Maybe Trump's victories in the Republican primaries were the result of voter fraud and a "rigged" electoral system. Just sayin'. At any rate, I think we should have a thorough investigation taking several years and millions of dollars to complete (similar to the Clinton email scandal) to determine whether or not the primaries were "stolen" by the Trumpistas. Just kidding.
1
It's too premature to call the upcoming election as rigged unless evidence can be shown otherwise. On the voter ID arguments, I'm curious as to how many are disenfranchised and is it statistically significant. Much like the same question is asked on the other side of that argument. I've read claims on both sides of this argument and quite frankly I'm not convinced by both sides that there is fraud. Mine is more logical, why not require some ID to participate in the voting process. Does the registration process support this kind of identity verification? Although it can be soundly argued that unqualified voters are made up of mostly the minorities and probably have less impact on a national election, it may not be the same on local and close elections. In order to participate in this democracy, a citizen must find a way to identify themselves, it seems like a fundamental thing to do. We need to better understand how this rule is being used to block qualified voters from exercising their right to vote. And how it's being used to prevent mostly the minorities from voting. Both sides need to be addressed; otherwise the confidence in our election will continue to erode the very foundation of majority vote gets to try their governing ideas.
You know how you can smell a looser?
They whine about how 'unfair' things are before the first vote has even been cast in a general election.
I'd rather see Jeb Bush run. He at least has more integrity than Trump.
They whine about how 'unfair' things are before the first vote has even been cast in a general election.
I'd rather see Jeb Bush run. He at least has more integrity than Trump.
2
The only people that I know with less integrity than the Trumpster are in jail.
Trump is toast.
1
I just watched Donald brag about his beauty pageants. Boast brag boast brag boast bag. Massive self exaltation. He is very quick to say how tremendously amazingly great he is. If you met someone like that in a bar you wouldn't even talk to him... so why vote for him? It is the business of foreigners. Free world and all that. We are allies and nuclear button Don is our business too. Please don't elect him. He whined that his opponents said negative things about him like a spoilt kid. Please American friends, do not elect a guy who TRUMPets how great he thinks he is. He is bad news and not just for America.
2
The thing to fear the most and it does not matter that the predictions are favoring Clinton (88%) to become the next president. Wikileaks, whoever it is behind definitely it is decided to mess up the american electoral system. The press and every body seem to indicate that the Russians are involved. But there it is more to this, why the government and security do not interving in something so critical as it is loosing the real democracy of the elections. At the end of the day US people need to decidde by themselves who they want as a president without the external influences of another country. Is it not the leak of names, emails, SS, addresses and other personal information by Wikileaks, the equivalent to an attack, Where it is our security to protect us from these intrusions. The government can put enough pressure to Ecuador, England and Sweden to prosecute somebody that it is not only causing problems at world level, but associating with psychopaths, for these crimes it also he must answer for the accusations of raping minors in Sweden. Why is so scare? Because probably he is guilty.
Wikileaks is being run by a coward and a criminal, who does this out of Spite.
Julian knows if HRC gets in, he's going to have to account for his Illegal Acts.
Julian knows if HRC gets in, he's going to have to account for his Illegal Acts.
2
I do agree that Julian Asange has faults. However, you have to wonder, why is it that our media did not catch this information? I hope you will agree that the information about the powerful in the DNC did show favoritism to Hillary and it needed to be exposed.
All the other military secrets that were shared and potentially harmed those that have served was probably an incorrect decision by those running Wikileaks. I do understand their perspective which is the philosophy of keeping 'no secret.' This is a very idealistic view point, much like those that believe just be kind to your enemies and they won't hurt you ... the pacifist ideal.
All the other military secrets that were shared and potentially harmed those that have served was probably an incorrect decision by those running Wikileaks. I do understand their perspective which is the philosophy of keeping 'no secret.' This is a very idealistic view point, much like those that believe just be kind to your enemies and they won't hurt you ... the pacifist ideal.
Polls look very good for Clinton and the gap may even widen as summer turns to fall, upending yet another historical precedent of races tightening in September and October. But there is one concern about these polls that remains for the Democrats. Confessing to a pollster that you intend to vote for someone who is widely seen as an undisciplined bigot is not as easy as marking a secret ballot. There is no room for Democratic complacency.
3
That all-purpose label "Politically Correct" very common also here in Australia to dismiss any progressive thinking without the use of an argument or rationale, has now been exposed for the vapid non-specific knee jerk response that it is; the term PC has now met its demise. Its about the only argument that Mr Grumpy has. Thank you so much Donald J for the demise and dis-creditation of one of the most asinine and lazy terms in modern politics.
3
We can all agree that Identification is an essential part of citizenship and required in order to do banking, be hired for a job, recieve government benefits, and most other things. We can also agree this is done to prtotect our citizens from identity fraud, and to protect the legal intrests and assets of individuals, companies and government. We can also agree its a fact most Western nations including France, Italy, England and nearly everone requires ID. Even nations like Japan, Libya, Russia, and China require ID.
Anyone being intellectually honest must admit the US election has a high probabillity of being "fixed" without an ID requirement. They must also admit the claim this is somehow a racial, or voter supression issue is made thoroughly bunk by the fact those same citizens need an ID to do banking, go to the doctor, get a job, or receive government benefits.
What Donald and the GOP fail to mention is they could potentially be the benefactor of the fraud this lack of an ID requirement invites. I call upon all Americans to demand a national voter ID paid for by the federal government. This must be done in order to address any concerns about poor minorities which Democrats call out and the concerns of fraud Tepublicans call out.
Anyone being intellectually honest must admit the US election has a high probabillity of being "fixed" without an ID requirement. They must also admit the claim this is somehow a racial, or voter supression issue is made thoroughly bunk by the fact those same citizens need an ID to do banking, go to the doctor, get a job, or receive government benefits.
What Donald and the GOP fail to mention is they could potentially be the benefactor of the fraud this lack of an ID requirement invites. I call upon all Americans to demand a national voter ID paid for by the federal government. This must be done in order to address any concerns about poor minorities which Democrats call out and the concerns of fraud Tepublicans call out.
