Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Coulter: Only Trump Could Win The General Election

Ann Coulter: It’s Only Trump

Ann Coulter30 Mar 20165,882


The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).

Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.

If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)

Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin — where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)

I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.

If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.

Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters — and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.

It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.

That’s not how it works.

Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012 — and about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.

What’s impossible is for any Republican candidate, other than Trump, to win a single state Romney lost. Sen. Ted Cruz’s corny speaking style is creepy to anyone who doesn’t already agree with everything he says. He’s the less likable, more hard-edged version of Romney. Every other Republican is, one way or another, a less attractive version of Romney.

Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

Ann's an interesting character for sure. She said the same thing about Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Chris Christie. At least she's not scared to be wrong. Then again, it's pretty smart to say "unless (blank) is the nominee we will lose" knowing that (blank) won't be the nominee...and we're gonna lose.

Keep on thinking that...You convinced yourself on Mitt & McCain....might as well go for a trifecta....

She's a regular on Bill Mahres "Real Time" & has at times been so stoned she could barely put together an intelligible sentence...

Good article and she's right of course, but the sobering message I got from it is just how close we are to the tipping point when the conservative White vote will no longer really matter...which was the ultimate goal of the Hart-Celler act of '65 to begin with.

The conservative vote is there, and not just white. Both parties do every thing in their power to make sure there is no conservative candidate for them to vote for.

Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.

If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)

Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin — where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)

I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.

If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.
==========

The above is the crux and focal point of the article and it's an accurate assessment.

Trump is the only GOP candidate who can obtain those demographics and Kasich and Cruz playing puppets for the GOPe only prevents the head start Trump needs to focus on the general election, as the Dems and Clinton have done...focusing on Trump, for obvious reasons.

A Rubio and/or Ryan theft of the nomination from Trump will secure a win for the DNC come November and Roger Stone's prediction that the nomination will be either Trump on the 1st or 2nd vote or Ryan on the 4th vote will be on the morons who support Kasich and Cruz doing as ordered by the GOPE and the so called conservative elites who are actually neither.

"A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that."

Says it all right there. The Party bosses are intent on bringing about the suicide of the Party, if that's what's necessary to keep Trump from being the nominee and winning the presidency, because a Trump victory means they're out of power, and the gravy train comes to a screeching halt.

That's interesting. A day or so ago she said this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf..._campaign=Jolt03302016&utm_term=Jolt

Morning Jolt

... with Jim Geraghty




A Few Trump Fans Suddenly See the Man They’ve Been Defending

Something odd is going on among Trump’s most ardent defenders. Start with Ann Coulter in this podcast interview with Breitbart.com’s Milo Yiannopoulos.

COULTER: Moreover, I’m a little testy with our man right now.

YIANNOPOULOS: You are? Daddy’s annoyed you?

[Yes, Yiannopoulos calls Trump “Daddy.” Because that’s perfectly normal.]

COULTER: Our candidate is mental! Do you realize our candidate is mental? It’s like constantly having to bail out your 16-year-old son from prison. Let’s move past last night’s tweet -- you know perfectly well what tweet I’m talking about.

This is the worst thing he’s done. I mean the McCain thing -- I would say there are only really two, liberals would say, “Oh, every day,” no, everything else I could probably defend. I could. I think. Most of that is them overreacting . . . But the McCain thing, that was a dumb joke, it didn’t work. Oh, well. Didn’t kill him. But that tweet last night . . .

YIANNOPOULOS: And he’s retweeting these images that are, like, ‘I don’t need to make implications, you know, the pictures speak for themselves.’ And a picture of Cruz’s wife and a picture of Melania!

COULTER: That’s exactly the tweet I’m talking about! No, you can’t defend it! This is when we’re bailing out sixteen-year-old out of jail!

YIANNOPOULOS: It’s so outrageously funny!

Then Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity:

GINGRICH: Tweeting about, or repeating a Tweet about Mrs. Cruz is just utterly stupid. It has frankly, weakened everything that Trump ought to be strengthening. It sent a signal to women that is negative, at a time when his numbers with women are already bad. It sent a signal of instability to people who may be beginning to say, “Maybe I’ve got to get used to it, maybe I’ve got to rely on him, maybe he could be presidential.” And frankly, it energized Cruz. The interview you just did is as good as I have ever seen Ted Cruz. He was clear, he was vigorous, he was prepared to be combative but at the same time he was getting into big issues and big ideas. My guess is he’s going to do well in Wisconsin. This ought to be a wake-up call for Trump that he had better rethink what seem to be the underlying patterns of his campaign.

