days. The first, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates for the Deseret Morning News, showed Cannon with a 46 percent to 33 percent edge. A Mason-Dixon survey for the Salt Lake Tribune showed a tighter race with Cannon ahead 44 percent to 41 percent among likely voters but has Jacob ahead 45 percent to 44 percent lead with the sample stripped down to definite voters.

Both polls show that immigration is the dominant issue of the campaign. Ninety-one percent of voters in the Mason-Dixon poll said that immigration was either a very or somewhat important issue. A whopping 97 percent of likely Jacob voters said immigration was an important issue for them.

In the Dan Jones poll, voters were split on the best solutuion for the immigration problem. Forty-seven percent favored a plan that would enforce the existing immigration laws but also offer a path for citizenship for illegals; 44 percent baced enforcement alone. The former option more closely tracks with Cannon's position; the latter with Jacob's.

Cannon has raised and spent more money on the race but Jacob's personal wealth has kept him competitive. Through June 7, Cannon had brought in $678,000, disbursed $617,000 and had $91,000 in the bank. Jacob had raised $350,000 ($328,000 of which came from his own pocket), spent $346,000 and ended the period with just $3,500 on hand. He donated another $60,000 to the contest on June 24.

While low turnout typically favors the incumbent, the reverse is actually true here. The most devoted voters in GOP primaries tend to be the most conservative on most issues -- including immigration. The fact that only Republicans can vote in today's primary means that conservatives should comprise a large part of the electorate, giving Jacob a real chance. (The challenger has hurt his chances in the race's final days, however, blaming some bad business deals on none other than Satan.) If Cannon loses, House members' opposition to a compromise immigration deal will likely harden as they become more fearful of angering their base.

South Carolina Lt. Gov: Campbell, who carries perhaps the most famous last name in South Carolina Republican politics, led incumbent Andre Bauer in the primary 45 percent to 37 percent. Bauer's campaign has been riddled by bad luck, including revelations about being stopped twice for speeding and a plane crash on May 23 that has left him hobbled for the runoff. Bauer and a co-pilot crashed his single engine plane into power lines while attempting to take off from an airport in Blacksburg. Bauer is now in physical therapy for a leg injury. There's an interesting surrogate fight under way in this race as well. Rep. Joe Wilson (R) is backing Bauer while South Carolina First Lady Jenny Sanford is with Campbell.

Another race with major implications for the future of South Carolina politics is the contest for state Treasurer, where wealthy developer and top primary finisher, Thomas Ravenel (R), must face the fourth place finisher today because no candidate got more than 50 percent of the vote (the second and third place finishers dropped out after Ravenel's strong 48 percent finish). Ravenel, the son of former Rep. Arthur Ravenel (R-S.C.), has said publicly he is interested in challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) in 2008. Ravenel ran a strong campaign for Senate in 2004, narrowly missing a spot in the runoff, which was won by Sen. Jim DeMint.

Alabama Lt. Gov.: (It has been pointed out to The Fix that the Alabama legislature recently changed the date of the state's runoff from June 27 to July 18 in response to a lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department who said that the three weeks between primary and runoff was not enough time for military personnel living overseas to cast absentee ballots. We stand corrected.)

Strange shocked the political establishment by winning 48 percent in the primary, 14 points better than Wallace Jr.. Wallace has won the support of the third and fourth place finishers, giving him a glimmer of hope to turn around the primary results. This race has implications on the 2008 presidential race as Arizona Sen. John McCain has endorsed and stumped with Wallace. McCain's Straight Talk America PAC has also begun making donations in Alabama, which recently moved up the date of its 2008 presidential primary.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 27, 2006; 11:10 AM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Courts Blogosphere
Next: Chafee Remains in Party of Lincoln

Comments

Did I complain about the passage of CAFTA? I was simply pointing out the fact that without immigrant labor we would lose many jobs overseas. And anyways, I was in the room at 1 a.m. when CAFTA passed and there was definately an outcry from many Democrats leading up to the weeks before it passed. What a stupid thing for you to say. Do you know anything about politics honestly? Your posts are ridiculous.

