After listening to 680 people in 61 focus groups over three years, Patrick Healy of the New York Times thinks Donald Trump has a good chance of winning. Inflation is one of the big reasons, but immigration might be even bigger:
What I’ve heard has left me thinking that Democratic Party leaders have deeply underestimated the mood of the electorate on immigration — that more people than Democrats realize want something serious, even draconian, done to remove undocumented migrants and secure the border. If it takes an authoritarian Trump administration to do it, then so be it, some of these voters feel. The degree of their anger can be unsettling to contemplate.
....That could look like Mr. Trump getting re-elected this week and, using any means he can, perhaps including the military, rounding up undocumented immigrants, putting them in militarized camps and deporting them, with more Americans than you would think going along with it. Such a move would devastate our sense of America as a sanctuary, erode our norms, fracture the tacit acceptance that immigrants do a lot of jobs that many Americans don’t want to do. It would redefine us as a society.
I think Healy is half right: Democrats have seriously blown it on immigration over the past decade, but it won't ultimately doom Harris.
Democrats haven't always been as soft on immigration as they've become. Without adopting Donald Trump's ruthless methods, Barack Obama kept a fairly tight lid on illegal immigration. In fact, border encounters were lower under Obama than they were under Trump:
Now, Obama had an easier job than either Trump or Biden. Coming off the Great Recession, job demand was negative or zero for Obama's entire term, so there just wasn't a lot of pressure on the border. But job demand grew during Trump's administration until the pandemic killed it, and then skyrocketed during Biden's term.
That said, Democrats overreacted to Trump's immigration hawkery in 2016, moving way to the left and adopting positions nearly indistinguishable from open borders. Ironically, in 2020 Biden remained moderate on immigration, but pressure from the Democratic base kept him from responding aggressively to the huge surge on the border after he took office.
It could be that there wasn't much Biden could do. When job demand surges, the market is going to find a way to satisfy it. And it's true that some kind of comprehensive reform is the only real answer. Still, none of that defends Biden's unwillingness to at least acknowledge the surge in illegal immigration and try to do something about it. This is the minimum the public expects.
My rule of thumb—like it or not—is that people will accept annual migration rates of about a quarter of a percent of the country's population. In the US that comes to 800,000 or so. Legal immigration is already above that, so when you add a big surge of illegal immigration an angry tribal response is almost inevitable. Democrats make a big mistake when they try to pretend this away.
They've blown it by (checks notes) Republicans lying about immigration while Republicans block any attempts to actually 'secure the border'.
And 'overreacted' to family separation? To kicking out children on bogus connections? Throwing out witnesses to crimes so we couldn't prosecute?
Seems like you're missing a few steps in this whole immigration thing.
Perhaps don't pre-comply with fascist lies.
Controlling your border is fascist?
no but refusing to take up a bipartisan reform bill for the sake of keeping immigration as an election issue is.
The manner in which it is done can be.
Weird how you skip from family separation and call that 'controlling your border' just like the fascist apologist you are.
You chose policies which kill women and infants.
You promote bigoted ideas about queer people.
You support murderers who plan, attempt to kill with their vehicle, then actually shoot a pedestrian who dared confront them for threatening pedestrians in a crosswalk..
...and now you ignore the fascist actions against immigrants to gloss over with 'secure the border'.
The border is not secured by chasing children or separating them from their families or by ejecting witnesses needed for civil and criminal investigations.
Have you seen the methods Trump and his personal Iron Heart Heydrich (Stephen Miller) plan to use to “control the border”? Did you notice it includes setting up “internment camps”? Did you notice that when JD Vance was lying about Haitians eating pets he referred to them as illegal immigrants and when corrected that they are here legally he said he doesn’t recognize the program that allows them to be here? Do you think the people who came here illegally are “poisoning our blood”? Do you think John Kelly is a liar? The stuff Trump and his team of fascist monsters are talking about doing are why people here are using the word fascism. It applies.
+1
* eyeroll *
Like by definition! Are you fucking retarded?
Oh wait, of course you are. You fucking fascist retard piece of shit.
