Sunday, April 3, 2016
Friday, April 1, 2016
Posted by sundance
Thanks to the candidacy of Donald Trump the financial intersection of money and political opinion, as guided by the monetary motives therein, has brought some amazing revelations to the surface.
These financial/media relationships have largely, and historically, remained hidden. They have damned sure never been publicly, clearly, and regularly stated so the consuming audience would know the presentation was fraught with financial conflict.
♦ The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion. Conveniently Hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created.
Then again, Levin never informed his audience of his family working within the Staff of Senator Ted Cruz either. Does Levin’s endorsement, when contrast against the crony-constitutional advocacy, clarify with a little sunlight? You decide.
♦ Or how about the Breitbart Media enterprise being run via an $11 million purchase from Billionaire Robert Mercer, who also funded Ted Cruz’s Super-PAC “Keep The Promise 1”, to the tune of $10 million. Little overlooked facts, never openly shared for news consumers to determine source motive. Pesky Sunlight
♦ Maybe the Ben Shapiro website “The Daily Wire“, being funded by the billionaire Wilks Brothers, Levi and Farris, in Texas. Who also fund Ted Cruz and his Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”. Shapiro never publicly disclosed the financial/content conflict, or the extent therein. Could Shapiro support any other candidate other than who his content owners approved of? Again, you decide. (Yep, Pesky Sunlight)
♦ The Chairman of Glenn Beck’s Mercury One charity, David Barton, jointly running the Pro-Ted Cruz Super-PAC“Keep The Promise”; also never put into the sunlight by Glenn Beck or his various media enterprises so the consuming audience could filter presented political opinion through the filter of fiduciary connections. More Pesky Sunlight
These are just a few of the politically motivated – financially dependent – revelations we probably would never have known about were it not for Donald Trump presenting a genuinely conservative America-First platform; and as a direct consequence, the faux-constitutionalists having to reverse opinion simply to retain income.
♦ So it perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise to find out that Erick Erickson’s media venture “The Resurgent“, is taking Super-PAC money from the (formerly Scott Walker advocates and financial backers) Ricketts family of Wisconsin who fund OUR PRINCIPLES PAC to the tune of $3,000,000 in February alone.
Look at where the money was spent (pdf linkand below):
Yes, it appears there’s another conservative voice who can be added to the list of those whose opinions are conveniently tied to a financial incentive therein.
In addition to all of those in the Salem Media Communications network, along with Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson and anyone who is hosted upon the various media enterprises they front for…. all paid shrills dependent upon political graft.
Interesting indeed how the intersection of financial dependency drives the political ideology of these modern “conservative voices”. However, this does increasingly explain how those same voices will stand and cheer for Mr. No-Budget/Omnibus, House Speaker Paul Ryan.
“Smaller government”? Yeah, sure.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
It is not necessary to be an advanced reader to note: I did not write a racist column. The word “negro” is mentioned twice, in the title and the phrase giving the article its name, which isn’t even mine. It is a reference to a comedy work. Journalism has its rules. It also allows some licenses. Among the demands of the job there is a very important one: capture the reader’s attention from the title.
Argudín’s piece has, nonetheless, highlighted the rampant discrimination against Afro-Cubans that has existed throughout the history of the Revolution. As the leaders of the communist Revolution were all white–and at least one was an avowed racist—few Afro-Cubans currently hold positions of power in Cuba, though an estimated 60 percent of the nation is black.
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,
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.
COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK