We probably all agree that a growing Hispanics population poses a significant challenge for conservatives. The question, though, is whether this is a problem of our choosing. Do Republicans want to limit Hispanic immigration because Hispanics are natural liberals? Or are Hispanics natural liberals because Republicans want to limit immigration? In essence, the question is this: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Matt K. Lewis | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
- Follow on Twitter
Matt K. Lewis
Matt K. Lewis is a senior contributor to The Daily Caller, and a contributing editor for The Week. He is a respected commentator on politics and cultural issues, and has been cited by major publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Matt is from Myersville, MD and currently resides in Alexandria, VA. Follow Matt K. Lewis on Twitter @mattklewis.
Over at Politico Magazine, Troy Campbell, an assistant professor of Marketing at the Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, has a fascinating piece on Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Back in November, I pondered whether Chris Christie was about to make a political comeback. The verdict is still out. But, in the vein of John McCain 's 2008 campaign, Christie seems like the type of "comeback" candidate the Granite State might decide to resurrect; he camped out in the state when he was down and out, and earned the New Hampshire Union Leader's endorsement.
In the New Year, Republicans will have a big choice to make. It's not an exaggeration to say this choice is between a bridge to the past and a bridge to the future.
It has become a tradition of mine to recount what I got right and wrong each year. This year, I promise not to bore you with a laundry list. Instead, I'm going to hit on just a few of the most noteworthy.
Over at the Atlantic, David Frum has penned a thought-provoking piece on "The Great Republican Revolt." It's basically about the Trump phenomenon, and he does an amazing job of assessing the trends and describing the current zeitgeist---which is probably why this piece has generated some buzz. (Seriously, he nails it.)
It's that time of year where we wear pajamas, drink hot chocolate, and talk to our families about Donald Trump.
During Saturday night's Democratic debate (you might have missed it), Bernie Sanders did something astounding: He apologized to Hillary Clinton.
Ted Cruz held his own last night, but (on CNN the morning of the debate) I predicted he was the candidate to watch. My expectation was that he might turn it up a notch and use this debate (coming on the heels of his Iowa poll numbers) to catapult his campaign to the next level.
LAS VEGAS -- For a long time, there was a hope that Marco Rubio would eventually emerge as the Republican nominee. He still appears to be the best possible General Election candidate to face Hillary Clinton, and his eloquence and optimism would help rebrand conservatism into a philosophy that could win the 21st century.
You probably saw the recent Washington Post piece about how Sen. Ted Cruz has assembled "a team of statisticians and behavioral psychologists who subscribe to the burgeoning practice of 'psychographic targeting' built their own version of a Myers-Briggs personality test."
One of the interesting things about Donald Trump supporters is that they don't actually agree with much of what he says. They just trust him to be tough and to be a winner. In fact, they actually seem to take solace in assuming he won't do much of what he says he will do, but at least he will do something.
Whether we're talking about actors, sports heroes, or politicians, one of the things that always interests me is how someone's "Rosebud" moment influences who they become. And learning about the seminal moments in the lives of some of today's GOP stars was one of the things I enjoyed most about McKay Coppins' new book The Wilderness.
On the heels of his plan calling for a "complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the U.S., we are now on day two of Trump dominating the news cycle. The talk today has moved to worries that he might launch an independent bid.
Monday morning, I was on TV talking about Barack Obama's anemic speech in the Oval Office, and I was promoting my latest column, titled: "How the Democrats Flubbed San Bernardino."
My latest column over at the Daily Beast details how, in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, Democrats were quick to pounce on the gun control issue. That turned out to be a non sequitur. But even at the time, when the motive was unclear, gun control was only one of a handful of relevant topics that we might have been discussing.
It wasn't that long ago when the Democrats were the party in the wilderness. Between 1969 and 1993, a Democrat occupied the White House for just four years. That all changed with Bill Clinton. And a relatively unsung Democratic reformer named Simon Rosenberg played a key role in modernizing efforts that helped elect Clinton --- and Barack Obama.
The problem with 99 percent of the high-minded, optimistic Republican candidates is that they're wimps. Or, at least, they're not willing to do what it takes to win in the game of politics. They're above that sort of thing, which is a form of elitism. They don't want to lower themselves to actually doing what it takes to win in the modern era---which (unfortunately) is to attack your opponents and constantly engage in petty tu quoque arguments.
A few months ago, I was among the early commentators who observed that Ted Cruz might just be running a brilliant stealth campaign.
One of the good things about Twitter is that it serves as a sort of canary in a coal mine. You'll see narratives bubbling up long before they make their way into columns or TV hits. Recently, I've noticed a concerning liberal meme that goes like this: Donald Trump is the culmination of conservatism's last forty years.