Have a great day!
This kind of reminds me of the "people are unhappy with the economy" meme. Except it turns out that Republicans are unhappy with the economy, because Republicans are always unhappy with the economy when there's a Democrat in the White House. Facts don't matter.
So when you say that people are unhappy with immigration, you really need to check to make sure the unhappiness isn't just Republicans doing what they always do.
for seriously. crime is the same. Republicans are disconnected from reality. they’re unreachable.
Part of it was the strong economy, but I think the real factors were "push" ones external to the US. There was a major ramp-up in violence in central America, followed by the economic collapse of Venezuela (nearly 9 million Venezuelans have fled the country as refugees - one-quarter of the country) and Cuba (over 10% of the Cuban population has fled as refugees). There was just a massive increase in the number of refugees on the move in the Americas, and the US was a natural destination for that because of its relative safety, strong economy, and existing networks of hispanic immigrant communities.
👍👍👍👍👍
This, plus, oddly, cell phones which dropped in price and increased in coverage during the 'teens in the Northern Rim countries. Whereas "El Norte" was a cartoon in rural areas of those countries before that, when they could hold a (gussied up) picture of the American lifestyle, it's no wonder that a bunch of them said, "I want THAT!". And finally, the brutal Darien Gap was at least somewhat tamed by the endless flow of migrants.
But the Cubans get special treatment once they get here, because they're fleeing communism.
NYT is reporting that Trump regrets leaving the White House in 2021. We have bigger problems than Kamala not doing enough to mollify nativists.
Thankfully he's not in the White House now.
Because he's phenomenally stupid, he doesn't realize that if he had barricaded himself inside the WH on January 20, he still wouldn't have been President after 12 noon. He would have been just a tresspassing squatter and the cops would have hauled his ass out of there.
The day this moron shuffles off his mortal coil should be a national holiday.
Still, none of that defends Biden's unwillingness to at least acknowledge the surge in illegal immigration and try to do something about it. This is the minimum the public expects.
Biden may have misplayed the migration issue early in his term, but I'm deeply skeptical "successfully" dealing with this issue would have made much difference in political terms: we'd likely have seen a sizable increase in irregular border crossings no matter what in 2021-2023 given the sharp snapback in the economy and rising wages. And likewise MAGA/Fox would have demagogued the issue no matter what. Also, Trump used immigration to great effect in 2016, despite the fact that the incumbent administration at that time (Obama's) was not dealing with a crisis. Facts mean approximately nothing in our current political climate. Relatedly, remove the inflation spike from the mix and the migration issue becomes far less potent.
My rule of thumb—like it or not—is that people will accept annual migration rates of about a quarter of a percent of the country's population.
Based on what, vibes? We likely had a net rate of immigration exceeding three times that number in the peak of the Clinton boom.
I believe it's not so much about sheer levels of immigration as it is a distaste for chaos on the part of the public, and a desire to ensure that people moving to the United States do so in adherence of our laws. I strongly suspect the public would accept higher levels of legal immigration if the border were fixed, especially if we nudged the inflow toward the more highly skilled and the economy were strong, inflation were subdued, and we were building plenty of housing.
I agree with all of this, but “nudged toward the highly skilled” contradicts the less-skilled jobs that a large fraction of immigrants actually do - especially the undocumented ones at issue - and that if they stopped doing our economy would be in bad shape.
It’s not at all clear how that needle can be threaded.
“nudged toward the highly skilled” contradicts the less-skilled jobs that a large fraction of immigrants actually do
I agree non PMC immigrants do valuable work. That's why I wrote "nudged toward" and not "mandated in favor of." I'd be happy to see us layer, say, a STEM trained immigration program on top of existing green card issuance, perhaps by allowing large numbers of foreign university graduates to permanently remain.
Still, an upwards shift in the average level of educational attainment of immigrants to the US in theory should boost productivity, economic growth, living standards and the strength of public finances over the long term.
"I believe it's not so much about sheer levels of immigration"
Well, of course it isn't. Humans in general and the American public in particular are completely innumerate. How many republican voters screeching about border control have the slightest idea how many immigrants there are, of which types, or even what the native-born population of this country is?
