Why They Can’t Stop Trump

In a Sunday column in The Washington Post, “Stop laughing at Donald Trump,” a liberal analyst from the Brookings Institution tries to warn the Washington, D.C. beltway elites that they should take the businessman seriously because he has figured out how to win a national election—by taking the white vote. This is the “silent majority.”

While it is true that minorities and other groups helped elect President Obama twice, “the white portion of the electorate, which votes strongly Republican, underperformed in support of John McCain in 2008, and white turnout was down in 2012,” when Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential nominee, notes William H. Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a population studies professor at the University of Michigan.

In other words, if McCain and Romney had only come across in a more conservative and assertive manner, and had appealed to more white voters, they probably would have won.

Frey comments that Trump “appeals to a vein of the U.S. electorate that will remain a significant voting bloc for several election cycles to come: older whites.”

Yet, GOP politicians and Fox News commentators such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer have been attacking Trump and his policy positions. McCain went further, smearing Trump supporters as “crazies,” before Trump fired back, in comments on McCain’s war record. Veteran reporter Sharyl Attkisson said Trump’s comments were taken out of context and distorted by The Washington Post.

It appears that the “crazies” include a lot of ordinary Americans who are sick and tired of politics as usual. Trump, in contrast to McCain and Romney, has figured out a way to fire them up and tap their anger and frustration.

A 2014 study by Professor Marisa Abrajano on the coming backlash to immigration policy not only explains the Donald Trump phenomenon, but also why the liberal media are so determined to destroy him. The media know that Trump’s appeal threatens the ability of the Democratic Party to continue to fool white voters into embracing liberal policies that destroy their own communities.

Her academic paper, published by the Brookings Institution, was clearly designed to warn liberals about how a “broad backlash” to immigration could damage the Democratic Party. She said a backlash could not only “shift the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans” but benefit “rightward leaning candidates throughout the country” who want to do something about it.

The paper was based on the book, White Backlash: Immigration, Race, and American Politics. co-authored with Zoltan L. Hajnal.

“Immigrants may be arriving in historically high numbers,” she noted, “but they account for only a relatively small fraction of the nation’s population. Native-born whites still represent 63 percent of the population and, perhaps more importantly, some 75 percent of its voters.”

Hence, the key to Democratic Party success lies in manipulating the minority groups and immigrants into voting for Democrats in overwhelming numbers, as they currently do, while also conning a significant number of whites into voting Democrat. This is a con because the Democratic Party has no interest in protecting the interests of white people as a political or special interest group.

The Abrajano report has some interesting comments about media coverage of the issue that may help explain the reaction to Donald Trump. It says, “At the aggregate level, we find that when media coverage of immigration uses the Latino threat narrative, the likelihood of whites identifying with the Democratic Party decreases, and the probability of favoring Republicans increases.”

Of course, the liberal media never use the “Latino threat narrative,” and the phrase is meant to suggest that concerns about immigration are somehow racist or improper. Our media have done their best to play down the problem, through such maneuvers as banning the term “illegal alien” and substituting “undocumented worker.”

What Trump has done is bring the issue to the fore, making it out to be the threat that it is. The Trump surge, plus the murder of a young American in San Francisco by a Mexican illegal alien and the prison escape in Mexico of a drug cartel leader, have put the dangers on the front pages of our newspapers in a manner that has garnered the attention of the nation. Our media have been forced to cover the issue in a way that captures the peril our nation currently faces. As a result, the Democrats and their liberal media allies fear that white voters have now been dramatically educated about the political stakes and may vote accordingly in favor of their own interests.

The media have no problem with blacks and Hispanics voting for Democrats in large numbers and affirming and protecting their own racial identities. But when whites do it, it suddenly becomes racism. That charge has carried a lot of sting in the past, but with illegals streaming across the border and Middle Eastern Muslims creating enclaves in places like Tennessee, it looks more and more like members of the “silent majority” are deciding to be silent no more. They are realizing that the lives of their family members and the cultural identity of their nation are at risk.

