Based on the data Gary Miller will vote ‘no’ on immigration reform,” Wong said.
Miller’s voting records show’s him as a staunch opponent of immigration reform. But Wong’s model points to Miller as a candidate whose stance can, and perhaps should, change.
In 2012, Miller ran and won election in a newly formed California district in San Bernardino County. It is made up of young minority voters, and his next election is rapidly approaching.
“The young Hispanic/Latino and the young Asian population — meaning those that will turn actually 18 and become voters — will exceed Gary Miller’s 2012 margin of victory,” Wong explains.
He believes there are enough representatives in the House like Miller, who if presented with these statistics, could change their vote and change the current fate of immigration reform.
I can’t help but to wonder if Wong’s assumptions about the California 31st take in to account how people of color have been (unfortunately) not as engaged in politics as the older, whiter voters who can’t cope with the demographic changes around them.
When Republicans stand strong on principles while Democrats obsess about political practicality, Democrats repeatedly concede too much and Republicans repeatedly win more than policy and politics would otherwise dictate. The immigration reform markup is only the latest example of this larger, depressing state of affairs. Maybe it’s time for the Democrats to remember their safe word. Might I suggest “ENOUGH!”?
That’s what I say about Democrats all the time: they function as a product of pragmatism over principles.
I would not be surprised if the modern Democratic Party’s strategy is secretly being bankrolled by Eli Lilly as a ploy to sell Prozac to liberals.
In the latest example of this disconcerting trend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed an amendment to the Senate immigration markup that would arguably harm American workers. In fact, it wasn’t just Democrats and labor unions that opposed this amendment; Republican Sen. Charles Grassley also opposed the amendment. But Democrats nonetheless backed the change in order to woo Hatch’s committee vote. Meanwhile, not only was Hatch’s committee vote not needed to approve the bill but Hatch has explicitly said he may still not vote for the legislation unless other changes are made. In other words, Hatch got to water down the legislation and Democrats got, er, well… nothing.
we live in vero beach and are on your side. period. sorry this is happening to you. its shameful of the prosecutor to not recognize the unfairness and potential illegality of it all.
A couple of points:
- This isn’t happening to me. I know my place of privilege as a heterosexual in a more cosmopolitan area. None the less, I appreciate your kind thought and appreciation of the injustice being done to Kaitlyn.
- In turn, I acknowledge that I dumped a load of blame on your town and county. I’ve found that being nice doesn’t work. Nice people in Indian River County would be picking up the phone and calling Bruce Colton and Brian Workman every work day until they dropped charges (something I’m sure that you’re doing…right?). But some people are content to skip along their merry way while this young woman is persecuted for being a lesbian in love - those are the kind of people that need to be flogged before they move.
Thanks for the note.
House Democrats on Wednesday will challenge the constitutionality of Republican legislation allowing Congress to unilaterally approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Northern Route Approval Act would eliminate the need for TransCanada Corp., the company constructing the pipeline, to get a cross-border permit from President Barack Obama. The pipeline would carry crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. Republicans have argued Congress has the right to regulate international commerce under the Constitution.
But Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) on Monday raised a point of order saying the bill is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers. He furthered argued that it is an earmark and as such, against the rules of the House of Representatives, since under House rules lawmakers may stop any proceedings that affect the safety or integrity of the House.