You cite a 75% number... where is that from and does it differentiate between DREAMers and DACA? Most news articles seem to use the terms interchangeably, so I think you might be overestimating the actual support those 3.6m people have, and how the perceptions of allowing 800k to stay will play out vs. 3.6m from a voter psychology standpoint.

A sampling.

September:
86% support (ABC/Washington Post)
http://abc7.com/politics/86-percent-of- ... s/2452403/

Nearly 60% of Texans support extending protections to DACA recipients (Texas Tribune)
http://www.statesman.com/news/poll-find ... U7PyK1fjJ/

October:
82% support (Quinnipiac)
http://www.newsweek.com/most-americans- ... oll-681832

December:
84% support DACA (CBS News poll)
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/12/08/c ... a-support/

77% support (Quinnipiac)
https://www.newsmax.com/us/poll-daca-re ... id/831574/

Five days ago:
87% support DACA (CBS News poll)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ts-to-stay

Yesterday:
The percentage of voters who said DACA was important enough to shut down the government increased during the shutdown, from 42% to 47%. (Politico/Morning Consult)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ ... ats-357357

Those appear to conflate DACA with DREAMer, exactly the point.

The articles don’t always draw a distinction, but articles aren’t opinion polling. Anyway, you’ll have to expound, because I cannot begin to guess your point.

A. DACA is a program which covers a sizable sub-group of those individuals known as Dreamers.
B. In some of the polling, DACA is polled individually without reference to Dreamers.
C. In some of the polling, the distinction between the two is defined first, and then the two are polled separately.
D. In some of the polling (not included above), Dreamers are polled individually without reference to DACA.
E. The trendline for all three polling types is consistent with the others, and consistently high.
F. Public support for a DACA-defending shutdown increased *during the actual shutdown*, when public impact and opposition rhetoric were at their maximum (and also when the number 800,000 was being thrown around like candy by every outlet).

What is it that you feel A + (B + C + D + E + F) secretly equals?

Here’s the other thing: for a drop in DACA support to be truly consequential, it would have to set records. With everything that happened in healthcare between 2001 and 2016….a time period when it was regularly among the most heated and variable topics of discussion….responses to Gallup’s question of “do you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage” never dipped more than 25 points from its peak popularity. And that took years of messaging, often as the defining topic of one political party.

Similarly, people in policy and education are still trying to wrap their heads around the 11 point drop in support for charter schools that happened in 2017, because it’s such a huge change to have occurred in a single year that it caught everyone off guard.

A 25 point in DACA support…in just 3 weeks…would be truly unheard of. And it would still leave it somewhere between 52 and 64% favorability...never minding the intensity gap between the two sides.

I don't know if this happened in other states, but in 2016 there was a ballot question in MA that would have expanded charter schools in the state. A lot of (liberals) I know didn't really have an opinion on charter schools until they looked into it because it became part of the public conversation that year, and then they became firmly against them. Were there similar ballot initiatives or legislative initiatives in other states that year?

Nope. Cali considered a measure that didn’t even make it into the ballot.

I should say my caution about the support for DACA doesn't necessarily extend to the Democrats' core support; it's certainly a galvanizing issue. I think I'm just questioning the amount of support you'd find in red states that would be firm enough to offer moderate Republicans enough space to side with Democrats on the issue. In the context of Trump, and more broadly a move by the Republican Party away from merely being opposed to illegal immigration to a more blatant nativist bent, and with the I'm not sure if Republican support would continue once The Donald fires up the Twitter feed. Nationwide, I think DACA will continue to command broad support, particularly from Dems, but after a week of Mitch McConnell trying to find a way to fit "illegal immigrant" into every possible sentence, would two-thirds of Republicans still back a path to citizenship for DACA recipients? That's really the part I question.

It is my opinion that the majority of the voting public doesn't realize how many dreamers there actually are and the conflation between the two (DACA and DREAMer) has lead to people thinking the smaller of the two numbers (DACA's 800k, below 25% of the total number of DREAMers) is the totality of the people in this country that are impacted by this debate when proposals range from all 3.6m to just those currently covered under DACA. This misunderstanding of the data, due to the mixing of the terms, could be driving the higher favorable poll numbers and thus this situation is highly susceptible to Turnip tweeting out the distinction.

These are two very different things:

"Do you support a path to citizenship for 800,000 people brought here illegally as children?"
"Do you support a path to citizenship for 3,600,000 people brought here illegally as children?"

Not a shocker, but the Times also confirms that Mueller's team has also interviewed Comey.

Look at this guy bragging about being a real leader.

I’ve never respected a group of people less in my whole life than I do those individuals who continuously buy every fart-stench spin this nakedly-guilty organization puts out and then never brings up again.


The irony is I used to want to understand them to the degree they seem to believe they are inherently entitled to be understood.

I read that tweet and instinctively thought it was from Trump. Much confusion for a second.

Good shit here. Pictures of every president since 1900 with shit on their desks.

https://www.facebook.com/threesixtyfive ... =3&theater

Interesting that Carter also went the no family photos route.

I'm starting to feel like this is going to end up with Mueller giving a Comey-esque rebuke of Trump's behavior while saying it didn't rise to the criminal/impeachable offense level. Giving anti-Trump folks the worst case of political blue balls they've ever known.

This will drag out to the mid-terms (for obvious reasons), but unless there is some super bombshell that has escaped leakage, it appears the best we can hope for is Trump tripping up and lying in an interview with Mueller's team and them making noise about that.

Jesus, what a bunch of tools.