Coulter: If Clinton wins, illegal immigrant amnesty means permanent D majority

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ann-coulter-trump-clinton-win-227304

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

[Xing]

Cry harder, Ann. Pathetic.

[NeverAgain]

As great as that would be, it won't happen, Amnesty or not.

But seriously, Ann you craycray.

[LLR]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

So, basically, Coulter is right.

[Heisenberg]

Well, the GOP will have to change some policies to appeal to minorities (to an even greater extent), but the problem is many poor immigrants (like the ones who would get amnesty) are likely to depend on big government, and would still be natural Democrats even without the immigration issue.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

If Republican = bigoted xenophobe and Democrat = not bigoted xenophobe, then she's correct.

[rob in cal]

  Coulter should realize that Brazilification is happening regardless, though it may accelerate with a Clinton win.  OTOH, if the Dems are horrible at running the economy, which many in the GOP argue, that would screw up job growth and would work to slow down the job magnet dynamic fueling much immigration into the US.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

If Republican = bigoted xenophobe and Democrat = not bigoted xenophobe, then she's correct.

Republicans could change from xenophobia to a sort of aspirational affiliation.  If the Republicans can market themselves as the party for people who have moved up - out of poverty, out of the barrio/ghetto - and have arrived as "respectable" Americans, they may have a chance at a broader appeal.  They need to send the message that Republican = success, and Democrat = perpetuating the old cycles of poverty and social segregation.

That would be my strategy if I were working for the GOP.  To do this, they need to radically reinvent themselves.  They need the face of the party to be as multicolored as possible.  That sends the message that it gives a leg up to everyone.  It's a tall order, but it's the only way to survive on a national level.

[Penelope]

"If Clinton wins, brown people I don't like will be able to vote (and probably won't vote how I want them to)."

[Seriously?]

Coulter is right. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not a winning Republican platform. Country club Republicans are brain dead to push it.

Immigrants as a general rule are Democrats.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

If Republican = bigoted xenophobe and Democrat = not bigoted xenophobe, then she's correct.

Republicans could change from xenophobia to a sort of aspirational affiliation.  If the Republicans can market themselves as the party for people who have moved up - out of poverty, out of the barrio/ghetto - and have arrived as "respectable" Americans, they may have a chance at a broader appeal.  They need to send the message that Republican = success, and Democrat = perpetuating the old cycles of poverty and social segregation.

That would be my strategy if I were working for the GOP.  To do this, they need to radically reinvent themselves.  They need the face of the party to be as multicolored as possible.  That sends the message that it gives a leg up to everyone.  It's a tall order, but it's the only way to survive on a national level.

Yep, that would be a good strategy for the GOP. I think it's where they (or at least a few factions) were trying to go... and then Good Ol' Billionaire Boy came along and ripped the foil off all their nastiest nastyness and threw it everywhere.

Even if (I hope when) he loses, the damage Trump has done to the GOP will echo for a generation, if not a century.

[DrScholl]

That sounds terrific.

[Illiniwek]

That sounds terrific.

Looking forward to it!

#DeportCoulter

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

If Republican = bigoted xenophobe and Democrat = not bigoted xenophobe, then she's correct.

Republicans could change from xenophobia to a sort of aspirational affiliation.  If the Republicans can market themselves as the party for people who have moved up - out of poverty, out of the barrio/ghetto - and have arrived as "respectable" Americans, they may have a chance at a broader appeal.  They need to send the message that Republican = success, and Democrat = perpetuating the old cycles of poverty and social segregation.

That would be my strategy if I were working for the GOP.  To do this, they need to radically reinvent themselves.  They need the face of the party to be as multicolored as possible.  That sends the message that it gives a leg up to everyone.  It's a tall order, but it's the only way to survive on a national level.

Yep, that would be a good strategy for the GOP. I think it's where they (or at least a few factions) were trying to go... and then Good Ol' Billionaire Boy came along and ripped the foil off all their nastiest nastyness and threw it everywhere.

Even if (I hope when) he loses, the damage Trump has done to the GOP will echo for a generation, if not a century.

Actually, IMHO things were knocked off the rails 24 years earlier, when Bill Clinton came along and appropriated the entire GOP Prosperity Gospel.  The effect on the GOP was catastrophic, and it's why the party today has no chance in places like IL, CT, NJ and DE, and very little chance in NH and ME.

Unless they can recapture that mantle, states like AZ and GA will slip away (joining the likes of NM), TX will become a swing state, and the Republicans will be a rust-belt/rural/sagebrush coalition that only represents 25% of the population.

Edit: and that's without the help of amnesty.

[LLR]

Immigrants as a general rule are Democrats.

But you don't want that to change, do you Seriously?

[Arbitrage1980]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

If Republican = bigoted xenophobe and Democrat = not bigoted xenophobe, then she's correct.

Republicans could change from xenophobia to a sort of aspirational affiliation.  If the Republicans can market themselves as the party for people who have moved up - out of poverty, out of the barrio/ghetto - and have arrived as "respectable" Americans, they may have a chance at a broader appeal.  They need to send the message that Republican = success, and Democrat = perpetuating the old cycles of poverty and social segregation.

That would be my strategy if I were working for the GOP.  To do this, they need to radically reinvent themselves.  They need the face of the party to be as multicolored as possible.  That sends the message that it gives a leg up to everyone.  It's a tall order, but it's the only way to survive on a national level.

Yep, that would be a good strategy for the GOP. I think it's where they (or at least a few factions) were trying to go... and then Good Ol' Billionaire Boy came along and ripped the foil off all their nastiest nastyness and threw it everywhere.

