Donald wins popular vote; Hillary elected president

Latest polls show that Trump has stormed into the lead. According to ABC’s tracking poll, Trump has more support than Hillary AND Trump supporters are much more enthusiastic. However, it looks like Hillary still holds a strong lead in the Electoral College. What we might see is a split decision, with Trump winning the votes of more Americans and Hillary winning the White House.

This could be an interesting development. Our Democratic friends were outraged when Bush beat Gore in the electoral college despite losing the popular vote 47.9% to 48.4%. I defended that decision at the time and continue to defend it. We had essentially a tie election and the system provided a tie breaker. Beyond that, neither candidate won a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the popular vote, so most Americans voted against BOTH Bush and Gore.

The Trump surge could be different in this respect. It is possible that Trump could win more than 50%. Not since 1876 has a candidate won a real majority and still lost the presidency.

How much different would 50.1% be from 48.4%? How important is that 1.7%? It depends.

The Tilden-Hayes event provoked a constitutional crisis and the parties made a deal. Hayes became president, but the Federal government ended reconstruction in the South. We could discuss the wisdom of that decision, but let's put that aside for now. How could we get through a crisis this year?

I don't know. Trump is not the type to take one for the team and Hillary is a first class hater AND Hillary and Trump seem honestly to detest each other.

But I have a proposal. The only big I can think of to support Trump is the Supreme Court. The next president will shape the court for years and I shudder to think what Hillary will do. The Trump surge is likely too affect down ballot races and Republicans now have a greater chance to hold the Senate.

So the deal is this. Hillary agrees to appoint judges in full consultation with Republicans in the Senate, nominating none that is unacceptable to a majority of Republicans. This would have the salutary result appointing a court that is moderate, since both sides would need to agree.

Posted by Christine & John at November 1, 2016 7:48 AM
Comment #409306

Ask GHWB about how the Democratics keep their word. They’ll agree with anything to get their way later. They’re like my x-wife. They’ll tell you what you want to hear and then take what they wanted to begin with.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 1, 2016 9:14 AM
Comment #409309

Trump isn’t going to win the popular vote.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 10:33 AM
Comment #409310

If a split happens, it is likely going to be the other way around (again):

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 11:09 AM
Comment #409321

The chances of Hillary winning are good, and there is little chance of a split between the popular vote and the electoral college. Most likely HRC will win in the low 300’s for the electoral vote, and by six million or so in the popular vote.

If two generic presidential candidates were running, based on the 2012 results, changing demographics would result in a Democratic victory by 5 or 6 points. That is exactly what we are now seeing.

Hillary Clinton has the superior organization. She created and led this campaign, and now is when we see the benefits. The GOTV will probably add one or two points to HRC’s total.

However, HRC has faced unexpected headwinds. Whatever one thinks of his motivations and integrity, the fact is, Director Comey interfered in the election. He put his finger on the scale. His action hurt HRC, but it is done, and there is little anyone can do to rectify it.

In addition, the Clinton campaign has faced a prolonged assault by a foreign adversary, Russia, through its cyber attacks posted in Wikileaks. It really is a remarkable thing, that a foreign adversary would do this. And it is curious that the Wikileaks e-mails were so… uninteresting. So and so said they liked someone, but in an e-mail they said mean things! Holy cow! They even published some of the transcript from her speech for Goldman Sachs. It had been so built up, but the actual speech was as dull as dishwater.

Having said all that, I am approaching the election with caution. The stock markets assume an HRC victory. It is normal for polls to tighten at the end, but an unexpected victory by Trump would tank the stock markets by 15% or so very quickly, and a recession would soon be on its way as everyone tried to protect their assets from the disasterous policies, or lack thereof, of a Trump administration.

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2016 4:52 PM
Comment #409322

“Trump would tank the stock markets by 15%…”

Just a guess by phx8. Even if it happens, I see no problem with a hefty correction.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 5:38 PM
Comment #409326

Talking about office banter and dull speeches, but yet mentions nothing of dumping emails. Even throwing in some ridiculous doom and gloom opinions for good measure.
This is getting too good.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2016 6:01 PM
Comment #409328

I don’t believe I have ever predicted a Trump win. Correct me if I am wrong please…LOL, I know someone will if that’s the case.

