Monthly Archives: March 2016

21

Also (c) Coulter will talk about immigration. MSM wants to talk Trump but downplay immigration. twitter.com/kausmickey/sta…

| 10 years ago on Twitter

30

Isn’t it a little late for Tony Blair to be advocating a “tougher centre ground approach to migration”? dailym.ai/1T568np

| 10 years ago on Twitter

5

Of course, preserving Soc Sec/Medicare is both “moderating” and a “working class concern” twitter.com/PatrickRuffini…

| 10 years ago on Twitter

21

Maher notes Dems dropping “comprehensive” immig reform in favor of what they really want: Cross river = You’re in! realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/

| 10 years ago on Twitter

35

Pretty amazing that MSM TV hunts 4 pro-Trump guests but d.n. turn to Coulter-who’s a) good 4 ratings & b) effective politico.com/story/2016/03/…

| 10 years ago on Twitter

29

“The hard fact is that Nixon lacks taste”–Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1960. Never the strongest argument. twitter.com/SteveRattner/s…

| 10 years ago on Twitter

16 Perry in the House?

NYT quotes anti-Trump conspirator Erick Erickson on the possibility of Rick Perry running as a third party candidate:

“He would win Texas and at least obstruct Trump.”

But it’s better than that for Erickson’s conspirators, no? If Perry runs as an independent and wins Texas’ 38 electoral votes, that could throw the whole election into the House, where the GOP’s majority in a majority of state delegations could then pick Perry as President, (even if he’d only won that one state). The Constitution says the House can choose from among the top three. Why think small, conspirators! … P.S.: An obvious initial problem–this gambit only works if the remaining non-Texas electoral votes are split fairly evenly, so neither Trump nor Clinton win a majority.  That means the Ericksonian third party would have to not field its candidate in states it might want Trump to win, lest they steal Trump votes, throw the states to Hillary and give her a majority. The anti-Trumpers might even have to root or campaign for Trump in those states. … I’m sure there are other complications. … P.P.S.: Why not eliminate the middleman and nominate Erickson? He is surely a beloved figure on the right. Right? … Hello? …

Update: Yes, if the electoral vote was close enough — i.e. virtually tied — the “House Decides” scenario could also be triggered by faithless electors who held the balance of power and decided to vote for a third candidate, any third candidate, even if this person had won zero electoral votes.  Don’t think the #NeverTrumpers won’t try this if the winner of a near-tie is Trump. They’re hooked on anti-majoritiarianism now, as Byron York notes. …

Backfill: CNBC’s Jake Novak reached the same conclusion last Friday, though he thinks the third party candidate would have to win two states, not just Texas. (Why?) [via Taranto, whose objections to this insane plan seem non-dispositive]

13

Pretty sure that’s not right–eg if lower court gets the law wrong (as higher court sees it). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…

| 10 years ago on Twitter

15

“there’s evidence that standing can be bad for your health.” Can’t sit. Can’t stand. Swim? Use kickboard as desk? scpr.org/news/2016/03/1…

| 10 years ago on Twitter

39

“The problem is that so many of the ‘solutions’ Ryan is pushing have been decisively rejected by the grassroots.”

| 10 years ago on Twitter

29

Note: @SpeakerRyan‘s cutesy dis of the idea of building a border wall (after boasting he’s in touch w/ grassroots!)

| 10 years ago on Twitter

48

Paul Ryan: ‘I’m not about to learn any lessons from Trump’s success’

| 10 years ago on Twitter