posted
Now that it looks like the tide has turned in Hillary's favor with the polls summarized at Real Clear giving her a 6.7 point lead, and the Electoral polls showing she only needs 14 votes from the battlegrounds, there is a concern that I heard expressed at the coffee house this morning.
Hillary supporters may simply decide "she's got it" and not show up TO VOTE!!!!.
For someone like myself and I'm sure many others around here hold that to vote is not simply a right, but it is a DUTY. Unfortunately that view is not universal.
I suppose one here in "solid Hillary" Illinois, what's the diff? But what if a voter in Pennsylvania or "dead heat" Ohio held same? I think all of us here remember the 2K "Gorebushoff" resulting in some say, a "selected" president rather than an elected.
Moral: get out and vote for the candidates of your choice.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This afternoon, I'm going to do something for the first time in this life - vote early.
For a Chicago Symphony concert being performed at Wheaton College this evening, I'll be in Wheaton, the Dupage County Seat, anyway. I'd like to get out there before sundown so that I can scout out the parking at the venue. Then, since my mind is made up on all candidates and referenda issues, I may as well "get it over" in what the weather forecaster I believe the most around here says will be a "September in Late October day". So, I drive over to county farm where the County offices are located (on what was once a farm where the "bad boys" worked off their steam and other vengeances).
While voting was always a very neighborly ritual around here, the School District has kicked the Election Commission out owing to security concerns (hey I pay for these fortresses, don't I get to see what my taxbucks bought?). As a result, about four precincts have been combined into one, and no assurance the Judges are my neighbors anymore.
So I guess I'll find out this afternoon how this modern way to vote will play out. Obviously, Vladimir and his houseguest Eddie have assured the ultimate step of voting on-line will never occur at least in any time I have left around these parts.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A comment I heard recently is that "how, out of the estimated 152 million people who are eligible to be President (age, "natural born", residency), did we ever end up with these two?".
I realize some will hold that is reason to "sleep in" and show up late for work (and the boss can't say booey), but I hold to vote is a DUTY. and with so many alternatives available - early voting, vote by mail - excuses are hard to come by. I voted early this year and at the polling place I went to, the process is "smooth as silk". Further, I have complete confidence my ballot will be safeguarded and counted.
So, even if "both of 'em turn you off", pick the lesser of the major party evils, and do your duty.
Just my thoughts.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know The Times reports that Hillary has an 87% chance of victory, but I'm still very concerned. Even if she wins, you can be sure that the disgruntled Trumps will be set to obstruct her legislative agenda in any way possible. We could be looking at a Watergate, where the scandal was "on the hush" until after the Election, all over again where this time the inferences, and maybe even the facts, were known prior to Election Day.
Likewise, should the Trumps win, the Dems will be looking to block and discredit any legislative agenda set forth.
Either way , it "ain't a gonna be pretty"; volks.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman: there are a lot of anti-Hillary people that are anything but pro-Donald. Despite that, they will be loaded and raring to go to work against Hillary's agenda simply because they think it is bad for the US.
Posts: 2975 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Pat Buchanan, I always enjoyed your "passably fair and balanced" commentary on McLaughlin Group, but since that show closed, is this the kind of journalism you have sunk to?
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Hillary wins the election I think it's very likely that a GOP controlled House would hold impeachment hearings sooner than later. But if the Senate is held by the Dems, what's the point?
Far more intriguing would be a victory by Trump. I don't think the Dems would have much trouble presenting a list of impeachable offenses against President Trump. But I'm wondering if the far-right and evangelical members of the House would support articles of impeachment against Trump knowing that Mike Pence is much more aligned with their agendas and philosophies than Trump is. Then, would the Democratic majority in the Senate be willing to replace Trump with Pence?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Vincent, it is indeed ominous to hold that as soon as Hillary, should she win and as soon as the ostensible "unification luncheon" with Congress is over, that the machinery to impeach with the (unattainable) goal of removing her from office will start.
But I won't rule it out.
Trump however, is a different case. He has never held public office before, so it will be difficult to find "high crimes and misdemeanors" on him.
But as the famous line of script from the movie "Casablanca" goes, Louie says to the Nazi prelate "Rick has done nothing wrong" whereby the prelate responds "Find something", and the Democrats start digging for that unpaid parking ticket.
Are "We the People" as divided as we have ever been? After all, our divisions once resulted in a civil war when an industrial economy confronted an agrarian. I'd like to think "we're not there yet".
There is an opinion piece in yesterday's Journal that I think is open sourced at this time and is enlightened reading:
..‘We’ve been divided in much, much worse fashion before, like 1861 when we were actually killing each other.’......Americans elected the greatest president, Lincoln, four years after the worst, Buchanan, so there’s some hope that 2020 will redeem 2016, whoever wins on Tuesday. But whatever the future holds, perhaps the past could help beleaguered voters make sense of the choice between the two most unpopular candidates since the advent of modern polling.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
---that Obama will pardon Hillary, win or lose, of any and all crimes that may have been committed while holding public office. The country would be the loser if Congress was tied up witch hunting.
