Why would Trump rail against the Electoral College?


sqibOK, President-elect Trump isn’t as big an idiot as the morning paper would have you believe.

According to a squib atop page 13A, attributed to the AP:

Just two days before Election Day, Republican businessman Donald Trump tweeted: “The Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy.”

As it turns out, without the Electoral College, Trump probably wouldn’t be the president-elect.

A day after Election Day, Clinton held a narrow lead in the popular vote, according to unofficial results tallied by The Associated Press. With nearly 125 million votes counted, Clinton had 47.7 percent of the vote and Trump had 47.5 percent.

Yes, it looks like Clinton is likely to become the second Democratic presidential candidate this century to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College tally.

So, why would Trump rail against wining three Electoral College votes from states like Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas — one for each representative in Congress and each senator — instead of the one he would have received if only the popular vote counted?

He didn’t.

Yes, the tweet did go out on Nov. 6, but on Nov. 6, 2012, Election Day. Why he did it then is still a question since Obama won both the popular and electoral vote count.


Someone should ask him what he thinks now.

Oh, and why are the words “astonishing victory” and “stunning” in the ledes of the two AP stories on the front page? Astonishing and stunning to whom? The voters? The media? Is that news or opinion?




Might Nevada’s electoral college votes swing the election?

Obviously, we can ignore the polls that show Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 4 points in the popular vote, because that matters for naught. It is the electoral college count that matters.

You know the electoral college, the system set up to give smaller states like Nevada an outsized voice in the presidential election. In a proportionate system, Nevada would have only four votes, one for each member of the House of Representatives, which is divvied up by population. But Nevada gets two extra votes, one for each senator.

Similarly, instead of having only one vote, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, the Dakotas and a couple of others get three.

How the swing states swing this time could make a huge difference on Tuesday.

Many have Nevada in the too-close-to-call category.

Such as Survey Monkey:



And Real Clear Politics:



But The Wall Street Journal has Nevada leaning for Clinton:

Considering how the unions are pulling out all the stops by busing members to the polls and telling them how to vote, I suspect the WSJ is closer to being accurate. The paper has Clinton clearing the necessary 270 votes by more than 60.

That union ground game could also spell trouble for Joe Heck’s bid to replace Harry Reid in the Senate.












Rhetoric flies in every direction in the morning newspaper, but mostly in Trump’s face

The motto at Fox News is: Fair and balanced.

The motto of the newsprint melange delivered to your driveway two days before Election 2016 could be: Unhinged in every direction.

Here are a few clips from today’s newspaper.

Wayne Allyn Root:

The truth is we either send a strong message heard around the world and elect Trump, or the America we know and love is gone. Forever.

Because if Trump doesn’t win, no other Republican will ever be elected president again. President Hillary Clinton will make sure of that. Hillary will open the borders like never before to let in millions of illegal aliens who have no love for anything that made America great.

Charles Krauthammer:

At a time of such tectonic instability, even the most experienced head of state requires wisdom and delicacy to maintain equilibrium. Trump has neither. His joining of supreme ignorance to supreme arrogance, combined with a pathological sensitivity to any perceived slight, is an invitation to calamitous miscalculation.

Steve Sebelius:

Trump is less a political revolutionary than a marketing genius, a reality show ringmaster who knows how to capture the attention and imagination of the American people. There’s a reason he cannot articulate how he intends to accomplish even the most basic of his promises — they are meant for entertainment purposes only. …

Trump is uninterested in governing as much as basking in the glow of adoration.

Brian Greenspan:

Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to be president. …

Here’s a guy who says he’s a great businessman. But it seems like a lot of his business is built around stiffing small businesses and workers out of what he owes them — work they’ve done. He thinks it’s cute, or smart, or funny to basically not pay somebody who’s done work for him and say, go ahead and sue me because I got more money than you, and you can’t do anything about it. It’s not fair.

Here’s somebody who, for decades, has refused to release any tax returns. And now maybe it’s because he’s not as rich as he says is, but he has admitted he does not pay federal income taxes for years. Not a dime. So he’s not helping to support our troops or our veterans. He’s not helping to build roads or build schools or help young people finance a college education because he’s not putting anything in. He’s taken a lot out but hasn’t put anything in.

Kathleen Parker does offer calming advice:

As Nov. 9 dawns, Americans are sure to be mad as hell. Those happy with the victor will be re-angry soon enough when they realize they won’t be getting what they were promised. This is the good news. Thanks to the brilliance of our tripartite government, nobody gets to be dictator. And despite what nearly everyone seems to believe, our “broken government” works pretty well most of the time.

Somehow, the one “major” daily newspaper to endorse Trump seems to deliver more anti- than pro-Trump messages.


No, Mr. Giuliani, she is not stupid

Clinton with Giuliani (Getty photo via LA Times)

Clinton with Giuliani (Getty photo via LA Times)

We’ll have to disagree with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“The president of the United States, her husband, disgraced this country with what he did in the Oval Office, and she didn’t just stand by him, she attacked Monica Lewinsky,” Giuliani said in a video posted on social media, according to an LA times account of that online video. “And after being married to Bill Clinton for 20 years, if you didn’t know the moment Monica Lewinsky said that Bill Clinton violated her that she was telling the truth, then you’re too stupid to be president.”

