Ariel Edwards-Levy has a terrific look at what happens when you list the idea and obscure the source:
Figuring out what the public really thinks isn't always an exact science, as anyone who's seen two polls touting completely contradictory results can affirm.
One reason for that: most Americans, regardless of their political views, don't have a solid opinion about every single issue of the day, particularly when it concerns a complicated or obscure topic. People tend, reasonably, to rely on partisan cues -- if a politician they support is in favor of a bill, they're likely to think it's a good idea, or vice versa.
As a classic case in point, Republicans are more likely to oppose repealing the 1975 Public Affairs Act -- which doesn't actually exist -- when they're told that President Barack Obama wants to do so, while Democrats object when they're told it's a Republican proposal. But even when it comes to real issues, reactions to polls can vary greatly, depending on the wording.How much can namedropping a politician matter? Conveniently, Republican front-runner Donald Trump shares a couple of policy positions with Obama and other leading Democrats. In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, we randomly assigned one half of the 1,000 Americans surveyed to say whether they agreed with positions Trump held. The rest were asked whether they agreed with positions held by Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry or current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The trick: the positions were actually the same.
Matt Viser:
Jeb Bush is ratcheting up his attacks on Donald Trump, attempting to inject much-needed energy into his own flagging campaign while counteracting Trump’ssingular, unpredictable force that for weeks has roiled the Republican presidential nominating contest.
With Trump dominating recent polls – and Bush slipping in both Iowa and New Hampshire -- the former Florida governor launched an assault Tuesday that tried to cast Trump as far outside of Republican orthodoxy on issues ranging from taxes to abortion.
“He’s not a conservative,’’ Bush declared in Spanish at a campaign event in Florida.
Look to Mike Murphy at Jeb's SuperPAC to do the dirty work. That's what the money is for. But if Jeb/Murphy fail at this, he'll/they'll implode. Pretty interesting stuff.
More politics and policy below the fold.
WaPo:
Jeb Bush went on the offensive Tuesday against GOP presidential front-runner and frequent antagonist Donald Trump, releasing an attack video portraying the mogul as a closet liberal and signaling that he will attempt to bring Trump down in coming weeks.
“He attacks me every day. He attacks me every day with barbarities,” Bush said in Spanish in response to questions from reporters at a Presbyterian school here. “They’re not true. What we did today was to put out in his words to show that he’s not conservative.”
But in fully embracing a fight against Trump, Bush is embarking on a risky strategy that could further fuel Trump’s unexpected rise and complicate his own path to the nomination. Allies of the former Florida governor insist that he had no choice but to adopt a more aggressive posture, elevating his feud with Trump to the marquee contest in the GOP primary contest.
Andrew Prokop:
CNN, the host of this primary season's second Republican debate, announced Tuesday afternoon that it would modify its rules to potentially let an extra candidate — likely Carly Fiorina — on stage for the main event on September 16.
The rules were changed after increasing criticism that the network's methodology wouldn't sufficiently account for a more recent surge in a candidate's support — like the one Fiorina has benefited from in the few national polls conducted after her widely praised performance in the first debate.
So the network executives said, "We now believe we should adjust the criteria to ensure the next debate best reflects the most current state of the national race." Translation: They'll change the rules so Fiorina has a better shot at getting in.
Igor Bobick:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) wants to track anyone who enters the country from the moment they receive their visa, just like a FedEx package. Moreover, he would bring in Fred Smith, the founder of the international shipping company, to teach government bureaucrats how the job ought to be done.
"We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in," the hawkish presidential candidate said at a Saturday campaign event. "And then when your time is up... then we go get you, tap you on the shoulder and say, 'Excuse me, thanks for coming, time to go.'" (Whether he knew it or not, Christie was echoing a very similar proposal from Rep. Barbara Comstock, a Virginia Republican who raised the idea last year while still a state delegate.)
What does FedEx think about this proposal? The company has officially declined to comment, noting only that it uses bar-code technology and unique tracking numbers to scan each package an average of 13 times between drop-off and delivery.
According to a shipping industry expert, however, tracking immigrants like packages would make little sense. Even if it could somehow be implemented on a large scale, it would raise thorny questions about ethics and privacy.
Here's a good read from WSJ on the Donald from
Bret Stephens:
If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.
If you have reached physical maturity and still chuckle at Mr. Trump’s pubescent jokes about Rosie O’Donnell or Heidi Klum, you will never reach mental maturity. If you watched Mr. Trump mock fellow candidate Lindsey Graham’s low poll numbers and didn’t cringe at the lack of class, you are incapable of class. If you think we need to build new airports in Queens the way they build them in Qatar, you should be sent to join the millions of forced laborers who do construction in the Persian Gulf. It would serve you right.
Since Mr. Trump joined the GOP presidential field and leaped to the top of the polls, several views have been offered to explain his popularity. He conveys a can-do image. He is the bluntest of the candidates in addressing public fears of cultural and economic dislocation. He toes no line, serves no PAC, abides no ideology, is beholden to no man. He addresses the broad disgust of everyday Americans with their failed political establishment.
And so forth and so on—a parade of semi-sophisticated theories that act as bathroom deodorizer to mask the stench of this candidacy. Mr. Trump is a loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians. These vulgarians comprise a significant percentage of the GOP base. The leader isn’t the problem. The people are. It takes the demos to make the demagogue.
There will be other opportunities to write about the radical affinities and moralizing conceits of Democrats and liberals. For now let’s speak plainly about what the Trump ascendancy says about the potential future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Remember, Trump isn't just vulgar, he's a traitor to his class. As far as the WSJ goes, anyone who
wants to raise taxes might as well be a Democrat.
From the always excellent Janell Ross:
And, as summer draws to an end, GOP officials now seem resigned to a certain fate: One way or another, Trump will be a factor in the 2016 race -- a factor that must be managed and/or dealt with.
For the party, this involves harnessing the political enthusiasm of Trump's mostly but not exclusively white supporters -- people attracted to Trump's hard-line immigration and trade platforms -- and yet somehow broadening the party's appeal beyond it's overwhelmingly white base. Both are pretty essential to the GOP's path to the White House. The truth is, fears are well-founded that Trump's supporters, many of whom are also known to be infrequent and inconsistent voters, will simply sit the election out if Trump is nowhere near the GOP's center stage.
AP:
Donald Trump's immigration plan was tried in the 1930s, and the results were disastrous
During the Great Depression, counties and cities in the American Southwest and Midwest forced Mexican immigrants and their families to leave the US over concerns they were taking jobs away from whites, despite their legal right to stay.
The result: Around 500,000 to 1 million Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans were pushed out of the country during the 1930s repatriation, as the removal is sometimes called.
During that time, immigrants were rounded up and sent to Mexico, sometimes in public places and often without formal proceedings. Others, scared under the threat of violence, left voluntarily.
About 60% of those who left were American citizens, according to various studies on the 1930s repatriation. Later testimonies show families lost most of their possessions, and some family members died trying to return. Neighborhoods in cities such as Houston, San Antonio, and Los Angeles became empty.