In all intellectual honesty, what I can agree with are the claims made by virtually every specialist who has studied the matter that voter fraud in the US is so “vanishingly rare" (http://nyti.ms/2aQ2vjy) as to be statistically insignificant. I agree too that the dire warnings about the dangers of voter fraud are therefore strictly politically motivated, and note also that they come overwhelmingly from Republicans. I also agree the evidence shows clearly that these political motivations have been very simply to make it harder for Democrat-leaning non-whites to vote, which makes them racist in conception and intent, as recent court rulings in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and other states have concluded. On the face of it, there's nothing objectionable about providing a "national voter ID paid for by the federal government," though I can't imagine what force in this or any other universe could get the House as currently constituted to do anything but laugh the idea off the table. But the key would be making sure every registered US citizen actually got the ID. Voter ID laws have not done that. Because that has not been their intent. What they have done is disenfranchised non-white voters. That has been their intent.
4
We dont do government "identify cards" in this country. A Trump victory coupled with us having to "show our papers" would be grim indeed.
The Donald does not have verbal diarrhea so much as verbal flatulence. Entertaining because he is scary and just says what comes into his head. Saying whats in your head does not equate with telling the truth. What candidate thinks its OK to speak such bad language with children watching? Why would Mormons support him? Why would anybody support him? Beats me- I'm an Aussie.
Let's see - so non college educated folks are rooting for Mr. Trump. They can't count so everything seems rigged when he is loosing.
Unless Mr. Trump wins, in which case it was the Almighty's will.
Since most people who are mathematically disadvantaged also seem to have difficulty keeping track of their calendars, there is a pretty good chance they will forget to vote unless of course they bumble into their polling place by accident. Those who make it this far will faintly remember that they do not want to vote for the female candidate, making it a toss up between the men.
Well the rest of us can do the math.
Can they?
Unless Mr. Trump wins, in which case it was the Almighty's will.
Since most people who are mathematically disadvantaged also seem to have difficulty keeping track of their calendars, there is a pretty good chance they will forget to vote unless of course they bumble into their polling place by accident. Those who make it this far will faintly remember that they do not want to vote for the female candidate, making it a toss up between the men.
Well the rest of us can do the math.
Can they?
3
But I bet they can spell the word losing...
4
And basic math is taught in elementary school, not college.
1
Funny, I support Trump 100%, and I will soon graduate with a degree from an ABET and ATMAE accredited Engineering school. I will do so having carried a minor in Stats, and will graduate Cum Laude with my current GPA.
My guess the median GPA of these "College Educated" individuals who support Hillary is about 2.4, with the majority of their degrees in such intellectually demanding fields as gender studies, or some pseudo science like politics.
My guess the median GPA of these "College Educated" individuals who support Hillary is about 2.4, with the majority of their degrees in such intellectually demanding fields as gender studies, or some pseudo science like politics.
It is bad enough that a foreign adversary is using cyber warfare to influence the American Presidential election in Donald Trump's favor.
It is bad enough that Donald Trump took money from Russian oligarchs in 2008 to finance projects after American banks cut him off, yet refuses to release his tax returns to clear up the extent of his ties or other irregularities.
It is bad enough Trump advances pro-Putin positions like withdrawing from NATO, NAFTA and allowing nuclear proliferation and refuses to acknowledge who in his campaign changed the GOP platform to favor Putin's illegal Ukraine encroachment.
It is bad enough that Trump promises to repress the media and introduce illegal torture.
It is bad enough that the Republican Establishment supports this racist, unstable demagogue and chose party over the country that nearly 3 million soldiers died to defend.
But for Donald Trump to claim that the election is already rigged and therefore if elected President Clinton will be illegitimate and mobs should sow chaos in the streets is a direct violation of the American tradition of democracy and stability.
Trump has tapped into the lowest rung of national racism and hate. The anger is manufactured with scape goats and lies.
The NYT video taping the vile comments spewed at his rallies should let the Republican Establishment know exactly who is the con man they are backing with their reputations to lead our nation and the democracies of the world.
It is bad enough that Donald Trump took money from Russian oligarchs in 2008 to finance projects after American banks cut him off, yet refuses to release his tax returns to clear up the extent of his ties or other irregularities.
It is bad enough Trump advances pro-Putin positions like withdrawing from NATO, NAFTA and allowing nuclear proliferation and refuses to acknowledge who in his campaign changed the GOP platform to favor Putin's illegal Ukraine encroachment.
It is bad enough that Trump promises to repress the media and introduce illegal torture.
It is bad enough that the Republican Establishment supports this racist, unstable demagogue and chose party over the country that nearly 3 million soldiers died to defend.
But for Donald Trump to claim that the election is already rigged and therefore if elected President Clinton will be illegitimate and mobs should sow chaos in the streets is a direct violation of the American tradition of democracy and stability.
Trump has tapped into the lowest rung of national racism and hate. The anger is manufactured with scape goats and lies.
The NYT video taping the vile comments spewed at his rallies should let the Republican Establishment know exactly who is the con man they are backing with their reputations to lead our nation and the democracies of the world.
20
Maybe Bill Clinton is visiting Utah to fundraise and/or to do "grass-tops" campaigning of Mormon community leaders, to try to secure the Mormon-diaspora vote in Utah-adjacent swing states like Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado -- rather than actually trying to win deep red Utah. It would be interesting too if he asked Mitt Romney, who hates Trump, to support Hillary's campaign.
1
The first step in bringing us together as a people is the effort to truly understand the intent of the person with views opposite those of ours and finding a way to formulate a solution to our problems which reflect both ideas from different perspective. As a wise man once said, the opposing view may not be as "evil" as you think it is, you just have to learn to listen and clarify. Bill Clinton's success has been this idea of trying to reach out on the other side. So much so, that it brings pain to one's own belief. Perhaps, the Founders of this nation, that's what they hoped we would become better than themselves. Unfortunately, we seem to be farther away from it now than ever.
