6

Flaw in @DouthatNYT‘s Trump-dammerung: Seems wrong to think Trump can’t “dominate in [NY, PA,] Michigan and Florida” nyti.ms/1JvTTxc

| 11 years ago on Twitter

17

But then they flip back post-election-so punishing those who’ve backslid (Rubio) as important as precise positions twitter.com/RichLowry/stat…

| 11 years ago on Twitter

5

Below is non-broken link to free Borjas Mariel rebuttal. Sorry. Thanks. It’s still sleazy what Peri did! twitter.com/RCAFDM/status/…

| 11 years ago on Twitter

2

Here’s a free link to Borjas Mariel rebuttal hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/pub… papers/Mariel2015a.pdf What Peri did seems revealingly sleazy! (Pt. #5)

| 11 years ago on Twitter

16

Borjas responds to critics of his “Mariel” debunking. Peri hardest hit nber.org/papers/w21850?… Summary is free; $5 for whole thing.

| 11 years ago on Twitter

21

Does surge of migrants lower wages? “Mariel” study suggested no. Prof Borjas debunked it. Now he responds to critics nber.org/papers/w21850?…

| 11 years ago on Twitter

2

Dems 29%, GOPS 26%, Indies 42%. So what are other 3%? That looks like the fastest-growing category politico.com/story/2016/01/…

| 11 years ago on Twitter

3

Does @RameshPonnuru not think that today-if Roe vanished-Dem position on abortion would be more popular nationally? natl.re/rZZiAW

| 11 years ago on Twitter

3

.@RameshPonnuru says I got the pre-Roe trajectory of abortion laws wrong. natl.re/sJpIvf Looks similar to trajectory of SSM to me

| 11 years ago on Twitter

2

I only have 25K followers, but I am consolidating support in my lane.

| 11 years ago on Twitter

53

?? “Epstein pleaded the Fifth when he was asked directly under oath whether he knew or was friends w/ Bill Clinton”

| 11 years ago on Twitter

9

Undernews update: And in this ring …

| 11 years ago on Twitter

17

.@PhyllisSchlafly endorses immig. pause — “We closed our doors” in mid-century & those are years we became “great”

| 11 years ago on Twitter

17

Phyllis Schlafly Makes the Case for President Trump via @BreitbartNews

| 11 years ago on Twitter

13

This is a Test: A successful, crystallizing piece by Ramesh Ponnuru argues that a tough stand on controlling immigration is now a defining issue for conservatives (and, more significantly, maybe for Republicans generally). You used to be able to run for president as a GOP while pushing amnesty, just as you used to be able to run as a GOP while defending abortion (or as a Dem while opposing abortion). No longer. Run as an amnesty man now and you are Jeb Bush. (Even Marco Rubio, an actual member of the Amnesty Gang of 8, is trying desperately to make voters forget that.)  

1) But I’m not sure immigration has become a defining issue for the reason Ponnuru gives — i.e. because it’s seen as a proxy for whether Candidate X is conservative on a range of other issues. Maybe it’s become a defining issue because (in itself)  it’s an issue voters care about! Was there ever any passion for amnesty among the mass of conservative (or even Republican) voters? It was mostly a push by business elites, donors, strategists and think tankers–now unmasked as that.

2) If immigration only ranks as the third or fourth most important issue in polls — behind “the economy” and terrrorism — how could it be a  “litmus test”? Maybe because the differences between the candidates on those other issues — the economy and terrorism — aren’t that great. On immigration they’re stark. Or maybe because voters have no easy way of assessing rival economic plans, but the can suss out an amnesty backer (e.g., if he or she uses the phrase “fix our broken immigration system” or “virtual fence”). Anyway, voters are allowed to have three or four litmus tests.

3) Here’s a big difference between the immigration litmus test and the abortion litmus test: When the line was drawn (in both parties) on abortion, the Dems wound up with a rough working majority on their side — something we were in the process of discovering in state legislatures when the Supreme Court short-circuited democracy in Roe. On immigration, if the line is drawn anywhere near where it now seems to be (e.g. no “amnesty first,” if at all, and no big increase in overall legal immigration levels) Republicans may find a majority on their side, while Dems wind up wishing they hadn’t made support for amnesty a litmus test for their candidates.

That is what we’re in the middle of finding out, anyway.