I do believe that all my Leftie Pals have predicted a Ms. Hillary win.

Will there be any “crow eating” by my Pals? Who know? I don’t. If Trump does win there will be gnashing of teeth, by those here who still have some, and yowls of “unfair” and “rigged”.

Should be great fun.

If Ms. Clinton wins I won’t be surprised, just saddened. I have already decided, with the approval of my wife and neighbors, to fly my American flag at half-mast during her entire expected tyrannical reign.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 6:26 PM
Comment #409402

It’s a possibility, but Trump will have to be absurdly lucky.

As for you, Royal Flush? I think you guys, if you win, will fulfill the old expression: “Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.” If it weren’t for the fact that the Presidency vests legal authority in the SOB, I’d be grinning like a maniac at the pig in the poke you’ve bought. Clinton… Clinton was never the ideal candidate, but most of what haunts her is frankly artificial, drummed up for just this election.

Trump? Good God, what will follow Trump into office? Leave aside the sexual stuff, which make’s Clinton’s peccadilloes look tame. Who does he owe money to? What corrupt forces, like mafia figures, has he been associated with? What foreign countries and banks is he in bed with. You’ve purposely ignored all this so you wouldn’t just give up and cry into your beers.

It may be just the most appropriate punishment for the GOP possible. They let the SOB get into office, despite EVERYTHING we told them about, despite all the people that told them in their own party that it was a lousy idea. Now they get to own EVERYTHING he does. Watch as the party tears itself apart, as the Alt Right pits a huge part of the party against the other part.

Of course, my ideal punishment would be for him to lose, in no small part because we don’t get the collateral damage that dumbass would inflict in the process of actually being empowered.

Revenge politics has been the aim of the GOP for too long, and it’s been badly corrosive to the party. It’s crippled their ability to move in the legislature without being in charge of it, and even crippled it while they’ve been in charge. It’s made it impossible for them to move properly within the confines of a mixed-government situation, and had them, the CONSERVATIVES, breaking traditions and tearing down institutions left and right.

My personal theory is that you’ve got this because there never was a serious, introspective analysis of where the party would go from 2006 and 2008, never a serious analysis of how conservative principles could be re-expressed in more practically workable ways, and how the bitter experience of failures in the Bush Administration could turn to better policy-making.

Instead, there was a doubling down, an insistence that there weren’t any mistakes, that Conservative principles just weren’t given sufficient application.

Unfortunately, they were given plenty. It’s just that many of the things that developed into political ideals were derivative either of blind opposition to liberal policies, of rhetoric never fully thought through for its effectiveness, or of policy efforts that were never really good faith representations of how they were politically sold.

Tax cuts, for example. The Laffer Curve is now standard doctrine among conservatives, but every time we’ve tested it, it seems like it fails dramatically. Well, it almost has to. The claim has been that the lost revenue is regenerated through a stronger economy.

It doesn’t happen. The big national tax cuts failed to do that, both times. The state tax cuts in recent times, in Kansas and Louisiana, failed miserably. But then, that was partly the point. Libertarians unwilling to go the distance to convince those who want bigger government to reverse their positions advocate for those tax cuts knowing that the shortfalls will force dismantlement of programs.

Others, like the rich who often benefit from the cuts, keep pushing the same doctrine simply because it’s difficult to ask people to do damage to their own interests. If you asked the average person to take on more of the tax burden, and see desired programs cut, just so a rich person could enrich themselves at a faster rate, they’d tell you to screw yourself. But tell them it’ll goose the economy and the rising tide will raise all boats? Then they’ll do it. The fact that the windfalls get saved more than spent… that’s just something the proponents will keep quiet about.

