Sean Sullivan and Jenna Johnson write in the Washington Post:

Scott Walker was hot and then cold on a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Jeb Bush was yes and then no on invading Iraq. Marco Rubio was in and then out on offsetting increased military spending with other cuts.
The Republican presidential primaries are starting to sound like a Katy Perry song. GOP rivals have adjusted their positions on a host of issues defining the battle for the nomination.
The common thread: They are lurching to the right and struggling to explain themselves, which could bring negative consequences in the general election.

How is this a “common thread”? How is it “lurching to the right” for Bush to say that we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq, and how is that “lurch” going to “bring negative consequences”? If Rubio had made the reverse switch on defense spending — coming to think that increases should be coupled with cuts to social spending — wouldn’t that be a more straightforward shift to the right?

It would be surprising if the competition for primary voters were not pulling Republican candidates to the right. (What’s a little more surprising is how far left Hillary Clinton is moving with no real primary competition.) But the Post’s story doesn’t hang together.