Most folks I speak to seem to think this is a stretch, but there are Republican states that are being put into play by Trump's disastrous campaign; so much for turning blue states red! I've done some number crunching based on the polling data available, and some extrapolation based on the current trends, and I'm convinced Clinton is going to win by a landslide in November.
You can read more on that here:
https://musingsofabrit.com/2016/08/07/predicting-november/
You can read more on that here:
https://musingsofabrit.com/2016/08/07/predicting-november/
3
The biggest flaw that I see (as VA election officer for 25+ years) is that there are no write-ins for president since we are not voting for the candidates directly, but rather for the slate of electors pledged to vote for (whatever candidate) -- and write-ins don't have slates. This is a perpetual problem in VA because people always want to write in (same problem in primaries but for a different reason).
4
I wish the media would remind Americans that it was none other than Roger Stone (and a handful of others) who organized and successfully implemented Bush's 2000 Florida recount strategy which handed the election to the GOP! So, YES, there should be no doubt that when Trump loses this year's election the country should be well-prepared for a litany of attacks to Clinton's legitimacy and that of our democracy.
19
"Rigged election"? Trump knows he is going to lose. He is firing up his voters for civil disobedience after the election. Perhaps he'll even remind them that "the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment to protect us from tyrants." (Let's ignore the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 - when George Washington used Federal troops to put down an armed insurrection of "patriots." His voters probably don't know that history, anyway.)
That is why his rhetoric grows ever more inflammatory, and why he tweets and shouts the most factually unhinged of conspiracy theories. That is why he campaigns in red states. He is firing up his base of voters, who consist of perhaps 35% of Americans who exist in a Right-wing epistemological bubble. They love him because he says all those non-PC things that they've been saying in their internet comments for the past 20 years. They believe in him the way the halt and lame used to follow faith healers in tent revivals in the 1830s.
The most fearful question is whether he can get the military, who support him by a 2 to 1 margin, to commit a coup and arrest Clinton following the "illegitimate" Inauguration.
That is why his rhetoric grows ever more inflammatory, and why he tweets and shouts the most factually unhinged of conspiracy theories. That is why he campaigns in red states. He is firing up his base of voters, who consist of perhaps 35% of Americans who exist in a Right-wing epistemological bubble. They love him because he says all those non-PC things that they've been saying in their internet comments for the past 20 years. They believe in him the way the halt and lame used to follow faith healers in tent revivals in the 1830s.
The most fearful question is whether he can get the military, who support him by a 2 to 1 margin, to commit a coup and arrest Clinton following the "illegitimate" Inauguration.
9
"all those non-PC things they've been saying"...
What we really mean by "non-PC" things is racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynist comments!
What we really mean by "non-PC" things is racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynist comments!
15
I totally agree with Nate. By declaring a "rigged election" in advance of the outcome, he has shielded himself in his warped mind of not being what he most fears going down as, a "LOSER". As an "expert" conspiracy theorist (birther controversy, Cruz's dad's "role" in the assassination of Kennedy, etc.) he is shielded from going down as the pathetic, sociopathic, loser that he is.
16
Only in his own mind, though! It'll be a classic defense mechanism-- and he'll become the poster *child* for the sore loser!
5
What if Trump is building up to call for a boycott of the election?
Think about it. All his warnings about rigged polls, is that really just to contest a close election or soothe his ego after a major loss? I don't think he'll back out of the race and let someone else step up to the plate. I could see him calling for a boycott maybe 8-10 days before the election.
Downballot GOP candidates will scramble to keep participation up, and many of them could still save their own bacon, but it could have a huge impact on the party overall. And because of their aggressive gerrymandering, a lot of their districts are only single-digit percentages away from flipping. Even a small boycott could have a huge impact.
And as much as some of us might delight in the idea of a massive Democratic sweep all up and down the ballot, we have to admit that a boycott would very seriously undermine the legitimacy of any government. Even I wouldn't consider it (small-d) democratic.
Think about it. All his warnings about rigged polls, is that really just to contest a close election or soothe his ego after a major loss? I don't think he'll back out of the race and let someone else step up to the plate. I could see him calling for a boycott maybe 8-10 days before the election.
Downballot GOP candidates will scramble to keep participation up, and many of them could still save their own bacon, but it could have a huge impact on the party overall. And because of their aggressive gerrymandering, a lot of their districts are only single-digit percentages away from flipping. Even a small boycott could have a huge impact.
And as much as some of us might delight in the idea of a massive Democratic sweep all up and down the ballot, we have to admit that a boycott would very seriously undermine the legitimacy of any government. Even I wouldn't consider it (small-d) democratic.
3
David Jones is right to point out that Sanders in no way could have had the friend network and party connections that Clinton has, and that it would not be crazy for people high up in the DNC to work against him. In the UK that would be fatal, the party would simply not allow such a person to run on their ticket in the first place....as assumed by Karl M...but the US party system is set up to endorse the person who can demonstrate they have the support of the members, not the other way round. That is why the primary system exists in the FIRST place...for the RNC and DNC to discover who can garner the support and thus, who can bring to the general election the majority of their membership.
The only sense in which elections are "rigged" is in caucus states, where is it so easy to set up a crowd dynamic that is anti-demcratic. Witness Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses getting the word out that one of the other candidates had dropped out and thrown his support to Ted Cruz. But Sanders did MUCH better than Clinton in caucus states.
The fact that the DNC chair was not neutral is a far cry from claiming the election was "rigged", that chair has no control over how the individual states run their primaries, and if anything would have more control over the caucus process, where Sanders took the day.
The only sense in which elections are "rigged" is in caucus states, where is it so easy to set up a crowd dynamic that is anti-demcratic. Witness Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses getting the word out that one of the other candidates had dropped out and thrown his support to Ted Cruz. But Sanders did MUCH better than Clinton in caucus states.
