In fact, much has been made over the past couple of elections about that so called "blue wall" and how it was possible that a Democratic President might be a forgone conclusion for some time. How many articles were written about how many states have been "blue" for X amount of elections in a row? How many times did you hear about how many paths to the Presidency that Hillary Clinton had, vs how Trump had to literally "run the table" to get to 270? How often was this attributed to a Democratic advantage in the electoral college?
Certainly the progressive push for an increase in Presidential powers were directly related to the concept that the Presidency would be difficult for Republicans to win "because" of the electoral college and the so called "blue wall". The idea had been to increase Presidential power while simultaneously reducing the power of Congress (especially the House) where Republicans had built advantages.
Looking back, I heard no complaints (either from liberals or conservatives) regarding the "blue wall" or the electoral college. No suggestion on the left that this "blue wall" posed any sort of threat to democracy, and no whining from the right about how unfair it might be that Trump could possibly win a popular vote victory and still not win the Presidency. Certainly I never read either argument being made "here" by anyone on either side.
The current calls for the abolishment of the electoral college are not rooted in any pie in the sky sense of fairness. They are whiny crybaby knee jerk sour grape tantrums that only found their way to mainstream forums "because" the results didn't go as expected for the left. Certainly if the popular vote had gone to Trump, and the Electoral College went to Clinton, nobody from the left would have complained. While I am sure that some on the right would have complained, I personally would not have been part of those complaints. Nor would I expect anyone who lives anywhere other than California and New York to see any advantage to a popular vote election.
Statements being made that there is some sort of "hypocrisy" to all of this is laughable. If you are looking for "hypocrisy" look for all the statements made "here" and elsewhere regarding how dangerous it was to our democracy and our election process that Donald Trump might not have accepted the election results, and would have been willing to possibly even go to court and request recounts. But there are no such complaints being waged when the election results are not being accepted by those on the left. Suddenly, these things that were so dangerous and damaging to the very integrity of our great nation are much needed safeguards that will better facilitate trust and transparency in the system.
Moreover, many on the left are in open defiance of the Presidency of Donald Trump. Calling specifically for the very same obstruction that they railed against when Obama was President. I wonder out loud if these same people don't see the very same "threats" to our election process and democracy, when they are the ones who openly refuse to accept the results?
7 comments:
I get a chuckle out of the so-called Hamilton Electors. This group thinks they can convince Republican electors to ignore the voters and cast their votes for a non-candidate or ex-candidate, or random Republican since their first choice said forget it.
The first elector to back it, Christopher Suprun of Texas, is by default at the tip of the movement. After reading his rambling, not very coherent rationalization in the NY Times, it beggars belief that anyone would actively seek to emulate him. Even if you agreed with his objective, could you imagine following that lead? Sure, betray the trust of Texas voters, become a political pariah, sacrifice your reputation and your career if it depends on political patronage, at least you followed the clarion call of the guy who thinks the Twitter tweets lack decorum and doesn't agree with some Cabinet picks! That'll show everyone what you're made of.
Hey, maybe it works and Republicans will have overturned the will of Republican voters - boiling down to proving that Republicans don't get to vote for President after all. That's grand strategy to keep Trump from damaging the Party; destroy it before he gets the chance. It's horrible but I can't help laughing.
Then I came across a guy trying to get people to sign a petition. His idea is to convince Hillary Clinton to give up ALL of her electors, sign them over to Republicans to will go rogue and select someone else, a republican "to be determined". LOL I'd like to see that but ... Hillary Clinton is the last person in Washington that would actually go for that. For a LOT of reasons that only the most gullible and naive would dispute.
I've got one just as plausible as any of these schemes, let's start a petition asking Obama to "Reverse Pardon" both Clinton and Trump, step down and let Joe Biden take over, and then have Biden elected by general acclamation.
Even if I accept this " While I am sure that some on the right would have complained, I personally would not have been part of those complaints. Nor would I expect anyone who lives anywhere other than California and New York to see any advantage to a popular vote election."
Your entire diatribe i based on a false pretension.
During the campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly declared that if he lost the election, it would have been because the election was rigged.
When questioned directly, he would never say that he would accept his defeat as legitimate. Not ONCE
Your lack of ability to be reasonable, telling you the truth, is as wasteful as it is to feed a dead person.
