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

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

There was no incumbent in 2000

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Yes, you do end up outing yourself as a selfish douchebag when you do.

 

[rightwinger]

If that is what the GOP calls sucking up, I'd hate to see what it would look like if they had it in for Hispanics

 

[JoeB131]

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.

People who are really successful don't need to brag about it on the internet to total strangers.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

View attachment 33047


Right now?

View attachment 33048

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

Repubs time is limited. The math is against them.

The math that ha the GOP controlling a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, a majority in the House, and soon to be a majority in the Senate?
Yeah, tell us about it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If that is what the GOP calls sucking up, I'd hate to see what it would look like if they had it in for Hispanics

Indeed.

 

[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.

View attachment 33047


Right now?

View attachment 33048

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.

Ahhh, I see that our fake Rabbi has passed the Vigilante 101 course in expressing self through meme graphics.

Now, back to the OP, which is "Coulter to GOP: stop 'constantly sucking up" to Latino Voters.

There you go, little boytoy fake Rabbi bot thing, wrap your algorhythms around that one.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Repubs time is limited. The math is against them.

The math that ha the GOP controlling a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, a majority in the House, and soon to be a majority in the Senate?
Yeah, tell us about it.

Good luck with that one.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

View attachment 33047


Right now?

View attachment 33048

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.

Ahhh, I see that our fake Rabbi has passed the Vigilante 101 course in expressing self through meme graphics.

Now, back to the OP, which is "Coulter to GOP: stop 'constantly sucking up" to Latino Voters.

There you go, little boytoy fake Rabbi bot thing, wrap your algorhythms around that one.

Remind me what position Ann Coulter occupies in either government or the GOP.
This is what makes you an assclown.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Good point, and I'll go one further. The main reason why it's difficult to unseat an incumbent is because some of the people who vote for him last time would have to admit they made a mistake the first time.

Of those five, THREE of them had their base undercut by third party challenges. Taft by Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party, Carter by John Anderson, and Bush-41 by Ross Perot. A third party vote is a good way to vote against the guy without admitting you made a mistake.

Ford was technically an incumbent, but the reality is, he never stood for national election as a President of vice President, so he had no constituency invested in him. And Ford almost won despite pardoning Nixon.

So really, the only incumbent to lose in a straight up election was Hoover, and when the country is covered by Hoovertowns where people who lost their jobs and homes lived, you have to get pretty messed up to lose under such circumstances.

 

[The Rabbi]

Repubs time is limited. The math is against them.

The math that ha the GOP controlling a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, a majority in the House, and soon to be a majority in the Senate?
Yeah, tell us about it.

Good luck with that one.

Translation: I'm an assclown.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I like "ass hat" more than "ass clown", although "ass clown" is pretty good.

Couldn't tell you what either actually means.

Just saying.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Good point, and I'll go one further. The main reason why it's difficult to unseat an incumbent is because some of the people who vote for him last time would have to admit they made a mistake the first time.

Of those five, THREE of them had their base undercut by third party challenges. Taft by Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party, Carter by John Anderson, and Bush-41 by Ross Perot. A third party vote is a good way to vote against the guy without admitting you made a mistake.

Ford was technically an incumbent, but the reality is, he never stood for national election as a President of vice President, so he had no constituency invested in him. And Ford almost won despite pardoning Nixon.

So really, the only incumbent to lose in a straight up election was Hoover, and when the country is covered by Hoovertowns where people who lost their jobs and homes lived, you have to get pretty messed up to lose under such circumstances.

OK so Obama's victory was not due to Romney being a poor candidate but the fact that unseating a president is hard.
Thanks!

 

[JoeB131]

[
OK so Obama's victory was not due to Romney being a poor candidate but the fact that unseating a president is hard.
Thanks!

I told you guys from the get-go the Mormon was a poor candidate. Why is this news?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Good point, and I'll go one further. The main reason why it's difficult to unseat an incumbent is because some of the people who vote for him last time would have to admit they made a mistake the first time.

Of those five, THREE of them had their base undercut by third party challenges. Taft by Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party, Carter by John Anderson, and Bush-41 by Ross Perot. A third party vote is a good way to vote against the guy without admitting you made a mistake.

Ford was technically an incumbent, but the reality is, he never stood for national election as a President of vice President, so he had no constituency invested in him. And Ford almost won despite pardoning Nixon.

