The "Electoral-Immigration" Maps for 2006

Hello Thinkers,

Regular readers have probably figured out that of all the issues on which I rant, criminal immigration is near the top of things that cook my shorts. And they would be right. Now, is pressing "1" for English every time I call any automated phone system really having a detrimental effect on my life? No. Have I lost my job to a "temporary guest worker?" No. Am I witnessing rampant criminal behavior from illegal aliens in my neighborhood? Well, yes actually. A few years ago I was a witness in a trial where a crack-addicted illegal alien from Central America was driving around in a stolen Chevy Celebrity wagon, violently snatching purses, but that's a story for another time.

As I've mentioned many times, it is the principle of the rule of law, along with the obvious implications of unchecked illegal immigration that fries my enchalada. So instead of continuing to beat a dead caballo, I am going to conduct an experiment. This November, America is going to the polls for midterm elections, which are usually a yawner, unless of course you are running for an office. Would it not be interesting to see how the various Governors, Senators and House Reps fare based not on party affiliation, but on their position with respect to illegal immigration? Not Republicans vs. Democrats, just Pro Enforcement vs. scum sucking commie bastards, er, sorry - Anti Enforcement. And once these races are identified, produce an electoral-immigration map, similar to the one Dan Bin Rather sat in front of in 2004 - HA HA HAHAHAHA! ...sorry Dan.

The trick of course is twofold. First you need to figure out what the candidates position is, and second, you have to track ALL the races where at least one candidate has a firm stance on this topic - and trust me, there are a lot of races. Addressing the sheer volume of elections is simply a matter of brute force. However, how does one figure out where a candidate stands on illegal immigration? For incumbents, that is relatively easy. There are websites that track the voting records of Congress on any number of issues. Luckily for me, illegal immigration is one of them. Granted, you have to take a bit of a leap of faith on the objectivity and opinion of a third party, but my investigation of multiple sites have shown a pretty clean alignment of classification.

Non-incumbants are a bit tougher. In order to be counted they have to make clear public comments on their position or they have to submit responses to a questionaire like the one found at:

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/candidatesurvey2006.html

The likelihood that yours truely will accurately capture a non-incumbents position without having them complete a survey like this is slimmer than Mary-Kate Olsen. But let's think about what will make a worthwhile experiment for us this November. I believe the interesting elections to watch need to be:

1. Contested - for obvious reasons.
2. Outside of a socialist pit, like MA or Berkley, CA. Within any of these "red zones" there simply will not be enough diversity of thought to allow for an Anti-Amnesty candidate.
3. At a minimum have an incumbent with a clear voting history (either Pro Enforcement or commie scum) on illegal immigration.

The first step is to figure out where we are right now with the Senate and House (I'll try to map the Governor races if I can). In order to make the current electoral-immigration map, we need to determine the "color" of a state. This will be done using a simple majority. Since we are not tracking Republican vs. Democrat, I will not use red vs. blue. Instead, I will use the color variation between the US and Mexican flags. Blue will be Pro Enforcement, Green will be Anti Enforcement (so yes, in this case, "blue states" are good ones). In addition, the simple majority will only be for races in 2006. For example, in Massachusetts Ted "El Puerqo Grande" Kennedy is up for election this year, while Jean Francois Kerry is not. If (PLEASE GOD, PLEASE!) El Puerqo loses, MA will be colored blue in the post-election senate electoral-immigration map, even though the final tally of US Senators from the People's Republic of MA would be 1-1 with respect to Pro/Anti Enforcement. Thus this electoral-immigration map will track the *change* in representation based on the 2006 vote. And obviously, we are not tracking real electoral votes, but only the shift in Congress, if any, based on the November tallies. States without races, such as Alabama which has no Senate race and Hawaii and Delaware which have no House races this year, will be removed from the map. States with no clear Pro/Anti choice will be white.

There are some interesting things I've discovered. For example:

Sen. Sheets Byrd from West Virginia who is up for election is SOLIDLY in the Pro Enforcement crowd.

EVERY Senator and House Rep from MA is "green." Ug.

The Maryland senate race includes Michael Steele. Two of Sen. Schumer's (D-NY) staffers are accused of identity theft and acquiring Steele's credit history. Mr Steele is running against Kweisi Mfume, the former CEO of the NAALCP.

In Nevada, Jack Carter, the son of the former president, is running for the Senate. We'll see if Nevada is hoping for an economic malaise this November.

Patrick Kennedy is running uncontested for his seat in Rhode Island. What in the hell are you people thinking down there?

There will be alot to watch this November. Future posting will include more detail on various state races, how I arrived at my blue-green-white selection criteria, any corrections I receive, and of course - my opinions! Be sure to check in between now and November!

Via Con Dios!
El Tuff

ps. Feel free to email me any corrections, oversights or opinions.