Pages

Friday, November 21, 2014

Why Obama's Executive Action is a Boon for Democrats in 2016

       It just brings us a lot of clarity. I mean the GOP is trying to make this a big procedural quibble. Which is understandable as most Americans actually agree with Obama and the Dems on substance. I mean even most GOP leaders agree on substance at least based on what they've said in the past. They're arguments are always about process.

       So they say Of course we want a humane and rational immigration policy but not this way. Rather than get it through executive action we'll be better of with our previous inhumane, irrational policy. Isn't this basically the GOP argument on everything?  I mean this is the argument against Obamacare. In this case, it was actually a Republican plan, it was Romneycare. It's what Nixon wanted back in the early 70s, Newt favored it in the 90s.

      The GOP is hoping all this talk about 'Emperor Obama' and a constitutional crisis will spook basically White middle of the road Independents. That's what they're aiming at. They're trying to convince these Middle of the Roaders that Obama's way of doing this is such an outrage that it doesn't matter even if you agree with his move on substance. They're hoping it will lead to a major backlash against Dems by these Middle of the Road White voters.

       http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346215/-America-is-with-Obama-on-immigration-reform-so-GOP-screams-process

       In a way this is microcosm of most issues in American politics. The American people agree with the Dems but the GOP screams process and confuses and scares the heck out of a lot of rather impressionable, susceptible people. Sure you agree that people should have access to healthcare but what about Jonathan Gruber! What an elitist snob. That this works so often is why I can't resist wondering if Gruber wasn't right about the intelligence of the average voter. 

       http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-jonathan-gruber-may-have-been-right.html

       Is there danger here for the Dems? Of course there is, there's always risk. This screaming about process may work to a greater or lesser extent. The early polls before Obama's announcement seemed to show people disapproving Obama's proposed action though not by any overwhelming margin-even the WSJ showed just a 10 point deficit. At the end of the day, the beauty of this move as far as skittish Middle of the Roaders is this is fully 2 years before the Presidential election. It's doubtful that this will be the biggest thing on their minds in by then. 

        Any 'working class white votes' the Dems will 'lose' likely would not have been in play anyway. What matters much more is the growing Latino electorate for the Dems going forward. Believe it or not, many Latinos in this last election when in making no distinction at all between Obama and other Democrats who support immigration reform and GOPers who are the ones who tabled it in the House. No difference between Obama and Boehner. 

        http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/thank-you-fernando-espuelas-for-saying.html

       Now there's just no way not to get it. 

       "There’s precedent for eruptions of border-hawk ire followed by energetic mobilization among Latino voters and progressive allies. Polls throughout the 2010 midterm election showed strong support for enforcement crackdowns like the one Arizona pioneered that year, with a law allowing law enforcement officers to check the citizenship status of persons they detain. It was taken by some as a warning sign for Democrats intent on pursuing comprehensive reform."

         "But two years later, public polling in swing states such as Ohio and Florida showed voters supportive of an apparently contradictory Obama decision to defer deportations for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. That executive action was credited with helping re-energize the president’s campaign and driving a spike in Latino turnout. Nevada legislator Lucy Flores, who just lost a race for lieutenant governor, said the absence of a motivator like that — indeed, Obama’s explicit decision to postpone his executive actions — hurt Hispanic turnout this year."

         “I wish this wasn’t a partisan thing, but it is,” she said, forecasting that this week’s announcement would help reelect Harry Reid in 2016. “It’s very apparent that Democrats have been leading the way on this issue … Republicans are not doing anything.”

        Ben Monterroso, executive director of the advocacy group Mi Familia Vota, put it in starker terms than that.

         “People will see Obama did it and fear Republicans could undo it,” Monterroso said. “It will be very clear in 2016 who is with us and who is against us.”

      See that's beauty of this. The White moderates who might be scared by GOP screaming over process likely will have forgotten all this in 2 years-after all, at the end of the day it really isn't going to effect their lives at all, one way or the other. 


      However, Latinos now will have no way of not seeing who is with them and who is against them. Again, this brings us all clarity. A Democratic election in 2016-not just President but in Congress means more actions in this direction? If you're in the Latino community but you worry about those not included in last nights EO? Well then you need more Democrats elected. A Democratic President along with both Houses of Congress would get this done today. If more Republicans are elected what was done last night will be rolled back. 

      Many don't like the title of my blog but at the end of the day this is a partisan issue.  Those who are too faint of heart to get this shouldn't be in politics. More Democrats means more done about humanizing our immigration system and making it much more rational and also is a major boon to the economy-it can only increase economic growth. 

       P.S. I guess if there is anything my blog is supposed to be about, it's that there is no shame in being a partisan. There is also certainly no virtue in being 'bipartisan' if it's in the David Brooks' sense of the word where any policy is legitimate if it can be claimed to be bipartisan. If both Republicans and Democrats agree about concentration camps it's therefore a good policy. If Obama were to sign an executive order ending them, it'd be bad as it's just not the right process. 
       

     
      

No comments:

Post a Comment