So really, the only incumbent to lose in a straight up election was Hoover, and when the country is covered by Hoovertowns where people who lost their jobs and homes lived, you have to get pretty messed up to lose under such circumstances.

Yes, I agree. Of the 5 incumbents who lost, 3 were plagued by both inter-and-intra-party challenges. Even Ford had to fend off a heavy primary challenge from the great communicator, Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy in the primaries and indeed, he had to put up with John Anderson, who did surprisingly well in, of all states, Massachusetts, in 1980. Bill Taft did so poorly that Teddy became the second party candidate in the 1912 election, where Taft only carried Vermont and Utah. The Bush 41-Perot thing is more difficult to qualify, because strict two-way polling in 1992, even on the eve of the election, showed Clinton ahead by about +10. So, Perot hurt both major party candidates.

Obama had no primary challenge in 2012, no third party candidate of any heft to have to deal with, and he was faced with a seriously flawed GOP candidate and a seriously flawed GOP party platform, not all that hard to beat.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Good point, and I'll go one further. The main reason why it's difficult to unseat an incumbent is because some of the people who vote for him last time would have to admit they made a mistake the first time.

Of those five, THREE of them had their base undercut by third party challenges. Taft by Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party, Carter by John Anderson, and Bush-41 by Ross Perot. A third party vote is a good way to vote against the guy without admitting you made a mistake.

Ford was technically an incumbent, but the reality is, he never stood for national election as a President of vice President, so he had no constituency invested in him. And Ford almost won despite pardoning Nixon.

So really, the only incumbent to lose in a straight up election was Hoover, and when the country is covered by Hoovertowns where people who lost their jobs and homes lived, you have to get pretty messed up to lose under such circumstances.

OK so Obama's victory was not due to Romney being a poor candidate but the fact that unseating a president is hard.
Thanks!

I know this may be hard for your simple mind, but it's usually a matter of many factors, you stupid fuck.

Now, back to the OP:
Coulter to GOP: stop ‘Constantly Sucking Up’ to Latino Voters

 

[Statistikhengst]

Repubs time is limited. The math is against them.

The math that ha the GOP controlling a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, a majority in the House, and soon to be a majority in the Senate?
Yeah, tell us about it.

Good luck with that one.

Translation: I'm an assclown.

Yes, I see more anger management therapy in your future, fake Rabbi.

Now, back to the OP:

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

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Romney lost it in the second debate when after blowing Obama out of the water in the first one, he decided to agree with everything Obama said in the second. That is where so many of us us who really, really wanted Obama gone just lost interest in bothering to vote or we voted third party. WTF? You agree with Obama? On everything? He told us his administration would have zero zeal to change course. If Romney got the same # of votes as McCain, he would have won.

First of all, I didn't vote for Obama, and I do not agree with him on everything.

I remember the 2012 Presidential debates quite less simplistically than you seem to.

The first debate was about the economy and Obamacare, which were Obama's weak points for sure. Obama was also quite passive in his responses.

The second debate was questions answered from the audience and the internet. And Obama simply did better than Romney unscripted. Or a least as close to unscripted as politicians with lists of sanitized talking points can get.

The third debate was about foreign policy, and at that time, he had Bin Laden under his belt. Nobody but righties thought Beghazi was his failure. And Romney's frustration was clear.

The notion that Romney just agreed with everything Obama said is just not what happened. Romney's fiercest attacks came in the second and third debates. Obama just bested him. The American people heard Romney loud and clear those nights.

The excuses keep coming now that it's election season again.

1. Romney didn't communicate conservative principles. BS!, he did
2. Righties didn't like Romney, so they just didn't vote. BS!, even if the ones that didn't vote, did vote, Romney would have still lost.
3. Democrats cheated! BS!

The list of excuses has parallels with the 5 stages of grieving. Which is also kind of amusing.

Watch out in 2016 for those same people who told you Romney by a landslide in 2012. They may just be as full of it as your excuses for Romney losing the debates are.

 

[Dot Com]

Repubs time is limited. The math is against them.

The math that ha the GOP controlling a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, a majority in the House, and soon to be a majority in the Senate?
Yeah, tell us about it.

GOP governors in blue states vulnerable in 2014 midterm elections - Washington Times