No, she is not too stupid. She knew full well what was going on but for her the truth and character are irrelevant. She is willing to attack anyone at anytime for any reason if it serves her purpose.

She is malevolent, unprincipled, cunning, vindictive, manipulative, ruthless and self-absorbed, but not stupid.

Clinton once described the youthful, gullible, starry-eyed, duped, vulnerable intern Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Truth is unimportant to Clinton.


Trump had to fight referee, too

Holt, Clinton, Trump at debate.

Holt, Clinton, Trump at debate.

While I’m no fan of Trump, I do think the fight should be fair. He should not have to parry jabs from both his opponent and the referee.

But at the debate Lester Holt hammered Trump on his claim that he did not support the war in Iraq while ignoring the fact Clinton voted for it.

After Clinton accused Trump of pushing tax cuts for the top percent, Holt delivered the one-two with: “And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to defend that.”

Holt pounded the birther nonsense as if Trump were running against Obama instead of Clinton.

The moderator hounded Trump about his tax returns, but the words “Foundation” and “Benghazi” were never mentioned.

Holt, who is black, did not ask a follow-up after Clinton said: “Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.”

Nor did he challenge her claim that stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional because it was ineffective, when the judge actually said it violated the equal protection clause. The case was later settled.

Of course, Trump did manage to punch himself in the jaw with his ham-fisted comment about Clinton not having “the look” or “stamina” to be president. The look? Get a mirror, Bubba.


President uses Orlando shooting to call for gun control

Bodies from Orlando shooting. (CNN)

Obama immediately used the occasion of the Orlando gay nightclub shooting to call for gun control.

“Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle,” Obama said. “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be.  And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

Easy to get a weapon?

The shooter was a licensed security guard who worked for one of the biggest security firms in the world, one that contracted with the federal government. He had twice been interviewed by the FBI. Easy?

Of course, Obama never mentioned the fact the shooter was a Muslim who regularly attended prayers at his local mosque. Nothing to see there move along to gun control.

Hillary Clinton also immediately called for more gun control.

“We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. …” Clinton said. “Weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

Today she said she refuses to declare war on radical Islam.

Donald Trump, of course, used the opportunity to attach both Clinton and Obama over their refusal to blame radical Islamists.

“In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam’. For that reason alone, he should step down,” Trump said in a statement Sunday. “If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.”

Omar Mateen, the shooter, reportedly shouted “Allahu Akhbar” during the attack.

Daniel Gilroy, who worked with Matten G4S Security, told Florida Today that Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments.

“Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim,” the newspaper reported. “Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.”

Gilroy told the paper, “I quit because everything he said was toxic, and the company wouldn’t do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people.”

Have we learned nothing?

Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” had presented a PowerPoint before a group of fellow psychiatrists that included a rant against infidels, suggesting they should be burned in oil and beheaded. None of the doctors reported this for fear of being seen as discriminating against Muslims.


Don’t settle for the lesser of two weevils

According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has an unfavorable rating of 61 percent, while presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has an unfavorable rating of 63 percent. How to choose the lesser of these two weevils?

What if there were a third weevil?

The Libertarian Party, whose nominees will be on the ballot in all 50 states, have put forward two former governors as its nominees. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson tops the ticket with former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld named as his veep.


They tout themselves as fiscal conservatives but classically liberal when it comes to social issues.

Columnist John Stossel quotes Weld from a recent interview as saying, “We don’t buy government making decisions for people in their private lives, part of the Republican Party platform, and we don’t buy the Democrats’ penchant for spending money that we don’t have.”

press release put out by the Libertarian Party Wednesday after Clinton clinched the number of delegates to win the Democrat nomination called on Bernie Sanders supporters to switch their support to Johnson/Weld because of their stances on social issues.

“Johnson is a staunch advocate for marriage equality, and a passionate defender of hard-working immigrants, whom he notes commit fewer crimes per capita than do U.S. citizens,” it says. “He calls Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric incendiary and racist, and describes his proposal to deport 11 million immigrates as ‘just crazy.’ … And he’s a nice guy.”


The latter is something you can’t say about the other two parties’ candidates.

Johnson has a long record of taking stances on the issues, while Weld’s record is less well documented by OntheIssues.org.

But Johnson told Stossel about Weld’s conservative bona fides by explaining that on his first day as governor he furloughed 8,000 employees.

The was 9 percent of the state workforce, said Weld, who said he cut the state budget 14 percent in his first two months in office. “Piece o’ cake … I’d love to see the federal government receive cuts like that,” he added.


In the video below Johnson notes there is a website called isidewith.com that asks users a number of questions on the issues and then shows which candidates’ stances are most closely aligned to your responses.

You can give it a twirl and seek with whom you most closely align. I was 90 percent in agreement with Johnson, but also 83 percent with Trump. The only problem with that is that Trump at one time or the other has taken every conceivable stance on both sides of the political spectrum.