The GOP needs profound reform, needs a generation of more serious policymakers an analysts. The children have been at play for too long in the party, and they’ve turned the whole thing into a Lord of the Flies Scenario, with Jack now in charge. It’s time to get off of the Island, and let the adults run things again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2016 7:28 PM
Comment #409409

In other words, Stephen wants you Conservatives to drop your ideas of limited government and individual rights, and embrace a smaller scale version the leftists ideas of large government and societal desires. Again.

I find it funny that C&J has brought up a ‘deal’ that could lead to a less divisive and very much more moderate government, something that after the last eight years is greatly needed, and all they get in return is more hyperbolic opinions and doom and gloom predictions about Trump in order to hide the obvious faults of Hillary.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 9:12 AM
Comment #409434

I would love to be in the room to watch Hillary’s head explode when she loses. Lol

Posted by: dbs at November 3, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #409452

I don’t ignore her flaws. I just don’t buy the obnoxious rhetoric that claims she some kind of criminal mastermind. I don’t buy all the hysteria over gun-grabbing, all the conspiracy theories about the UN, and frankly, when you people assault me with them, I feel my intelligence getting insulted.

Honestly, I don’t think you understand your situation correctly. NOTHING stops you from thinking what you want, holding the principles you like and love to your heart.

Trouble is, you expect that purity to extend to policy, regardless of who the American Public wants to have in charge or not.

You’re not exercising power by yourself, nor should you be. So everything you want done will get compromised, whether you like it or not. I think your people have been getting diminishing returns on your partisanship, compromising your ability to negotiate legislation that passes so your politicians can always pass some litmus test on an issue. It’s a great way to use your office to promote propaganda and a sense that you do everything your voters want perfectly, but it doesn’t really make it easier for actual policy and actual laws that do actual things to pass.

Additionally, no matter how dedicated you get to believing these planks in your platform, nothing guarantees that these policies, as an expression of your beliefs, will actually work.

So, the question is, how do you get the most conservative possible legislation and policy passed, and how do you not end up promoting failing policies that invalidate the credibility you need to keep people believing what you do? And are there certain ideas that are just wrong on such a fundamental level that a rational person would want to drop them in favor of something that does work?

If you aren’t willing to adapt, then you can’t present the best possible face and policies to meet your goals. If all you want to do is win propaganda fights in your own party, you’re doing a bang-up job already. If you want real things done, if you want to know what works and what doesn’t you have to be open to modifying your ideas to suit reality, even if you’re not going to do it to suit some prevailing political philosophy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2016 7:22 PM
Comment #409478

I didn’t say that the left is ignoring her flaws, I said they were deflecting in hopes of hiding her obvious faults. And she has many.

Insulting your intelligence? Please.
You don’t have to believe that she is some kind of criminal mastermind, I sure don’t. But you do need to accept that the evidence is looking like is quite possible that a crime has been committed.

Of course you don’t buy all the hysteria over gun-grabbing, you support redefining the 2nd Amendment and more stringent control. What you refuse to acknowledge though, is where that ‘hysteria’ is coming from.
The “gun-grabbing hysteria” is a direct result of the ‘guns are evil’ hysteria, Stephen. The 2nd Amendment is already one of our most infringed upon and regulated rights and the left is demanding more and more. The problem is that the left has targeted and focused their attacks on those not responsible for the problems you see. People who live in peace with the right and who accept the rare negative result of the right.

Conspiracy theories exist on both sides of the aisle, Stephen. If I had a dollar for every 1%, theocracy, UN etc… theory I have heard, I could by a new truck.

“Honestly, I don’t think you understand your situation correctly.”

That is because you don’t know what I think of the situation. Because I disagree with you, you would rather use false stereotypes to create a biased assumption so as to put differing opinions into an easily managed and dismissed box.

I don’t expect MY thinking and principles to extend to policy, I expect respect for our Constitution to extend to policy.
As somebody who wrongly believes that our Constitution can be changed on a whim in order to address what YOU see as a problem, I don’t expect you agree. But, as I am the one with our founding documents and our nations history behind me, and you are the one wanting to change what they mean in order to shape our nations future, I do expect that you would at least try to understand.

Exercising power by myself? Come on man. Everything I want done has already been done by our founders. The only ‘power’ I need is to keep that from being undone.

