Tag Archives: Electoral College

media news, national news, political news

Media actually called the ’16 election … really!

voting

This just in: The media called the 2016 presidential  election correctly … sort of.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is leading Donald J. Trump by just a shade less than 2 percentage points in the popular vote. She’s up by 2.5 million votes and the number might climb.

So, why are the media taking such a battering over “missing” the results? Oh, yes. The Electoral College.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/map.html

The media and the pollsters all across the country might have been too transfixed by the overall national mood and less intrigued by what was happening in rural communities blanketing those critical “swing states” that voted for Trump on Nov. 8.

I won’t give the media a pass.

I’ll just note that the RealClearPolitics average of polls had Clinton leading Trump nationally by 2 to 5 percentage points. She’s going to finish with a 2-percentage point “victory” in the popular vote.

That won’t get her a ticket — let alone the keys — to the White House.

If the media fell short, they missed the signs that were developing in rural America that propelled Donald Trump to the victory that shocked ’em all.

national news, political news

Voter math is the same, no matter how you spin it

avote

I’m having some fun rattling the cages of my friends on the right by reminding them that Hillary Rodham Clinton has a significant — and growing — lead in the popular vote over Donald J. Trump.

They, of course, remind me — correctly, of course — that Trump won the votes that actually elect the president, the Electoral College.

Now comes a new spin that is born out of an old one. They are reminding me that Trump won many more counties across the country, that Hillary’s votes were gathered in the large urban areas — such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York. They also seem to infer that because her votes are clustered in the larger metro areas that they somehow are less representative, or even less legitimate, than the vast expanse of territory that Trump was able to claim on Election Day.

Hold that thought!

Mitt Romney also won more counties than President Obama in 2012; but the president corralled 5 million more votes than his challenger. Sen. John McCain also won the vast majority of counties in 2008, but Sen. Obama piled up nearly 10 million more votes than McCain.

And yes, we heard much the same refrain from the losers in both those elections: Sure, Obama won, but Romney/McCain each carried more actual real estate than Barack Obama.

Sure thing, but human beings cast votes. More of them voted for Obama than they did for either of his presidential challengers.

I need no reminders that Trump’s victory was forged in Rural America. He turned out the rural vote precisely to counteract the large urban vote that Clinton was sure to get. It turns out that his rural vote outnumbered Clinton’s urban vote — in the states that mattered. I refer to those swing states that voted twice for President Obama.

However, I refuse to accept the notion that Clinton’s popular vote is somehow de-legitimized because of where her massive vote totals are being compiled.

“We are” — as the young state senator from Illinois reminded us during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston — “the United States of America.” We aren’t divided into political parties, said state Sen. Barack Obama. We are one nation, undivided and united, he said.

So it is that our votes all count the same. Whether they are come from large cities or small farming communities, they all are tabulated together.

Thus, Hillary Clinton’s popular margin — sitting currently at 2.5 million — is the product of a targeted effort to boost turnout in strong Democratic bases within our cities, it remains irrefutably a national total.

Donald Trump has been elected president. I accept Americans’ electoral verdict. I don’t like it, but it’s what we’re going to get.

Accordingly, it would do the other side just as well to accept the notion that while Trump won where it counted the most, Hillary Clinton — and those who voted for her — still command a significant voice of opposition to the policies that the new president is about to drop on the nation’s lap.

national news, political news

That darn popular vote is getting in the way

election-day-2016-in-united-states

I know I am sounding a bit repetitive to some of you. Maybe I’m far too repetitive to suit you.

That’s just too damn bad. I’m going to say it again … with emphasis.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s popular vote margin over Donald J. Trump is expanding. It’s now at slightly more than 2.5 million votes. It’s likely to grow even more, although I’m beginning to think we’re getting quite close to the end of the ballot tallying.

Oh, yes. We have that recount in Wisconsin with which to contend. Don’t expect much of a change there. Or in Pennsylvania or Michigan, two other states that might get their votes recounted.

Here’s my point. The president-elect is going to find a growing voice of discord among his constituents if and when he tries to foist his agenda on the nation.

Donald J. Trump’s vote deficit is approaching record levels among those candidates who won the presidential election while losing the popular vote. He and Clinton’s vote percentages are zeroing in on the Rutherford B. Hayes-Samuel Tilden contest of 1876.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

What’s fascinating, too, is that Clinton’s popular vote total mirrors what the polls were indicating on the eve of Election Day. Trump, though, benefited by his ability to flip several states that had voted twice for President Obama, enabling him to win the Electoral College votes he needed to become president.

I am not calling for a wholesale reform of the electoral system.

I merely want to caution the president-elect to mindful of the hurdles he and his team are going to face governing a country with a widening vote deficit.

Go slow, Mr. President-elect. Stop playing to your “base” and remember that more of us out here voted against you than voted for you. Got it? Good. Now … proceed.

national news, political news, State news

Texas elector follows conscience out the door

aakrqn1

Art Sisneros apparently is a man of deep faith and conviction.

