The texts

Is Donald Trump Self-Destructing?

BY JOHN CASSIDY

Over the past few days, Donald Trump has said and done things that have raised
more doubts about his temperament, judgment, and command of policy issues.
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY AL DRAGO / CQ ROLL CALL / GETTY
If Donald Trump were a normal political candidate, he would be in serious trouble
at the moment. Over the past few days, he has said and done things that have
raised more doubts about his temperament, judgment, and command of policy
issues. Some of the Republicans trying to prevent him from becoming the Partys
Presidential nominee believe that theyre finally making progress. Are they right?
Trump is undoubtedly having a bad week. His initial refusal to condemn his
campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who was accused of manhandling a
female reporter, Michelle Fields, and lying about what happened, was wrongbut
it was also in line with Trumps policy of never conceding anything or apologizing
unless he absolutely has to. For a time, the facts of the incident, which took place
after a press conference at one of Trumps resort properties in Jupiter, Florida,
were disputed, and Trump could hide behind the pretense that this was case of
he said, she said.
After Tuesday, when police in Jupiter charged Lewandowski with battery and
released a security video that showed him grabbing Fieldss arm and turning her
around, the situation became very different. (Lewandowski denies the charges.)
Practically any other candidate would have fired Lewandowski, or at least
severely reprimanded him; said sorry to Fields; and tried to move on. Far from

doing any of these things, Trump sought to deny the evidence provided by the
video. Not only that, he defended Lewandowskis actions, on the grounds that
Fields might have represented a physical threat to him. She had a pen in her
hand which the Secret Service is not liking because they dont know what it is,
whether its a little bomb, he said on CNN.
This reaction didnt just make Trump look deluded, sexist, and cowardlyit
provided his political enemies with more ammunition to use against him. No
ambiguity @realDonaldTrump is trying to justify violence against women:
defenders of domestic/work violence can use Trump talking points, Stuart
Stevens, a former adviser to Mitt Romney who is part of the Never Trump
movement, tweeted on Wednesday. On Thursday morning, Stevens was still
revelling in the story. Put me down as believing both the First and, apparently,
Second Amendments protect reporters right to carry pens, he tweeted.
If Trump wasnt already in enough trouble with female voterslast week, an NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll found that forty-seven per cent of Republican
women couldnt imagine voting for himhe made things even worse on
Wednesday, when he told MSNBCs Chris Matthews, during a town-hall meeting in
Wisconsin, that women who seek abortions should be subject to some form of
punishment. After media outlets seized on those incendiary words, Trump issued
a written statement recanting them. It said that if Congress enacted a ban on
abortion, a policy that Trump now supports, the doctor or any other person
performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not
the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.
This rapid about-face only served to highlight the fact that Trump had again
presented his opponents with a gift. Of course we shouldnt be talking about
punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have
to bring life into the world, Ted Cruz said. John Kasich made similar comments.
Hillary Clinton described Trumps initial remarks as horrific and telling.
The irony in all of this is that, of all the Republican candidates, Trump is
historically perhaps the least hostile to abortion rights. Cruz is so ardently
opposed to abortion that he doesnt favor exceptions in the case of rape or
incest. Kasich does, but he has been pro-life for a long time, while Trump hasnt.
In 1999, Trump said that he was very pro-choice. Many Republicans suspect
that this is still his real view, and they believe that the reason he struggles to
articulate his current stance is that he doesnt believe in it. After Trump made his
statement about punishing women who terminated their pregnancies, Brian
Phillips, the rapid-response director for the Cruz campaign, said on Twitter, Dont
overthink it: Trump doesnt understand the pro-life position because hes not prolife.
That sounds about right. But abortion is far from the only issue on which Trump
tends to waffle or goof up when he is asked detailed questions. The same thing
applies to his foreign policy, his trade policy, even his calls to deport illegal
immigrants and ban Muslims from entering the United States. Ask him how he