Posted by: Southern Progressive | June 28, 2006 10:32 PM | Report abuse

A little too late to complain about NAFTA and CAFTA, Southern Progressive. No Dem got up to stop the passage of those bills, especially the "movers and shakers", and it passed in the dead of night.

Until Dems gain a backbone and actually standup, not whine, folks will continue to view them as weak and clueless. This is how and why Republicans win, as few folks like to be associated with losers, who only offer half-baked solutions (even if that's available -- no alternatives for the Medicare prescription bill; no alternatives to Social Security crisis [2010 is coming!]; and no alternatives on a GOOD exit stragedy in Irag. Just more whining and fake (or Townhouse bought) rage.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 28, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cannon wins in a landslide.

This primary just goes to show that if immigration is to be key in 2006, then it looks like most Americans are siding with Bush and his call for COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform.

It is ridiculous to imagine deporting 12 million men, women, and children. While I am all for securing the border by any means necessary, I support a pathway to citizenship for those who have been here for more than 5 years. The cleaning (17%), farming (24%), and construction (10%) industries have used this labor for years.

Are we to outsource the farming industry? How about the rest the textile and poultry industries? With the signing of CAFTA last year (and yes, Central America is a prime agricultural producer) imagine how many jobs could be headed over seas. Would that make the American public happy? How about a huge increase in prices because we have to find people to do jobs they have don't want to do? Comprehensive immigration reform is the ONLY answer. All the anti-immigrant posters need to take notice...

Posted by: Southern Progressive | June 28, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cannon wins in a landslide.

This primary just goes to show that if immigration is to be key in 2006, then it looks like most Americans are siding with Bush and his call for COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform.

It is ridiculous to imagine deporting 12 million men, women, and children. While I am all for securing the border by any means necessary, I support a pathway to citizenship for those who have been here for more than 5 years. The cleaning (17%), farming (24%), and construction (10%) industries have used this labor for years.

Are we to outsource the farming industry? How about the rest the textile and poultry industries? With the signing of CAFTA last year (and yes, Central America is a prime agricultural producer) imagine how many jobs could be headed over seas. Would that make the American public happy? How about a huge increase in prices because we have to find people to do jobs they have don't want to do? Comprehensive immigration reform is the ONLY answer. All the anti-immigrant posters need to take notice...

Posted by: Southern Progressive | June 28, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Mike,

I agree that the issue of illegals (they are not immigrants and the debate should not be framed around "illegal immigrants") should be taken more seriously by our politicians and the American public. But, a couple of things - children cannot be blamed because their parents are here illegally so your calling them "brats" is unnecessary and uncalled for. I support your view of not allowing children born to illegals in this country to be granted automatic citizenship. Its just rewarding criminals.

Second, as a public servant, I take offense to your use of the term "worthless public servant." I've worked in public service for 25 years in direct support of the American people and our troops, and have even deployed with them in various areas of conflict. Most public servants are hard working and try to ensure that the public trust is well earned. However, we work for an administration that is slowly destroying the American way of life with their fear and hate mongering and its difficult for us to remain in high morale as it is. We are constantly preached to about ethics from those who can't spell the word. Give us a break, please? Thanks

P.S. Why are we so concerned if someone misspells a word? Let's focus on the important stuff, shall we?

Posted by: KAS | June 28, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Wow...I've been called lots of things before, but never a "worthless public servant".

For my part, I spent my college years getting a well-rounded education so I could respond to a question intelligently and not have to resort to name calling when someone asks me to clarify a point I am making. Also, I learned that it usually helps to spell things correctly if I am going to call someone else illiterate.

Mike - Sorry to have annoyed you.

I am off to ponder the eternal question:

"Can I be a worthless public servant if I work in the private sector?"

Thanks again for the laugh.

A guy in the Midwest

Posted by: Worthless? Public? | June 27, 2006 10:16 PM | Report abuse

I guess I ought to apologize for typo's "A guy in the Midwest", but I spent my college years and professional years studying engineering and working as a mathematician, rather than functioning as a worthless public servent who spends their every waking hour checking for spelling, punctuation and typographical errors. Oh well, if that gives you the illusion of your otherwise worthless life having some sort of meaning, far be it from me to criticize. I use the word "twit" a lot. It means a "silly, annoying, ineffectual, and imbecilic person" . It fits you to a "T".