Even if (I hope when) he loses, the damage Trump has done to the GOP will echo for a generation, if not a century.

Actually, IMHO things were knocked off the rails 24 years earlier, when Bill Clinton came along and appropriated the entire GOP Prosperity Gospel.  The effect on the GOP was catastrophic, and it's why the party today has no chance in places like IL, CT, NJ and DE, and very little chance in NH and ME.

Unless they can recapture that mantle, states like AZ and GA will slip away (joining the likes of NM), TX will become a swing state, and the Republicans will be a rust-belt/rural/sagebrush coalition that only represents 25% of the population.

Edit: and that's without the help of amnesty.

Bill Clinton's political legacy is really underrated. 1992 turned out to be a re-alignment election.  Before then, Democrats got killed with white suburban voters in presidential elections; Clinton moved the party to the center (although it is now full blown socialist, obsessed with racial and gender identity politics), and the peace and prosperity during his presidency has enabled the Dems to maintain their northeastern/IL+MI/west coast blue wall. 

[Ronnie]

I really do hope Coulter and like-minded people give up after Trump loses.  Then, maybe the sane wing can take over, and steer the Republican ship away from white resentment politics and towards a politics that acknowledges the humanity and the grievances of minorities.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Bill Clinton's political legacy is really underrated. 1992 turned out to be a re-alignment election.  Before then, Democrats got killed with white suburban voters in presidential elections; Clinton moved the party to the center (although it is now full blown socialist, obsessed with racial and gender identity politics), and the peace and prosperity during his presidency has enabled the Dems to maintain their northeastern/IL+MI/west coast blue wall. 

The modern Democratic Party is "full blown socialist"? LMFAO. I wish!

And that right there is the legacy of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.  And they found their audience thanks to Clinton backlash from Republicans.  Which is also why you have 24 years of character assassination against Hillary, so much so that even liberals believe it.

[Virginiá]

The modern Democratic Party is "full blown socialist"? LMFAO. I wish!

And that right there is the legacy of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.  And they found their audience thanks to Clinton backlash from Republicans.  Which is also why you have 24 years of character assassination against Hillary, so much so that even liberals believe it.

And most likely why it will take some time yet for the Republican party to truly change. These media personalities/outfits are continuing to help shape the GOP in ways that are simply unpalatable to the broader American electorate, and they have absolutely no incentive to stop what they are doing.

The GOP has to regain substantial influence among their voters and marginalize the crazies in talk radio and beyond (among other issues, of course)

[Eraserhead]

Damn, Coulter is really trying to make Hillary seem more appealing to me.

[Redban]

"If Clinton wins, brown people I don't like will be able to vote (and probably won't vote how I want them to)."

Except she never said or insinuated that she didn't like them (in the article cited by the OP). All she said is that amnesty creates a permanent majority for Democrats. When you look at the political leanings of illegal aliens, then you see that she is correct.

[The Other Castro]

Hmm, I really don't know why the Republican vote share of Hispanics/Latinos is reaching record lows. Really, no idea whatsoever.

[Redban]

Hmm, I really don't know why the Republican vote share of Hispanics/Latinos is reaching record lows. Really, no idea whatsoever.

George H.W. holds the record for lowest percentage of Hispanic voters in an election. Perhaps it was his pro-amnesty stance, eh? Give them amnesty, and they give you 21% of their vote. Nice gratitude.

[Yank2133]

No, it means the GOP will have to change to appeal to people non-white people.

If Republican = bigoted xenophobe and Democrat = not bigoted xenophobe, then she's correct.

Republicans could change from xenophobia to a sort of aspirational affiliation.  If the Republicans can market themselves as the party for people who have moved up - out of poverty, out of the barrio/ghetto - and have arrived as "respectable" Americans, they may have a chance at a broader appeal.  They need to send the message that Republican = success, and Democrat = perpetuating the old cycles of poverty and social segregation.

That would be my strategy if I were working for the GOP.  To do this, they need to radically reinvent themselves.  They need the face of the party to be as multicolored as possible.  That sends the message that it gives a leg up to everyone.  It's a tall order, but it's the only way to survive on a national level.

Yep, that would be a good strategy for the GOP. I think it's where they (or at least a few factions) were trying to go... and then Good Ol' Billionaire Boy came along and ripped the foil off all their nastiest nastyness and threw it everywhere.

Even if (I hope when) he loses, the damage Trump has done to the GOP will echo for a generation, if not a century.

Actually, IMHO things were knocked off the rails 24 years earlier, when Bill Clinton came along and appropriated the entire GOP Prosperity Gospel.  The effect on the GOP was catastrophic, and it's why the party today has no chance in places like IL, CT, NJ and DE, and very little chance in NH and ME.

Unless they can recapture that mantle, states like AZ and GA will slip away (joining the likes of NM), TX will become a swing state, and the Republicans will be a rust-belt/rural/sagebrush coalition that only represents 25% of the population.

Edit: and that's without the help of amnesty.

Bill Clinton's political legacy is really underrated. 1992 turned out to be a re-alignment election.  Before then, Democrats got killed with white suburban voters in presidential elections; Clinton moved the party to the center (although it is now full blown socialist, obsessed with racial and gender identity politics), and the peace and prosperity during his presidency has enabled the Dems to maintain their northeastern/IL+MI/west coast blue wall. 

The modern Democratic Party is "full blown socialist"? LMFAO. I wish!

That comment is exactly why that party is going no where.

Even the "smart/rational" Republicans live in an alternate reality. Calling Democrats socialists doesn't resonate with anyone who isn't on the right.