Home > Hot Topics > More Topics > Elections > Live Blogging on Election Night 2012

Live Blogging on Election Night 2012


(NumbersUSA Founder & CEO Roy Beck will be live-blogging throughout Election Night about the immigration policy implications among the hundreds of results that you are unlikely to find on TV.  He will be assisted by two dozen members of the NumbersUSA staff who will be combing through all the resources and results and alerting him to information that he should pass on to you.)

9:00 p.m. - Lots of pundits in big publications -- starting over the weekend and getting into overdrive today -- are suggesting that Romney may lose because he took a strong pro-enforcement immigration stance.  The strongest voices for this tend to be Bush-era Republican leaders who have never stopped pushing for the mass amnesty.

Nonetheless, a new poll calls into question any argument that Hispanic voters turned away from Romney because of his immigration stance which was primarily about mandatory E-Verify and taking away the jobs magnet for illegal immigration.

Perhaps Romney didn't communicate his position adeptly enough.  Even more likely is that most Hispanic voters marked their ballots based on a host of other issues in their choice for president.  But Republicans failed to get the votes of anywhere near the number of Hispanic Americans who favor mandatory E-Verify.

The Pulse Opinion Research poll in October found 66% of Hispanic voters favoring mandatory E-Verify.

The question was:  Do you support or oppose requiring that every employer use E-Verify to electronically ensure that no U.S. job goes to illegal immigrants in the future?

75% of all voters said YES.

69% of Hispanic voters said YES.

The majority of Romney's immigration policy was just that.  Mandatory E-Verify was nearly the whole basis of what he meant by "self-deportation."  What he explained was that he would take away the jobs magnet and mainly let illegal immigrants make their own decisions about moving back home.

The question just before the E-Verify question was:  Do you believe most parents around the world would stop bringing their children illegally to this country if they thought finding a job was doubtful?

66% of all voters said YES.

70% of Hispanic voters said YES.

Can these results be in the ballpark?  Well, on the question of sympathizing with so-called Dream-Act illegal immigrants, the result for Hispanic voters was 62%, with only 8% saying "not at all sympathetic."  This poll did not over-sample Hispanics, so the margin of error was fairly high.  Nonetheless, the key point here is that at least half of Hispanic voters recognize that illegal immigration is bad for the country and that taking away the jobs magnet with mandatory E-Verify is a great way to slow it down.

Thus, taking a stand for mandatory E-Verify should not hurt a candidate, especially Republicans who rarely get more than 33% of Hispanic votes.

Prof. James Gimpel of the University of Maryland says polling shows that as long as Hispanic incomes are so much lower than for average Americans, Hispanic Americans will vote heavily for a Democratic Party that advocates more strongly for government social and redistribution programs.  At this time, he suggests, the majority of Hispanic Americans vote the way one would expect based on their economic levels. 

8:15 p.m. -- First victories for our Immigration True Reformers in Congress:   Rep. Goodlatte and Rep. Wittman of Virginia, Rep. Westmoreland of Georgia, Rep. Ross of Florida have been called winners.  Goodlatte is in line to be the next chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee which will handle immigration issues in the next two years.

6:55 p.m. -- We will also be letting you know how our Five-for-Fivers across the nation do tonight.  These are the Members of Congress who co-sponsored bills in all five major solutions we propose:  ending chain migration, visa lottery and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, plus supporting mandatory E-Verify and local immigration enforcement.

AL 5- Mo Brooks,   CA 52 -- Brian Bilbray,  CA 31-- Gary Miller,   CA 39-- Ed Royce,  CO 6-- Mike Coffman,  CO 5--Doug Lamborn,  FL 7-- John Mica,   FL 11-- Rich Nugent,   FL 15- - Dennis Ross,  MS 4-- Steven Palazzo,  NC 3-- Walter Jones,   TX 31 --John Carter,  TX 24-Kenny Marchant,   WV 1-- David McKinley,

6:50 p.m. -- Georgia- Westmoreland (CD 3), Kingston (CD 1), Gingrey (CD 11)
Virginia- Wittman (CD 1), Goodlatte (CD 6). These are the True Reformers in the states with polls closing by 7 p.m.

6:30 p.m. -- 5 True Reformer incumbents are in states that will be closed as of 7 p.m.  We will be reporting by social media and webcast when races are called on these very committed alllies of ours.  We don't give the label of True Reformer until a Member of Congress has met vigorous criteria on a lot of immigration-reduction and enforcement issues.    