“I think your people…”

Sigh. ‘My people’ no longer hold any power in our government. We have been pushed to the sidelines in the name of comfort, convenience, and feelings.
You are talking about Republicans and Conservatives, and yes they are getting diminishing returns on their partisanship while the left is getting positive returns on their partisanship. That is due to the fact that with each passing day, we are becoming more and more dependent on our government and the left is telling people they will enact policy and laws to support that.
Republicans are going through a transition, Stephen, and it won’t be long before their candidates are running on the left-wing platform that Hillary is running on now, and the left will be calling them right-wing extremists.

“nothing guarantees that these policies, as an expression of your beliefs, will actually work.”

We have a fundamental difference in how we determine if a policy is actually working or not.
For me, policy only works if it first and foremost respects an individuals rights and freedoms.
For the left, policy only works if it seems like it is attempting to address a problem that THE LEFT believes is beneficial and desirable to society.

THAT is how we determine if policy is wrong on such a fundamental level and THAT is what is responsible for the turmoil that the GOP is going through.

Reality is that our nation is at a crossroad. A slight and ever growing majority are trying to force the country down a new path that goes further and further left, and a slight and ever shrinking minority are trying to steer it back to the right.
I’ve accepted that the left has won, you should at least be able to accept that people aren’t going to just lay down for you, that there is going to be a fight.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2016 11:16 AM
Comment #409481

There’s too much incestuous amplification on the right these days. To put it plainly? We get news that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. Why? Because of the Clinton Cash Book. Who put that out? Breitbart, among others. Who is Breitbart connected to? The Guy who helped Trump early in the campaign. The current campaign CEO. James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, who pushed those videos about rigging. The Alt Right, who call Breitbart home.

So, we have agents wasting time and taxpayer dollars, and votes being persuaded with often false and misleading information, all on the basis of one outlet with a hideous reputation. Oh, and by the way, they had to force those agents to drop their investigation for lack of evidence. The charges weren’t born out by the evidence.

We are still recovering from years of non-evidence based policy, policy encouraged by a Right Wing that had increasingly isolated itself from other perspectives, from accountability by evidence. The Truth of the matter is, no philosophy, no matter how noble or true, can be applied with a closed mind and closed eyes and succeed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2016 11:46 AM
Comment #409484

Look, they have applied MASSIVE amounts of scrutiny to her and her husband. They keep promising, insisting that she’s doing all these nefarious things, that she’s this big mastermind selling us out to Russia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Shriners for all I can tell… and nothing. You don’t seen actual evidence of crimes after all the accusations.

I don’t think of her as pure, nor do I find Clinton politics particularly inspiring, compared to Obama’s. But I will take good over bad, and bad over worse. Giving up hasn’t helped either side in this get better politicians.

As for Gun Grabbing hysteria?

Let’s be blunt. YOU FOLKS redefined the Second Amendment. When you were born, the idea was that people could own guns, but this wasn’t to give them some abstract protection from a runaway government, much less to allow them to overthrow that government if they disliked the results of an election. It was to protect that Republic.

We have to watch as one person after another who shouldn’t have had a gun uses firepower that really has no place in common society, to do acts which have little precedent in our society before the NRA got powerful enough to essentially wipe the map of gun control regulations. And you tell me, what we need is more carrying guns around!

I don’t believe in complete disarmament. Just a return to the common sense, pro-domestic tranquility, pro-national security interpretation of the Second Amendment.

As for Conspiracy theories existing on both sides of the aisle? YES! Of course!

But when I see them, when I see somebody saying, “9/11 was an inside job” I shut their asses down! I don’t care that I hate Bush as a President, or that I could score points on Republicans and their national security abuses. I don’t tolerate conspiracy theories on my side, because they gut credibility, they mislead the gullible, and they waste our time trying to fix problems that DON’T EXIST, or have a different character than they claim.

Having good information and good perspective on a problem is CRITICAL to solving it properly. It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are, how good of a handled you THINK you have, it is your actual level of awareness and understanding that will determine whether or not you can actually bring about positive outcomes.

