62
So this turned out to be BS, looks like. Trump still winning with 47% as later votes come in realclearpolitics.com/elections/live… twitter.com/jeffroe/status…
10
This has already been disproven, no? With 63% in, Trump share is holding up twitter.com/jeffroe/status…
36
“The Koch Brothers manipulation of our politicial process”–just denounced by Hillary–has not been so manipulative this cycle
51
Waiting for @stephenfhayes to say ‘Marco Rubio is the big surprise of the night!’
45
Talking point for Hillary on Brussels–‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’ Too soon?
76
Ryan to emphasize how lower marginal rates + American Optimism! will turn refugee jihadis into GOP voters. #realism twitter.com/AshLeeStrong/s…
3
Not sure this is the winning argument. The old Caddys are nicer. twitter.com/MattCover/stat…
14
Whatever fiddling @twitter is doing has made threads much HARDER to follow, not easier. But worth trying on this one twitter.com/PatrickRuffini…
21
Also (c) Coulter will talk about immigration. MSM wants to talk Trump but downplay immigration. twitter.com/kausmickey/sta…
30
Isn’t it a little late for Tony Blair to be advocating a “tougher centre ground approach to migration”? dailym.ai/1T568np
5
Of course, preserving Soc Sec/Medicare is both “moderating” and a “working class concern” twitter.com/PatrickRuffini…
5
Thread worth reading. @PatrickRuffini sees the light, sort of twitter.com/PatrickRuffini…
36
This is parody account, though in the end what difference does it make … twitter.com/Salondotcom/st…
64
Shorter: He’s a jerk twitter.com/41jellis/statu…
18
LINK FIX: Here is the link to Bill Maher on Dems’ immigration shift realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/… Apologies
15
Dems’ want to apply Cuba “wet foot/dryfoot” rule across the board, instead of eliminating it? See B. Frank comments realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/…
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/…
40
Maybe (b) is the problem. She might persuade people. . twitter.com/kausmickey/sta…
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/…
5
Suspect not everyone agrees w/ this v-@politico-esque (source-friendly) piece on Obama’s ingenious “trap” of Raul politico.com/story/2016/03/…
18
Remember when “bitter-enders” was @GroverNorquist‘s term 4 those who fought inevitable triumph of comp immig reform? twitter.com/ByronYork/stat…
29
“The hard fact is that Nixon lacks taste”–Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1960. Never the strongest argument. twitter.com/SteveRattner/s…
26
Perry in the House? kausfiles.com/2016/03/20/per…
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]
5
Leave Fabio alone! dailycaller.com/2016/03/18/wha… twitter.com/MarkSKrikorian…