The Right Opinion

Demography Is Destiny

By Ann Coulter · Nov. 15, 2012

Liberals brag about having won the hearts and minds of America, as if, through logic and argument, they’ve persuaded people to accept their bankrupt European socialist ideas.

Democrats haven’t changed anyone’s mind. They changed the people.

More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points – the widest margin since 1984.

But in 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980.

If the same country that voted in 1980 had voted in 2012, Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did.

Most Americans don’t realize that, decades ago, the Democrats instituted a long-term plan to gradually turn the United States into a Third World nation. The country would become poorer and less free, but Democrats would have an unbeatable majority!

Under Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, our immigration policy changed from one that replicated the existing ethnic population to one that strictly favored unskilled immigrants from the Third World. Since 1968, 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from what is euphemistically called “developing countries.”

We can’t admit computer scientists from Spain fleeing their failing socialist nation because we have to make room for a recent Senegalese immigrant’s brother-in-law with no skills but great needs.

Jonas Salk’s parents would be unable to immigrate to America today. But the good news is: Rich liberals and soulless businessmen have no trouble finding cheap busboys, gardeners and nannies! (Whom they underpay, requiring taxpayers to make up the difference.)

If yuppies had to compete with well-educated European immigrants, they might be a little less enlightened on the immigration question. As it is, only unskilled workers, mostly blacks and Latinos, are harmed by our immigration policies.

Because recent immigrants have no skills, they arrive in dire need of government assistance. Their desperation has been an enormous boon to the Democratic Party.

Thirty-nine percent of native households receive some form of government assistance. By contrast, 57 percent of immigrant households – legal immigrants – get government assistance. We can’t do anything about the native population, but why on Earth is America taking in immigrants who require taxpayer support?

If you come to America and immediately go on welfare, by definition, you are not a desirable immigrant. Except as a voter for the Democratic Party.

In the last 40 years, California’s non-Hispanic white population has been cut in half, from 80 percent to 40 percent. Meanwhile, the Hispanic population has exploded from less than 10 percent to nearly 40 percent – mostly poor Mexicans.

And with that change, California went from being the state that produced anti-tax initiatives, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to a state that is absolutely untouchable by Republicans (see Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina) and just enacted the highest tax rate in any state.

The same has happened, or is happening, to other states, such as Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois and New York. If Texas ever flips, Republicans will never win another presidential election. The two major political parties will be the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Republicans' low-tax, small-government philosophy will eventually become popular with today’s struggling Hispanics, but not before America is ruined with socialist policies promoted by populist hucksters so strangely beguiling to poor people the world over.

It’s not that poor immigrants think differently about most issues from the rest of us. Try asking a recent immigrant:

How do you feel about abortion?
It’s taking a life.

What should we do about criminals?
Lock them up and throw away the key.

Do you support raising taxes?
No, the government takes too much already.

How do you feel about overpaid, well-pensioned government workers with no-show jobs?
It ticks me me off.

Do you support gay marriage?
Absolutely not.

How are you going to vote?

Most recent immigrants oppose abortion, gay marriage and big government. The problem is that poor, uneducated people – the Democratic base – are easily demagogued into voting tribally.

A white person can vote for a Republican or a Democrat without anyone saying to him, “HOW CAN YOU VOTE AGAINST YOUR RACE?” But that is exactly how poor Hispanics and blacks are pressured into voting Democratic.

Noticeably, the No. 1 issue Obama had in his favor this year was not his policies. It was that a majority of voters agreed with the statement: Obama “cares for people like me.” That’s how Hugo Chavez got elected.

Running Hispanics won’t help Republicans. Ask Gary Franks, Lynn Swann or Michael Steele if being black won them the black vote.

Promoting amnesty won’t help – ask John McCain, who won about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

Or ask California’s Hispanics, only 4 percent of whom oppose Republican immigration policies. Their main beef with the GOP is that they think Republicans are “the rich.”

The only hope is to run another appealing Republican candidate in four years – when we’re not up against an incumbent president – and return our immigration policy to one that helps America and not just the Welfare Party.



Lee in Phoenix said:

Thank you, Ann, for yet another important viewpoint ... as usual, highly convincing and almost perfectly spot on.