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Now when NAFTA and CAFTA were passed into law, did any Dem get fighting mad to try to overturn it?

:crickets chirping:

Let's seen, a local SC mill is closing. Something like 4,000 jobs will be lost in the community. Good middle class factory jobs, now gone.

Why? Because tail chasers are more interested in money grabbing and influence peddling than protecting Mom and Pop from living in a 3rd world.

Where did the founder of Daily Kos escape from again? Nothing like making this country like home, huh?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I am not interested in getting dragged into this debate, but I find great humor in the guy who cannot spell "arithmetic" accusing someone else of being illiterate.

Nice going Mike.

Posted by: A guy in the Midwest | June 27, 2006 6:43 PM | Report abuse

First off, the Amendment to the Constitution (the 14th) is the one used as an excuse to grant citizenship to the children of illegals. That amendment, however, was passed after the Civil War to grant citizenship to slaves. It expessly denies citizenship to the children of representatives of foreign governments here exercising their duties and to anyone here unlawfully. Hence, all of the noise about illegals only being guilty of minor crimes and not felonies and certainly not federal laws. It's simply nonsense. EVERY illegal can presummed to be guilty of a felony and, hence, their children can be denied citizenship. As for Brittain33, she is obviously here illegally becasue she is obviously illiterate. If she goes back one post and adds (you know - arithematic?) the numbers I provide, he will discover that just those OFFICAL nunbers establish that illegals cost in excess of one trillion dollars annually and, rememeber, we haven't added in prison and other costs yet, so "yes indeed", if you run the numbers illegals actually do appear to cost us $100,000 or more annually, year in and year out. I cannot speak for Brittain33 but I can think of a whole bunch of things I would rather spend that money on than supporting a mass of illegal aliens who have no right to be here in the first place. They take up jobs that rightfully belong to U.S. citizens. They depress wages, costing the average Amercian worker well over $2700 in wage and benefit concessions. They are the single leading cause of half of the criminal activity in this country -- including half of all violent crime, 2/3 of all identity theft, etc.. They are directly responsible for nearly 1/3 of the social services costs to state, local, and federal government. As a group, they are responsible for more misery, more social evil, more harm than any single group in the history of this country. We don't want them, we cannot afford them, we don;t need them, we want them GONE.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Andy R-

Well first thing's first you update the Constitutional Amendment because in no way, shape, or form was it ever ment to validate the children of illegal immigrants.

That millions of people are abusing an Amendment made to protect the rights of disenfranchised AMERICANS is all the more reason to take a hardline approach towards future illegal immigration. And it won't cost this country a penny to deport 12 million illegals because, at no cost to you or I, all 12 million of them physically walked into this country at some point. They are all physically capable of walking right back. We don't even have to pay cabfare.

I'm with Mike.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 27, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Mike you still didn't answer my question. What do you do about the people who have children who ARE US citizens? These "brats" you refer to have the same rights and privledges that you and I have.
Minus the money this is a real issue.

Posted by: Andy R | June 27, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

How does your average illegal alien cost taxpayers $100,000 a year?

Break it out for me. I'd love to hear this.

