South Carolina

How Slim Margins Decide So Many Presidential Elections And Affect American History And Government Policies!

The argument that many ill informed people have is that “voting does not matter”, when just the opposite is true.

As we begin 2017 and the reality of President Trump in 19 days, a look at history tells us clearly how small numbers of votes or percentages of votes make a dramatic difference, as demonstrated in the following elections in American history:

1844– a switch of a few thousand votes in New York would have given the election to Henry Clay, instead of James K. Polk, and the difference was the small third party, the Liberty Party.

1848–a switch of a few thousand votes, again in New York, would have given the election to Lewis Cass, instead of Zachary Taylor, but Free Soil Party nominee, Martin Van Buren, former Democratic President and from New York, won ten percent of the total national vote, and threw the election to Whig candidate Taylor in New York.

1876—the dispute over the contested votes of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida led to a special Electoral Commission set up, which rewarded all of those three states’ electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, although Democrat Samuel Tilden led nationally by about 250,000 popular votes.

1880–James A. Garfield won the popular vote by the smallest margin ever, about 2,000 votes, and won the big state of New York by only 20,000 votes, in defeating his opponent Winfield Scott Hancock.

1884–Grover Cleveland won his home state of New York by about 1,000 votes, which decided the election, and nationally only by about 57,000 votes over James G. Blaine.

1888–Grover Cleveland won the national popular vote by about 90,000, but lost in close races in his home state of New York and opponent Benjamin Harrison’s home state of Indiana, so lost the Electoral College, as Harrison became President. The Harrison lead in New York was less than 14,000 votes and in Indiana, less than 2,000.

1916—Woodrow Wilson won California by less than 4,000 votes, but enough to elect him to the White House over Republican Charles Evans Hughes.

1948–Harry Truman won three states by less than one percent–Ohio, California and Illinois–over Thomas E. Dewey, and that decided the election.

1960–John F. Kennedy won Illinois by about 8,000 votes; Texas by about 46,000 votes; and Hawaii by under 200 votes, and only had a two tenths of one percentage point popular vote victory nationally, about 112,000 votes, over Richard Nixon.

1976–Jimmy Carter won over Gerald Ford by two percentage points, but a switch of 5,600 votes in Ohio and 3,700 votes in Hawaii would have given the election to Ford.

2000—Al Gore lost Florida by 537 votes, in the final judgment of the Supreme Court, which intervened in the election, and had he won Florida, he would have been elected President, even though he won the national popular vote by about 540,000. Bush also won New Hampshire by only about 7,000 votes, but won the Electoral College 271-266.

2016–Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote by about 2.85 million, but lost the crucial states of Michigan by about 10,000; Wisconsin by about 22,000; and Pennsylvania by about 46,000, to Donald Trump, so together about 79,000 votes decided the Electoral College.

So the idea that voting is not important, does not matter, is proved wrong so many times in American history! Every vote does indeed count, and has long range implications on who sits in the White House, and what policies are pursued, which affect all of us!

Republican “Firewall”, Added To Democratic Opposition In US Senate, Gives Some Hope To Control Trump Appointments And Initiatives

Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona
Cory Gardner of Colorado
Marco Rubio of Florida
Rand Paul of Kentucky
Susan Collins of Maine
Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Dean Heller of Nevada
Rob Portman of Ohio
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
Mike Lee of Utah
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia

We must realize that Donald Trump is not really a Republican or a conservative, and is impossible to figure out what his agenda is, so that means that there will be a “firewall” of Republicans in the US Senate, who at least in some cases, can be added to Democratic opposition in the Senate, and give some hope that there will be control over Trump appointments and initiatives over the next few years.

Not all of the above list will cooperate and collaborate together on all issues, but they all seem to be likely to fight Trump on some issues, and if three or four work together with a united Democratic Party in the Senate, Trump will be unable to accomplish all his goals, and he is likely to bitterly denounce these Republicans, and cause, by his language, more stalemate and gridlock, and prevent the most grievous nominees and parts of his agenda.

The most likely to oppose Trump are the following: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, and Rob Portman in that order.

However, Ben Sasse and Mike Lee, as strong conservatives, are also likely to try to limit Trump Administration goals if they find them objectionable.

The others–Dan Sullivan, Cory Gardner, Dean Heller, Pat Toomey, Lamar Alexander, and Shelley Moore Capito–may, occasionally, join with the members of this group.

Remember that seven of this group—Murkowski, McCain, Rubio, Paul, Portman, Toomey, and Lee have a new six year term, so are not threatened by Trump as far as their Senate seat is concerned.

Only Flake and Heller face election contests in 2018, while the other seven –Sullivan, Gardner, Collins, Sasse, Graham, Alexander, and Capito face election in 2020.

So 16 Senators out of 52 Republicans, fully one third, could stand in the way of Donald Trump, and if he went too far in abuse of his powers, could, potentially, join in a possible move to promote impeachment, although even if all 48 Democrats joined in, would still fall short of the 67 needed to convict and remove him by three votes.

Disarray At Trump Tower: So Many Candidates, Some Totally Dangerous Or Ridiculous! And Major Problems For Midtown Manhattan!