4:51 p.m. Tuesday -- I voted with my neighbors. I always love mixing it up at the polling place with neighbors who are all over the map politically, often handing out competing voting guides.  It is this spirit that we have to keep when the results are all announced.  Whatever side you are on, you know people and like people who voted on the other side.  About half of Americans will go to bed tonight a little depressed by the results.  That's just the way it is.  Even in landslide elections, 40% of Americans are deeply disappointed. Thank goodness, the losers won't have their homes confiscated tomorrow, eh? 

6:50 p.m. Monday -- The net of predictions from the pundits seems to be that there will be no change in Congress and, thus, very little change in Washington after the election,  unless the White House changes hands.

For all who are still waiting after 16 years for Congress to take up the rest of the recommendations of the bi-partisan "Barbara Jordan" Commission on Immigration Reform, this prospect of no changes can be troubling.  But NumbersUSA will be searching on Election Night for any sub-plots among the results that suggest the possibilities of change, good or ill.  In the segment at the bottom of this blog are the races that could have the greatest effect on how Congress deals with current immigration policies that appear designed precisely to cause the most misery among America's unemployed.



Chris Chmielenski (director of our Content & Activism) and his team have put together the following guide of the most important immigration races that we'll be following on Election Night through webcasts, Twitter, Facebook and more.

Visit our Candidate Comparison pages for comparison grids for every Congressional race in the country.

The letter grades listed by some of the candidates are based on the recent immigration records for candidates who currently are in Congress and on the career grade for candidates who previously were in Congress.   NumbersUSA's computerized and systematic grading system relies on votes on the floor and in committee and on co-sponsorship of bills.  An "A" means the person nearly always supports lower-immigration policies that favor American workers in jobs and wages.  An "F" means the person nearly always supports higher-immigration policies that favor foreign workers and employers who hire them.

"True Reformer" means that the candidate has taken the NumbersUSA survey and answered questions on a number of immigration issues in a way that warrants our top rating for a candidate.

"5-for-5er" means an incumbent has co-sponsored legislation to resolve all five of the issues NumbersUSA regards as the most important for immigration policy (such as ending chain migration, the lottery and birthright citizenship, while supporting local enforcement of immigration laws and national mandatory E-Verify).


These are races where either candidate has a chance to win and where the outcome could affect what happens with immigration legislation in the Senate.

NEVADA: Dean Heller (Incumbent -- A+) vs. Shelley Berkely (D+)
Dean Heller was a True Reformer in 2010 and sponsored all 5 of our 5 Great Immigration-Reduction bills when he served in the House. Rep. Berkely has served in the House since 1999. These two candidates are polar opposites when it comes to immigration. The seat has been held by Heller since 2011 when he took it over for John Ensign who resigned.

FLORIDA: Connie Mack (A-) vs. Bill Nelson (Incumbent -- D-)
Like the Nevada Senate race, Nelson and Mack could hardly be further away from each other on immigration. For example, Nelson voted for the DREAM Act amnesty in 2010, while Mack opposed it in the House. What separates this seat from Nevada, however, is that the incumbent here is pro-amnesty..

MISSOURI: Claire McCaskill (Incumbent -- C) vs.  Todd Akin (A -- True Reformer)
This race has received national attention for everything but immigration. For the first half of her term, McCaskill was one of the few Democrats in the Senate to vote on our side, but that changed in 2010 with her support of the DREAM Act amnesty. Akin has completed our survey, is a 5-for-5er, and a True Reformer.

VIRGINIA: Tim Kaine vs. George Allen (B)
Former Sen. George Allen wasn't stellar but had a respectable grade during his earlier stint in the Senate. Former DNC chair Tim Kaine is running with a moderate tone, but has offered his support for the DREAM Act amnesty.

TEXAS: Paul Sadler vs. Ted Cruz (True Reformer)
Ted Cruz is a True Reformer answering YES to all 12 questions on our Immigration-Reduction Survey. Sadler has accused Cruz of using harsh rhetoric when it comes to securing the border and has expressed support for comprehensive immigration reform.


These are very close races in which one candidate is much better than the other on immigration issues. 


