Sunday, August 21, 2016


First we had a vague apology for intemperate language, and now we have this:
In Reversal, Trump Indicates To Hispanic Leaders Openness To Legalization For Immigrants

In a Saturday meeting with his newly announced Hispanic advisory council, Donald Trump suggested he is interested in figuring out a “humane and efficient” manner to deal with immigrants in the country illegally, according to three sources....

“He said people who are here is the toughest part of the immigration debate, that it must be something that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner,” said Jacob Monty, a Houston-based immigration lawyer who sat in Trump Tower with other Latino supporters and Trump.

“The idea is we’re not getting someone in front of the line, we’re doing it in a legal way, but he wants to hear ideas of how we deal with 11 million people that are here with no documents,” said Jose Fuentes, who was chair of Mitt Romney’s Hispanic advisory committee in 2012, and attended the meeting.
The headline calls this a "reversal" even though it's not:
Trump, however, stressed that any new announcements will still be in line with the border security-focused approach that has invited intense opposition from Latinos and immigrants since he launched his campaign....

“Mr. Trump said nothing today that he hasn’t said many times before, including in his convention speech -- enforce the laws, uphold the Constitution, be fair and humane while putting American workers first,” [Steven] Cheung [of the Trump campaign] wrote.
As Marc Thiessen noted, something like this appeared to be Trump's policy (when he was in a conciliatory mood) last November:
On Fox News on November 12, Trump’s son Eric expressed frustration that the media overlooks this:
The point isn’t just deporting them, it’s deporting them and letting them back in legally. He’s been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it, but it’s deporting them and letting them back legally.
... Listen closely to what Trump is actually proposing. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash earlier this year, Trump explained his plan this way:
I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal.... A lot of these people are helping us ... and sometimes it’s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.
And surely we recall this from a debate in October:
As far as the wall is concerned, we’re going to build a wall. We’re going to create a border. We’re going to let people in, but they’re going to come in legally. They’re going to come in legally....

We can do a wall. We’re going to have a big, fat beautiful door right in the middle of the wall. We’re going to have people come in, but they’re coming in legally.
So, when it's suited him, he's repeatedly said that that some immigrants who've come across the southern border should be allowed to stay, perhaps after leaving first.

But someone's persuaded him to go on a multi-day campaign of soft-spokenness and outreach to alienated voters. Some of it isn't going particularly well:
Speaking in Michigan, Trump offered a blunt appeal to African-American voters: “You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. 58% of your youth in unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

His message was not well received. Of course, many blacks -- like many other Americans -- face challenges. But Trump lumped all blacks together into a single, monolithic, desperate group.
Nevertheless, he's doing his version of outreach. Why? I'm sticking with what I said a couple of days ago: he's been persuaded to "anchor left," after which he'll "pivot right." He's going to keep doing this until the mainstream press and the rest of the political world concede that, yes, Trump is becoming more mature and presidential. His new campaign crew has persuaded him that he'll get to be Trump again if he does this first. Trump doesn't seem like a guy who can delay gratification, but Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway apparently have him doing it.

It won't work unless journalists and pundits fall for it.

But you know they will.


Victor said...

Oh, they'll fall for it, ok!

Like a caught and newly released fish, falling for the same shiny lure!

Feud Turgidson said...

They get caught and released til they reach a certain size, when they get caught & eated.

main street liberal said...

Steve, I believe your analysis of Trump's strategy is accurate. But Cheung's remark, that Trump wants to "be fair and humane while putting American workers first, is extremely dishonest.

Last September, after Trump met with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, its president and CEO stated in part "we agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people." Trump has no problem with lots of immigrants here with no chance of citizenship, beholden to their employers and (however modestly) depressing wage rates and benefits. Like so many Republicans, his concern is that they don't become citizens, don't receive benefits, and don't vote.

Feud Turgidson said...