He takes an oath and plans to stick by it. So, when he took an oath as a Texas Republican elector to vote for the individual who won the state’s electoral votes in the presidential election, he felt he had to abide by that oath.

Except for one thing: The person who won the state’s 38 electoral votes is Donald J. Trump, a man who — according to Sisneros — doesn’t deserve his vote.

What to do?

Sisneros did the only thing he felt he could do: He resigned as a Texas elector. He walked away from his task of casting a vote for president because he couldn’t (a) vote for Trump or (b) become something called a “faithless elector,” meaning he would break his pledge to support the GOP candidate for president.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-trump/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Sisneros calls the Electoral College “corrupted from its original intent.”  I won’t weigh in on whether we should toss the Electoral College out. My sense is that it still performs a public service to the national electorate by giving smaller states more of a voice in the electoral process … which I consider to be a good thing.

But I do like the notion that one elector has weighed carefully the consequences of his actions and decided his best option is to walk out, to follow his conscience out the door and to allow the state to appoint someone to his spot who isn’t as conflicted as he is.

As U.S. News and World Report noted: “(Sisneros’) decision followed a previous post in which he posed the question of whether it was ‘acceptable for a Christian to vote for a man like Trump for president,’ and concluded that he could not ‘in good conscience’ do so.

This is precisely the kind of contradiction that many of us saw, with committed evangelical voters sticking with Trump, even in light of the candidate’s admission that he groped women and behaved like a complete and utter boor.

I cannot help but wonder if there will be more of this kind of soul-searching among electors as the date approaches for them to cast their important votes for president.

national news, political news

President-elect shows how to win ugly

aakq0hg

Even in victory, the president-elect of the United States is continuing to defame, degrade and denigrate elections officials.

Donald J. Trump now contends — without a shred of substance — that millions of voters in California and New Hampshire cast their ballots illegally. He presumes, of course, that the illegal ballots were cast in favor of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who Trump defeated to win the presidential election.

With victory in hand, Trump now has decided to ratchet up the absurd, baseless and idiotic assertion that the election was “rigged” to favor his opponent.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-claims-with-no-evidence-that-%e2%80%98millions-of-people%e2%80%99-voted-illegally/ar-AAkP3mF?li=BBnb7Kz

Does this clown have any proof of what he’s alleging? No. He doesn’t.

He is continuing this ridiculous habit of making allegations with no basis upon which to back them up.

Trump’s list of people and groups that he’s insulted and defamed certainly must include the state and local elections officials he now has asserted are corrupt.

Can you even imagine what this guy would be saying if he had lost the election? He won it fairly and openly. Trump is going to be the next president.

Why in the world he makes these ridiculous assertions is totally beyond many of us.

You’ve heard of sore losers, right? We’re now witnessing the antics of a seriously sore winner.

national news, political news

‘Millions voted illegally’ … seriously?

donald

Donald J. Trump has cemented his title as a provocative prevaricator.

The president-elect has launched a fascinating counterattack against those who want to recount the ballots cast in Wisconsin, and possibly in two other states.

Trump said he won the Electoral College in a landslide and would have won the popular vote as well if you take out the “millions” of votes that were cast “illegally.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-attacks-recount-effort-in-election-where-millions-voted-illegally/ar-AAkPasR?li=BBnb7Kz

Really, Mr. President-elect?

Here is what he wrote in one of his flurry of tweets: “In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

Well now. A 306-232 electoral vote victory isn’t really a “landslide,” but I digress.

I guess Trump is presuming that most if not all the “illegal votes” were cast for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He how does he know that? He doesn’t. Trump doesn’t know anything about the electoral process that’s been called into question.

However, he knows that “millions voted illegally.” I believe the president-elect is applying the same base of knowledge he used to declare — falsely — that “thousands of Muslims cheered” the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

local news, political news

Is it time to look ahead to city election? Sure, let’s do it!

1 Comment

13861145

The presidential election has been decided … to the satisfaction of a minority of Americans who voted for the winner.

I won’t get into the ongoing discussion about the Electoral College.

Instead, let’s take a brief look at our own next election cycle, right here in Amarillo.

We’re going to elect our City Council next May. Our city charter puts all five seats up for election at the same time. We get to keep ’em all, toss ’em all out or decide on some variation in between.

The May 2015 election produced a pretty radical shakeup on the council. Voters elected three new guys: Randy Burkett, Mark Nair and Elisha Demerson. Voters re-elected two others, Mayor Paul Harpole and Brian Eades; then Eades quit and moved to Colorado and he’s been succeeded by Lisa Blake, who emerged as the frontrunner after a highly public interview process with four other finalists selected by the council.

To say we’ve had a rough time of it at City Hall since the May 2015 election would be the height (or depth) of understatement.

City Manager Jarrett Atkinson quit, along with a number of other senior city administrators.  Then the council hired Terry Childers as the interim city manager. That didn’t turn out too well, as Childers this past week quit his job one year to the day after being named the interim manager.

Childers messed up one time too many.

