Coulter to GOP: stop ‘Constantly Sucking Up’ to Latino Voters

[Statistikhengst]

Adios!!

SNIP:
Adios Democrats! Hispanics Bolting Party
Michael Barone' href="James S. Robbins Author at Radix News" rel="nofollow" abp="39">Michael Barone | October 19, 2014 | Commentary | 1 Comment
It’s looking like a tough offyear election for Democrats, with their Senate majority at serious risk and their chances of gaining House seats down toward zero.
Every party has a bad offyear sometimes; Republicans did in 2006. Sooner or later they recover. But in the crosstabs of polls and in party strategists’ moves I see evidence that one group Democrats have been counting on is moving away from them: Hispanics.
Hispanics voted 71 percent for Barack Obama in 2012, 20 points above his national average of 51 percent. According to Gallup, Hispanics’ latest Obama job approval has sunk to 44 percent, just 3 points above the national average.
You probably haven’t heard much about this because Hispanics are scarce in all but one of the states with serious Senate races this year.
The one exception is Colorado, where the 2012 exit poll said 14 percent of voters were Hispanic. Non-Hispanic whites there voted 54 to 44 percent for Mitt Romney. But Hispanics voted 75 to 23 percent for Barack Obama, providing all of his popular vote margin and more.

Adios Democrats Hispanics Bolting Party - Radix News

Can't wait to throw the exit polls back in your face once the mid-terms are over with!

GAME ON, Staph Infection!! "Let's roll!!!"

 

[Statistikhengst]

[
The risk of winning or losing an election is NOT a wholesome benchmark for deciding whether or not to enforce our laws.

Well, you can't enforce the laws if you don't win the election.

and the problem with you wingnuts on this issue is you can't seem to discuss it without sounding just a little bit racist.

...or bigoted....

 

[Dot Com]

Latinos don't care about either republicans or democrats. They vote for whoever will promise them the most free stuff. Lacking a democrat or a republican, latinos will support whichever cartels gives them the most money. When they get their chance they vote for fellow latinos. It's called La Raza for a reason.

This is exactly the kind of mindless, bigoted shit that is killing the GOP in the Latino vote.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

EXACTLY!!! Katzndogz , and many other Repub-voters, just don't get it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

McCain and Romney both let the Dems run their campaign and they both lost big time. In 2010 we ran a Conservative message and won -- big time.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to be a Republican running with a Dem message?

And again, Crusader Frank makes the mistake of comparing the clientele that comes out for Presidential elections to the clientele that shows up to vote in mid-terms.

 

[kaz]

What has the GOP done for us? You're full of crap. The Tea Party are libertarians lite, and they are demogogued by the party establishment just like the liberals do to them.

The GOP is spending too much time sucking up to you, even though you are a joke. The Teabaggers are even more pathetic, because frankly, you can smell the racism.

Once again sweeping accusations with nothing to back them up.

 

[Dot Com]

are either kaz or the rabbi latinos?

 

[kaz]

Seriously, you don't know the answer to that question? You know nothing about business or economics or common sense. Let's start with the common sense. It saves you $$$. Why do you like that? Why do you like spending less for the same thing? And what do you do with that money you saved? You spend it, which creates ... what?

It doesn't save me money. It reduces my choices and makes me drive further.

Guy, you fools don't get to argue economics anymore after 2008.

Gotcha moron, I'm a Republican. You mentioned that. I'm also an anarchist. When you think in black and white, you think in black AND white.

And right, people go to Walmart because they have fewer choices, drive further and they don't save money anyway. Quite the debater you are, I should have known better than to cross swords with you.

 

[kaz]

Two of the businesses I bought I spun off. The other three I combined. I've gotten with the businesses obviously good and bad employees. I decided spring of last year it was time to deal with the bad ones. I cut a third of my staff in one day.

Yup. And you have a 12" dick and Lexus. Got it.

LOL, that's just sad. My real life is a fantasy to you. I've done nothing anyone else can't do. Women, blacks or Latinos.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You're being sarcastic......right?

No. We keep having that thrown in our face. so to me it says get ready for your new masters in the country

Imagine what America will be like when people coming from a shithole country apply the same goverance here when they become the majority. We already see what happens when a self-proclaimed Kenyan is in charge.