---that Obama will commute, but not pardon, Rob Blagovietch to "time served". The fourteen year sentence was simply too harsh.
---that, if Hillary wins, the Senate in the post-Election Lame Duck session, will be very quick to confirm Judge Garland to the SCOTUS. They'd sooner take chances with the Moderate Obama needed to appoint if there was to be a prayer of confirmation, than whatever "Elizabeth Warren" Hillary would appoint with a Senate in which she had the 51 votes.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this will vary from state to state, and even county to county, but what are your usual voting hours on election day?
Here in the UK the polling booths are open nationwide from 7.00am to 10.00pm but looking at the timeline for tonight it seems that some of your states close their doors as early as 7pm?
Posts: 395 | From: england | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington State is a vote-by-mail state and the ballots have to be postmarked by Nov. 8 or dropped off at a ballot drop box by 8pm on election day.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
I was having "bad feelings" as early as 601PM CT when the early States went "big" for The Donald. By 9P, I knew "this looks bad" and went to bed with the radio on. At about 3A CT, I heard some reference to "President-Elect Trump", and then awakening to this day that the most stunning political upset in modern times, maybe even all times, has occurred.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
here is the popular vote this morning about 10:30am, google says with 90% reporting: Trump 59,265,360 47.505% Clinton 59,458,295 47.660% Johnson 4,032,116 3.232% Stein 1,203,578 0.965% Other 796,844 0.639% Total 124,756,193 100.000% This return also shows the reason behind the Electoral College system. Without it being able to pull of a good majority in a couple of populous areas, you can thumb your nose at the rest of the country. That is without near unanimity in the District of Columbia and an overwhelming majority in California, Clinton would not come near a majority of the popular vote, actually plurality as neither has a majority.
Posts: 2975 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regards to Mr. Harris' immediate posting, as noted through this topic, I supported Hillary, but I am really as independent voter as there can be. My Presidential voting record to date is 7R 6D and 1I:
'64 Johnson (D) '68 Humphrey (D) '72 Nixon (R) '76 Ford (R) '80 Anderson (I) '84 Reagan (R) '88 Bush 41(R) '92 Bush 41(R) '96 W Clinton (D) '2K Gore (D) '04 Kerry (D) '08 McCain (R) '12 Romney (R) '16 H Clinton (D)
OK someone is going to say that I'm not too good picking winners, as I haven't done so since '96. For picking a first term winner, it's back to '88.
But of one thing I'm certain; it is time to scrap the Electoral College and start electing the President by popular vote. Now that it appears Hillary will win the popular vote, and Gore did win it during 2K, I think it is time to allow all voters, regardless of where they reside, to have their vote count equally - just as it is for any other Federal office. No more feelings for residents of "solid Red or Blue" states that their Presidential vote doesn't count.
True, the Electoral over Popular has gone against my preferences twice, but it could just as easily go against "the other guys" in '24. It will take a Constitutional Amendment, but there is no time like the present to get the ball rolling.
Thoughts, anyone?
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Gilbert, my hat's off to you (if I wore one). You called back in September. I was still confident last night when my sister called at 9PM , angry because she thought Trump had won. I reassured her, saying it would be decuded with Florida and North Carolina, if Hillary's "Blue Wall" held. She went to bed at 12 (or so I thought), and I stayed up till 2 ET, after those two states had called. Nevada went for Hillary, so there was still a way for her to win. I woke up at 5AM and went to my smartphone. OMFG> Somewhere in there in the Afterlife, there is a redneck Texan going, "HAW! HAW! Told ja so!" Get in line NOW for those Marks of the Beast before it gets too long!
Posts: 516 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actual e-spondence with two of my friends (both happily married women) in which "only the needle has been changed to protect the record":
1) I'm with all of you. This is FRIGHTENING!!!
2) I had to go to bed early too. Couldn’t bear to watch. Egads! I was hoping I had just had a bad nightmare. I woke to messages from around the world with invitations to move. Feeling very bummed right now. Scout and I are going to take an extra long walk this morning!
On Nov 8, 2016, at 8:58 PM, gbnorman@comcast.net wrote:
I'm going to bed.
This is not how things were supposed to go. The distinct possibility of President Trump is just too much for me to take.
But I'm blessed to have you both in friendship - and should such come to pass, President Trump can't take that away from me.
GBN Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there are a lot of people that are greatly relieved to see Clinton not get it. In fact there are many, and I am one of them, that are absolutely mystified by what is so attractive about her being president.
Posts: 2975 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More e-spondence from my earlier email (admittedly between Hillary supporters) and in this case happily married woman in the Social Services field:
I've felt intense sorrow and worry today. I have to remember that she won the popular vote, so the majority of Americans truly want to be inclusive, to offer kindness and to care for one another.