There is disarray in Trump Tower in Manhattan, and massive traffic issues below in midtown Manhattan.

Donald Trump seems to want to live in Trump Tower a lot of the time, rather than the White House, which creates major traffic, economic, and security issues.

Fifth Avenue and 56th Street is now barricaded, and traffic will become impossible, and trying to protect the President-Elect is a security nightmare, as it requires tremendous manpower of New York City Police and the Secret Service, and is creating problems for businesses, auto traffic, and pedestrians, which will only get worse.

But also, Trump seems totally disorganized, and rumors are spreading of some candidates for different positions in the government who are totally dangerous or ridiculous!

For Secretary of State, the candidates seem to include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton; South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley; and former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The first two named are dangerous for the State Department, as they have no sense of personal diplomacy, and are both loud mouths, with Bolton being the more scary. Haley adds good looks and a woman to the list, but no real qualifications to be Secretary of State. Mitt Romney is the most credible, but really has no diplomatic experience to speak of. And Haley and Romney were bitter opponents of Trump, and did not endorse him.

Then we have the crazy idea of Sarah Palin being Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Energy!

Already, we have Stephen Bannon as Chief Counselor and Senior Adviser in the White House, despite his racist, nativist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, homophobic, and misogynist behavior and utterances. And we have General Michael Flynn, fired by Barack Obama from the Defense Intelligence Agency leadership in 2014, who has also shown elements of antisemitism, and suggested that Hillary Clinton be jailed, to be National Security Adviser. These two appointments do not require Senate confirmation, but it is clear with the chaos in Trump Tower, that Donald Trump will have problems with confirmation of some of his cabinet and other appointments.

Trump Support Hemorraghing Rapidly In “Red” States!

Three weeks to go until the Presidential Election of 2016, and it seems clear, by public opinion polls,that Donald Trump’s support in “Red” states is hemorrhaging rapidly.

His mishandling of the sexual assault allegations has turned many Republicans against him, and his condemnation of Republican leadership, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, is damaging his ability even to hold on to the loyal Republican states.

So we have evidence that the following states are possible pick ups by Hillary Clinton:

North Carolina
Georgia
Arizona
Utah
Indiana
Missouri
South Carolina
Texas
Alaska
Mississippi
Kansas
Nebraska (or at least the Omaha area)

One can be quite certain that many of these states will, in the end, still back Donald Trump, but by a much smaller margin than for Mitt Romney in 2012 or John McCain in 2008.

But the first four on the above list look ripe for being picked up by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

I will post an entry close to the election on my final projections, and I remind my readers that, independent of Nate Silver in 2012, I projected, as he did, the precise electoral vote distribution-332-206.

I also will publish my projection on History News Network, and will be on radio with Jon Grayson of CBS St Louis, KMOX 1120 AM, Overnight with Jon Grayson, one of the radio shows I have been on, and posted on the right side of the blog, on Election Night at 1 AM ET on November 9, a few hours after the polls have closed, to comment on the results.

Donald Trump Seems In Free Fall In Many “Red ” States After Access Hollywood Tape And Accusations Of Sexual Assault!

All of a sudden, it seems possible that Donald Trump may lose many “red” states. This has occurred as news of the Access Hollywood tape and multiple accusations of sexual assault by a multitutude of women, who live far apart and do not know each other, keep on becoming news. The question is why would these women put themselves through publicity if it was not true, as they are gaining nothing financially from the revelations. So suddenly, Trump is in trouble, just trying to keep “red” states when he needs to win “swing” states.

Hillary Clinton leads in North Carolina, and is within the margin of error in Georgia and Arizona in many polls.

Also, Utah looks in play with Mormon dislike of Trump, and the independent candidacy of Evan McMullin, in a very tight four person race with Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Gary Johnson.

Additionally, Missouri and Indiana have very small leads for Trump, with Clinton apparently gaining.

And even South Carolina and Texas have close leads for Trump, when for a Republican nominee, it should be an easy win.

And get this, even Alaska looks like it might give Hillary Clinton a chance to win that small populated state.

The odds, of course, are that Hillary Clinton will only win North Carolina, and likely Georgia and possibly Arizona.

But the idea of close races in six other states is mind boggling!

The Myth That The Election Victory Of Hillary Clinton Is Narrowing: The Misunderstanding Of The Electoral College As Against Polls

It is amazing to this author and blogger that so many Americans seem to think that the election victory of Hillary Clinton is narrowing, according to some public opinion polls.

There is a failure to understand that news media have an investment in building up that there is a real battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, when there is absolutely no realistic chance for Donald Trump to overcome the deficits that he has created for himself over the past 15 months.

The point to be made is that it is the Electoral College and 270 electoral votes that elects our President, and in fact, as George W. Bush reminded us, a candidate can actually lose the national popular vote and still be elected President, as happened in 2000, and also in 1824, 1876, and 1888.

There are 18 “Blue” states and the District of Columbia, which have voted Democratic from 1992 on, and are not about to change. But even if Pennsylvania and Wisconsin somehow surprised us, which is not going to happen in the real world, Hillary Clinton is presently ahead in all of the “Swing” states that Barack Obama won, plus she is even or slightly ahead in a number of “Red” states.