The fact that the DNC chair was not neutral is a far cry from claiming the election was "rigged", that chair has no control over how the individual states run their primaries, and if anything would have more control over the caucus process, where Sanders took the day.
9
He is not going to win PA. The Philly burbs will see to that....
5
Some speculate Trump would bow-out of the campaign. Others may consider that Trump is a gamer. He may be playing 'rope-a-dopa' to HRC's 'expected take-down of the Trump Movement'.
But what if Mr. Trump one-ups Clinton's fiscal spending policies and promises the moon - lower middle class taxes, less regulations, penalizing U.S. companies that off-shore good jobs, etc.?
I don't think that Mr. Trump thinks that the means justifies the end game. The game is all about winning. And the means is whatever Mr. trump decides on in real time. The policy book or webpages, as most policy wonks agree, is seldom read by voters.
We are in the Media Age. Marshall McLuhan's opinion that the medium (Media) is the message appears bang-on. The other key ingredient needed is a Demagogue that engages in what Noam Chomsky referred to as "manufactured consent" - indoctrination using media messages. In the case of Mr. Trump, RNC nominee, he has assumed the stage and became the live medium that crafts messages to spin irrational consent by ill-informed voters partial to hatred, racism and conspiracy theories. How else can an intelligent listener of Mr. Trump's comments explain his steadfast popularity?
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”
Many of Mr. Trump's comments make G.W. Bush sound like a genius.
But what if Mr. Trump one-ups Clinton's fiscal spending policies and promises the moon - lower middle class taxes, less regulations, penalizing U.S. companies that off-shore good jobs, etc.?
I don't think that Mr. Trump thinks that the means justifies the end game. The game is all about winning. And the means is whatever Mr. trump decides on in real time. The policy book or webpages, as most policy wonks agree, is seldom read by voters.
We are in the Media Age. Marshall McLuhan's opinion that the medium (Media) is the message appears bang-on. The other key ingredient needed is a Demagogue that engages in what Noam Chomsky referred to as "manufactured consent" - indoctrination using media messages. In the case of Mr. Trump, RNC nominee, he has assumed the stage and became the live medium that crafts messages to spin irrational consent by ill-informed voters partial to hatred, racism and conspiracy theories. How else can an intelligent listener of Mr. Trump's comments explain his steadfast popularity?
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”
Many of Mr. Trump's comments make G.W. Bush sound like a genius.
11
One thing that might tilt the scales decisively in Trump's favor in November is if there are a series of terrorist attacks in the country in October. Whatever Clinton might say, people will gravitate towards Trump (for reasons that have no basis in reality, according to me!). Many Trump fans think otherwise but many of those forces in the world who would like to see the US weaken, would like Trump to become the President. In him they have a ready-made icon to further their propaganda. Whether it is Putin or ISIS, they will be happy to see Trump occupy the WH. Many of his fans do not seem to understand this logic!
8
Actually, it would be easier for Trump just to locate and support homegrown, preferably African-American [to please his racist followers], potential terrorists than to wait for outside intervention to boost his votes. He could do it through readily identifiable groups on the internet, or find them using the real terrorists' own techniques. Hire actors to complete the scam with gullible teenagers, and execute an ersatz suicide bombing a week before the election. Then have all witnesses or co-conspirators rubbed out. Oh yes, he is a believer in conspiracies all right. Does anyone really think he would be incapable of doing that, unAmerican as it sounds?
1
Add to that; Wikileaks has said it plans on releasing more damaging email hacks closer to election. Assange, Wki founder, hates Clinton.
Today, new polling shows tRUMP is down 9 points in Michigan, 15 points in New Hampshire and 11 points in Pennsylvania.
Hillary is beating tRUMP 41% to 32% in a Detroit News poll of Michigan, a state the tRUMP's campaign says is critical to winning the White House. 60%percent of voters in Michigan say tRUMP is not qualified to be president.
In New Hampshire, WBUR found Hillary is up 47% to 32%. They were running neck and neck there 2 months ago.
And in a Franklin and Marshall poll in Pennsylvania, Hillary is up 49% to 38% among likely voters.
And Hillary is leading slightly in Florida and North Carolina.
So you might want to color PA. NC, and FL blue - and that gives Hillary 64 more electoral votes. Just winning any one of those 3 states gives her enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
Hillary is beating tRUMP 41% to 32% in a Detroit News poll of Michigan, a state the tRUMP's campaign says is critical to winning the White House. 60%percent of voters in Michigan say tRUMP is not qualified to be president.
In New Hampshire, WBUR found Hillary is up 47% to 32%. They were running neck and neck there 2 months ago.
And in a Franklin and Marshall poll in Pennsylvania, Hillary is up 49% to 38% among likely voters.
And Hillary is leading slightly in Florida and North Carolina.
So you might want to color PA. NC, and FL blue - and that gives Hillary 64 more electoral votes. Just winning any one of those 3 states gives her enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
6
I've sent small donations to the Democratic candidates in several of those important states, in the hope that we can elect, not only a Democratic president, but take back Congress, too. I hope many Democrats are doing that same thing. The Senate, the House, and red governorships are also very important. In previous years, it never occurred to me to support candidates in states other than my own.
18
By tRUMP saying the election is "rigged", he's leaving the door open to 2 possibilities:
1. An excuse for losing the presidential race. How can the great and powerful Donald lose with all those supporters appearing at his rallies (and chanting vitriolic and violent slogans per the NY Times article and video)? He'll never concede an election loss, but claiming the election is rigged would threaten and undermine the legitimacy of our next president (Hillary), our elected officials, our government and our democracy. So much for being a good loser.
2. If his poll numbers keep moving downward - a "yuge" downward - the only question, then, is how to get out and save face. tRUMP has laid down a foundation for his exit by asserting the race is already rigged for Hillary. The next step? Throwing Reince Priebus under the bus and claiming that BOTH major parties are conspiring to keep him from winning. The exit scenario isn't that far-fetched. Lots of folks, in fact, are already thinking it. The top trending question on Google yesterday: "Is Trump dropping out of the elections?" And if he abandons the presidential race and takes his ball with him, it might be too late, too costly and to difficult for the Republican/Tea/Obstruction Party to place another candidate on the ballot in all 50 states and DC.