Posted by: Brittain33 | June 27, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't hate anyone. Neither am I a racist. I do, however, reserve my compassion for my fellow American's who have and are suffering due to this uncontrolled mass migration. Think about it! A meat packing job that paid $18 an hour in 1980 today pays around $9 an hour. Construction jobs - roofers, painters, concret workers, brick layers - all have suffered salary cuts of more than 50%, too. Every dime of those cuts is directly traceable to illegals taking those jobs and being paid under the table. In medical costs, illegals cost our hospitols and health providers 104.7 billion dollars last year alone. Those costs are non-recoverable and are responsible for nearly all of the increases Amercian citizens are seeing. Thirty percent of the illegal population receives some form of public assistance costing U.S. taxpayers (again, 2005 figures alone) 456 billion dollars in direct costs. The cost of educating the children of illegals is in excess of 72 billion dollars (and THAT was figured at the lowest national average cost of $9000 per pupil). None of this even begins to include the direct costs of law enforcement, prison, identity theft (2/3 of it are due directly to the illegal community), and on and on. It has nothing to do with compassion. You want compassion, give them your house and your job and your retirement and your savings. We simply cannot afford the illegals and as tough as it sounds and as hard hearted as it may be, it's time to recognize that and do whatever it takes to get rid of them.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid that I don't have that much passion -- or hatred of anyone. Although I could get really excited about doing all of the stuff you mention to the people who are really destroying this country --Congress and the administration. I would love to make them so miserable they leavve.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Brittain33 - I hadn't ever quite thought of it that way, but you are close to correct. The number of illegal adults in this country is around 12 to 15 million. Their brats acfcount for another 8 million (and...hence the 20 to 24 million figure we see batted about). So, the qactual cost per illegal really is in the neighborhood of $100,000 per parasite. So, it makes even more sense economically to round them up and deport them. Thank you!

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Andy, I'm a little sick of you and your games. Chris can verify that I have the data yto support that 1.5 trillion dollar figure. I've been down the paty of providing it before. As for it being half of the annual federal budget, you seem to forget that states and local governments collect taxes and pay for services, too. But let's review a few facts - somewhere in excess of 37% of the prison population of this country are illegals, nearly half of the homicides are committed by illegals (more AMERICAN's die at the hands of illegals every year than died in 9-11 and subsequently in Iraq and Afghanistan...). States estimate that more than 25% of the welfare and social services cost they bear are directly attributable to illegals, and this isn't even rolled into the 1.5 trillion dollar figure. The truth is, illegals likely do cost us about 1/3 of the total revenues collected. Legalizing 12 million or more of them is going to create so much misery, increase the costs so much more, that I cannot fathom how you can possibly advocate it. You are obviously from the same mold as Bush and his whqck jobs - replacing common sense and thought with delussions and wishful thinking.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, excuse me. Of course employers need to be punished. But illegals are illegally here, have no right to work, no right to any sort of social service, and defrauding the Amercian taxpayer. THEY need to be punished. Confiscation of every asset, rounding them up and sticking them in a prison camp until they can be deported, denying their brats automatic citizenship, are all things thast can be and ought to be done also. Make it so miserable for them that they will leave voluntarily. Illegals are, to put it bluntly, parasites and have no claim on our concern, our money, our social services, or our conscience. Get 'em out!

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"...Will the voters of Utah tell Jacob they'd rather have a grown-up (relatively speaking) as their representative or will they be sucked in by anti-immigration hysteria? "

Pejoratives aside, the voters want, no *demand*, that illegals be rounded up and deported. You can call that hysteria or racism or anything else you wish, but the average voter understand quite well the cost of those illegals and is sick and tired of supporting them and the insane (and unthinking) whack jobs that support them. You obviously don't care about working class men and women which obviously makes you a part of the East liberal establishment - let's see, what the word that describes his group? Looser!

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

MB-It isn't 'liberals' that are supporting amnesty -- it's the president and his corporate cronies. And you know it's them that run this country, so the illegals aren't going anywhere.

I'm from working class America and I can tell you that wages and benefits are already decimated. But again, the focus should be on punishing employers. If we were to get serious about enforcement [which could be done very economically --just lay big fines on them--it will pay for itself]. If there were no jobs, they would go by themselves. if we did not offer them social services [which I don't believe in either] they would leave.

I'm just saying we as taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. We didn't cause the problem.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Mike,
The cost of 200 billion doesn't take into account the dead stop that deporting 12 million people will have on our economy. The housing and construction industry would implode, the service and daycare industry is built on the backs of illegal immigrants. Think about all the two income families that depend on illegals to watch their kids. Now I am not going to argue that it is right that people are here or not, but it is ludicruos to think that sending them all back is remotely possible.
Also what do you do with people who are illegals that have had children in this country? Their kids are citizens and it is unconstitutional to make the kids leave. So do you make them leave their kids? If so with whom? And if so for how long?
By the way your stat of 1.5 trillion for cost of illegals is ridiculous. That is almost half our annual federal budget.