At just before 3 a.m. Princeton time, Sam Wang dumped his Modern Polling History model and basically called the election.

Until today, Wang's PEC model has been about predicting the likely outcomes of national in particular presidential year elections, purely off the aggregate of state polls, then placing their volatility within the full historical context of Post-WWII polling since 1952.

A light bulb's been burning brighter inside Wang's brain (We all know wangs have brains.), as he explains:

So now Wang is like that buzzard in the famous cartoon - he's not waiting:

Wang Math:

(1) 1990 El Rushbo hits 5 million
(2) 1994 Newt takes out a Contract on America
(3) 1996 Fox News debuts
1+2+3 =
New Rules!

- 1952-92 was 2-Party Shared Governance America.
- 1996 on has been Manichean America, with not even governance among the shared values.

Bottom line:
Manifesting this realization in the PEC Model means that Wang no longer sees the historically supported 6% points of give in aggregated polling that he, like all aggregators, have perceived in the data over 1952-92.

Now Wang only sees the 3% points of give in aggregated polling there to be see since 1996, such that if, like now, aggregated polling shows one candidate ahead by a meta-margin of more than 3 (Today, August 21 20016, Hillary Clinton is up by a meta-margin of 5.5!), th-tha- th-tha th-that's all, folks.

Ernest Lamonica said...

Steve absolutely no one believe's most of the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth. By now you either are with him no matter how much he lies or you will never vote for him no matter what. I dont believe the polls. I believe Hillary is really up 53/40. Rest are the 2 losers and write ins. I predicted 55/45 and am sticking to it.

KenRight said...

So you believe Trump is less honest than, say, Obama when he pledged to redo NAFTA?
Or Clinton's pivot on TPP?
She hasn't pivoted on aggression beyond Obama's in Syria yet, take a clue,
Obama's alone has almost initiated war with Russ.

Dark Avenger said...

Trump has a record of dishonesty, Ken. Also, an attention span like a weasel on meth. You really want his finger on the Red Button, Tovarich Ken?

Sam said...

I'm no expert in naval tactics, but I've been thinking about it and I don't see how you could pivot to starboard after dropping anchor off the port bow.

nainam97 said...

I also saw Sam Wang's comforting analysis and it makes a lot of sense. After reading his call, I decided to stop watching angst-producing TV news until the election is over (well, maybe on election night!)

Ten Bears said...

Wang was an early proprietary network hardware, operating system and rudimentary word processing and accounting platform. Like, back in eighties. Quite impressive.

Didn't make it.

Ten Bears said...

They do it all the time, Sam, on tv.

I'm sticking with sixty-five Clinton Dumpf uck splits the balance with the third party.

KenRat has a point: an author and advocate for trans-national trade partnerships for the past twenty-five years is now opposed to them?

Joey Blau said...

I have had a dream.. a dream denied because I am a white middle class male. I am voting Trump so I can realize my dream of working in a chicken processing facility in Kansas. Them dang illegals took my job!

Feud Turgidson said...

10b - Hard to detect your nod to the fact that in both China and particularly Taiwan, Wang is pretty much the equivalent of Johson.

An Wang & family are computer tech folk. Sam Wang is at Princeton as a psychologist. The computer Wangs are located in an around Cambridge Mass. Sam lives in Princeton NJ. An's family emigrated to the Greater Boston ara from Shanghai province, mainland China, a country currently with well over a billion people, in 1951. Sam's family emigrated from Taiwan to Riverside CA in the 1960s. Always take care to be able to distinguish Wangs, 10b.

As to KenRight 'having a point', I believe we all located that some time back.

Never Ben Better said...

At least, Feud, KenRight holds his point up proud and high, eh?

Must take some careful effort to get the tinfoil properly applied, though.

Ten Bears said...

What part of "quite impressive" didn't you undestand? I started my long and sordid relationship with computers on a Wang.

You do know that keyboards are, like, a dollar these days? Appears you're few.