1. An excuse for losing the presidential race. How can the great and powerful Donald lose with all those supporters appearing at his rallies (and chanting vitriolic and violent slogans per the NY Times article and video)? He'll never concede an election loss, but claiming the election is rigged would threaten and undermine the legitimacy of our next president (Hillary), our elected officials, our government and our democracy. So much for being a good loser.
2. If his poll numbers keep moving downward - a "yuge" downward - the only question, then, is how to get out and save face. tRUMP has laid down a foundation for his exit by asserting the race is already rigged for Hillary. The next step? Throwing Reince Priebus under the bus and claiming that BOTH major parties are conspiring to keep him from winning. The exit scenario isn't that far-fetched. Lots of folks, in fact, are already thinking it. The top trending question on Google yesterday: "Is Trump dropping out of the elections?" And if he abandons the presidential race and takes his ball with him, it might be too late, too costly and to difficult for the Republican/Tea/Obstruction Party to place another candidate on the ballot in all 50 states and DC.
10
I even have a 3rd reason in addition to my 2 others:
3. Ever get the feeling that when tRUMP says the election is "rigged" he means he's rigging it himself by his campaign, behavior, statements, etc. so he will lose? Think about it. Any other candidate would have imploded almost from Day 1 by doing everything wrong, politically incorrect, attacking and demeaning others, saying stupid and wild things, etc. It's like he's purposely trying to lose the election.
As someone who graduated college with a major in political science - and focused on elections and electoral analysis for most of my life - and a minor in economics, I am sad to say that not only am I offended about tRUMP's campaign, I'm embarrassed by it. This is not what an American political campaign is supposed to be.
3. Ever get the feeling that when tRUMP says the election is "rigged" he means he's rigging it himself by his campaign, behavior, statements, etc. so he will lose? Think about it. Any other candidate would have imploded almost from Day 1 by doing everything wrong, politically incorrect, attacking and demeaning others, saying stupid and wild things, etc. It's like he's purposely trying to lose the election.
As someone who graduated college with a major in political science - and focused on elections and electoral analysis for most of my life - and a minor in economics, I am sad to say that not only am I offended about tRUMP's campaign, I'm embarrassed by it. This is not what an American political campaign is supposed to be.
17
He's already making excuses, because HE is never wrong, right?
3
He could win Connecticut. If Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford Obama people don't come out for Clinton, and why would they in big numbers, the lower middle class people in towns such as the non-renovated, leaking roof town I call my temporary residence is full of a silent majority of Trump voters. Trump is like fireworks on the 4th of July: Totally illegal and non-advertised, but beginning at dusk, if you do not have a reflex to put on an army helmet and if your dog is not hiding under your bed, well your hearing and your dog's must be challenged.
1
Two factors not discussed: no matter what Trump says over the next three months, the media is going to get tired of it, meaning they'll be more than welcoming (bad) news from the Clinton camp. And bad news is likely, whether it be a terrorist incident or new material from Wikileaks, or something else.
3
Since psychology seems to show that when criminals commit crimes they always are thinking and saying others are doing the same, that leads us to the thought that surely Trumps gang will try their very best to cheat in the upcoming vote and everything else they possibly can. Maybe he can get his Russian helpers to hack the vote count for him. At this point that would hardly be a surprise.
10
It's interesting. This morning there are at least 7 stories blasting Donald Trump. This is the first article I have found that has an open comments section. There is almost nothing approaching criticism about Hillary. Is this balanced journalism? Why the closed comments sections? How about more balanced coverage of BOTH candidates, and both negative and positive analysis re: both candidates?
Because most of the right leaning media sites don't allow for comments. I think they are afraid of what people really think.
7
I missed the first sentence of this article on both candidates. This article is about dRump (as in as<). The story presented by the GOP candidate is self inflicted; I don't read Hillary acceptance of a Purple Heart as a draft dodger. I am a disable vet, I find his actions worthy of the blasting. He needs no committee for inflicting wounds when his arrogance of 'all important self' is spelled out loudly, daily.
He is deserving of the fingers pointing, he wants the headlines, he is getting them.
He is deserving of the fingers pointing, he wants the headlines, he is getting them.
5
About the electoral college vs the popular vote. Why not try this instead of giving all the electoral votes to whoever wins the state, do it by percentage. Example a state has 10 electoral vote and one candidate wins 60% and the other candidate wins 40%. Give 6 votes to the 60% candidate and 4 votes to the 40% candidate. This way you give both the electoral crowd and the popular vote crowd something on their plate.
Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
2
In other words, some votes are more equal than others.
2
The result of this change would make the candidates who cannot be everywhere spend more time, attention, and ad money in the largest states. I do not think it would give greater clarity, but raise the cost of running. For certain. And electors not being divisable, while 40% or 60% will not come out a whole number thereof will show further inequity.
More complexity to no end.
More complexity to no end.
This election is a crapshoot - literally. Given the extraordinary level of discontent with the political class, you would think there would be more cries for a serious examination into why Trump and Clinton are the best that the two major political party's can offer the American people to choose from.
Something is seriously wrong if this country cannot put forth more qualified people to be president than these two. Maybe we should start with the way the primary system is constructed and administered. Maybe we should simply chuck the whole system and have the presidency determined by popular vote. You know - one person, one vote. Americans should try practicing what they preach about democracy.
Something is seriously wrong if this country cannot put forth more qualified people to be president than these two. Maybe we should start with the way the primary system is constructed and administered. Maybe we should simply chuck the whole system and have the presidency determined by popular vote. You know - one person, one vote. Americans should try practicing what they preach about democracy.
1
Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates ever to run for President. There is no scenario in which an educated, non-sexist voter would comfortably group her with Trump in the "unqualified" category. Your comment says a lot more about you than it does about HRC.
