Tag Archives: Electoral College

media news, national news, political news

Let’s set the record straight, Mr. President

I know it’s not a hu-u-u-u-ge deal.

However, I feel the need to set the record straight on another one of those prevarications that flew out of Donald J. Trump’s mouth.

The president called a press conference today and spoke — and jousted — with the media for more than an hour. Among the mistruths he spoke today dealt with his assertion that his Electoral College victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton was the biggest “since Ronald Reagan.”

Uh, Mr. President, no sir. It isn’t. Not by a long, long shot.

Let’s review, shall we?

1984: PresidentĀ Reagan was re-elected with 525 electoral votes.

1988: Vice President George H.W. Bush was elected with 426 electoral votes.

1992: Bill Clinton was elected with 370 electoral votes.

1996: President Clinton was re-elected with 379 electoral votes.

2008: Barack Obama won with 365 electoral votes.

2012: President Obama was re-elected with 332 electoral votes.

2016: Donald Trump won with 304 electoral votes.

There are the numbers. Trump’s victory wasn’t the biggest since Reagan. Oh, here are some more numbers to put Trump’s victory into, um, a little different perspective.

Clinton collected 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump. The president’s victory was sealed in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — which he won by a total of 77,000 votes, out of more than 120 million ballots cast nationally.

If Clinton had won those states, she would have been elected. She lost them to Trump. I am acutely aware that Trump won the contest where it counted, so please spare me the lecture and accusation that I’m still choking on all those sour grapes.

A reporter — NBC’s Peter Alexander — today challenged Trump’s statement about the size of his victory. The president said he was referring only to “Republican” presidents. Oh. I see. Then Bush 41’s victory didn’t count?

Trump’s bogus assertion about the size of his victory isn’t a big deal by itself. It does illustrate the man’s propensity for playing fast and loose with facts.

Perhaps, though, they merely are those “alternative facts” to which his senior policy adviser, Kellyanne Conway, referred.

national news, political news

Trump hears critics … calls for vote probe

I’ll take all the credit I deserve for this bit of news.

Donald J. Trump has called for a full investigation of the allegations he has made about illegal immigrants voting en masse for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. He said that so many of them voted illegally that they cost him the popular vote margin — as if it that matters. I mean, c’mon, Mr. President! You won the Electoral College … in a self-described “landslide.” That’s where it counts, right?

Yes, I was one of the many critics of the president’s blind assertion about illegal voting activity. He offered zero evidence, proof or attribution to the assertion that as many as 5 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.

Now he says he wants to get to the bottom of it.

Fine. Go for it, Mr. President.

But perhaps you ought to commission an independent investigation to do the job. I had called on you to sic the Department of Justice on the matter. Now I’m not so sure DOJ would be fully independent and would reach the incontrovertible decision that would settle this matter.

I happen to be among those who doesn’t believe what you have alleged. Thus, I don’t want DOJ investigators to fabricate conclusions based on what you — the boss — have alleged.

Independent investigations aren’t out of the question. They have plenty of precedent.

The president has leveled a full frontal assault on the integrity of the electoral process with his allegations. He has attacked our democratic process. He hasĀ implied thatĀ our state and local elections officials lack the integrity protect our system against illegal voting activity.

Let’s get to the truth, shall we, wherever it leads us.

national news, political news

Trump offers his set of ‘alternative facts’ about election

Here we go … again.

The president of the United States invited congressional leaders to the White House today and then offered a patently absurd assertion about why he lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent.

It was those “illegals,” Donald Trump said, who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Proof? He didn’t need no stinkin’ proof. He just said it. Therefore it must be true. I mean, the president said it. His press flack, Sean Spicer, said today the administration would never lie to us.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315791-trump-told-leaders-illegals-cost-him-popular-vote

I want to examine this ridiculousness briefly on a couple of levels.

First, Trump and his Trumpkins keep telling us the popular vote doesn’t matter. Hillary pulled down 2.8 million more of them than Trump. But she lost the Electoral College by a vote of 304-227. It’s a comfortable margin, but it’s not nearly the “landslide” Trump keepsĀ describing it.

If the president and his allies don’tĀ think the popular vote matters, why bring it up today in the White House, where he’s now residing?

Give it up, Mr. President.

Second, the president once again threw out something without offeringĀ a shred of proof, documentation or authentication. He said 3 million to 5 million “illegals” voted for Clinton. Had they not voted, he said, he’d have won the popular vote.

Here he is yet again questioning the integrity of the voting process. He is asserting, according to those in attendance, that local elections officials somehow were too lax to check the legality of the ballots being cast.

Is it me, or does anyone else see the irony that the president would make such a damning accusation about U.S. election officials but would remain virtually silent about alleged Russian interference in the very same electoral process?

Or is this the president’s version of “alternative facts”?

local news, national news

Trump creates a ‘word game’ for some of us

Word games. We all play them. OK, some of us do. Maybe even most of us do.

