The Los Angeles Times is reporting that President Obama may postpone his sweeping executive actions on immigration until after the midterm elections. Why? Because Democrats are begging him to:
The two-step plan would bow to the concerns of Democratic lawmakers running in Republican-leaning states who have expressed opposition to Obama’s plans to act unilaterally on the hot-button issue. Some Democratic senators have said he should wait for Congress to pass legislation.
Wait. Why would they want to do that? Aren’t the policies Obama is proposing on immigration wildly popular? That’s what they keep telling us, anyway. “I promise you, the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs,” he said earlier this month. If Democrats would simply stand with the president, then surely voters will reward them. Right?
As world-renowned data scientist Nate Silver explains: “Democrats Are Way More Obsessed With Impeachment Than Republicans.” For example, nearly every time the word “impeachment” has been entered into the Congressional record this month, a Democrat said it.
Surely the wingnuts at Fox News have been using the I-word more often than the intellectual pundits at MSNBC, right?
A crucial New York Times analysis predicts that Republicans now have a 60 percent chance of controlling the Senate next year, with the most likely outcome being a 51-49 seat split following the midterm elections in November. Republican candidates have slight leads in swing states such as Michigan, Louisiana, Iowa, North Carolina, and are within striking distance in Alaska and Colorado.
MSNBC’s all-star panel of political experts, however, is far more optimistic about the Democratic Party’s chances. On “The Daily Rundown” this morning, host Chuck Todd discussed the midterm elections with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report, and Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report. And while they didn’t really make any predictions, they all seemed to think that Democrats were fairly well positioned compared to their GOP opponents.
Liberals are freaking out about the Halbig v. Burwell case. At issue is whether Obamacare, as written, allows for the provision of subsidies to participants in healthcare exchanges not established by the states. The Obama administration and its liberal allies argue that it does, or should, because that’s what the people who wrote the law really mean, even if the actual statute suggests otherwise. But federal courts are split, meaning the case may ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
In recent days, the liberal argument has been dealt an embarrassing blow, after videos surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber explicating arguing that non-state run healthcare exchanges not eligible for subsidies. Gruber now claims he committed a “speak-o—you know, like a type-o.”
If the case does end up being decided by the Supreme Court, we already know how liberals will behave. Like this:
Congress is working on a legislative solution to the immigrant children crisis on the southern border, which the Obama administration now admits they had anticipated back in January yet still did nothing to stop it.
As the Huffington Post reports, a 2008 anti-trafficking law, which many say has exacerbated the crisis, is at the center of the debate:
The law requires unaccompanied minors from countries other than Canada and Mexico to go through a hearing process to determine if they are eligible to remain in the U.S. through asylum or other relief. But the 57,000 unaccompanied minors who have illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border since October have overwhelmed the system, making the 2008 law seem unsustainable to many.
Republicans say the 2008 law must be changed as a condition of approving any funding for the crisis. Most Democrats say it should be left as is.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), for example, who opposes a bipartisan bill that would reform the law, and make it easier for the U.S. to return non-Mexican immigrants to their countries of origin. He has dismissed the legislation, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Representative Henry Cuellar (D., Texas), as another “crazy idea” from House Republicans. Reid has yet to produce legislation of his own to solve the problem.
Polling analysts at the Washington Post have determined that elderly millionaire Hillary Clinton is viewed less favorably than Darth Vader, and would likely lose a hypothetical 2016 matchup against the prominent Sith Lord.
A new poll from The Economist/YouGov does not look good for elderly homeowner Hillary Clinton, a potential challenger to Joe Biden in the 2016 Democratic primary.
Her favorability rating continues to slide. According to the poll, 46 percent of American view Clinton favorably, compared to 45 percent who view her unfavorably.