“Immigration and other factors appear increasingly to be pitting the declining white majority against the growing non-white minority,” she wrote. That majority may have found its voice in Trump, a man unafraid of the liberal media and the GOP establishment, which wants to continue the losing strategy of pandering to the minorities who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Abrajano also wrote, “The conventional view of pundits and prognosticators and maybe even most social scientists is that the dramatic growth of the minority population and its strong ties to the Democratic Party portend the demise of the Republican Party.” She adds, “That may be true in the long term. But that prediction ignores the white population and the possibility of a widespread white backlash in the short term.”

Abrajano’s co-author, Hajnal, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, recently wrote that Republicans’ “opposition to immigration reform actually represents a winning strategy, not a losing one.”

That aside, he acknowledges that “Republicans win or lose largely depending on white voters. Whites still make up the vast majority of voters—some 75 percent in 2014—and whites tend to favor the Republican Party by large margins. Republican congressional candidates garnered 60 percent of the white vote in 2014. All told, 89 percent of all Republican votes in 2014 came from white voters. Put simply, the Republican Party doesn’t really need the minority vote.”

Since the Republicans have a winning strategy, what holds them back from using it? It’s called political correctness, which holds that appealing to people based on their fears of immigration destroying their country is racist and wrong. Trump didn’t care what the media thought and decided to address the issue anyway. The response speaks for itself.

It’s not surprising that GOP presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would go after Trump. For whatever reason, perhaps because they want to appear “inclusive,” they are desperate to appeal to Hispanics, a voting bloc that is essentially owned by the Democrats.

Maria Espinoza launched the group America First Latinos, in order to “prove, once and for all, that the majority of Latino citizens are solidly behind the U.S. Constitution and a secured national border.” Espinoza also launched the Stolen Lives Quilt project, whose members appeared with Trump at his July 10 news conference. The group remembers the victims of illegal alien crimes in the U.S. and is coming to Washington, D.C. this week to press their case against criminal aliens coming across America’s open borders.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

'throwing support'

Arcane and practically meaningless concept ( unless we're talking about committed electors, but even then ...).

Consider a simple proof - you're a Cruz supporter and he bails and throws his support' to Bush, or ~gasp~ Trump. Would you automatically follow his advice? Talking heads like Rove make their living adding up the percentages that this and that guy 'has' and calculate what-if scenarios and inevitably end up scratching their whiteboards and their heads until they're bald when they are surprised at yet another loss. Rove and his assumptions

Such concepts are truly offensive because these so-called leaders consider us 'followers', possessions they control. I'm no follower and I have no leader. We're not pawns on their whiteboards.

Most importantly, the squishy middle of blue collar taxpayers, retirees, and others that often sit out elections but periodically show up in populist waves are the least predictable. Long story short, don't count on anything this cycle. In fact, if Trump bailed it would quite probably severely depress enthusiasm of those he has excited and hand the election to the bad guys. So truly he is in a d*mned if you do/don't situation and will be blamed for a loss in any possible outcome - except if he won.

"Arcane and practically meaningless concept ( unless we're talking about committed electors, but even then ...)."

Actually it isn't. It's pretty simple, unless you're trying to unnecessarily complicate things.

"Consider a simple proof - you're a Cruz supporter and he bails and throws his support' to Bush, or ~gasp~ Trump. Would you automatically follow his advice?"

I wouldn't do it, period. I think for myself. But for some, endorsement by a favored politician means everything.

" Talking heads like Rove make their living adding up the percentages that this and that guy 'has' and calculate what-if scenarios and inevitably end up scratching their whiteboards and their heads until they're bald when they are surprised at yet another loss. Rove and his assumptions Such concepts are truly offensive because these so-called leaders consider us 'followers', possessions they control. I'm no follower and I have no leader. We're not pawns on their whiteboards."

The sad truth is that some of us are followers. All you have to do is look at the devotion to Trump that's developed, in spite of his liberal history. All that matters is what he says, and you'd better not attack the savior of the country.