Put another way: people upset about immigration are exceedingly unlikely to have any real sense of "immigration" or be impacted by it personally, and instead are reacting to what their favorite Very Serious TeeVee People are insisting is chaos and an invasion. If said Very Serious TeeVee People insisted that some other thing was a Big Problem, those same viewers would be railing about that instead (for example: a lot of dummies on the right sure seem to be angry about trans people in sports, even though statistically the thing they are angry about essentially never occurs, and even if it did, would have absolutely zero real world consequences. But the Very Serious TeeVee People say it's a Big Problem, so . . . )
Trump's ads are very good. Blame all your problems on Kamala, and he'll fix them.Nonsense, but it's the good commercial.
The Democrats reclaimed patriotism during the convention, but have not stuck with it.
The Biden/Harris administration had to deal with the mess left by Trump.
Have not? Where?
Chicago--so basically national ads. Seeing mainly ads about abortion. Few about Harris's plan to lower middle class taxes or about her being the President of all people. I'm not seeing ads about how we're a great country now and can be better--no shining city on the hill.
Focusing on an issue is not the same as 'not sticking with patriotism'.
Nor are they "Morning in America" or "I'd like to buy the World a Coke" or "Hands Across America" type ads.
So you dislike the most effective ad to motivate women undecided because it isn't your issue?
I've been saying this for the past year, Dems have vastly underestimated public angst over immigration. Right or wrong, a lot of people blame the housing shortage on immigrants. If Harris wins it will be because of abortion, if Trump wins it will be because of immigration.
Either way, it's a vote cast in anger.
This is a lie that you should be ashamed to have written.
Open borders should be our position, but it is simply untrue that Democrats as a party have adopted anything even remotely resembling it, and its so untrue that to write it down and present it as a fact is either a knowing lie or gross incompetence.
I mean, for god's sake. The Democratic Party spent much of last winter and spring trying to pass a bill allowing for Presidents to legally be far more grossly restrictive of immigration than ever before, and strip way more asylum seekers and undocumented migrants of rights and due process. This was a major legislative initiative on our part. This to you is "indistinguishable from open border?"
"Open borders should be our position"
The polling on open borders is horrid.
Irrelevant to the morality of the question.
Fuck open borders. We have states for a reason.
Fuck bigots. They should be buried under the border.
Crissa - polling does not matter, perhaps, if one's goal is strictly an intellectual debate. In contrast, polling matters if you want to see policy change.
Of course. But that doesn't change the morality, which was Murc's point.
That's why one is 'should' versus 'this is what we can agree upon'.
We used to accept way, way more than this. Immigration in the 19th century and early twentieth century could often pass one percent a year of our total population.
I don’t know about “we accepted”.
The Chinese exclusion acts, and then the comprehensive prohibition of most nationalities in 1925 stopped the flow from Eastern Europe almost entirely. That law was the reason the US would not accept Jewish refugees from Hitler In the late 1930s.
Speaking as someone whose grandparents (barely) got here in time, I know very well that - even decades later - we were not accepted very well. No one ever told me I could grow up to be president; that would have been laughable. And for sure, even if we were tolerated by many, they didn’t want me marrying their daughter.
The reaction to immigrants that prompted those laws was every bit as vicious as what we hear today from MAGA. We were dirty. We tolerated criminals in our midst. We were “clever” (not a compliment). So I don’t think that much as changed. Rose colored glasses, I think.
Agree, that treatment of immigrants in the past was often abysmal.
Agree, restrictions like the Chinese Exclusion Act made immigration for some difficult (restrictions based on race has a long history).
Yet, legal immigration for most (Europeans, at least) was easier. Roughly 99% of people landing at Ellis Island were admitted.
See Wikipedia “Immigration Act of 1924” which eliminated immigration from Asia entirely and set quotas for everywhere else to 2% of the nationality’s fraction of the population in the 1890 census. For Eastern Europeans that was effectively zero.
That law was not repealed until 1965.