Let's not lose hope. Let us look out for those around us who may fall victim to those who were incited to violence from all the hateful rhetoric.
Much love
Now an additional word from me: "Mr. Trump, I am an American, and you are my President. Godspeed".
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I've felt intense sorrow and worry today. I have to remember that she won the popular vote, so the majority of Americans truly want to be inclusive, to offer kindness and to care for one another.
Sorry, but it was not a majority, it was a plurality. The numbers found on line as of now (12:00 noon,Friday): 60,071,650 = 47.40% - Trump 60,467,245 = 47.72% - Clinton 4,123,062 = 3.25% - Johnson 1,237,116 = 0.98% - Stein 820,690 = 0.65% - others So, now what? Give it to the plurality, or have a runoff?
Posts: 2975 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From reviewing Real Clear Politics through the Election cycle, there was one poll, sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and University of Southern California, that consistently reported Trump was going to win. I guess you could say "the little Red boat in the big Blue sea".
Linked below is an NPR interview with the Poll's Director that I found interesting, and possibly others will too:
Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system
Michael Moore also deserves kudos for correctly predicting the election outcome:http://globalnews.ca/news/3026451/michael-moore-heres-why-donald-trump-will-win-the-election/
Whate he said afterward is also compelling:http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/michael-moore-joins-wide-ranging-election-talk-806604867876 Yes, Mr. Moderator, I know the links are too long, but I don't know where to cut them off. I think I'll be visiting Washington this weekend. With my age and health issues, I may not live long enough to see a decent person again occupy the White House!
Posts: 516 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Being 75 myself and that Presidents, save three exceptions since term limits were imposed under the 22nd Amendment during 1951, serve the two terms allowed, I too am confronted with The Donald being my last President as well.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Admittedly, I haven’t too many memories of 1948 Dewey v. Truman. I was seven and in a family where you were taught not to use dirty words - one of which was Democrat.
I remember being put to bed and my Mother saying "we will have President Dewey tomorrow". Nevermind that HST is considered the 6th best President to date.
Imagine waking up "the morning after".
Here is the famous photo of how sixty eight years ago, "they got it wrong". At least this time through, there is not quite the same evidential matter.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a month to go; here's "a few" from some of my "Lefty" friends:
1) The Donald will not serve out even one term; "he's had his fun" and he can say "I won". Leave that gritty stuff of presiding over the Government, and with a Congress that could prove to be "not exactly a rubber stamp", to others.
2) Ivanka will assume many of the duties of the First Lady. She is just as good looking as Meliana, knows more about "how the game is played", and is ambitious enough to want to "play the Washington Game".
3) "There's something wrong" with Baron. It looks like a high-Asperberger degree of autism. Who knows how much he was "Medded up" for his stage appearance, but he did not look very comfortable (and large crowds and noise make "Aspbies" very uncomfortable). It is also why Meliana wants to stay in New York with him.
4) Now "last but not least"; there was a reputable polling outfit that CNN hired to do "voter exit profiles". This outfit concluded that Trump "had it" in enough "battlegrounds" to give it to him. CNN said "thank you very much" (I'd like to think paid the bill) and otherwise buried the outfit's results. So they ended up like every other news organization "calling it wrong".
I think this Election is the second-most, 9/11 being first, "news story" of this "adolescent" century.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With a little under a month to go, I will say I have a far better impression of the Donald than I did on election night. The biggest, his proposed cabinet picks: People with real experience in the real world, not a bunch of political hacks. Also, these being people that honestly have the best interests of the USA in mind, not currying political favors or shaking in their boot about what is "politically correct" and what the rest of the world might think.
Posts: 2975 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 $$$ for each meaningless popular vote and definitely more for each electoral vote than any inflation adjusted in history. Nevermind the results.
PBS is very selective with their On-Demand offerings; they like to sell videos of their material and O-D is I think controlled by the local outlets and the cable providers. But if you can find it, watch it.
Posts: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the performance of Trump his first few days in office, I suspect that a lot of the third party voters that resulted in Clinton having her "majority" (can people say plurality?) would have voted for Trump instead. It could also be that some of the Clinton voters would have been Trump voters, as she was downright repulsive to many people.
Posts: 2975 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Holiday Inn Express Boca Raton (it's a perfectly good property, Smitty)--
If the bookies at Ladbrokes are to be believed, President Pence will take that ride from 1600 to UNOWARE Jan 20, 2021. However, they are not betting too much that Michelle will be in the MRAP disguised as a Caddy Limo - AKA "The Beast" - with him:
In short, the authors contend that Hillary had lost, long, LONG, before any of the bombshells, such as Comey, Bill's "meet up" with Loretta, and even the paid speeches to the Wall Street gang.
The only problem is that no one, including those paid the big $$$ who were supposed to know, knew.
Posts: 10952 | 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: 2975 | 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: 10952 | 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: 516 | 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: 10952 | 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: 516 | 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: 10952 | 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: 516 | 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: 10952 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