I have concocted a word game of my own. It involves the 45th president of the United States and it goes like this: I refuse, early in the presidency of Donald J. Trump, to type the words “President” and “Trump” consecutively. (Please note I didn’t do so just now.)

I am using High Plains Blogger as my insignificant form of protest over Trump’s election this past November.

Please do not misconstrue my intent. Nor shouldĀ  you ascribe anything other than one voter’s displeasure at the outcome. I do not intend to launch any kind of public demonstration. I won’t carry a sign on the courthouse square or shout down a Trumpkin whenever I encounter one — and believe me, living here in the Texas Panhandle, they’re everywhere.

Moreover, my refusal to type those two key words consecutively does not mean I refuse to accept the fact that Trump is the duly elected president of the United States. I know how the U.S. Constitution works. Trump won the election. He got enough Electoral College votes to qualify him as president. He is a “legitimate president.” And as near as I can tell, he was born in the United States of America, too!

There. I’ve just repeated something I’ve stated already. So, those of you who are inclined to put words in my mouth, you are welcome to resist doing so now.

Back to my point.

It is quite possible I will grow weary of playing this word game. Given that I tire occasionally of playing games of any kind, I have given you some advance notice of what might transpire. I cannot predict when that will occur. I cannot predict when I’ll succumb to the temptation to attach the presidential title directly in front of Donald Trump’s name.

It might occur when the president does something that I can support with a full-throated cheer. I don’t know what that would be. It could occur if he declares that Vladimir Putin is a really bad guy and that he’ll add more anti-Russia sanctions on top of what his predecessor enacted; he might deliver a soaring State of the Union speech that hits many of the hot-button issues near and dear to my heart; he could nominate someone to the U.S. Supreme Court who isn’t a right-wing ideologue but instead is a mainstream centrist in the mold of, say, Merrick Garland — who got stiffed by Republicans when he was nominated by Barack Obama.

I don’t know. I’m waiting for the moment when my pique will pass.

In the meantime, I’ll keep playing my word game. Humor me.

national news, political news

Give the smaller states a louder voice

This graphic showed up on my Facebook news feed as a statement against the Electoral College.

I looked at it and then thought: Wait a minute! What’s so terribly wrong with giving smaller states, such as Wyoming, a greater voice in the election of the president of the United States?

California has those 55 electoral votes; Texas has 38 of them; Florida has 29.

I remain officially undecided about whether to toss the Electoral College aside. It would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the more I think about it, the less inclined I am toĀ support such a drastic measure.

The 2016 election ended with the “loser” winning nearly 3 million more popular votes than the “winner.” But the guy who won carried the Electoral College, which is what the founders intended.

I happen to be one who doesn’t begrudge little ol’ Wyoming the extra stroke it gets from the Electoral College.

When did power sharing become a bad thing?

national news, political news

Here’s the most meaningless debate imaginable

Well now … let’s commence the most meaningless political discussion possible, shall we?

Who would have won if Barack H. Obama had been the candidate opposing Donald J. Trump in this year’s presidential election.

The president of the United States says he’d win. The president-elect — big surprise here — disagrees.

The meaninglessness lies in the indisputable fact that we’ll never know the answer. The U.S. Constitution bars the president from seeking a third term, thanks toĀ its 22nd Amendment.

But as long as the president has introduced this silly argument, I’d like to carry it a bit further.

I believe he would have won. Why? He’s got a ton of political moxie. He would have surrounded himself with he best political strategists possible. He would not have taken anything or any voter group for granted. Obama would not have “played it safe,” as he said Hillary Clinton did. He would have made mincemeat of Trump inĀ any number of televised joint appearances.

There. That’s my view.

However, it’s only my speculation, just as it is anyone’s speculation — including Barack Obama himself — about how an Obama-Trump contest would have ended.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-vs-trump-dispute-erupts-over-who-would-have-won/ar-BBxAD1A?li=BBnb7Kz

Here, though,Ā is a bit of reality to toss into the mix.

Consider the context of the 2012 presidential election. Obama’s presidency was considered by many experts to be on the ropes as he prepared to run against the Republican nominee, who turned out to be Mitt Romney, another formidable and successful businessman — who also had political experience as a one-term governor of Massachusetts.

The economy wasn’t performing all that well. The Affordable Care Act was being vilified as a failure. The Republicans saw a huge opening for their nomineeĀ as the campaign commenced.

Oh, but what happened? Obama used his crack political team to target selected audiences inĀ various regions of the country and hammered Romney relentlessly over comments the GOP rival had made. Recall the “47 percent” gaffe.

Obama ended up winning the election by a comfortable margin: 5 millionĀ ballots and 332-206 Electoral College votes.

Would he have defeated Trump? I believe so.

However, it’s a silly debate to have.

President Obama is leaving office in less than a month. Donald J. Trump isĀ the man of the hour.

national news, political news

Here’s a final shot at the popular vote issue

1 Comment

This likely will be the final entry on my blog about the popular vote result of the 2016 presidential election. I believe I need to make this point.

