posted
While it is very safe to say that this Election will be "dissected" in every conceivable way, PBS aired a "Frontline" regarding the Election earlier this week.
Their report implies that within the Clinton campaign, they "knew she was in trouble" - the last minute Comey accusation/withdrawal notwithstanding. The last minute Obama "full court press" in Pennsylvania was indicative of that. Would have more time in both Michigan and Wisconsin made a difference? That will have to be deferred until more scholars research the matter, but for now this Frontline "airbrushing" will have to suffice.
But all told, Hillary's campaign will prove to be a big boondoggle - and they had the world thinking that it was a well oiled machine. They probably spent more $$$ for each meaningless popular vote and definitely more for each electoral vote than any inflation adjusted in history. Nevermind the results.
PBS is very selective with their On-Demand offerings; they like to sell videos of their material and O-D is I think controlled by the local outlets and the cable providers. But if you can find it, watch it.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the performance of Trump his first few days in office, I suspect that a lot of the third party voters that resulted in Clinton having her "majority" (can people say plurality?) would have voted for Trump instead. It could also be that some of the Clinton voters would have been Trump voters, as she was downright repulsive to many people.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Holiday Inn Express Boca Raton (it's a perfectly good property, Smitty)--
If the bookies at Ladbrokes are to be believed, President Pence will take that ride from 1600 to UNOWARE Jan 20, 2021. However, they are not betting too much that Michelle will be in the MRAP disguised as a Caddy Limo - AKA "The Beast" - with him:
In short, the authors contend that Hillary had lost, long, LONG, before any of the bombshells, such as Comey, Bill's "meet up" with Loretta, and even the paid speeches to the Wall Street gang.
The only problem is that no one, including those paid the big $$$ who were supposed to know, knew.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:the more closely people look at her, the less inclined they will be to elect her president
As to this statement in the article:
quote:Spread a tiny proportion of her huge margins in California and New York across the Rust Belt, and she’s the president today.
Preventing this sort of stuff from happening, that is a couple of highly populated areas from being able to overwhelm the rest of the country, is why we have the Electoral College system.
I would also question that this supposition is even a true statement. Despite all the noise about it, Clinton did not have a majority, but only a plurality. In order to achieve a majority, she would have had to come out the majority in a runoff. Of that I have my doubts, because I suspect that a large part of the "third party" votes were really "none of the above" votes from people that did not like either one, but many of which I would suspect were more repulsed by Clinton than by Trump.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allow me to concur with Mr. Harris' statement:
Trump + Johnson + Stein.+ Yogi Bear and whoever else > Hillary.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the campaign, I thanked God that Hillar was running against Trump because I felt any other Republican would have given her a shellacking. How bad was she that the election was even close? Her supporters keep saying that she really won because she got 3M more popular votes that Trump. That, plus $2, won't gt her a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Just ask President Al Gore. Months before the Comey Letter, she was in trouble in PA and MI. Voter suppression was going on in WI, but her team chose to ignore it, and not set foot in that state. She told the coal mines in western PA she would put them and thei employers out of business. She told the steel and auto workers of MI and A she would put Bill Clinton, who sent their jobs to Mexico and China, in charge of rebuilding the economy. Addd to that she basically had no real message other than she was a woman.And she lost among white women. Who loses among their own demographic? And it was her turn. Her suporters said she was the most qualified ever". Of ccorse, the modern meaning of "ever" is "since I was aware". The most qualified "ever" was James Buchahan,and see how he turned out. He was succeeded by Abraham Lincoln, who was one of the least qualified, and turned out the greatest. In recent times, Nixon was more qualified than Kennedy; Bush Senior ore qualified than Clinton, and McCain more qualified that Obama. But they all lost to men who articulated a vision of where they wanted to take the conutry. That's what a leader does.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Nicholson, you raise many a point that the book I noted (and have now completed) does. Perhaps she was flawed and those around her were not prepared to accept that. The result being the most unqualified candidate is now at 1600.
But you indeed have a point regarding James Buchanan, and likely that band of clowns immediately preceeding him that could have with leadership, averted the Civil War.
Finally, what if the Demmies had ended up nominating "Amtrak Joe", or even God forbid, Bernie? During '16 there was so much worldwide sentiment to "throw the bums out" that resulted in first Brexit, then Trump. But We the World seem to be already "centristing" ourselves. Towards that end, I cite Macron in France and Van der Bellen in Austria.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If any Democrat had been elected, (s)he would have faced a still homebound Republican Congress which might even have the audacity to not approve a 9th SCJustice.Though I suppose Biden might have been more skillful than Obama at getting things through Congress. Perhaps it is better that the GOP runs wild so the American people finally see what life under them is like.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Spread a tiny proportion of her huge margins in California and New York across the Rust Belt, and she’s the president today.
Preventing this sort of stuff from happening, that is a couple of highly populated areas from being able to overwhelm the rest of the country, is why we have the Electoral College system.
Mr. Harris, I do respect your views. While it appears you now reside in a "burb of Memphis", I'd place bets that you have resided in a rural area at one time or the other. In the interest of full disclosure, I have always resided in the "burbs"; be it New York, Phila, DC, or Chicago. Of the last three, I could have resided wherever I chose; but I chose burbs over the city itself.
My question is, considering we both reside in "safe" states, albeit different parties, is why should our votes count less in a Presidential race than those cast in a "battleground" state. Somehow I think you hold same view as do I; voting is not just a right, but it is also a duty. We both wore the uniform; it was our duty. But was our service worth any less than anyone else's?
While if either proportional Electors or the popular vote prevailed, someone wearing a pant suit rather than trousers would be sitting in the Oval Office, I still hold that proportional Electors would serve best the people at large. How we would ever get there blows my imagination.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely discarding the Electoral College would result in Presidents being elected by winning only a half dozen states. Not much better than what we have now. Proportional allocation of electoral votes is the way to go. - based on percentage, not Congressional districts, because they will be gerrymandered like the House of Representatives.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Nicholson, do I hear you and how regarding gerrymandering.
Here is how my Congressional District looked before the most recent redistricting during 2013. I was always happy to vote for the long standing Moderate Republican . Now, here is how things look after the "pols" got done with their "magic show".
The result; my new Representative takes his party line straight out of the Mike Pence, Sean Hannity playbook. Wonder why I voted Demmy (even though she hadn't a chance) last time around?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