"Most importantly, the squishy middle of blue collar taxpayers, retirees, and others that often sit out elections but periodically show up in populist waves are the least predictable. Long story short, don't count on anything this cycle. In fact, if Trump bailed it would quite probably severely depress enthusiasm of those he has excited and hand the election to the bad guys. So truly he is in a d*mned if you do/don't situation and will be blamed for a loss in any possible outcome - except if he won."

He's a liberal Democrat. Depressed enthusiasm is much preferable to having him in the White House---and worse, elected by conservatives.

RE: "throwing support"

>>>>"Arcane and practically meaningless concept ( unless we're talking about committed electors, but even then ...)."

>>Actually it isn't. It's pretty simple, unless you're trying to unnecessarily complicate things.

>>>>"Consider a simple proof - you're a Cruz supporter and he bails and throws his support' to Bush, or ~gasp~ Trump. Would you automatically follow his advice?"

>>I wouldn't do it, period. I think for myself. But for some, endorsement by a favored politician means everything.

By saying you wouldn't go along I'm pretty sure you just proved my point ( Q.E.D. ), unless we're talking about different things for example that Trump 'followers' should jump if he bails, but not the other guys? Do as I say but not what I do?

>>The sad truth is that some of us are followers. All you have to do is look at the devotion to Trump that's developed, in spite of his liberal history. All that matters is what he says, and you'd better not attack the savior of the country.

You're definitely not going to have friendly arguments with people that appear to support trump by calling them 'followers' ( c'mon, it's way too early in this cycle for that ). It smacks of the same condescension that churchgoers receive from leftist scumbuckets. Just sayin'. Walker and Cruz and a few others' supporters are good people but have noticeably become apoplectic lately. They are making a huge mistake by believing that the groundswell is made up of folks drawn from their own guys' camps and that if only they would come to their senses and return home all would be as it was meant to be. That's the mistake made by the GOPe in 1992 believing they were *entitled* to all those votes taken by Perot ( which BTW is exactly what the dummycrats think of black voters ).

>>He's a liberal Democrat. Depressed enthusiasm is much preferable to having him in the White House---and worse, elected by conservatives.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think that one is wildly incorrect! Depressed turnout is exactly how (D)ummycrats win. So, that statement is ludicrous in my opinion. As far as Trump's party, look, I'm up here. New York is loaded with leftists. The (R) crowd is more liberal than southern (D) when there actually were southern (D). I would vote for Zell Miller (D) over Pataki (R) in a heartbeat. Even Kemp and Giuliani were/are liberals compared to elsewhere. But Trump is actually kinda agnostic politically which some consider a bad thing, though it might actually be the best thing in this case.

Anyway, I submit that the republic is already lost, and any elected status quo candidate is merely delaying the inevitable. The only real solutions are extremely radical ( see my comment here ).

You have every right to believe that the country just needs a checklist conservative to ride to the rescue, but I don't. The hypothetical perfect President probably wouldn't even un-sign a single executive order ( precedent, tradition, status quo ) let alone ride major bills through Congress and sign them into law to undo the damage. Sorry, but that's my personal cynicism. Ronaldus Maximus or Jesus himself couldn't untangle the 80 years of Communist knots strangling the republic.

I think you assume Trump 'followers' ( like I said, that's condescending ) merely believe the same of him of being a saviour of sorts. Perhaps some do but I get the feeling that most are more logical and feel the only solution is to first destroy the GOPe ( boner! ) that is shackling TEA party and all conservative Congress members from doing their jobs ( 2010 and 2014 landslides bubbling underneath the surface ), and mass firing in the bureaucracy in the District of Criminals. Then we need to take a real whack at the ungodly deficit/debt.

Before you tear down the other guy, honestly answer this question ... Will your guy do *any*, let alone *all* three of these things? Honestly?

With all that said, I am not optimistic. We need to thread a needle to save the republic since we have no Jeffersons or Madisons down there to repeat what they did during Adam's administration. And what they did was drastic! But I respect your opinion as we are definitely on the same side against the Godless NeoMarxists, I just respectfully disagree about the path back to sanity, if there is one at all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.