HANNITY: For the life of me, I can’t understand when families and wives are brought into it. I’m sure he’s mad about the ad about Melania, I’m sure he assumed it was the Cruz campaign.

Gingrich added, “I’m not sure anybody in the Trump campaign understands yet what a big mistake this is. They can’t keep doing this stuff and think they’re going to get the nomination.”

Now look at Stephanie Cegielski, formerly the communications director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC:

He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.

The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump.

And if you are one of the disaffected voters -- one of the silent majority like me -- who wanted a candidate who could be your voice, I want to speak directly to you as one of his biggest advocates and supporters.

He is not that voice. He is not your voice. He is only Trump’s voice.

Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many “pieces of ass.” He is, at heart, a self-preservationist.

Just FYI, Trump supporters, no one should let you off of that bandwagon now. You should be handcuffed to that Titanic you volunteered to crew.

Donald Trump didn’t suddenly change in the past few days, weeks, or months. He’s the same guy he always was, the same guy that most of us in the conservative movement and GOP have been staunchly opposing for the past year. He didn’t abruptly become reckless, obnoxious, ill-informed, erratic, hot-tempered, pathologically dishonest, narcissistic, crude, and catastrophically unqualified for the presidency overnight. He’s always been that guy, and you denied it and ignored it and hand-waved it away and made excuses every step of the way because you were convinced that you were so much smarter than the rest of us. You were so certain that you were on some superior wavelength giving you special insight into the Donald; only you could tell that it was all an act. Only you could grasp that his constant courting of controversy was just to get attention from the media. Only you could instinctively sense that his style would play brilliantly in the general election and win over working-class Democrats. (SPOILER ALERT: It isn’t.) You insisted that you could “coach him.”

You came to those conclusions not because you’re smarter than the rest of us, but because you’re actually more foolish than the rest of us. You insisted Occam’s Razor couldn’t possibly be true -- that Trump acts the way he does because this is who he is, this is the way he is all the time, and he will always be like this. You fooled yourself into believing that Trump was playing this nine-level chess game that only you and a few others could perceive and understand. Only you could see the long game.

But there is no long game. He’s winging it. There is no grand strategy. There is no master plan. Trump doesn’t look ahead to the next sentence, much less the next step in getting elected.

“Our candidate is mental?” No Shinola, Sherlock, some conservatives said this from day one and all we got for it was the alt-Right vomiting forth endless vitriol and profanity and threats.

Oh, what’s that? Trump’s Twitter behavior is “utterly stupid,” Newt? Thanks for noticing; six days ago you were telling the media there was absolutely nothing about Trump that worries you. Maybe your previous comparison of Trump to Reagan was frankly, fundamentally, profoundly wrong from A to Z.

“Trump only cares about Trump”? Gee, thank you, turncoat former insider, for this shocking bit of secret intelligence. News flash, some of us didn’t need to work for Trump for several months to figure that out. We saw it, we said it, and you called us liars for saying it.

THIS^^^^^ 50 years of non-European immigration is going to be what does us in. Liberal Democrats never consulted the American people as to whether they supported completely changing the ethnic composition of the country. Friggin' treasonous scumbags.

What I find ironic and downright laughable is all the former RP kooks who smeared Coulter with everything from she's a man to a (gasp) NEOCON, now she's the second coming of Joan Of Arc. I happen t agree with her on Trump BTW, but at least I always thought of her as very savvy, even though I did not agree with her all the time. Same goes for Rush. Even Bristoe loves him now....until he turns on Trump of course.

This. Let's look at who was behind this policy.

Easy, the democrats with Fat Teddy leading the way

Ted Kennedy is not responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965

Of course how silly of me, Die Juden, naturlich..

Cruz is doing an excellent of doing that all by himself.

Is there some reason I shouldn't 100% believe anything from a site that headlines:

"The Occidental Observer - White Identity, Interests, and Culture"?

"True Conservatives" handing another election and the future of the SCOTUS to liberial demos...

dave

Fixed it for ya...

Let face reality, the GOP is just full of bigoted racist self serving wankers, nuthin conservative at all.