If she wins the likely 242 from the 18 states and DC, all Hillary needs is Florida OR Ohio and Virginia OR a combination of other “Swing” or “Red” states, the latter including, possibly North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah, Montana, South Carolina, and even in new polls the states of Texas and Mississippi, and even possibly one vote in Nebraska in the Omaha area, since Nebraska, along with Maine, allows splitting of electoral votes.

To believe that Hillary will somehow lose is totally preposterous, while it can be said that IF the Republican Party had nominated John Kasich, or even possibly, Jeb Bush, all bets would have been off.

And while Gary Johnson will have some effect in some states, the Libertarian nominee is not going to be the spoiler he thought he would be.

And the Green Party and Jill Stein—just forget it, not worth one’s time and attention!

Another Nail In The Coffin Of Donald Trump: The Dallas Morning News Editorial Endorsing Hillary Clinton

The Dallas Morning News is a conservative newspaper, which has endorsed Republican Presidential nominees since World War II, but this time they are endorsing Hillary Clinton, and have made it clear that they consider Donald Trump totally unqualified for the Oval Office.

This lack of an endorsement comes as some polls show Texas in play, along with Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Montana, and Utah, all possibly going “Blue” for this election, a development that no one really believes possible, but it seems it could happen.

Donald Trump has made many Republicans and conservatives alienated, with the closest alienation earlier being Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964, which led to a massive defeat, including states that one would have expected to vote Republican.

It is clear that Donald Trump has sealed his fate by his words and actions, along with his corruption and past scandals and failures.

He is ill prepared to be Commander in Chief, has poor judgment and temperament, and his loose mouth is a danger to diplomacy and international order.

The Possibility Of An All Female Presidential-Vice Presidential Team To Lead America: Hillary Clinton And?

America could be on the brink of seeing the first all female Presidential ticket!

It is rumored that Hillary Clinton might pick one of the following female running mates:

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar

Washington Senator Patty Murray

Washington Senator Maria Cantwell

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow

The most exciting is Elizabeth Warren, but the long range future possible female President, after a theoretical eight years as Vice President, would be Amy Klobuchar or Maria Cantwell, both from safe blue states, and likely to be replaced by another Democrat.

The problem with Warren or McCaskill or Murray or Stabenow is their age, and the future in eight years!

Meanwhile, the Republicans might have South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as a potential Vice Presidential running mate. Another possibility would be New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez.

No Comparison Between David Duke And Robert Byrd! Or For That Matter, Hugo Black, George C. Wallace, Or Strom Thurmond!

A massive controversy has arisen over the initial refusal of Donald Trump to repudiate the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke of Louisiana, who ran for Governor 25 years ago, and later for the US Senate as a Republican, losing both times, and being denounced by President George H. W. Bush and other reputable Republican leaders in the 1990s.

Those defending Trump’s hesitation are now comparing the despicable hate monger David Duke, who is not only a racist but also an anti Semite of a major order, to the late Democratic US Senator Robert Byrd, who served longer in the Senate than anyone in American history (from 1959 to his death in 2010).

No one is saying that Byrd cannot be criticized, as he was a youthful member of the Klan in West Virginia, and opposed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.  But over time, he evolved, and repudiated his despicable past, and even supported Barack Obama in 2008 for the nomination and election as President, and helped to make ObamaCare make a successful journey through the legislative process, including being brought in a wheel chair to cast votes for the legislation, in his last months of life.

David Duke has never done anything to repudiate his past record, and is still defiant as a racist and anti Semite, unlike Byrd.

Also, former Alabama Senator Hugo Black sat on the Supreme Court for 34 years (1937-1971), repudiating by his words and actions the fact that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in his youth.

Also, Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, after running racist campaigns for President in 1968 and 1972, repudiated his past and apologized, although he was never, actually, a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Even Strom Thurmond, who ran as  a racist for President in 1948, and served in the US Senate from South Carolina from 1954-2003,  later modified his views, even if not formally apologizing for his earlier behavior and statements.

No one is saying that we cannot criticize Byrd, Black, Wallace, and Thurmond, but none of them were on the level lifetime on racism and anti Semitism of David Duke, so the comparison is preposterous!

1992–Young, Southern, Appealing Ticket (Democrats); 2016–Young, Southern, Appealing Ticket (Republicans)?

In 1992, the Democrats offered a young, Southern, appealing ticket—Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas (age 46) and Senator Al Gore of Tennessee (44).  They were both photogenic and represented a new generation of leadership after Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.  The fact that both were from the South did not undermine their candidacies.

Now in 2016, we have a potential similarity offered by the Republicans—Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (age 45) and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina (45 on Inauguration Day in 2017).  They are young, Southern, appealing, photogenic, and represent a new generation of leadership.  And they are ethnic minorities, with parents from Cuba and India.

Could the Republicans revive their party and save it from Donald Trump, age 70, and an outsider who is destroying the Republican Party?

We shall see in the coming days, weeks, and months!