Conspiracies do exist. But they are best defined through good reporting of real facts, not through this perpetual chasing of the carrot of deferred verification.

You can, for example, trace out the activities of people like Hans Von Spakovsky in terms of voter suppression, trace out where ALEC’s voter ID law model legislation shows up, and so on and so forth. You can follow the money from energy companies to leading climate denial figures and thinktanks. You’re not asked to believe things based on speculation and sentiment alone. You’re not running around on that X-Files style hamster wheel, with the Jackbooted thugs perpetually swooping in to take the evidence away form the intrepid truth-seekers.

As somebody who wrongly believes that our Constitution can be changed on a whim in order to address what YOU see as a problem, I don’t expect you agree.

Look, If I say, “thou shalt not kill,” does that lay out the right and the wrong in every situation involving homicide? No, it does not. That rule needs to be interpreted to be useful. One important detail: the original text, as far as we can tell, actually uses a word closer to “murder.” given all the capital offenses in the bible, all the stories about warfare, this makes better sense.

In modern times, many of the capital crimes that the bible lists would come across as unacceptable reasons to put somebody to death. We’ve reinterpreted the definition of what is murder and what is not. Bad, good, that’s what people do.

I believe deeply in the Constitution, but I believe maintaining that coherence requires interpretation that does more than ask “WWJD?” (What would Jefferson Do?)

They set forward a principle. For example, prohibiting searches and arrests without probable cause and a warrant. That law, though, has had to be reinterpreted over the year as new means of communications and new situations created by those new technologies stretched the ability of the law to accommodate modern reality. I mean, where can we expect privacy in the digital world, for our e-mails and everything? Jefferson and Madison didn’t even know enough to offer questions about these matters, much less answers. We can, though, adapt their underlying intentions, that people’s communications be secure against government surveillance and interception unless the government has probable cause and a warrant.

The other issue? Quite simply, as we have advanced as a culture, realized the wrongs of racism and sexism, we’ve changed our notion of what is equality under the law, changed our notion of what is cruel and unusual punishment, changed our notions of what is just and what is not. If the Constitution does not bar these interpretations, it should not be be seen as a violation of the Constitution. We are allowed to see our rules a different way, to produce a different, perhaps superior result. Separate but Equal was once the law of the land. Now it’s not. Did we depart from original intention? Perhaps. But here’s the thing: the Framers were not big fans of slavish dogmatism. They wanted people to think for themselves, to have their own sentiments about what was right, what was wrong.

Reinterpretation was not only inevitable, but desirable in their eyes.

As far as what is happening to Republicans and Conservatives. You have both Houses. That you can barely scratch your ass with that majority is not my fault, or even Obama’s fault. Much of the reshaping of the financial sector in the nineties was the result of what Republicans did under Clinton. It’s the inability of hardcore Tea Party Conservatives to work with anybody else that has crippled them.

The irony is, it’s exactly what you asked of them. You asked them to be pure, not to make deals with Obama or the Democrats. They refused to do exactly that, in most cases. The problem is, nothing works in our system except through consensus. You don’t want to bother with that. You want to get your way, pure and shining like your ideal, but you don’t want to have to dirty it up and dull it down with negotiations, compromises, or other stuff. You think you’re entitled to get things your way.

As such, your people have increasingly expressed contempt for the constitutional, legal, and procedural barriers that get in their way. I expect a fight, expect compromise and resistance, but what concerns me is that Republicans are increasingly disputing the validity of elections for which they have no solid proof of widespread fraud. They are increasingly treating laws and rules meant to keep officials neutral in elections as if they’re of no consequence. They’re ignoring court-orders, ignoring the law in order to get their way.

That, I can’t tolerate, not as a person who believes in the rule of law, and the conditional rule of the majority. This whole thing is on the road to ruin if your people can’t get your heads out of your butts and stop wearing away at things in the name of your political power. If you want everybody else to obey the Constitution, obey the law, then by God, obey it yourself, even when it puts you at that dreaded disadvantage to us hated liberals!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2016 12:37 PM
Post a comment