I think this is politically a no-brainer, a layup. Ok, I can't say there are no risks in doing so. I know the timid will tell him not to do it. I just don't think you get anywhere being timid. What did it do for Allison Grimes and her friends on Tuesday?
First of all, the GOP is making an empty threat: Don't do immigration reform or we won't do anything together later! Look, it's been 2 years and the GOP has not acted. What's more, Reince Priebus who was leading the narrative in late 2012 that they must act is now declaring that something has changed and they now won't act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/reince-priebus-gop-immigration-reform_n_6120988.html
So the only way we're going to get any relief on immigration is via Obama doing executive action. Now this is the right thing to do, but the question is what the politics are. I argue that while there are risks as I acknowledged above, overall, the politics are great though not without risk. To see why look at what what Romney's pollster, Neil Newhouse, is saying-and the Romney people probably have a more realistic understanding of the real world than anyone else in the whole party-and they lost badly in 2012. However, ,they have learnt something about immigration-turns out 'self-deport' won't do it.
Newhouse admits that the GOP should not imagine that they are now shoo-ins in 2016-laughably many in the Grand Ole Party are claiming exactly this
""NRSC chief Greg Walden has announced that the GOP may have built itself “a hundred-year majority” in the House, which is in no way an insane bit of overconfidence. Steve Benen has a good recap of some of the other times Republicans have responded to victories by saying that they would never lose again."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/democrats-find-operation-chicken-falls.html
Anyway, Walden is on a mushroom cloud. but Newhouse has a sense of reality. What he shows is that the GOP still faces real problems in 2016-one thing is the 'blue wall'-there are just many states the Dems are guaranteed before the race even started-in the North East and the West coast.
The second problem is demographics-everyone from Walden to Priebus seem to have forgotten it, but what it comes down to is this: there just aren't enough white people to elect Republicans President anymore. This doesn't hurt during off year elections as Dems usually can't get enough of their voters out-which is a problem for the Dems. Just not as bad as the GOP's problem that Newhouse is referencing-and I don't think we should get too fatalistic; the Dem base did come out in 2006 so it can be done; after the new Census in 2021 the GOP stranglehold on the House will weaken I think.
As Newhouse points out, in 2008 McCain got 55% of the White vote and lost; in 2012, Romney had 59% and still lost-rather handily. In 2016 assuming the current population numbers, the GOP candidate will need 64% of the White vote.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-gop-can-lose-by-winning-perspec-1104-20141103-story.html#page=1
As he says, the only hope for the GOP in getting more Latino votes is to do something on immigration. Yet, they've done nothing in 2 years and now have announced they will do nothing now. Yet they continue to 'warn' the President from taking executive action. Newhouse himself said Obama doing so would 'poison the well' just like McConnell and Boehner put it.
So let's pretend this is true. I don't think that the GOP will do immigration whether Obama does executive action or not. However, let's say I'm too cynical and underestimate the GOP-they want to do it but for some reason will feel they can't if Obama acts first.
Then Obama has even more incentive to do it. After all, Newhouse says the Republicans absolutely must do something on immigration for any hope in 2016; yet he says Obama should worry about poisoning the well. Why? This is why I say darn the torpedoes. Yes, there could be some backlash for the President as the GOP will be screaming bloody murder on every media outlet that he's done something terrible that is somehow illegal-though in truth it's perfectly legal.
What better to cement the GOP as the party violently opposed to doing anything on immigration? What better to cement the Dems as the party totally for it? It would bring a clarity that would be lethal for the GOP. Maybe this is why they fear him doing it so much: they no they can't do anything on immigration in the next 2 years and they know this will seal their grave.
First of all, the GOP is making an empty threat: Don't do immigration reform or we won't do anything together later! Look, it's been 2 years and the GOP has not acted. What's more, Reince Priebus who was leading the narrative in late 2012 that they must act is now declaring that something has changed and they now won't act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/reince-priebus-gop-immigration-reform_n_6120988.html
So the only way we're going to get any relief on immigration is via Obama doing executive action. Now this is the right thing to do, but the question is what the politics are. I argue that while there are risks as I acknowledged above, overall, the politics are great though not without risk. To see why look at what what Romney's pollster, Neil Newhouse, is saying-and the Romney people probably have a more realistic understanding of the real world than anyone else in the whole party-and they lost badly in 2012. However, ,they have learnt something about immigration-turns out 'self-deport' won't do it.
Newhouse admits that the GOP should not imagine that they are now shoo-ins in 2016-laughably many in the Grand Ole Party are claiming exactly this
""NRSC chief Greg Walden has announced that the GOP may have built itself “a hundred-year majority” in the House, which is in no way an insane bit of overconfidence. Steve Benen has a good recap of some of the other times Republicans have responded to victories by saying that they would never lose again."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/democrats-find-operation-chicken-falls.html
Anyway, Walden is on a mushroom cloud. but Newhouse has a sense of reality. What he shows is that the GOP still faces real problems in 2016-one thing is the 'blue wall'-there are just many states the Dems are guaranteed before the race even started-in the North East and the West coast.
The second problem is demographics-everyone from Walden to Priebus seem to have forgotten it, but what it comes down to is this: there just aren't enough white people to elect Republicans President anymore. This doesn't hurt during off year elections as Dems usually can't get enough of their voters out-which is a problem for the Dems. Just not as bad as the GOP's problem that Newhouse is referencing-and I don't think we should get too fatalistic; the Dem base did come out in 2006 so it can be done; after the new Census in 2021 the GOP stranglehold on the House will weaken I think.
As Newhouse points out, in 2008 McCain got 55% of the White vote and lost; in 2012, Romney had 59% and still lost-rather handily. In 2016 assuming the current population numbers, the GOP candidate will need 64% of the White vote.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-gop-can-lose-by-winning-perspec-1104-20141103-story.html#page=1
As he says, the only hope for the GOP in getting more Latino votes is to do something on immigration. Yet, they've done nothing in 2 years and now have announced they will do nothing now. Yet they continue to 'warn' the President from taking executive action. Newhouse himself said Obama doing so would 'poison the well' just like McConnell and Boehner put it.
So let's pretend this is true. I don't think that the GOP will do immigration whether Obama does executive action or not. However, let's say I'm too cynical and underestimate the GOP-they want to do it but for some reason will feel they can't if Obama acts first.
Then Obama has even more incentive to do it. After all, Newhouse says the Republicans absolutely must do something on immigration for any hope in 2016; yet he says Obama should worry about poisoning the well. Why? This is why I say darn the torpedoes. Yes, there could be some backlash for the President as the GOP will be screaming bloody murder on every media outlet that he's done something terrible that is somehow illegal-though in truth it's perfectly legal.
What better to cement the GOP as the party violently opposed to doing anything on immigration? What better to cement the Dems as the party totally for it? It would bring a clarity that would be lethal for the GOP. Maybe this is why they fear him doing it so much: they no they can't do anything on immigration in the next 2 years and they know this will seal their grave.
No comments:
Post a Comment