Tag Archives: Donald Trump

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.

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.

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.

‘You’d be in jail’ … except that Hillary won’t go there

aakdd3c

Donald J. Trump spoke a lot of trash during his winning campaign for the presidency.

He turned to Hillary Rodham Clinton during a presidential debate and said “You’d be in jail” in response to a statement she made about his lack of understanding of the rule of law.

Then he talked about appointing a special prosecutor to look for proof that she was as “crooked” as he said she was.

Except that now he’s not going to anything of the sort.

That is a very good call from the president-elect.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-political-calculus-behind-trump%e2%80%99s-decision-not-to-push-for-a-clinton-prosecution/ar-AAkm2l0?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump says now he wants to focus on the fixing the country. He doesn’t want any distractions, such as a futile special prosecutor’s probe into matters that already have been determined to be out of reach for any prosecutor.

The e-mail controversy? The alleged “pay for play”? Benghazi?

It’s all been settled. The FBI determined there was no criminality involved with the e-mail server Clinton used while she was secretary of state. Pay for play has been nothing more than a political talking point. A congressional select committee has been unable to prosecute Clinton for anything involving the Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

I wonder now if Trump is going to offer any expressions of “regret” or — dare I say — an actual apology for defaming Clinton with the “crooked Hillary” label.

Actually, there’s no need to wonder. The president-elect has told us already he never regrets anything … ever.

‘Tough guy’ bristles at this? C’mon, man!

snltrumpalecbaldwin

Donald J. Trump is showing himself to be the master of mixed messages.

Consider some of the proclamations that have come from the president-elect’s mouth.

He vowed during the campaign to “bomb the s*** out of ISIS” while saying out loud that he knows “more about ISIS than the generals, believe me”; he said he’d look Vladmir Putin in the eye and tell him to behave himself in Eastern Europe; he promised to negotiate the greatest trade deals in the nation’s history; he said that “I, alone” can fix all the terrible things he contended are afflicting the nation.

Tough talk, right? Sure.

Then the president-elect gets his skivvies in a knot over media coverage here at home. He invites TV news anchors to his office and blisters them with a scathing critique of the way they cover him.

There’s more.

He blasts out Twitter messages demanding that the cast of a Broadway play “Hamilton” apologize to the vice president-elect over boos that came from the audience.

He tweets out another message criticizing “Saturday Night Live” for its portrayal of Trump by actor/comedian Alec Baldwin; this guy Trump can dish out the insults, but he cannot take ’em in any form. Has this clown never seen the “SNL” parodies of, oh, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter?

Oh, and then he canceled a meeting he had planned with the New York Times, citing its “nasty tone” in covering his transition.

Which of these men is going to take the presidential oath of office on Jan. 20?

Will it be the tough guy who’ll assert American resolve across the world stage? Or will it be the petulant punk who cannot stand up under the criticism that has been leveled at every person who’s preceded him in the nation’s highest office?

Trump stiffs the media; good luck with your message

aakamyn

I guess I’m just an old-fashioned guy.

The president of the United States needs to talk to the media to deliver a message to the people he governs. Not so, apparently, with the man who’s set to become the next president.

No, siree. Donald J. Trump today asked several network news anchors to meet with him at his New York City office. Then he blasted them to smithereens, to their face. He told them they’re dishonest; they got the election outcome wrong; he doesn’t need them; he’s going to talk “directly” to the people.

This tirade really got the Trumpkins out here all fired up. You go, Donald!

I, though, wish the president-elect would rethink this attitude he has toward the media.

The media in truth were quite good toward this guy as his campaign launched in the summer of 2015. Pundits and pols thought his presidential campaign couldn’t be taken seriously. The media, though, provided Trump with thousands of minutes of free air time and thousands of inches of newsprint space reporting on his comings and goings, his boasts and threats.

The media didn’t challenge his endless string of false assertions. They didn’t call them what they were: lies.

The cable and broadcast news networks got caught up in the GOP-fed hysteria over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy, the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation.

All of it benefited Trump. He should thank the media, not condemn them.

Today the meeting with the TV news anchors became what one observer called a “f****** firing squad.” The guy with all the bullets, quite interestingly, was the president-elect.

So, perhaps Trump gored my own ox when declaring he has no desire to “work with” the media. I do believe he is making a mistake.

We haven’t heard him speak to the country via a time-honored tradition called a “press conference.” The media do their job, perhaps not to the president-elect’s liking. Too bad.

He ought to suck it up, face the media’s tough questions that every one of his predecessors have faced.

How about ignoring these ‘alt-right’ groups?

lead_960

I have a suggestion for those in the so-called “mainstream liberal media.”

