6
Annoying truth is there’s lots of time for one or another candidate to surge. #IrememberGaryHart #politicsfasternow twitter.com/katherinemille…
Annoying truth is there’s lots of time for one or another candidate to surge. #IrememberGaryHart #politicsfasternow twitter.com/katherinemille…
That’ll send a signal to Cent Am. twitter.com/lbarronlopez/s…
Flaw in @DouthatNYT‘s Trump-dammerung: Seems wrong to think Trump can’t “dominate in [NY, PA,] Michigan and Florida” nyti.ms/1JvTTxc
But then they flip back post-election-so punishing those who’ve backslid (Rubio) as important as precise positions twitter.com/RichLowry/stat…
Below is non-broken link to free Borjas Mariel rebuttal. Sorry. Thanks. It’s still sleazy what Peri did! twitter.com/RCAFDM/status/…
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)
Borjas responds to critics of his “Mariel” debunking. Peri hardest hit nber.org/papers/w21850?… Summary is free; $5 for whole thing.
Does surge of migrants lower wages? “Mariel” study suggested no. Prof Borjas debunked it. Now he responds to critics nber.org/papers/w21850?…
Dems 29%, GOPS 26%, Indies 42%. So what are other 3%? That looks like the fastest-growing category politico.com/story/2016/01/…
Does @RameshPonnuru not think that today-if Roe vanished-Dem position on abortion would be more popular nationally? natl.re/rZZiAW
.@RameshPonnuru says I got the pre-Roe trajectory of abortion laws wrong. natl.re/sJpIvf Looks similar to trajectory of SSM to me
Good news. I bet there is an immigration angle! federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010… twitter.com/boes_/status/6…
.@HotlineJosh: GOP establishment rooting for Trump over Cruz in IA because they think Trump is doomed. Wrong again! njour.nl/s/245700?oref=…
I only have 25K followers, but I am consolidating support in my lane.
Razor’s got a lot of explaining to do … twitter.com/ChadPergram/st…
Will be tough challenge for MSM & Marcoklatura .. twitter.com/davidfrum/stat…
From @NeilMunroDC-SEIU leaders doing ‘one-on-ones’ 2 stop members from backing Trump-Getting ‘Muslim leaders’ 2 help breitbart.com/big-government…
?? “Epstein pleaded the Fifth when he was asked directly under oath whether he knew or was friends w/ Bill Clinton”
Undernews update: And in this ring …
.@PhyllisSchlafly endorses immig. pause — “We closed our doors” in mid-century & those are years we became “great”
Phyllis Schlafly Makes the Case for President Trump via @BreitbartNews
Three (3) thoughts on @RameshPonnuru‘s immigration litmus test kausfiles.com/2016/01/10/944…
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.
Ryan-brokering scenario not as crazy as @greenfield64 may think kausfiles.com/2016/01/10/rya…