I think Paul missed the boat, as do most Dems, that immigration is a “I’m not a far leftie” issue like guns. His 2nd Amendment position is why Strickland even has a ghost of a chance against (presumably) Blackwell.

Paul or other Dems who feel as he does about immigration (and there are many more Dems than the Washington people think who are “against illegals and for legals” as Paul is) need to be upfront with that position in GOP districts, even if it matches the opponent, because it shows IMO that a candidate passes the sanity test. They have to put up with the brickbats from the far left who throw out the R word every time someone articulates a position similar to Paul’s, but they are the loony fringe. And rejecting the loony fringe would also play well in a GOP district, or even in a purple state like OH.

I also think that someday someone is going to be smart enough to reach a lot of the 40% of the population that never votes, and when they do, illegal immigration will be a big part of that outreach.

At the time I didn’t think much about it. I was so into Schmidt pulling back on abortion and the whole megafarm flap that most everything else went by the wayside.

I don’t think that it would have gotten nearly as much traction from Schidt as it would have from DeWine. She’d be outflanking him on that one.

Thanks for the kind words, BTW.

I don’t remember the issue getting coverage at the web site, and I think you’re agreeing with me that he didn’t do much with it after the first debate.