would round up eleven million people or which nationalities would be on his noentry list, and he cant answer. Trump doesnt do details. He never has.
When there were ten, or six, candidates in the Republican field, and a televised
debate was taking place every week, this didnt matter much. The jostling in the
horse race was the big story, and Trump could get away with generalizations.
Now the contest is down to three candidates; there arent any debates to
dominate the daily news cycle; and the Never Trump folks are harrying the frontrunner constantly. With the spotlight on him, the cracks in his candidacy are
becoming all too visible.
Earlier this week, Sam Nunberg, a former political adviser to Trump, endorsed Ted
Cruz, saying that his ex-boss lacked the policy substance and intellectual
coherence to be President. To be sure, Nunberg isnt the most desirable of
character witnesses. Last summer, Trump fired him after it emerged that he had
used racist and derogatory language on Facebook posts. But Nunbergs
comments about Trumps inattention to detail were in line with the testimony of
others who have worked with him over the years. Nunberg said that he began to
grow concerned last fall, when, during a debate, Trump didnt appear to know
what the nuclear triad was. I was concerned but I figured that he would bulk up
on policy, Nunberg told Politico. He has not. I do not see a candidate who takes
these issues seriously.
Of course, Trumps core supporters arent backing him for his knowledge of the
relative merits of land-based, sea-based, and air-based nuclear missiles. They like
his nativism, his derisive attitude toward President Obama, his attacks on the
media, his populist tirades about trade treaties destroying American jobs, and the
fact that he isnt a professional politician. Critical commentaries by journalists
and interventions by the likes of Stevens and Romney arent going to make much
impression on Trumps backers, some of whom may even condone the
candidates misogynistic attacks on women like Fields, Carly Fiorina, and Megyn
Kelly.
The question is, and has been, how large a segment of the Republican electorate
the Trump faithful constitute. Most analysts reckon that its about a third. That
means Trump, to get the twelve hundred and thirty-seven delegates he needs for
a majority, also has to draw in some Republicans who like some of what he says
and stands for, but not all of it. In states like Arizona, Florida, and Mississippi, he
has managed to do this, receiving nearly half the vote. But in other states, such
as Illinois and Kentucky, he has been held to the mid-thirties.
Wisconsin, where forty-two delegates are at stake, seems to be another state
where Trump is struggling to move beyond his base. Having secured the backing
of Governor Scott Walker and other local notables, Cruz appears to have the
momentum going into Tuesdays contest, which will award eighteen delegates to
the statewide winner and a total of twenty-four to the winners of individual
districts. But, according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEights Harry Enten, if the
Marquette Law School poll, which was released this week and shows Cruz leading

by ten points, turns out to be accurate, Trump could end up winning hardly any
delegates at all, which would deal the heaviest blow yet to his campaign.
Thats the dream scenario for the Republicans who are fighting Trump. A couple
of notes of caution are in order, though. The Marquette poll, which received a
huge amount of attention, had a small sample size and a large margin of error.
Another new poll, from Public Policy Polling, shows Cruz just one point ahead of
Trump. The primary will be restricted to registered voters, which would normally
favor the Texas senator. But people can register at the polling place, and
registered Democrats are also permitted to vote, which should help Trump.
Even if he does badly in Wisconsin, it wont necessarily imply that he cant get to
twelve hundred and thirty-seven, or that a contested convention is inevitable.
After Tuesday, the race moves to the Northeastern Corridor, where Trump will be
hoping to rack up some big wins. In New York, for example, where ninety-five
delegates will be up for grabs, on April 19th, a new survey from Quinnipiac
University shows him leading Cruz by a huge margin, thirty-six percentage points,
with Kasich even further behind. In Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania,
which vote the following week, not much polling has been done recently. But the
evidence that exists suggests that Trump is ahead.
In other words, he is still in a strong strategic position and remains the firm
favorite, even as cracks are showing. Predictwise, a Web site that combines data
from polls and betting markets, estimates that the probability of him getting the
nomination is sixty-six per cent. But its worth noting that that number has
dropped over the past week or so, from eighty per cent.
Since the Never Trump movement formed, its strategy has been to narrow the
Republican field, unite the anti-Trump forces, and keep up the pressure on Trump
to see if he selfdestructs. It would be an exaggeration to say that this has already
happened, but his enemies have reasons to be encouraged.