60
Popularity vote has similarly been argued by Democrats during Bush v Gore but we probably need stronger arguments than what we are experiencing in our time. It may help to review history on prior attempts.
Were you hoping that all Primary candidates would be available in a popular vote election? That would indeed be interesting, if let's say the Democrats or the Repubs decide that in their Primaries, no more super delegates, just go with popular votes.
Were you hoping that all Primary candidates would be available in a popular vote election? That would indeed be interesting, if let's say the Democrats or the Repubs decide that in their Primaries, no more super delegates, just go with popular votes.
I believe the concerns on HRC is integrity; probably a lot less about her experience. You will hopefully start to wonder, how is that Trump is so intent on destroying the Republican party. By all account, he is a candidate that's doing everything in his power to lose. And not only that, to do as much to misrepresent the ideas of the Republicans.
Reasons GOP leadership sticks with Trump: Cant afford a moderate SCOTUS appointment - already offered one. CU might be struck down - and that would be the end to their big money machine. They can survive short term down ticket losses. They can not survive level playing field.
14
Donald Trump appears to be mentally ill. With the help of the GOP, we should be able to move on without him.
No party puts forth a psychopath as their standard bearer. It's time to pull the plug. If they don't do this, as a Clinton supporter, I'll be happy to watch the flames that were the Republican Party, while my candidate assumes the office of President.
No party puts forth a psychopath as their standard bearer. It's time to pull the plug. If they don't do this, as a Clinton supporter, I'll be happy to watch the flames that were the Republican Party, while my candidate assumes the office of President.
14
Trump has certainly earned my pity!
1
He deserves our scorn, not pity.
3
Will he still have it when he is sworn in as POTUS? Get out of your bubble. He stands a good chance of winning this election.
True, but a narcissist thrives on scorn and most other forms of attention which implies power. Pity, shame, and being ignored are their kryptonite.
3
Trump is solidly behind in the polls, and it is becoming clear that Trump is unable to control his impulses and comport himself in a presidential manner. Where does that leave Trump? As Nate Cohn concedes, Trump has only a narrow path to an electoral college majority, which requires him to win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. while keeping North Carolina in Republican hands. Lose any one, and it's Clinton's election. In short, Trump has a very low ceiling, and Clinton has a very high floor.
10
It's useless to make predictions about this election using traditional strategies/logic. This election is about who we don't want the most, not who we want. In the end, it will be about voter turn out and the Electoral College.
2
Voting for a minor party candidate won't matter in most states. Doing so in a few swing states could be decisive.
2
Do you think that somewhere in his psyche, perhaps unaware to him, he does not want to do the job of President? He loves beating opponents and winning, but if he wins he then must assume all the headaches of the job and there's no easy clear-cut "winning" in that job. So maybe he's shooting himself in the foot to avoid winning. What do others think?
16
Absolutely. I've long thought that. He wants to win,not govern. Plus, he'd have to downsize his lifestyle, sit through stuffy state dinners, do all the boring president stuff....He'll pull a Palin if he wins, walk off the "boring" job .
13
Agreed. Why in the world would Trump want to actually govern? Nothing in his past suggests to me that he is interested in anything that doesn't result in more money personally.
7
Which is why I have written more than once that I wouldn't be surprised if he comes out as a Democrat and wrecks the Republican party for good.
Nothing else makes any sense.
Nothing else makes any sense.
1
If Trump loses, it gives him the rally-cry he needs to keep His People frothing at the mouth. Mr. Trump and his offspring are not going away. He either replaces Bill O'Reilly or we get Trump News, Trump Radio....he's on the roll of his life. Trump has done more damage to the fabric of American life (private and political) in this past year than Fox has done in the past ten years ("I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true.")
27
Rw:
The private fabric for many Americans has been unraveling for quite some years now. Trump has not been in office yet wages are stagnant and nobody seems to know what to do about terrorism( just to name 2 items). If the political fabric is fraying that may be a good thing. We have entirely too many pols getting extremely wealthy from " serving " their country. Shouldn't it be good to unravel that?
The private fabric for many Americans has been unraveling for quite some years now. Trump has not been in office yet wages are stagnant and nobody seems to know what to do about terrorism( just to name 2 items). If the political fabric is fraying that may be a good thing. We have entirely too many pols getting extremely wealthy from " serving " their country. Shouldn't it be good to unravel that?
3
I think there is a large contingent who will vote to keep Clinton from the WH. That means voting for Trump - as a real change that is not viewed as being as harmful as continuing the course we're on. I had a complete stranger explain this to me on the weekend when I was out shopping. The electorate is energized this year.
2
I would never take political advice from a complete(ly irresponsible) stranger in a matter so momentous as a presidential election.
And I would also not waste my vote on a candidate with no chance of winning the election, just to keep somebody I didn't like from winning.
As I have pointed out several times in comments, politics is about compromise.
If you really have the future of your country at heart, it does not seem logical to let a candidate's personality outweigh the political program of the party.
And I would also not waste my vote on a candidate with no chance of winning the election, just to keep somebody I didn't like from winning.
As I have pointed out several times in comments, politics is about compromise.
If you really have the future of your country at heart, it does not seem logical to let a candidate's personality outweigh the political program of the party.
10
Margo, "voting for Trump...not as harmful as continuing the course we are on" Really? Have you not noticed how completely nuts Donald Trump is?
28
I think Margo is just repeating what a Trump supporter told her, not saying she herself agrees.
I run into Trump supporters myself, they are mostly white males, but some are white women, who despise Hillary first and foremost, and they despise Obama, (I suspect they are closet racists, but they manage to work fine with all types of people ) and they make their own pseudo-rational explanations or excuses for Trump's many gaffes. Eg they blame HRC for bringing the Khans out in public in the first place . They have swallowed the FOX news misinformation. They fail to acknowledge the dire straits the country was in in 2008 and improvements we have had since then under Obama. They choose to believe in the alternate reality as spoon fed them by Rush Limbaugh and FOX news and Trump himself.