Do you subscribe to the notion that north American Latino's are not capable of assimilation the same way European Latino's have?

I'm not assuming anything. it's the liberals on here who assumes we all need to PANDER to any group, race or color. If they didn't use class warfare they wouldn't have anything

Obama did not win by using class warfare.

Obama did not win because Romney didn't have a clear message. Americans heard it loud and clear after dozens of debates.

There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans, and Obama's strategists did a better job of mobilizing them to vote.

You're right that the GOP shouldn't pander to minorities and women. Their platform will turn off those voters anyway. It's better to go down while being true to yourselves.

Every black 96%of them and guilt-ridden whites came out of the woodwork to vote for the unqualified obama those two elections.

 

[kaz]

A lot of republicans stayed home and did not vote for Romney.

They did??? You mean all of the enthusiasm the Repubs were ginning up to get the Marxist usurper out of the White House didn't work???

I find that very hard to believe.

Then you didn't read anything about voter turnout. Republicans are Democrats best friend. They keep nominating guys like Dole, McCain and Romney when they should win elections. W only won because you decided to go with even bigger nut jobs. The lunatic Al Gore. And let's be serious, Kerry was a gag candidate.

Somehow, when it's coming from the likes of you, I just can't take any definition of who is a "bigger nut job" seriously.

From "Erik the Red?" That's just priceless. So you explain how you lost to W who did nothing in his life that wasn't on his daddy's coat tails. Twice...

 

[Rikurzhen]

So, since Romney only got 1.1 million less votes than Bush (2004), no one can say with any credibility that Republicans stayed home in 2012. They did not. They voted. Only, decidedly more Independents and Democrats voted, and that brought President Obama to 51.01% in 2012. And indeed, the record setting Latino statistic was a big part of that.

I really have a hard time wrapping my mind around how stupid you liberals are. The world is dynamic, not static.

When Bush ran in 2000, the US population was 282 million. When Romney ran in 2012 the US population was 314 million.

RealClearPolitics notes the voters who stayed home in 2012:

From mid-2008 to mid-2012, the census estimates that the number of whites of voting age increased by 3 million. If we assume that these “new” voters would vote at a 55 percent rate, we calculate that the total number of white votes cast should have increased by about 1.6 million between 2008 and 2012.

The following table summarizes these estimates for all racial groups, and compares the results to actual turnout.

In the map below, blue indicates a reduced turnout.

​

Who were these missing voters?

For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.” That coalition was strongest with secular, blue-collar, often rural voters who were turned off by Bill Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism. They were largely concentrated in the North and Mountain West: Perot’s worst 10 national showings occurred in Southern and border states. His best showings? Maine, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Minnesota. . . . . .

Perhaps most intriguingly, even after all of these controls are in place, the county’s vote for Ross Perot in 1992 comes back statistically significant, and suggests that a higher vote for Perot in a county did, in fact, correlate with a drop-off in voter turnout in 2012.

What does that tell us about these voters? As I noted, they tended to be downscale, blue-collar whites. They weren’t evangelicals; Ross Perot was pro-choice, in favor of gay rights, and in favor of some gun control. You probably didn’t know that, though, and neither did most voters, because that’s not what his campaign was about.

His campaign was focused on his fiercely populist stance on economics. He was a deficit hawk, favoring tax hikes on the rich to help balance the budget. He was staunchly opposed to illegal immigration as well as to free trade (and especially the North American Free Trade Agreement). He advocated more spending on education, and even Medicare-for-all. Given the overall demographic and political orientation of these voters, one can see why they would stay home rather than vote for an urban liberal like President Obama or a severely pro-business venture capitalist like Mitt Romney.
​

Trende's advices mirrors my position and Coulter's position:

But the GOP still has something of a choice to make. One option is to go after these downscale whites. As I’ll show in Part 2, it can probably build a fairly strong coalition this way. Doing so would likely mean nominating a candidate who is more Bush-like in personality, and to some degree on policy. This doesn’t mean embracing “big government” economics or redistribution full bore; suspicion of government is a strain in American populism dating back at least to Andrew Jackson. It means abandoning some of its more pro-corporate stances. This GOP would have to be more "America first" on trade, immigration and foreign policy; less pro-Wall Street and big business in its rhetoric; more Main Street/populist on economics.