It is true that earlier immigration for Europeans was easier, and my grandparents came through Ellis Island before 1925.
It is striking how much of the language used today (criminal gangs, poisoning the blood) is the same as used back then.
You're right. I had meant to note more open immigration prior to the 1920s (I was distracted during typing). Things changed.
As Murc indicated, 19th c. and early 20th c. were different than today.
I don’t know about “we accepted”...The Chinese exclusion acts, and then the comprehensive prohibition of most nationalities in 1925 stopped the flow from Eastern Europe almost entirely.
During the peak of the Ellis Island era, net immigration into the US was in the 1.5% range. So, America indeed "accepted" very large immigration inflows by contemporary standard for many, many years, although that era sadly came to an end for several decades starting after WW1.
Good that you put accepted in quotes. Anti-immigrant sentiment is not new. People have been opposed to immigrants since the beginning (see Know-Nothings). Every wave of immigrants has faced discrimination and calls to limit further immigration. Even the rationales for restricting immigration is the same.
The key number seems to be the level of foreign-born in the country rather than year-by-year arrivals. We've had reactionary nativist movements when the foreign-born proportion got over about 10%.
That happened in the 1850s, when the Know-Nothings almost became our second political party, replacing the Whigs. And it happened again in the early 20C, resulting in those immigration restriction acts of the 1920s and not coincidentally the political as well as social ascendance of the KKK version 2 in several states, including PA, OH, and IN.
There is somewhere on Youtube a contemporary film of a notorious Klan parade in DC in the 1920s. I think it was a national convention (Konklave? they liked K-themed terminology) and the film shows delegates marching in robes in broad daylight down a major road, maybe along the Mall. They controlled several states in the middle of the decade and like MAGA the heart of the movement were small businessmen who were doing well enough economically.
The challenge, in large part, the Republican position is known: the GOP stands for zero undocumented ('illegal') immigration. Likely, the GOP would also be fine in deporting Dreamers etc. Maybe lets get some crocodiles for the Rio Grand. The GOP position is clear.
The Democrats position is complicated: they want a bipartisan solution, that never seems to come to form, perhaps will never come to form. Further, what are the details around path to citizenship, TPS holders, family reunification etc? This position is complicated and perhaps unclear to voters.
Further, absent a bipartisan solution, what is the current Democratic position on undocumented immigration? Zero? Lots? There is not real clarity on this point...
Weird. It's like you're lying about Democrats.
Undocumented should be zero.
Why lie about it?
Crissa - I can only speak to my social circle. I have several friends who hold something like 'the legal system is broken, what else are folks to do.' Basically, undocumented immigration is fine, given the legal pathway is broken...
'how people deal with a broken system'
is not
'What the legal system should be'
Undocumented immigration as it is, is not a harm. How much should there be? None.
These are not conflicting ideas. What is the ideal number of bandaids you should use? None! Is it bad to use a bandaid? No.
There’s no “clarity” because it is a complex issue. People,who give easy solutions to complex problems don’t understand or care to understand what is at stake. If it were actually easy it would have been done. Notice Trump doesn’t talk about his wall resolving the problem any more. The “clarity” of Trump’s solution is to end democracy in service of border enforcement. Even that won’t work for zero illegal immigration. Didn’t East Germany prove that? But it will work if rather than addressing illegal immigration the real goal is an authoritarian state.
In other words.....
Absent what the democrats have advocated and voted for, what exactly are the democrats for on this topic!?
Are they for the things they have never actually supported!?
JUSTASKINGQUESTIONS!!
This is just as crazy as Kevins comical assertion that the Dems went all in on open-borders.
jdubs - I believe many Democrats, and this is often true but un stated by Democratic politicians, hold something like 'as long as the legal process is broken, then of course lots of undocumented migration is going to happen.'
In contrast, many Republicans, including their politicians, would say 'sure the legal process is broken, however that does not justify illegal immigration. Lets stop the illegal migrants'
Two different perspective on our current world...
But these are both your perspectives of the true, unspoken thoughts of imaginary people.
