It was voter opposition to Obama’s plan for a de-facto amnesty by executive action that caused the President to postpone the plan until after the election. The logical GOP move is to keep this voter opposition alive by making a big national fuss about the Democrats’ plans. Why would Republican leaders balk? Because they’re scared to get the electorate to riled against an amnesty plan that they (the GOP leaders) will start pushing as soon as the midterms are over.
Whether D.C. GOP leaders try to “nationalize” the immigration issue or not, 2014 is emerging as a de facto, sub rosa referendum on amnesty. Immigration is the hammer wielded by Republican candidates in no less than 8 contested Senate races, by my count. It’s a central issue of the campaigns in six states — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire. In two others, Republican challengers are making somewhat more feeble anti-amnesty stands — North Carolina (where the GOP candidate, Tom Tillis, has suspect anti-amnesty credentials) and Alaska. If the Republicans prevail in all eight of those races they’d net a total of 6 additional seats, enough to swing the Senate.
If that happens, how will the MSM avoid mentioning the truth (that “immigration reform” cost the Democrats Senate control)? I have confidence reporters will find a way. There are lots of other issues in the world, after all. They can always blame the border surge from Central America (which they can then declare over).** If the Republicans should fall short of a majority– by winning, say, only 6 of the amnesty-centric races** — amnesty will still have lost its referendum, but the press will be able to subsume that lesson under the “Dems Survive” headline.