For now, the GOP seems to be taking a different route, trying to appeal to Hispanics through immigration reform and to upscale whites by relaxing its stance on some social issues. I think this is a tricky road to travel, and the GOP has rarely been successful at the national level with this approach.​

Here's what Romney would have had to do differently to have won the election:

State ​	Electorate (% White)	% Whites for Romney	White Vote Needed for Victory (%)	Difference (%)
CO (9)	78	54	57.1	3.1
FL (29)	67	61	61.5	0.5
IA (6)	93	47	50.1	3.1
NV (6)	64	56	61.2	5.2
NH (4)	93	47	50.2	3.2
OH (18)	79	57	58.3	1.3
PA (20)	78	57	60.4	3.4
VA (13)	70	61	63.2	2.2
WI (10)	86	51	54.9	3.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Look at the spread in the white vote in those states. Low of 47 to a high of 61. There's a lot of movement possible in there.

Look at this chart. How low can the Democrats go in terms of white vote? What this chart shows is the percent difference between the Democrats share of the Total Vote and their share of the White Vote.

It’s been in long-term decline, and the decline is accelerating; about a point-and-a-half toward Republicans per cycle since 1992. Now you may think this is a function of antipathy toward Barack Obama. But it has been on a similar tangent in Congress as well, also at a rate of about 1.5 points every four years:

​

Democrats often point to states becoming blue and their analysis always implies that change is uni-directional. Only red states turn blue and all blue states always stay blue, Not so. The Washington Post noticed that this wasn't so. Look at what the Democrats face in West Virginia and other states with high white proporations of the population:

​

Here's what's going on at the national level:

The diversifying parts of the country have shifted toward Democrats, as has the Northeast. But far overlooked is the movement in the heavily white interior. This really does matter: It wasn’t that long ago that states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri were places where Democrats could win regularly at the local level, and be competitive at the presidential level.

Nineteen states have moved at least a point toward Democrats, while 25 have moved toward Republicans by a similar amount. If you weight the shift in each state by electoral vote, it actually works out to a slight shift toward Republicans overall.

Now, there is a theoretical maximum for Republicans among whites; sooner or later you run into Madison, Wis., and Ann Arbor, Mich. But we tend to assume that it’s “natural” for Democrats to win huge portions of conservative Hispanics, and almost all conservative blacks. Against this backdrop, it seems a bit touchy to assume that Republicans will max out at around 60 percent of the white vote. This might be the case, but as we’ll discuss next time, it’s entirely possible that as our nation becomes more diverse, our political coalitions will increasingly fracture along racial/ethnic lines rather than ideological ones.

Look at it this way: In 1988, George H.W. Bush, running against a weak opponent in a fantastic environment for the “in party,” won the white vote by 20 points. In 2012, Mitt Romney, running against an incumbent president in what was a neutral-to-slightly-favorable environment for the “in party” by Election Day, accomplished the same thing.
​

Look at which demographic is seeing the biggest changes in support for Republicans. Youth. Democrats have nothing to offer white youth.

The question that should be asked is "How low can the white support for Democrats go when the Democrats are becoming increasing racialized in their policies and appeal?" The data shows that the Democrats are driving white voters away.

Coulter is right, the data and the trends support her position.

 

[Statistikhengst]

More excellent GOP minority voter outreach, this is sure to help!

Ann Coulter To GOP Stop Sucking Up To Hispanics

The link within that link:


Ann Coulter GOP Should Stop Constantly Sucking Up to Hispanic Voters Mediaite

...Coulter was quick to point to minority groups and immigrant voters being solid blocks for Democrats, not to mention election fraud, as a reason they’re doing better than they should...

...She told O’Reilly she’s getting tired of Republicans ducking on this issue and suggested “instead of constantly sucking up to a group of people who will never vote for you, how about appealing to the other voters who are just gonna go home and say ‘Screw you.’”

I want to thank Ann Coulter, among others, for making sure that the GOP becomes a relatively meaningless regional party over the next years.

Thank you, Ann.