Not 2 different actual perspectives of real people or parties.
jdubs - while its true that neither of my statements are exact quotes, I am confident millions of people, from both parties, would support the statements I suggest.
Perhaps you see this situation differently.
Given that legal pathways are blocked/will likely remain blocked, what do you believe is the current dominate perspective, of most Democrats, on undocumented immigration?
Just a reminder that President George W. Bush tried to get immigration reform and struck out. From the DOJ website:
"Since January 2004, President Bush called for comprehensive immigration reform that would enhance border security, bring illegal aliens out of the shadows, establish a temporary worker program, hold employers accountable for the workers they hire, and facilitate the assimilation of new Americans."
Republicans love "illegal immigration" as a political issue. It resonates with voters. But Republicans will never (not soon, anyway) agree to legislation that makes the southern border situation better. They want to encourage rage and hatred toward "Mexicans" (from whom the US in the 1800's stole California, Arizona, "New" Mexico, and Texas).
NY Times coverage of the election campaigns has been abysmal, and Patrick Healy is a significant reason. He has 9 bylines since the beginning of October, and about 7 of them work hard to pump up Trump's chances of winning. The bias does not seem accidental. It seems he is intentionally pushing the vibe / narrative that has half the country scared to death: that Harris is not connecting and Trump is winning.
The media drumbeat is that we're locked in hopelessly polarized society heading toward a 50/50 election to be decided by a razor-thin margin.
I think that narrative is bunk. The Trump campaign never truly got off the ground. Since late July, Harris has been ahead. Trump has hardly laid a glove on her. He built his messaging to run against Biden and never was able to adjust. His campaign has been low-energy and slowly falling apart for a long time. Now it's in freefall. He is not the formidable foe in the image he created once before (with media complicity). He's losing and he knows it. Harris, meanwhile, has run a high-energy and highly effective campaign (that media fails to give her an ounce of credit for). She exudes confidence and strength, and she's on her way to becoming a historic figure in American history.
I may be wrong. Outcomes right now are a matter of probabilities, and both Harris and Trump have a chance to win. But if I had to bet on what I believe is the most likely outcomes, it's this: Harris will beat Trump, and it won't be particularly close.
Also this: a large portion of media coverage will look misguided or plain wrong, and media will never admit it.
Much of the media that I’ve seen has gone out of its way to pretend it’s tied. I may be wrong, but I agree with you. It won’t be that close.
Agreed. I don't know how much of an impact it has had, but it's definitely a thing.
Every time I dipped into one of his focus groups, it was like a bath in low-IQ ignorance. As if none of them had ever consulted a print source, and believed everything in their various feeds--and what Fox and Sinclair told them
I have grown very weary of the nytimes's "We asked 12 undecided voters what they thought" pieces. As if asking what some tiny and statistically irrelevant group of people selected precisely because they don't have a conclusion thinks was somehow news.
It's as if you were covering two new menu items at a restaurant, and rather than talk about the ingredients, preparation, nutritional profiles of the dishes, etc., you decided the most meaningful thing to do would be to ignore all that and instead just find a handful of jackasses who all just can't figure out what to order and ask them to stroke their chins and muse on the importance of being open minded.
The answer, mr. Drum, is no. Harris is surging. The highest rated pollster has her winning *Iowa* (prob won’t happen but that surge reflects what is happening around the region). Even the republicans funded pollsters have her ahead in “blue wall” states. …. The “herding” of pollsters has benefited Trump. The outlier who doesn’t care about herding is positive on Harris.
I'm too nervous to put too much stock in that poll. Selzer has a terrific track record, but maybe she's due for a rare miss...
That said, if her poll is within the margin of error (implies at least a six point swing toward the Democratic ticket since 2020), it's going to be an early night for Donnie.
Know hope.
It's the cell phones and taming the Darien Gap that is the big difference. Plus, Maduro has gotten much nastier. In the first months after Chavez' death, Maduro tried to make nice with the Venezuelans, and at that time the Darien Gap was a fearsone project for people to contemplate
Now Maduro is all fangs and Columbia doesn't want a new wave of immigrants; they can pass through to Panama, but they are no longer welcome.
