To be realistic???

GOP insiders: Moderating on immigration helps Trump

'The plan needs to be realistic,' says one Nevada Republican.

By Steven Shepard

Donald Trump signaled this week he will “soften” his proposals on immigration policy — and nearly two-thirds of Republican insiders in battleground states think a more moderate stance would help the GOP nominee win the presidency.

That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states. Sixty-four percent of Republicans said Trump should moderate his immigration policies when he unveils a complete plan, particularly previous suggestions that the government should deport all of the undocumented immigrants in the country.

“Deporting 11 million illegals was never realistic,” said a Nevada Republican — who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously. “[The] plan needs to be realistic and include a wall.”

“There's nothing wrong with Trump clarifying his previous positions on immigration,” a Colorado Republican added. “There's nothing wrong with a strong stance, but he needs to make sure he is seen is fair.”

But 36 percent of GOP insiders said a conversion on immigration risks jeopardizing Trump’s message — and his authenticity as a messenger.

“This issue and trade are the two issues that gets Trump crossover votes,” said a Florida Republican, pointing to Trump’s support among traditional Democratic-leaning voters, such as working-class whites who have resisted the GOP for economic reasons. “The only moderation, which he's already talked about, is to moderate on mass deportation because it's not possible.”

“The basis of his candidacy is a hard line on immigration,” a Nevada Republican added. “It isn’t a mistake that it is what catapulted him into first place. [Moderating] would damage him in two ways: expose him as a typical politician who bends principle to satisfy a small crowd of loud voices, and destroy him on what should be his signature issue. We need a wall. Mexico may end up not paying for it, but the vast majority of Americans want law enforcement to take the job of securing the border seriously.”

In an interview with Sean Hannity this week, Trump suggested “softening” his immigration proposals and appeared to cast doubt on his desire to deport each of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. presently. But neither Trump nor his campaign has provided details on how Trump’s posture might alter his policy proposals.

There’s little confidence among many Republicans that a new tack on immigration would give Trump a serious chance to win. Asked who would win their state if the election was held today, 79 percent of GOP insiders chose Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Quipped a Colorado Republican who said Trump should moderate on immigration: “Trump's chances of winning if he veers to the middle go from none to slim.”

“This isn't about hotels and real estate,” countered an Iowa Republican. “This is real life, where if you built it, you deal with the consequences and can't just claim bankruptcy and walk away. At this point, he has to own it because people are seeing it in their ads every night. Walking it back would be a stain on his signature brand.”

Here are three other takeaways from this week’s survey:

Most Republicans don’t think suggesting Clinton is in poor health helps Trump.

A number of figures in Trump’s orbit have intimated in recent weeks that Clinton is in poor health. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, an attorney by trade, said on Fox on Sunday that the media ignore “several signs of illness” in Clinton. Trump-friendly media outlets have pointed to photos that they claim show Clinton, who suffered a concussion after fainting in 2012, needing physical assistance on the campaign trail.

Trump has questioned Clinton’s “mental and physical stamina to take on” the Islamic State’s terror network. After an evening rally in Michigan last week, he tweeted that Clinton was “sleeping!!!!!” instead of campaigning. And two of his three tweets on Thursday following Clinton’s speech in Reno, Nevada, hit his Democratic opponent for delivering a “short” speech.

Only a minority of GOP insiders, 42 percent, see this line of attack as effective.

“She had a serious health incident,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “She has been less than candid about it, which is nothing unusual for her. It is an effective attack and counteracts her attacks on him over tax returns.”

Some of these Republican insiders took issue with the wording of the survey question: “Do you think Trump and his allies' unproven suggestions about Hillary Clinton’s health are effective, or do they undermine his other lines of attack against Clinton?”

“Interesting that you used the word ‘unproven’ in this question,” a Nevada Republican said. “Somehow I never see the word ‘unproven’ when Trump is accused of being a racist and sexist, even though those are opinions. Double standard?”

The majority of GOP insiders see these attack lines as ineffective. But, among them, there’s a divide between those who think launching them undermines Trump (27 percent) and those who think, while the punches miss, they don’t hurt Trump (31 percent).

“This is stupid. It makes him look more chauvinistic,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “There is an abundance of legitimate ammunition to use against her. He has to stop with the stupid.”

A Michigan Republican said: “It's silly. He's an old man himself. Why attack on something you are also vulnerable on?”

“Americans are skeptical of Hillary Clinton for a number of very good reasons,” added an Ohio Republican. “But one 70-year-old arguing with another 70-year-old about who is healthier sounds like a 4 o’clock dinner argument at a nursing home, not a presidential campaign.”

Democrats are more confident that these Trump attacks won’t move the needle. The vast majority, 96 percent, said these attacks are ineffective – and most of them think they will hurt Trump.

One Florida Democrat said the allegations about Clinton’s health put Trump “back in birther world.” Added another: “It is just another crazy claim by him in the mind of swing voters.”

Insiders say Trump will debate.

The first debate between Clinton and Trump is only a month away, and still details are scarce about who will moderate the debate and whether Trump will even participate.

But the vast majority of Republicans are confident Trump won’t just be at Long Island’s Hofstra University on Sept. 26 – he’ll participate in all three commission-sanctioned debates.

Eighty-five percent of Republican insiders said Trump will be at all three debates, and they were joined by 61 percent of Democrats.

“He has to” debate, a Virginia Republican said. “He has a low bar to cross, but he needs to stand on a stage equal to her and demonstrate that he is acceptable change.”

“Trump skipped the pre-Iowa debate and lost,” added a New Hampshire Republican. “He'll complain, but he won't make that mistake again.”

Democratic insiders split on Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy.

Asked whether Clinton, who hasn’t held an official press conference since late last year, should take questions from reporters, 53 percent of Democratic insiders say yes, while 47 percent say a press conference isn’t necessary.

“Prevent defense loses, so she should do a presser,” a Florida Democrat said. “Honestly it's good practice for debate.”

A number of Democrats said there isn’t much risk for Clinton in holding a press conference – even if it isn’t necessary.

“Press conferences aren't about journalism and news. They're about showboating,” a New Hampshire Democrat said. “But if it will quiet this ridiculous narrative, sure, have one.”

But some other Democrats disagreed, pointing to the likelihood that Clinton would face uncomfortable questions about her use of a private email server and the role of the Clinton Foundation.

“There is too much risk taking questions from reporters in a live setting at this point because, as a result of her previous non-responses, she's set herself up for a grilling,” said an Ohio Democrat. “When this story broke, a sincere mea culpa and pledge to do things differently in the White House would have put this story line to bed or greatly reduced the media's obsession with it.”