Text Let them not come

Hostility to large-scale European Union migration could decide the referendum
Apr 2nd 2016 | From the print edition

POLLS say immigration is voters main concern, so the issue was always going to
play strongly in the Brexit debate. David Camerons Tory government has
promised to bring net migration below 100,000 a year but the latest number was
362,000. Worse, much of the upsurge is accounted for by a rise in EU immigrants.
That is why Mr Cameron fought so hard to win a four-year delay in granting inwork benefits to them in his EU renegotiation.
Despite Mr Camerons deal, immigration is one subject on which Leave
campaigners have a clear lead. The correlation between hostility to immigration
and support for Brexit is high, so if they can turn the vote into one about
migration, they will win. Yet in trying to do this they not only ignore much
economic evidence about the impact of migration but also muddle several
unrelated strands of the subject.
They say Britain has lost control of its borders. In fact anyone entering Britain
(except from Ireland) must pass through border checks. Or they point to Europes
refugee mess, although since Britain is not in the EUs Schengen passport-free
zone, the country has largely escaped it. Some warn that the accession of Turkey
will let in hordes of Turks. Yet Turkish membership is many years off and, if it were
agreed, would come with tight migration limits. A few Eurosceptics use the
terrorist attacks in Brussels on March 22nd to claim that free movement of people
lets terrorists into Britain (the government says they show how vital co-operation
on security is).
The Remain campaigners are not above their own scaremongering. Some suggest
that Brexit might result in the 2m-odd Britons settled in Spain and elsewhere in
the EU being sent home. This is unlikely, though questions might be raised over
access to health care. Remainers have warned that France might scrap the Le
Touquet treaty that places the AngloFrench border in Calais, bringing squalid
refugee camps to Dover instead. Some French politicians might indeed want to

end this unpopular deal, but it is a bilateral one and not linked to Britains EU
membership.
The real argument should be over the effects of EU migration. It has certainly
been bigger than expected. In 2003 one forecast said that up to 13,000 east
Europeans a year would come; five times as many turned up. There are now
about 3m EU migrants in Britain, the latest inrush from southern Europe. Yet over
half of net immigration comes from outside the EU.
A post-Brexit Britain might not be able to stop EU migration anyway. If it wants to
retain full access to the EUs single market, it will probably be required to accept
free movement of people, as Norway and Switzerland are (both have
proportionately more EU migrants
than Britain).
Most Brexiteers insist on tougher
controls. They say heavy EU
migration burdens taxpayers,
drives up welfare spending,
strains public services like health
and education and aggravates the
housing crisis. Some argue that
migration steals jobs and reduces
wages, especially for the lower
paid. Those who favour some
immigration often prefer an
Australian-style points system
that would let Britain cherry-pick the best and brightest.
There are good answers to most of these claims. Several studies have found that
EU migrants, unlike non-EU ones, are net fiscal contributors. Mr Camerons
benefit cuts are unlikely to deter them (indeed, more may now be lured by the
new higher national living wage scheduled to take effect on April 1st). Migration
adds to pressure on housing, but the real problem is planning constraints.
Britains employment rate is at a new high, so there is little sign of migrants
taking natives jobs.
As for Australian-style cherry-picking, Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of
Economic and Social Research points out that Britain does a lot of this already
(see chart). The share of the foreign-born in Britain with tertiary education is
higher than in Australia or almost all EU countries, and it is far higher than among
the native-born.
Rich countries need migration to thrive, not least to sustain their public services.
A growing population can create problems, but a shrinking one is worse. The
irony is that the surest way to reduce immigration to Britain is, as one migration
adviser puts it, to wreck its economy, and leaving the EU is a quick way to do
that. Brexiteers could inadvertently get what they wantbut the country would
be poorer for it.