My problem with Hillary is that there are some grains of truth to their complaints about her, which allows them to exaggerate her faults mightily. In the beginning Trump had some valid points he was making.
Now that Trump is completely imploding , my opinion is that we do not want to tell these Trumpsters that they have been wrong all along, they will dig in their heels to save face. We need to point out how his recent statements are showing how he really is unfit for the job without denigrating the people who have supported him up til now
I run into Trump supporters myself, they are mostly white males, but some are white women, who despise Hillary first and foremost, and they despise Obama, (I suspect they are closet racists, but they manage to work fine with all types of people ) and they make their own pseudo-rational explanations or excuses for Trump's many gaffes. Eg they blame HRC for bringing the Khans out in public in the first place . They have swallowed the FOX news misinformation. They fail to acknowledge the dire straits the country was in in 2008 and improvements we have had since then under Obama. They choose to believe in the alternate reality as spoon fed them by Rush Limbaugh and FOX news and Trump himself.
My problem with Hillary is that there are some grains of truth to their complaints about her, which allows them to exaggerate her faults mightily. In the beginning Trump had some valid points he was making.
Now that Trump is completely imploding , my opinion is that we do not want to tell these Trumpsters that they have been wrong all along, they will dig in their heels to save face. We need to point out how his recent statements are showing how he really is unfit for the job without denigrating the people who have supported him up til now
1
It is difficult to make projections or preliminary conclusions from polling when the race involves two highly unlikeable candidates. It is anyone's guess which way the race will go. Hillary could face another scandal, Trump could continue being Trump, it's a tossup. The only way he would leave the race is if Ivanka (the only one in the family with any sense and the only one Trump listens to) can persuade him, but why would she do that? Who would replace him and how would the Trump supporters take a rejection of their vote? We live in interesting times.
2
It used to be that most people pretty much knew which side of the aisle they stood on. Elections came down to a relatively small cohort of relatively uninformed swing voters who elected a President like they’d buy a car or a phone: they loved to upgrade, but no more than absolutely necessary. In 2000, that small group of swing voters liked Pres. Clinton. Mr. Bush, oddly enough, seemed more like him than Mr. Gore did-- a fun guy to drink beer with. By 2008, these voters were war-weary and struggling to stay afloat economically, and they were looking for a dash of optimism. Mr. Obama supplied optimism in droves, and it didn’t hurt that his eloquence was a clear-cut contrast with the chronically tongue-tied Mr. Bush. Sen. McCain never really had a chance: he was an older version of the same model, while Mr. Obama looked like an upgrade.
So who wins this time around? Who knows, but it seems there are a lot more potential swing voters in play. Maybe that has been the Trump strategy all along: he's a business guy, and he is undeniably attempting to disrupt the political “market”. If he can fundamentally change the game and then figure out the new rules faster than Mrs. Clinton, his distasteful policies may not matter. Conversely, if he isn’t able to change the game, and those fickle, upgrade-searching swing voters see Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump as equally unappealing replacement options, they’ll settle for more-of-the-same, which is Mrs. Clinton this time around.
So who wins this time around? Who knows, but it seems there are a lot more potential swing voters in play. Maybe that has been the Trump strategy all along: he's a business guy, and he is undeniably attempting to disrupt the political “market”. If he can fundamentally change the game and then figure out the new rules faster than Mrs. Clinton, his distasteful policies may not matter. Conversely, if he isn’t able to change the game, and those fickle, upgrade-searching swing voters see Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump as equally unappealing replacement options, they’ll settle for more-of-the-same, which is Mrs. Clinton this time around.
2
I heard some rumblings of his leaving the race. His narcissism aside he's gotta see his popularity tanking. You really think he'd stand the indignation of being the biggest loooozer?
l can see a long drawn out tantrum in which he escalates the rigging angle and then leaves in a huge spectacle of feigned disgust in the "system" making sure everyone knows how many millions upon millions of people who voted for him are going to be utterly destroyed with disappointment (and the US is going to go up in flames without him, the savior).
Please God that doesn't happen I'm so looking forward to savoring that moment (schadenfreude at its best) while I'm filled with joy and happiness for madam president.
l can see a long drawn out tantrum in which he escalates the rigging angle and then leaves in a huge spectacle of feigned disgust in the "system" making sure everyone knows how many millions upon millions of people who voted for him are going to be utterly destroyed with disappointment (and the US is going to go up in flames without him, the savior).
Please God that doesn't happen I'm so looking forward to savoring that moment (schadenfreude at its best) while I'm filled with joy and happiness for madam president.
36
I'm certainly not the first or only person to say it but I keep sensing Trump's campaign is simply advanced publicity for his new reality show, "The Trump Kids." Which I will not watch; I don't watch reality shows.
1
At least the election will be rigged in favor of the Democrats for a change.
25
The most significant issues I believe you are missing is the weakness of Hillary's support and the potential strength of the third party candidates. The VAST majority of people who are currently leaning to Hillary are really anti-Trump voters. The percentage of her supporters who actually prefer her according to all the polls I have seen is less than one-third. Therefore the key to ripping apart this election is getting the two third party candidates into the debates. Once that happens, I believe that both Hillary and Donald's numbers will drop below 30%. There are two ways this might happen. There are two lawsuits filed charging the Commission on Presidential Debates with violating the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Fairness Doctrine. The second is for Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party to actually reach the 15% polling threshold. Two leading polls now have them at 12%. It isn't that far a stretch to think they could reach the threshold. Once people believe they could actually win, watch how fast people desert Hillary (and Donald).
2
I think people considering voting a third party may start to recognize that such an action would be tantamount to a vote for Trump. While it may result in immediate gratification (in the voting booth) it would have wide-reaching and long-lasting negative impacts as a result of the one, likely two and possibly three nominations to the Supreme Court that the next President will make. Any hope for liberal, progressive or even moderate legislation being upheld would be out the window with a Trump presidency. Regardless of Hillary's flaws, I believe she will nominate intelligent, more progressive individuals to the Supreme Court.