1st Ann Kirkpatrick (C+) vs. Jonathan Paton (state A)
This is a newly created seat. Kirkpatrick had an earlier stinit in Congress. She supports E-Verify and stronger border security, but she also supports amnesty. Paton served in the Arizona legislature and supported all of the state's immigration enforcement measures.


52nd Scott Peters vs. Brian Bilbray (Incumbent -- A+ -- True Reformer)
Rep. Bilbray is chair of the Immigration Reform Caucus that was started by former Rep. Tom Tancredo. He's a 5-for-5er and a True Reformer. Redistricting has moved Bilbray from the 50th district to the 52nd district, shifting his area from a safe district to a toss-up district. Pro-amnesty groups have made Bilbray one of their top targets for defeat.

7th Ami Bera vs. Dan Lungren (Incumbent -- A)
Rep. Lungren is also a victim of redistricting that turned his district from a safe district to a toss-up district. He has a long-time grade of an A, while challenger Ami Bera supports mass amnesty and increased immigration levels.

26th Julia Brownley vs. Tony Strickland (state A)
Incumbent David Dreier (A) is retiring. Strickland is a Member of the California State Senate and has opposed efforts by the state legislature to restrict E-Verify, restrict the ability of police to enforce immigration laws, and allow illegal aliens access to in-state tuition. Brownley supports mass amnesty and increased immigration, so if she wins, the seat would be a dramatic shift from Dreier's positions.


6th Joe Miklosi vs. Mike Coffman (Incumbent -- A+ -- True Reformer)
This is the seat formerly held by Tom Tancredo, and Coffman has held it since his retirement. Redistricting has caused it to shift from a safe district to a toss-up district. Coffman is a True Reformer and a 5-for-5er, while Miklosi supports increases in immigration numbers.


18th Patrick Murphy vs. Allen West (Incumbent -- A)
Rep. West was one of the few freshmen True Reformers to stick to their promises, becoming a 5-for-5er. Murphy supports amnesty and immigration increases.


11th Bill Foster (D+) vs. Judy Biggert (Incumbent -- B)
This seat was combined as a result of Illinois losing two Congressional districts as a result of reapportionment. Rep. Biggert isn't spectacular, but there is enough difference between her record and Foster's to make this race significant.


4th Christie Vilsack vs. Steve King (Incumbent -- A+ -- True Reformer)
Rep. King is a True Reformer, a 5-for-5er, and likely, the next chairman of the House immigration subcommittee -- unless  Vilsack can pull the upset. Redistricting has shifted the seat from a safe district to a toss-up district. Pro-amnesty groups are working hard to retire King.

3rd Leonard Boswell (Incumbent -- C+) vs. Tom Latham (A)
This seat was combined as a result of Iowa losing a Congressional district from reapportionment. Rep. Boswell is one of the better Democrats, but he supported the DREAM Act amnesty in 2010.


6th John Delaney vs. Roscoe Bartlett (Incumbent -- A+ -- True Reformer)
Rep. Bartlett is a True Reformer and a 5-for-5er, but redistricting in Maryland has made re-election a difficult task.


3rd John Oceguera vs. Joe Heck (Incumbent -- A-)
Rep. Heck was a True Reformer in 2010, but hasn't quite lived up to it. Still, he earned an A- as a freshman.


1st Carol Shea-Porter (D-) vs. Frank Guinta (Incumbent -- A)
Shea-Porter held this seat for two terms before falling victim to Guinta in 2010. Guinta has been a strong supporter in his freshman term, but it's likely that Shea-Porter will regain her seat.

2nd Ann McLane Kuster vs. Charlie Bass (Incumbent -- B+)
Like NH1, this seat has a history of going back and forth. Bass hasn't been as strong as Guinta, but there's a distinct difference between him and McLane Kuster who supports a mass amnesty and immigration increases.


16th Betty Sutton (D-) vs. Jim Renacci (Incumbent -- B)
This is another seat created from two old districts as a result of reapportionment. Sutton has supported the DREAM Act and opposed most enforcement efforts, while Renacci has been decent in his first term. He did, however, cosponsor a bill to increase foreign worker visas.


12th Mark Critz (Incumbent -- C+) vs. Keith Rothfus
Rep. Critz is fairly moderate on immigration, and it's a toss-up district. Rothfus narrowly loss a bid for the House in 2010 when he was identified as a True Reformer.

Visit our Candidate Comparison pages for comparison grids for every Congressional race in the country.

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.