And, finally, cell service reached farther into the marginal agricultural areas of the northern tier countries. People for whom "El Norte" was this almost mystical place all of a sudden could see a lifestyle that they never dreamed of. The enterprising among them said, "I want that!" and headed out.
Sure, they could have gone to Caracas or Maracaibo earlier and seen a pale imitation of the American lifestyle as portrayed on TV. But Caracas came with all the lack of resources and no place to grow their own food.
That's not to excuse Biden's tardiness with the border issue; Trump had made it clear that it needed to be addressed. But I believe that he genuinely did not believe that he had the authority to shut down asylum applicationd. Now that the 'SubPrimes have spoken he knows he can do whatever he wants as long as he orders it from the Oval Office.
Good points all.
Just a reminder that many Venezuelans have fled to Brazil (not an easy passage through the Amazon), where President "Lula" is blocking Maduro's attempt to join BRIC and calling Maduro's "election victory" a lie.
One day in the future, economists will study the effects of the immigration surge on inflation, and it will conclude that, on balance, the surge kept inflation lower than what it would have otherwise been, in contrast to the Eurozone.
But no one will give it any attention because the narrative of immigration holding back the economy is written in the brown indelible ink of racism.
This narrative doesnt make much sense. From the made up acceptable migration rate to the fact that it doesnt explain much about Trumps popularity from 2015 to 2024.....this is however something that really interests Kevin. That we know for sure.
oh good grief.
the party did not adopt positions "nearly indistinguishable from open borders"
Just ignore the reactionary centrist impulse for once Drum.
+1
Early stages of FoxNewsGrandpa'itis
True. Open borders would be a massive improvement, because at least it would end the massive headaches for legal immigrants.
So true.
Illegal crossings plummeted after the Biden executive order. It's still high (100k) because economy but its decreased by some 50%-60%.which I was quite surprised about.
What if total immigration were limited to the amount needed to keep the US population size stable?
The country has a choice to make:
(a) See the country's population remain a white-majority but watch the population shrink and its grip on global power dissolve.
(b) See the country's population remain stable but slowly become the exclusive melting pot of the world while remaining the strongest nation in the history of mankind.
Or alternatively, we can stabilize growth if, you know, we adopt UBI and universal healthcare while we tax robots and wealth.
+1
Confused as to how Democrats blew it on immigration when Biden was ready to sign the Lankford plan was he not?
I feel like I often read in here that the key immigration problem is not enough judges and courts to handle all the claims. Sounds like a resources problem (i.e., taxes) to me.
Not even 'taxes' just allocation.
I’ve been screaming into the liberal void for twenty years about this issue. It’s our albatross at the polls and we need to radically change our approach. Here is the policy that both maximizes our political victories AND net immigration:
1: Increase regular, invitation based immigration by 50%
2: End or radically curtail the asylum system, perhaps 1000 per month max. Use an expanded refugee system as part of #1 to offset
3: Deport anyone we find here illegally, quickly, humanely and without a fuss
It’s a package deal. Accept this and we win. Continue to make excuses for illegal immigration and the asylum loophole abuse, and we lose.
We need migrant farmworkers moving throughout North America without so much restriction.
They don't just represent pickers with baskets but also crews operating machinery and trucks drivers.
They should expect decent living conditions and sanitary facilities.
What were Dems supposed to do? Propose legislation that would help fix the problem? They did that; Trump killed it. That's been Harris' message all along, and even Kevin seems to overlook it here. The Left is soft on borders and immigration, and the left is a critical part of the Democratic coalition. You can't change either of these facts to say, "Oh, Dems blew it!" Trump is calling for unconstitutional means to solve the problem. Which is worse? Really, Kevin, you can't say?
"What were Dems supposed to do? Propose legislation that would help fix the problem? They did that;"
They should do it repeatedly. At least once a year, and spend several weeks about how they try to pass the act and Republicans stop it. They need to drive into the public mind that Democrats try to pass legislation to solve it and Republicans object to it.