The "blue wall" was very simple, the Democrats and most polling outfits underestimated the turn out in the rural areas. Hillary Clinton got almost exactly the same number of votes, as Obama did in 2012 in the urban areas. The difference was that the less educated, blue collar working class came out in big numbers in the blue states, many of whom voted for Obama both times.
Nice try, buddy. but it just doesn't work.
Moreover, many on the left are in open defiance of the Presidency of Donald Trump. Calling specifically for the very same obstruction that they railed against when Obama was President.
You were specifically in favor of that tactic from day one of his inauguration. So who's the hypocrite?
I stated clearly the other day that I hope that Scheumer and Trump can work together to pass the infrastructure improvements we have been putting off for decades. But it they tie that to a trickle down tax cut, the deficit will rocket faster than it did under Saint Ronald of he Reagan, who increased fees for services and some tax increases. I son' know if Trump is capable of such a level of thought. He's far too impulsive and going along with he last idea throne his way.
Well Roger...
I challenge you to search through all of my writings. I don't exactly hide my opinions on subjects. I have never once written anything remotely negative about the electoral college... and unlike some of you out there, my convictions on these subjects do not run willy nilly based on single events.
I have (in fact) been more than supportive of the electoral college even prior to this election. I will continue to be supportive even if the roles are reversed in 2020 and a Democrat wins the EC and a Republican wins the Popular vote.
At the end of the day, this is nothing more, nothing less, than a states right issue. Something that I have always believed strongly in, as it is mentioned not once, but twice in the bill of rights. It's the state's right to hold their elections and offer their electoral college votes. Each state "should" be allowed to be contested, even at a Presidential level. It "should" matter who wins each state. I would have to turn my back on the entire concept of state rights, and become some sort of federalist in order to change my mind on this. Not happening.
So your "false pretense" that you suggest is nothing more than your imagination... likely based on how "you" see yourself reacting to things, rather than actually judging me by my past and present beliefs and opinions on this subject.
In other words, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit over something I didn't think was important a week before the election... like you are doing.
"I challenge you to search through all of my writings. I don't exactly hide my opinions on subjects. I have never once written anything remotely negative about the electoral college... and unlike some of you out there, my convictions on these subjects do not run willy nilly based on single events."
I never said you said anything negative about the electoral college. We disagree that the "states right" issue on the only national election for the chief executive. In just the last sixteen years, the candidate who got the majority of American voters, no matter where they live did not get their will. I disagree that state lines are more important than actual voters for that office. I don't have a problem with the Senate on state rights, because they are within each state, but the majority of a few states overrules the will of the majority.
My opinion on your perception is debatable, because it is an opinion, not an indisputable fact. You say I throw hissy fits, look at your buddy Jimmy is always throwing an angry fit. You never call him on that.
Separately, I tried to remember one of he biggest moments in our history, the Pearl Harbor attack, 75 years ago, as the last of the survivors are leaving us, you let rrb put up a silly video with nothing but stupidity.
Roger -
- The taller candidate didn't win in some of the past elections.
- The candidate with the longer last name didn't win in some of the past elections.
- The older candidate didn't win in some of the past elections.
What difference does it make? None of those criteria are used to determine if a person is elected President.
For the love of god, understand that we "do not" hold a national election. We have 50 states and the District of Columbia holding separate elections for their electoral college votes.
Popular vote is a completely irrelevant made up statistic. It has as much impact as who is taller, who's name is longer, or who is older. Zero.
This is the way it is. This is the way it's going to be for the foreseeable future. You're best option at this point, Roger... is for California to secede from the Union. As has been pointed out by many people, quite Obviously California is completely out of step (or out of whack) with the rest of the country. You can run your state anyway you want it... and you can drive every sane conservative person out of your state. But you will never have more than your Electoral Votes and it will never matter "how much" a Democrat wins your crazy state by. You cannot just take your "left over" votes and have them impact other state elections. Sorry.
Roger - I offered you your "own" blog prior to the split. You refused to go off to write on your own, so I created a new blog exclusive to me instead. It seems odd that you keep complaining about sharing a blog with Rat, when you had a perfect opportunity to have your own autonomy.
Post a Comment