It is to ignore the idiots who gather to cheer the election of someone they believe has endorsed their “alt-right” political world view.

I refer to the white nationalists. These are the bald-faced racists of the world. They comprise a small, but vocal minority of Americans who are cheering Donald J. Trump’s election as president of the United States.

I get that you want to keep the evil elements of society in plain view. You want to keep your eyes on them. You want them exposed for the moronic evil ideas they espouse.

But I struggle with this idea of giving them more media coverage than they deserve. A group gathered this weekend in Washington to cheer Trump’s election. They numbered a couple hundred individuals. The founder of a group called the National Policy Institute spoke to his followers, some of whom stood and cheered his remarks.

Oh, and then a few of them hoisted their arms in Nazi-style salutes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=fbb

They love the coverage. They lust for the attention they’re getting.

The founder of this group, Richard Spencer, said this, according to The Atlantic: “America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity. It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

A white country? Really?

The term “alt-right” has become a euphemism for the hate groups forming on the fringes of the American political spectrum.

I guess I am left to ask: Do those on the “fringe” deserve the kind of media coverage reserved normally for those in the mainstream?

Ethics need extra careful scrutiny

donald

Donald J. Trump’s staff denies it.

Others are saying it happened. What was that? The president-elect took a congratulatory phone call from Argentine President Mauricio Macri and while getting the congrats, Trump reportedly pressed Macri for news about a commercial development Trump has under way in Argentina.

To borrow a word made famous by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: Oops.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307050-report-trump-pressed-foreign-building-project-in-congratulatory-phone-call

The Wall Street Journal has called for Trump to divest himself of his vast business interests. Others have said the same thing. There appears to be no end to the potential conflicts of interest that lurk everywhere in Trump World.

These questions are going to dog the new president at every turn as he transitions into the presidency … and later.

A local journalist, Jorge Lanata, noted this about the conversation: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat.”

Did he or didn’t he make that request of another head of state?

Heads of state shouldn’t mix their personal business interests while dealing with other heads of state. What part of this isn’t clear to anyone with half a brain?

As for whether Trump asked the question, we need to hear from the principals — the U.S. president-elect and the current president of Argentina — about whether such an exchange ever took place.

Pols say mean things, then they change their tune

romneyandtrumpmeet

My friends and acquaintances on the right are fond these days of reminding me of something I knew already.

It is that U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said angry things to and about each other when they ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

Then Sen. Obama was nominated. He went on to be elected president. Then he hired Sen. Clinton to be secretary of state in the first Obama administration.

All was “forgiven,” more or less. The rivals became allies. Then they became friends … or so they said.

The pushback on this issue comes from those on my right and far right who keep yapping at my continuing observation about Donald J. Trump’s former foes/enemies are now lining up for spots in the president-elect’s Cabinet.

Mitt Romney is being considered for secretary of state; Mitt called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Rick Perry is being considered either for secretary of defense or energy; the former Texas governor called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

Chris Christie once led the Trump transition, then he got pushed aside and now he’s back in Trump’s semi-good graces; Christie once said Trump was “unfit” to be president.

The list of “establishment Republicans” who have condemned Trump is long and distinguished. Here they are, though, lining up behind the new president.

Sure thing. Democrats do the very same thing. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson weren’t exactly BFFs when they ran against each other in 1960; then JFK picked LBJ to run with him on the winning ticket.

I guess one’s reaction to this kind of political mood swing depends on your own point of view.

Therefore, I won’t apologize for overlooking how Democrats have played this very same game … at least not until my Republican friends acknowledge publicly what’s occurring at this moment in history with their guy and his former foes.

Now it’s ‘Goodhair’s’ turn to cozy up to Trump

perry

Oh, how I wish Molly Ivins were around today.

The late, great Texas political columnist coined the term “Gov. Goodhair” to describe her longtime foil, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

What would Ivins think of the notion that Perry is heading off to New York today to visit with the man he once called a “cancer on conservatism,” possibly to interview for a job in his former foe’s Cabinet?

Perry went after Donald J. Trump hard during the Republican Party primary this year. The ex-governor was one of a large field of GOP candidates whom Trump defeated while winning his party’s nomination.

All is forgiven? That “cancer” has been excised from the GOP? Or was Perry just blustering to make some kind of political point in the moment?

Perry reportedly is being considered either for secretary jobs at Defense or Energy.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/21/perry-meet-trump-new-york-city/

Perry did end up endorsing Trump, getting on the president-elect’s good side.

All this maneuvering, though, does illustrate what many of us believe about politicians, which is that you can’t ever take what they say at face value.

Molly Ivins certainly knew it, and she knew what drove Rick Perry better than most. My own sense is that ambition takes precedence over all else.