"They should do it repeatedly. At least once a year, and spend several weeks about how they try to pass the act and Republicans stop it. They need to drive into the public mind that Democrats try to pass legislation to solve it and Republicans object to it."
Any issue, every day. I am so sick of the huge waste of taxpayer money most of the 118th Congress has been.
"They should do it repeatedly. At least once a year, and spend several weeks about how they try to pass the act and Republicans stop it."
Yeah! How come the Dems and Republican Speaker of the House Johnson aren't annually proposing immigration legislation? And using several weeks of Congressional time that they totally control to try to pass it and force Republicans to stop it?
Same deal with the Senate! Instead of foolishly wasting time on seating Biden judicial appointments, the Senate should be grandstanding on legislation that they can't pass. I for one certainly would prefer performative politicking on something that is only an issue because Republicans won't shut up about it over actually governing the country.
It seems you don't like it, but that is how politics in democracy supposed to work. You suggest legislation, try to pass it, and if it fails tell the voters to vote for you if they want it.
And apparently for voters to actually notice, you need to repeat it. That is life.
Propose legislation along the lines of what I said. Neither the Biden-era or Obama-era bills we pushed look anything like that. Rather, they were focused on asylum reform and DACA, respectively.
If you are talking about any form of illegal or irregular immigration, we are losing.
That seems to be false.
No, darn it, the Democrats did not adopt open borders and Democratic presidents have been as tough or tougher than Trump without the empty rhetoric of the wall. All I got out of Healy is that he's been on assignment in pursuit of the mythical swing voter so doggedly that he's come to take these low-information idiots seriously. Can they even find their way to the voting booth (or the bathroom)?
I'm beginning to be optimistic in the face of just this kind of thing. Not that I have faith in the American people or the Iowa poll. It's just that Trump won narrowly in 2016 against the media's most hated woman and lost in 2020. Have things really now shifted in his favor? There's no ridiculous October surprise this time to distort and blare over the front pages of the Times. The only court cases are Trump's. And the media have actually begun to talk again and again of him as a liar and an aging buffoon. Plus there's the crack in the GOP wall. Although Cheney et al. don't mean much, they could be a sign that he's no longer invincible. I'm going to hold out hope.
I think the best approach to this problem would be to simply say that anyone who breaks our laws (crosses illegally) will be deported. Just keep saying that over and over.
I wish the Democrats would become the 'rule-of-law' party but make the make the slogan that EVERYONE needs to abide by the law. This means billionaires and the poor, cops and and everyday people, ex-presidents and supreme court justices. Yeah, I know that this isn't how the world works but we have the stink of making excuses for those who break the law and it makes voters nervous.
What's the basis for your rule of thumb? And do you think anything can be done to persuade people to accept higher immigration? Immigration being a net benefit to the country, it shouldn't be impossible to persuade the country to accept it.
In the Philly suburbs of all the Dems and Indies I have met while canvassing there were two who mentioned immigration. One was concerned but still voting for Harris because of what Trump represents. The other read on twitter that Dems were sending illegal immigrants to vote in PA. I think I was able to get him to change his mind on that after explaining to him how that can''t possibly be true. All but one of the trumpists were either life long republicans or were voting for him based on the economy - i.e. inflation.
I believe Biden's administration, and Harris' campaign, blew opportunities to tell the real story and that is asylum. They let the Republicans hammer the notion of "open borders" all the while the Biden administration was handing out debit cards and free phones to "illegals."
Messaging has always been a weak point for Dems. I DO think it will hurt her chances but ultimately I believe she'll win PA and the Blue Wall states.
This fine snark is what the internet is for,
https://x.com/7Veritas4/status/1853284358024491441
Serious question-How does any president control "encounters" at the border?
Aren't "encounters" driven by demand and supply, rather than policy?
Focus groups are a terrible way to assess the importance of this issue in people’s voting decisions; one strongly opinionated person will drag the local Overton window in their direction. That would likely be one or more members of the TFG cult. Better to look at survey findings about what issues people are taking into account — if the questions weren’t leading.
Pingback: I’ve blogged as much, 11/4/24 | Zingy Skyway Lunch