Now the council has to get busy and find someone who wants to take hold of the city’s administrative reins. This is the only hire the council makes directly. It whiffed with Childers. Are these folks capable of filling this critical job? We shall see.

The council has gotten involved in some disputes among its members. The mayor has been at odds openly with the three new fellows, and they have been with him. All this has occurred as the city has embarked on a major makeover of its downtown district. Holy cow, dudes!

So, the question of the moment is this: Will the three new council members face a serious challenge from someone — or from an organized group of residents — if and/or when they seek re-election?

They all promised “change” when they were elected to the council. They certainly have delivered on their promise. Collegiality has given way to chaos. Decorum has been replaced by dysfunction.

The issue that awaits voters, though, is whether the change has been worth the tumult that has boiled over at City Hall.

We’ll find out in due time.

national news, political news

When do the results undermine the winner?

clintonhillary_110716getty

Believe me, I’m not going to belabor this point.

The thought just popped into my noggin, though, about the popular vote lead that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running up on the next president, Donald J. Trump.

It has passed 2 million votes. They’re still counting ’em. The lead might grow even more.

The thought is this: At what point does this circumstance begin to undermine the effectiveness of the “winner” of a presidential election?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307326-cook-clinton-passes-2m-in-popular-vote-lead

Trump won the votes that matter, in the Electoral College. Clinton won the actual balloting. Two million votes comprises a substantial margin … even for the “loser.”

I don’t necessarily want to see a change in the way we elect presidents. Nor do I think Clinton should challenge formally the results in three key swing states.

The issue, though, of this widening popular vote margin between the president-elect and the candidate he defeated seems to be inching closer to some critical mass that could undermine seriously the next president’s legislative agenda.

national news, political news

Hillary need not heed activists’ plea to challenge election

aakd1s4

Activists, by definition, I suppose are those who cannot let certain things go.

Their belief in their correctness makes them a bit frenzied in their desire to achieve a desired result.

Thus, we hear that some political activists are encouraging defeated presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to challenge the election results in three key battleground states in an effort to overturn Donald J. Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Don’t do it, Mme. Secretary.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-campaign-to-challenge-election-results-in-3-swing-states/ar-AAkD4w7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The three states in question are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clinton lost all three of them to Trump — although Michigan hasn’t yet been called officially for the president-elect, as it’s still determined to be too close to call.

According to the Daily Intelligencer: “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.”

This would be a futile exercise. It also would be virtually unprecedented. Moreover, how long would it take to prove such an event occurred and how much damage could such a probe do our political system if the plaintiffs fail to make the case?

I feel the need to remind these activists of other close elections in which the loser chose to let the results stand. The most fascinating example occurred in 1960. Vice President Richard Nixon lost the presidential election to Sen. John F. Kennedy by fewer than 150,000 votes nationally, out of more than 60 million ballots cast. Questions arose about the vote totals in Cook County, Ill., which Kennedy won handily and which helped tip Illinois into the Democrat’s column.

Nixon didn’t challenge the result. He chose instead to let it stand. Kennedy went on to take the oath of office, over the expressed anger of the GOP activists who wanted Nixon to make an issue of an outcome that didn’t square with their desire.

Hillary lost the election under the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers. Even those of us who dislike the outcome ought to be able to accept it.

Just as many of us said in dismissing Trump’s assertion of a “rigged” election, I don’t believe that is what produced the stunning result.

national news, political news

Trump ‘mandate’ keeps slipping away

ballot-box

I don’t intend to beat this issue to death, but I do intend to drive home what I believe is an important point about the 2016 presidential election.

It’s this issue of Donald J. Trump’s supposed “mandate” from the election result.

You see, the president-elect is trailing Hillary Rodham Clinton in the popular vote total by an increasing margin.

As of this very moment — at 8:32 p.m. CST on Nov. 22 — Clinton’s vote lead over Trump totals 1,737,744 ballots. They’re still counting ballots in Clinton-friendly states out west. Hillary’s vote lead will approach, perhaps even exceed, 2 million ballots when they’re all done with the counting.

I am not challenging that Trump won the election. He has 306 electoral votes; Clinton’s electoral vote totals 232. Trump needed just 270 of those votes to be elected. He’s going to become our 45th president in January.

He won it under the rules.

Nor am I advocating an end to the Electoral College.

However, Trump needs to be careful when he talks about “mandate,” and whether his victory awards him sufficient political capital to do all the things he vowed to do.

Build a wall? Ban Muslims from entering the country? Revoke trade deals? Appoint arch-conservative ideologues to the federal bench?

Yes, the president-elect won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, but he’s falling farther and farther behind in the actual votes for president. More than half of those who voted for president cast their ballots for someone other than the guy who won. Hillary won’t achieve a majority of all the votes, but her plurality is looking healthier every day.

That vote deficit must give even a brash braggart like Donald J. Trump pause … or one might think.

Then again, we’re dealing with someone who broke virtually every conventional rule in the book while winning the presidency. Still, he ought to take great care when declaring a “mandate” to do anything once he takes his oath of office.