Blue Is A Better Color

In a recent column, Ann Coulter (bless her pea-pickin’ heart) pointed out that areas/states with a heavy population of immigrants are often “blue.” Here is how she put it …

In the past 40 years, upward of 50 million culturally backward, dirt-poor immigrants arrived in America, and state after state has gone blue …

(Don’t you just love her adjectives?)

The apparent point she was trying to make is the GOP continues to use other criteria to determine how different states vote when they should, according to her, take a closer look at demographics.

However, as I was reading the article, my thoughts were not so much on the “politics” as they were on the underlying reasons immigrants prefer the color “blue.”

For me, it seems rather easy to understand. Democrats are more sympathetic to the underdog. They are the ones who care about social programs, such as cash assistance, healthcare and medical provisions, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, education and childcare assistance, etc. In other words … they care about people.

The GOP, on the other hand, are more interested in helping the rich get richer, meddling in certain social issues (abortion, gay marriage, guns), keeping wages stagnant, dismissing environmental concerns, and (at the time this was written) supporting a clearly incompetent POTUS.

Really, Ms. Coulter. Is it any wonder immigrants vote “blue?” They well know what a “red” future holds for them.


25 thoughts on “Blue Is A Better Color

  1. >>> “In the past 40 years, upward of 50 million culturally backward, dirt-poor immigrants arrived in America, and state after state has gone blue …”

    I get the point Coulter was trying to make, but her assertion that immigration has created a blue wave of Democratic gains over the past 4 decades simply isn’t true. Not only that, it isn’t even remotely true. Here are the U.S. presidential electoral college results over that span:

    1976: GOP=240, DEM=297
    1980: GOP=489, DEM=049
    1984: GOP=525, DEM=013
    1988: GOP=426, DEM=111
    1992: GOP=168, DEM=370
    1996: GOP=159, DEM=379
    2000: GOP=271, DEM=266
    2004: GOP=286, DEM=251
    2008: GOP=173, DEM=365
    2012: GOP=206, DEM=332
    2016: GOP=304, DEM=227

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I have a strong feeling if it weren’t for the absolutely despicable gerrymandering the GOP managed to enact, things would be different right now. The bastards have the game rigged to the point it would literally take a landslide vote for a Dem to win in most elections right now. This is a huge problem that needs addressing.

    I can’t believe the state of our country right now. It will take an enormous upswelling of sanity and determination to turn this around.

    If the revolution is taking applications, call me.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. The quote just screams racism. I can’t imagine how it must feel to be so racist that I couldn’t even work non-racism into my every day speech.

    She also appears to be unaware that “immigrants” can’t vote — not until they go through the citizenship process — at which point they’re no longer immigrants; they’re American citizens.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. At first this post didn’t much sense to me until I realised that what blue and red represent in American politics is the opposite to what those colours represent in Aotearoa New Zealand: conservative and right of centre = blue, liberal and left of centre = red.

    I was also somewhat surprised by a comment above that non-citizens can’t vote. Here, every resident, citizen or not can vote, and in fact must registered on the electoral role.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It appears New Zealand is more committed to democracy than the U.S. (which many now see as a plutocracy). Voter turnout is indicative. Since 1996 (MMP era) in N.Z., it has averaged around 80%. Over the same time period in the U.S., it has struggled to reach 60% in presidential elections, 40% in midterm elections, and a paltry 20% in off-year elections (i.e. state and local elections). Can a nation justify calling itself a “democracy” when so many of its people do not participate?

      Liked by 3 people

      • It’s worth reiterating that the founders despised democracy and took great pains to stipulate that the U.S. was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

        “. . . a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”~James Madison

        The Federalist No. 10


        • America’s founding fathers did not “despise” democracy; however, they were wary of DIRECT democracy ( on a large scale (and rightly so). Therefore, they implemented a REPRESENTATIVE democracy instead. Had they opposed all forms of democracy, the general population would be prohibited from voting and the federal and state governments would be exclusively authoritarian (i.e. the antithesis of democracy).

          Furthermore, a republic is defined as being based on the RULE OF LAW ( as opposed to RULE BY DECREE (as in authoritarian systems like monarchy); so, it is not incompatible with democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

          Liked by 1 person

          • If you understand the difference, why are you comparing the U.S. to New Zealand (a constitutional monarchy–without a constitutional document–governed by a parliamentary democracy)? The two are not the same thing.


            • New Zealand is officially a “unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy.” Its populace votes in elections, and so does the citizenry of the U.S. If a nation’s people vote, it is practicing democracy in one form or another. It is plainly obvious that my initial comment was comparing voter turnout in the U.S. to that in N.Z. It doesn’t matter if a nation is a republic or not.

              BTW, Iran is also a REPUBLIC – officially an “Islamic unitary presidential republic.”


  5. Being a 25+ year Independent, I’d like to modify slighty this part Nan, if I may please… 🙂

    [Non-Republicans?] are more sympathetic to the underdog. They are the ones who care about social programs, such as cash assistance, healthcare and medical provisions, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, education and childcare assistance, etc. In other words … they care about people.

    And one primary reason immigrants tend to vote and support non-Republican candidates, legislation, etc, is because they often come from countries and regions where an oligarchy, dictatorship, or theocracy exists.

    Do you think Ann Coulter has ever LIVED for a substantial amount of time in any foreign country, much less visited a 2nd or 3rd world country? How well does she truly KNOW those immigrants and what conditions they are fleeing or fed-up with?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I suppose, dear Professor, if you want to stick to semantics, you are correct. But Blue Democrats are the ones fighting in Congress for the issues I mentioned. 🙂

      Ann Coulter is nothing but a well-paid commentator. Period. She writes what she and her boss believe people will read (whoops … I’m guilty) whether accurate or not. No, most likely she has NOT lived in or visited a second or third world country, but if she can put the words together about a subject, that’s all that matters.

      Yes, I’m aware that I’ve written a couple of posts about her columns … and I stand by my comments. But I recognize that overall, she’s nothing but a rich (writer) bitch.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. I’d love to look at Ann Coulter’s family tree. I would bet good money that her ancestors, those who first set foot on the shores of America, were dirt poor and poorly educated. If only THIS small group of immigrants had been barred from entry into our country!

    Liked by 2 people

Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.