The GOP is poised for the biggest take over in Congress in history.
Remind me what elected position or what postion in the GOP Coulter holds.

You are an ignorant ass-clown posting crap so everyone can laugh at you.

"The GOP is poised for the biggest take over in Congress in history."





I do love it when you are so unbelievably stupid.

Ok, the largest swing in the Senate EVER was in 1958, when the Democrats picked-up 29 seats, in the middle of extremely popular Ike Eisenhower's 2nd term. This made for a +29.59% shift in a Senate of 98 seats.

The second largest swing in the Senate EVER was in 1946, where the GOP picked up 27 seats and took the Senate for the first time since 1928. Shift: +28.13%

The third/fourth largest swings in the Senate ever were in 1928 and 1930, where the Republicans gained 26 seats in the Senate and lost 26 seats in 1930, going from R+1 in the Senate after the 1926 elections back to R+1 after the 1930 elections. The shift in both cases was +27.01%.

The GOP is likely to pick up 6 or 7 seats in 2014, which will be a shift of +6 to +7%.

In the US HOR, the largest swing was in 1874, where the Democrats picked up 155 seats in the US HOR, a shift of +67.92% in a HOR of 333 seats.

The second largest swing in the HOR was in 1891, where the Democrats picked up 160 seats, a shift of +48.05%.

The third largest swing, officially, was in 1864, where the GOP picked up 76 seats, a shift of +39.79%. However, about half of the congress was missing due to secession and Civil War. So, this statistic is hard to really compare with any other cycles.

The next largest swing was in 1895, where the GOP picked up 136 seats, a shift of +38.10%.

The GOP shifts in 1994 and 2010 were "just" +24.83% and +29.90%, respectively.

Data:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.


There is no sign at all that the GOP will come even close to any of these statistics.

The GOP may, just maybe pick up 11 seats in the HOR, a +2.52% shift.

Furthermore, 2 weeks before the mid-terms in 2010, generic polling was showing GOP at at least +5 and as high as +14.

Right now?

Huge difference to 2010.


So, back to your quote:

"The GOP is poised for the biggest take over in Congress in history."



NO, you stupid fuck. Not even close. And also, this has nothing to do with the Latino vote or Ann Coulter, which was the OP, you stupid fuck.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No. We keep having that thrown in our face. so to me it says get ready for your new masters in the country

Imagine what America will be like when people coming from a shithole country apply the same goverance here when they become the majority. We already see what happens when a self-proclaimed Kenyan is in charge.

Do you subscribe to the notion that north American Latino's are not capable of assimilation the same way European Latino's have?

I'm not assuming anything. it's the liberals on here who assumes we all need to PANDER to any group, race or color. If they didn't use class warfare they wouldn't have anything

Obama did not win by using class warfare.

Obama did not win because Romney didn't have a clear message. Americans heard it loud and clear after dozens of debates.

There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans, and Obama's strategists did a better job of mobilizing them to vote.

You're right that the GOP shouldn't pander to minorities and women. Their platform will turn off those voters anyway. It's better to go down while being true to yourselves.

Every black 96%of them and guilt-ridden whites came out of the woodwork to vote for the unqualified obama those two elections.

He's a human being, not a thing, you stupid fuck.

Now, back to the OP, which is about Ann Coulter and her stupid advice vis-a-vis Latinos.

Pay attention, you stupid fuck.

 

[mdk]

A lot of republicans stayed home and did not vote for Romney.

They did??? You mean all of the enthusiasm the Repubs were ginning up to get the Marxist usurper out of the White House didn't work???

I find that very hard to believe.

Then you didn't read anything about voter turnout. Republicans are Democrats best friend. They keep nominating guys like Dole, McCain and Romney when they should win elections. W only won because you decided to go with even bigger nut jobs. The lunatic Al Gore. And let's be serious, Kerry was a gag candidate.

Somehow, when it's coming from the likes of you, I just can't take any definition of who is a "bigger nut job" seriously.

From "Erik the Red?" That's just priceless. So you explain how you lost to W who did nothing in his life that wasn't on his daddy's coat tails. Twice...