However, Obama didn't win because of his incumbency, he won despite the fact that he's had four years to demonstrate his ineptitude but was diabolical enough to realize that he could be re-elected by the idiots who don't care about the quality of his leadership, or lack thereof.

Rush was almost right about the hopelessness of running against Santa Claus. But remember Santa's ELVES produced all the gifts, so Rush should have said Robin Hood instead, as his gifts were actually stolen from the rich, just as Obama is hell-bent to emulate.

And don't get me started on the Merry Men who surround the President.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM

George Rogers Clark in Ohio said:

Spot on! Thanks, Ms. Coulter for another eye opener. This makes more sense than everything else I have read in the aftermath.

It does make the question, "what do we do next" a little harder to answer. We cannot change the demographics of several states in the next four years, so please, tell us how to win in 2016. I am serious, I would appreciate your ideas, more than many others.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Cal in So Cal said:

Ann, as usual, is correct. It is no accident that Libs discovered (long ago
-see FDR and welfare) that they could "buy" themselves in and - back into-
office. The bigger the office (such as the White House and Federal Treasurery) the bigger the checkbook. The polite word is "entitlements."
The real word is handouts. The givers and takers are now up front. Take it ($$) from "the rich" and give it to "the poor." There are more poors than
rich - who vote. Voila! They can still buy union votes, but now with so
many "new voters" (color them immigrants), ya got a whole new way to
get in and stay in - OFFICE! Every day is now Christmas! Thanks to the U.S. Taxpayers.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

Yeah, & the unions will go under the bus, because the welfare vote will greatly outweigh the worker vote, who will be redefined as unemployed.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX said:

Exactly right. Except that we shouldn't blame Ted Kennedy. Only the Dixiecrats voted against that 1965 bill.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM

matt in orange,ca said:

Thanks Ann! Makes me wonder why we put down Canada. Even I could not go there with my years of technical computer expertise, they only take immigrints who can contribute something more than a vote and a drain.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM

matt in orange,ca replied:

...and you have to be able to spell the word, correctly, too... ;-)

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Tex Horn in Texas said:

Mac and Jim: interesting exchange. My thoughts are that Obama's primary goal in bringing America to her knees is to move our country toward acceptance into a one-world government, under the auspices of the United Nations.

To do that, the American people must be made into "sheeple, which, in essence, has occurred. Next, as the current director of the FBI has said publicly, it's better if there is only one, that movement has begun with the abolishment of God from virtually every national and state event. Next, the disarming of America. Obama is already planning to sign on the the UN's proposal to control small arms. That's the guns that you and I own, my friends.

So, while the short term picture may be to bring America to a state of submission, the longer term goal is for the Constitution to be nullified and for America to become one among a group of United Nations, under their power. Don't believe it? Wait and see.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Jim in Alabama replied:

God Bless you Mac and God Bless you Tex.
Lord, Lord, my head's about to pop.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Orf in Pennsylvania replied:

We might have a chance of nullification of our own variety -- state's rights include nullification of any federal laws passed that are unconstitutional. Obamacare is one example, and some states are nullifying part of all of it.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM

JTG in Indiana said:

The choices are clear. Let me see:
1. Assimilate to being a Mexican;
2. Secede from the union;
3. Annex Mexico;
4. Fight the good fight to the end;
5. Change the political class.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Jim in Western NC replied:

JTG, I'm thinking of #2 and Texas. If they pull it off, I'll be there for good within 24 hours!

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

JTG in Indiana replied:

I'm with you. The liberal states would collpase under its own weight without the conservatives funding their folly.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Abu Nudnik in Toronto said:

Yes, Ann, the group identity thing is depressing. To think that in 57 districts in Philadelphia, Obama got 100% of the vote. Not even Kim Jong Il got 100%. I think he got 99%. There's something depressing about communities where obviously no one thinks. Not one person? I don't like consensus and I don't like one party systems.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Soon citizens, America will look as raunchy and base, as the sewers of Paris, France. "Parley-vous Francais, Socialist?" John (Jack) Kennedy was the last real Democrat President. "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but rather, ask what you can do for your Country!" Gee folks, there's no class warfare in that statement/charge is there!?! I voted straight CONSERVATIVE when I filled in my ink bubble ballot. We only won our Marty Golden back, for a sixth term of public service, here.

Friday, November 16, 2012 at 6:41 AM