-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Before the health care ruling absorbs all the oxygen, let’s take a look at Quinnipiac’s latest polling. In three crucial swing states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida — President Obama’s edict amnestying young illegal immigrants makes voters less likely to vote for him rather than more likely. This is true even though the poll finds majority support for the policy in those states.
In Ohio and Pennsylvania, more than twice as many people polled say the decision makes them less likely to vote for Obama (27 percent) than more likely (12 percent in Pennsylvania, 11 percent in Ohio). In Florida, it is closer but the end result is still the same: 22 percent say the immigration policy makes them less likely to vote for Obama while 17 percent of respondents say it makes them more likely to vote for him. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza likens this to Obama’s evolution on gay marriage: the electorate as a whole may narrowly agree with the president, but the voters who care most disagree.
That is why it would be mind-numbingly stupid for Mitt Romney to embrace the conventional wisdom that Obama’s immigration policy only has supporters. It has opponents too, and they are also looking for a presidential candidate who will mobilize them. The Republican nominee would seem a logical choice, if he is actually willing to do so. Romney’s current approach seems more likely to disappoint working-class swing voters than to win over a significant number of Hispanics.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/27/obamas-immigration-move-hurts
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
btims86| 6.27.12 @ 1:08PM
The "uncomfortable" truth is since the USA was nearly 90% White for most of it's history and today is about 65% White and nearly 75% White when it comes to registered voters, most White Americans, that is, most "Americans", favor keepign the country majority White, English speaking and Judeo-Christian in worldview.
The DC Political Class has other desires. They want to diffuse the White majority as quickly as possible for the reason of political/cultural change.
JD| 6.27.12 @ 4:46PM
The reality is that there are mutually incompatible views in this world, and people who hold those views will conflict with one another. Historically, people who aligned tended to congregate into nation-states. These states might war with nation-states of differing views, or they might just stay away from each-other.
Foolish people think that the modern-world has "evolved" to the point where widely disparate views can coexist in the same nation, free of conflict. This is absurd. The conflict may be verbal rather than physical, but it will still exist so long as the differing views exist.
What the foolish position boils down to is an attempt to eliminate truly differing positions in the name of false gods like "tolerance" (which should be in Thomas Sowell's glossary as a word that they've redefined to mean "embracing"). This results in a new single view for our nation-state - the view of holding nothing sacred at all, lest your defense of the sacred offend others. Of course, those who advocate this view are invariably hypocrites who insist on retaining a few of their own sacred values, while depriving others of theirs.
Even if they did truly hold nothing sacred, they would be holding sacred the idea of holding nothing sacred, by means of their prosecuting the offense of holding something sacred. It's similar to how atheists hold themselves above the "religious" despite their religious adherence to atheism.
RJ| 6.27.12 @ 7:16PM
Romney is not a leader; he is a politician with executive experience. As such he looks for coalitions to build a power base. Don't expect much political leadership or courage from him.
bdavis34| 6.27.12 @ 8:22PM
I would expect more leadership from Romney than obama.
RJ| 6.27.12 @ 10:54PM
Fully agree. Without a doubt.
bc1659| 6.27.12 @ 11:27PM
Finaly, someone other than myself thinks that Obama's immigration stunt will hurt rather than help. Most people don't like law breakers and recognize the stunt for what it is. It will galvanize more voters against what he did than for what he did, no matter how many" new voters" he tried to create.