I can explain it I believe. Gore came across as a wooden bore and he had baggage from Clinton. Kerry came across as an aloof snob and was terribly uninspiring. When you run poor candidates the voters usually stick with the incumbent.

 

[Dot Com]

Repubs time is limited. The math is against them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The general direction in which you are going is good, but the national electoral stats you wrote are wrong:

Actually, I'm getting different sources with different numbers.

For instance, THIS source has Romney with 59,134,475 million.

2012 US Presidential Election

While this source puts him at 60,933,657

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...1oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true#gid=19

Meanwhile, THIS source had him at 60,589,084

President Elect - 2012

I would happily defer to any definitive source that lists what Romney's vote total was.

So while I generally agree with you when we aren't talking about Israel, I think there's a bit of quibbling when we are both making the same point. Romney did very well with White, Republican voters, that isn't enough these days to put you over the top.

Your source did not update for the final canvasses. Leip's site does. His figures are correct. The other site is definitely in error.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A lot of republicans stayed home and did not vote for Romney.

They did??? You mean all of the enthusiasm the Repubs were ginning up to get the Marxist usurper out of the White House didn't work???

I find that very hard to believe.

Then you didn't read anything about voter turnout. Republicans are Democrats best friend. They keep nominating guys like Dole, McCain and Romney when they should win elections. W only won because you decided to go with even bigger nut jobs. The lunatic Al Gore. And let's be serious, Kerry was a gag candidate.

Somehow, when it's coming from the likes of you, I just can't take any definition of who is a "bigger nut job" seriously.

From "Erik the Red?" That's just priceless. So you explain how you lost to W who did nothing in his life that wasn't on his daddy's coat tails. Twice...

I can explain it I believe. Gore came across as a wooden bore and he had baggage from Clinton. Kerry came across as an aloof snob and was terribly uninspiring. When you run poor candidates the voters usually stick with the incumbent.

Not so sure about that. Only 5 incumbents have been unseated in the last 100+ years:

Taft - 1912
Hoover - 1932
Ford - 1976
Carter - 1980
Bush 41 - 1992

Please note that four of those five incumbents are Republicans.

John Kerry ran a very good campaign and most would not know this, but he scored the highest percentage (48.26%) of a losing candidate to an incumbent during a major war - ever.

In 1864, in the middle of the Civil War, losing candidate George McClellan: 44.95%
In 1916, shortly before our entry into WWI, long already raging, Charles Hughes: 46.11%
In 1940, shortly before our entry into WWII, long seen as coming, Wendell Willkie: 44.77%
In 1944, right smack in the middle of WWII, Thomas Dewey: 45.89%
In 1964, during the beginning of major ground operations in Vietnam: Barry Goldwater: 38.47%
In 1972, during the Vietnam War, George McGovern: 37.52%
In 2004, in the middle of the Iraq War II, John Kerry: 48.26%

It's simply very hard to unseat an incumbent president.

 

[Dot Com]

Coulter is right. Repubs can't make the Latinos like their *cough* "states rights" agenda. Thats code for "we serve who we want to"

 

[EriktheRed]

A lot of republicans stayed home and did not vote for Romney.

They did??? You mean all of the enthusiasm the Repubs were ginning up to get the Marxist usurper out of the White House didn't work???

I find that very hard to believe.

Then you didn't read anything about voter turnout. Republicans are Democrats best friend. They keep nominating guys like Dole, McCain and Romney when they should win elections. W only won because you decided to go with even bigger nut jobs. The lunatic Al Gore. And let's be serious, Kerry was a gag candidate.

Somehow, when it's coming from the likes of you, I just can't take any definition of who is a "bigger nut job" seriously.

From "Erik the Red?" That's just priceless. So you explain how you lost to W who did nothing in his life that wasn't on his daddy's coat tails. Twice...

The first time Gore ran a crap campaign, but he still won the popular vote, at least.. The 2nd time, the 9/11 karma was starting to wear off, but enough of it was still there...plus, Kerry was a crappy candidate, too.

 

[EriktheRed]

John Kerry ran a very good campaign and most would not know this, but he scored the highest percentage (48.26%) of a losing candidate to an incumbent during a major war - ever.

Seems to me, though, it was a lot more about getting rid of Shrub than being pro Kerry.