Posted by: Andy R | June 27, 2006 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"Illegals cost the taxpayers of the country in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars annually. "

Um... if there are 10 million illegals in this country, that means each man, woman, and child is costing taxpayers $150,000 each. And yet somehow they're spending all that money without paying any sales tax.

Posted by: Brittain33 | June 27, 2006 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Good God! Can you run for office in South Carolina if you don't already have a famous daddy to pave the way?

Posted by: Brittain33 | June 27, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, "All illegals deported? Are you going to pay for it?" Illegals cost the taxpayers of the country in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars annually. The highest estimate for rounding them up and deporting them is less than 200 billion. Economically, it is a lot cheaper to round 'em up and ship 'em out. Beyond that, legalizing them will wreck havoc with lower and Middle Class U.S. workers. Giving 12 million of them green cards will allow them to complete American's for jobs in manufacturing, construction, and elsewhere to the detriment of wages and benefits. The estimated wage cost alone is close to 50%. If the liberal establishment is so insane as to go through wth their amnesty plans, the voters will take it out on you and you can simply forget winning anything. I normally vote Democratic but I certainly wont vote for any candidate that supports amneesy nor anything close to it. I want illegals deported.

And, as for the Eatern press faking polls - thyey do it all the time. Remember that series of articles the Post ran about illegals only taking jobs that Amercian's didn't want? It was nonsense and fiction and they never retracted it. Their polls about voters supporting some sort of amnesty are derived by slanting questions and playing with the results and polled population. Polls run by the major parties, and Zogby, show an entirely different result -- more than 70% of the voters want illegals deported, all of them. So, you can fly in the face of facts and voter opinion but you will pay a heavy price for that...and should. There is an unholy alliance of public employees and businesses that are supporting amnesty. The public employees seem t think it will create more jobs for them in providing social services for the new legals. Business interests want it because it will decimate wages and benefits. Neither of you care anything for working people and you are about to find out that working class American's don't care much for you, either.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"The challenger has hurt his chances in the race's final days, however, blaming some bad business deals on none other than Satan."

I am reminded of the bumper sticker "Please make the scary Republicans go away." We don't need Congressmen to be LESS responsible for their actions; MORE responsibility would be welcome. Blaming multiple bad decisions on any deity is both cowardly and irresponsible. Will the voters of Utah tell Jacob they'd rather have a grown-up (relatively speaking) as their representative or will they be sucked in by anti-immigration hysteria? The state of the national GOP in a nutshell (emphasis on 'nut').

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 27, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

All illegals deported? Are you going to pay for it? Because I'm not. Do you really have any idea how much that would cost and what kind of damage it would do to the economy? I don't actually beleive in a guest worker program either. But what we should be doing is dumping huge fines on corporations that hire illegals, and pressuring those here to either get legal or get out, neither of which this administration is doing. You can't just airlift 20 million people to anywhere 'at once'. It's just not reality.

And as to 'fake polls conducted by Easten newspapers' --please take off your tinfoil hat before posting.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Look for the voters to choose whichever candidate they view as having the stronger, more restrictive view about immigration. When you get down to the genuine views of the voters (as opposed to the fake polls done by Eastern newspapers), the overwhelming majority of Amercian's, both Democrats AND Republican's, liberals and conservatives, want *all* illegals deported at once and want an end to every sort of quest worker program. Most voters agree with Lou Dobbs. So, Jacob will likely win unless Canon has convincingly lied about his position and thereby muddied up the waters enough that people don't know what to believe. Also look for the politican's to either not get it or "get it" but not do anything about it because they are playing the "leader" game (e.g. - they are so in the pocket of corrupt special interests that they don't dare do the right thing) instead of being representatives.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 27, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

If we cannot have true democratic races between the parties because of political gerrymandering in the redistricting process, then real competition within the parties through the primary process is the next best thing.

The people of UTah have the ability to throw out the incumbent thereby sending a message of accountability, without having to vote Democrat come November.

By no means do I favor the anti-immigrant challengers - it is simply a matter of sending a message of accountability and letting congress know that their seats are no longer guaranteed.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | June 27, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company