Some of my social media acquaintances have been yapping about a peculiar aspect of the popular vote, which Hillary Rodham Clinton captured over Donald J. Trump, who won enough electoral votes to be elected president of the United States.

They’ve been saying that “if you take away California,” Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.4 million ballots.

My reaction: huh? You can’t do that.

Clinton won California’s 55 electoral votes by winning more than 4 million votes in that state. It helped pad her national vote, which ended up around 2.8 million ballots cast for her than for Trump.

I get that Trump has been elected president. He won it fair and square. His team cobbled together a stunning electoral strategy that hardly anyone saw developing. He scored upsets in many of those “swing states” that had voted twice for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. Thus, the outcome was determined.

But you can’t manipulate the popular vote margin by removing certain states from the equation. All 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, are calculated in the final vote total.

Period. End of argument.

The debate over whether to throw out the Electoral College will proceed. I’m still undecided on that issue. I like the idea of giving additional clout to smaller states. However, the margin of the loser’s popular voteĀ totalĀ in 2016 does diminish whatever “mandate” the winner will seek to claim.

The argument over Clinton’s popular vote victory, though, need not get muddled and conflated with nonsensical scenarios, such as deleting one or two states’ votes from the total count.

We are, after all, the United States of America.

I’m done now with this issue.

national news, political news

It’s not a ‘landslide,’ Donald … really

trump_donald_getty_1

May I call you “Donald”?

My head is about to explode as I listen to the president-elect refer to his victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton as a “historic landslide.”

Historic? Yes. Surely. No one saw this victory coming. No one predicted that Donald J. Trump would win this election, that he would become commander in chief of the world’s greatest military complex. No one predicted this showman/reality TV celebrity/real estate mogul/serial philanderer/admitted groper of women would actually get the keys to the White House.

It’s historic, man.

Landslide? Nope. Not even close to one.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311115-trump-touts-historic-electoral-college-victory

He is trailing Clinton by 2.8 million votes. He won enough electoral votes to become elected. He finished with 304 of them; Clinton’s total ends at 227. Interestingly, Clinton lost more “faithless electors” than Trump when the Electoral College cast its vote on Monday; that, too, is “historic.”

Trump cannot possibly actually believe he won in a landslide. He has seen the numbers. He must know about the nation’s great divide.

He keeps spouting this nonsense. I guess we just need to get used to it. There’ll be much more to come.

national news, political news

Enough of the excuses … Hillary lost!

clintonhillary_110716getty

I am growing weary of the constant blame-gaming that’s going on among those who wanted Hillary Rodham Clinton to become president of the United States.

By all means, I preferred her over theĀ candidate who won. I’ve already stipulated as much — many times! — on this blog.

She didn’t win. She lost. Hillary was thought to be the prohibitive favorite to become the next president. She didn’t get there.

And yet, we keep hearing that FBI James Comey’s 11th-hour letter to Congress about those pesky e-mails doomed Clinton’s campaign. Now we hear that the Russian hackers might have tilted the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor.

On the first matter, there’s nothing anyone can prove about Comey’s last-minute intervention. On the second matter, there ought to be a special commission convened — independent of Congress — to examine what the Russkies did, how they did it and recommend ways to protect us from future hackers. Hey, we convened such a commission after the 9/11 attacks.

Former President Bill Clinton, one of New York’s presidential electors, chimed in today about Comey and the Russians.

A lot of things went wrong with the former president’s wife’s campaign. If anyone needs to take the hickey on this stunning loss, it ought to be folks such as Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook.

Hillary Clinton should have put herself miles ahead of Trump by the time Comey’s letter came out. She fell short.

Who gets the blame? Hillary Clinton and her team needĀ to look inward.

national news, political news

Is this when Trump becomes ‘presidential’?

aalkvcj

It’s official … finally!

The Electoral College voted today and put Donald J. Trump on track to become the next president of the United States.

I’ll offer the perfunctory congratulations to the president-elect.

Now, though, I want to make a request of him: I want him to start sounding and acting like the future head of state of the greatest nation on Earth.

There’s a certain form of irony in what we’ve witnessed from the president-elect. He says certain things about the state of our great nation. He vows to “make America great again”; he has ridiculed our military, our intelligence network, our political leadership, Congress, certain members of his own political party and certainly the Democratic Party leadership.

With all of that rhetoric coming forth from the president-elect, what have we seen him do at those “thank you tour” rallies? He’s exhibited much of the buffoonery he displayed throughout his campaign. A protester was hauled out one rally and Trump said from the podium, “GetĀ him outta here.”

We’ve heard zero high-minded rhetoric from the next president as he has toured the country. Yet … he vowed to sound more “presidential” as he prepares to take office.

It has happened. There’s no sign it will happen.

Trump has been elected officially, though. The electors put him over the top.

So, let’s start hearing something of substance from the new guy. How about talking to the entire nation, Mr. President-elect, not just to those who voted for you?

He vowed to be “president for all Americans.” It’s time he started at least sounding as if he means it.