18
Um… the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned by the FCC under Ronald Reagan in 1987, lost its opportunity to become codified law when Reagan vetoed a bill to make it so and was finally removed from the books so to speak five years ago by the FCC. Attempts to revive it as codified law under George Bush were abandoned after he threatened to veto any such proposal, and it has been steadfastly opposed by Barrack Obama.
And the Libertarian crew won't be a significant factor unless they reach the 19% threshold required to be included in the debates, though they are on the ballot in all 50 states.
Your claim that the VAST majority of those who lean toward supporting her are simply anti-Trump voters is not supported by statistical evidence.
And the Libertarian crew won't be a significant factor unless they reach the 19% threshold required to be included in the debates, though they are on the ballot in all 50 states.
Your claim that the VAST majority of those who lean toward supporting her are simply anti-Trump voters is not supported by statistical evidence.
14
Ross Perot pulled 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Remind me how many electoral votes he got.
1
Re: Nate Cohn saying the debates will help Trump because expectations will be so low.
Here's where the pundits always get it wrong. They said the same about Sarah Palin in the 2008 vice presidential debates. After the debate, the pundits couldn't praise her enough simply because she did not have a total meltdown on stage, and thus she "won" the debate.
Real people saw it as a complete train wreck, as Tina Fey's devestating debate impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live demonstrated (devestating because it was so accurate). After that, she was seen as a complete joke by everyone and John McCain got crushed in the election.
It won't be any different with trump. In the eyes of voters, he'll get humiliated and come out of the debates looking even more the buffoon. In the eyes of pundits, however, like Sarah Palin, he'll have "won" the debates simply by not completely melting down. "No knockout punch blah blah blah," the "race" is tightening, subscribe to the Times to follow the race minute by minute, etc.
It's all so predictable.
Here's where the pundits always get it wrong. They said the same about Sarah Palin in the 2008 vice presidential debates. After the debate, the pundits couldn't praise her enough simply because she did not have a total meltdown on stage, and thus she "won" the debate.
Real people saw it as a complete train wreck, as Tina Fey's devestating debate impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live demonstrated (devestating because it was so accurate). After that, she was seen as a complete joke by everyone and John McCain got crushed in the election.
It won't be any different with trump. In the eyes of voters, he'll get humiliated and come out of the debates looking even more the buffoon. In the eyes of pundits, however, like Sarah Palin, he'll have "won" the debates simply by not completely melting down. "No knockout punch blah blah blah," the "race" is tightening, subscribe to the Times to follow the race minute by minute, etc.
It's all so predictable.
24
53-46 % is hardly being crushed in a Presidential Election.
If Trump can win what McCain won and Indiana, Ohio and Florida
and keep Pennsylvania/North Carolina close - he does have a chance.
If Trump can win what McCain won and Indiana, Ohio and Florida
and keep Pennsylvania/North Carolina close - he does have a chance.
1
Nate didn't say what you say he said. He said that IF "he could fare well it would probably help him more than most." That's very,very different.
2
R:
Well I guess it's Tina Fey for president . She is way more influential than anyone else.
Well I guess it's Tina Fey for president . She is way more influential than anyone else.
It is part of a journalist job to report on the machinations of a candidate running for the president of the USA, however, it is very time consuming to follow the fantasies of Donald J. Trump. The most important story, that is not being reported as such, is that a grieving, Muslim American, Goldstar couple have taken him down. What a beautiful and unimaginable turnaround. Think of it. It took strong feelings; sincerity, a killed soldier and a couple whose faith had been maligned to bring the lunatic down.
Donald Trump will have many more hallucinations as the republican party pulls away from him as well as many voters.
Donald Trump will have many more hallucinations as the republican party pulls away from him as well as many voters.
35
Trump is no stranger to wasting the nation's time with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. In 2012, he assured us that President Obama didn't have a birth certificate, persisting in this delusion even after Obama produced it. Today he pretty much says "Never mind!" when asked about the "stuff like you wouldn't believe" that "his people" were picking up in Hawaii.
Thus, we can expect a "rigged election" mantra if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. After all, the Great Omnipotate never loses. Losing is for losers and he's a thoroughbred winner -- or a purebred something else. We shall hear this narrative for much too long as the man-child wallows in his perception of unfairness about the "crooked" forces that robbed him of his rightful political inheritance.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Thus, we can expect a "rigged election" mantra if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. After all, the Great Omnipotate never loses. Losing is for losers and he's a thoroughbred winner -- or a purebred something else. We shall hear this narrative for much too long as the man-child wallows in his perception of unfairness about the "crooked" forces that robbed him of his rightful political inheritance.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
50
I read today that one of Trump's campaign people is questioning whether Obama sought to enter Harvard as an American citizen - they are still calling for his school transcripts!! Unbelievable. (Maybe this is misreporting?)
3
No, it's not (misreporting). Cory Who's Last Name I Can't Spell apparently said it on CNN.
1
Doesn't matter if presidential elections are in fact rigged. Democracy is already compromised given the electoral college system and the fact that the presidency is determined by a small percentage of voters in a handful of states. The president should be determined by popular vote.
In this case, the real damage of crying foul before a foul is committed is the voting results will be deemed tainted and the winner will be demonstrably delegitimized. If Clinton wins, she will not have the support of Republicans and about half of the country.
If Democrats don't hold 60 seats in the Senate and control the House, Clinton is doomed to fail and again most in the country will pay an enormous price and there is a very real risk of a full blown depression. Red flags are waving everywhere right now. I hope people are reading the many other (non-political) excellent articles and stories published in the NYT each day.
It doesn't matter if elections are in fact rigged because ultimately it's the perception that will inflict enormous damage. For many years, the Republican Party has acted with impunity to tear apart the socioeconomic fabric that holds the county together. Sadly, some in the media have aided and been an accessory to these treasonous activities. I don't see anyway that this can possibly end well. The patient is sick and we're not even doing anything to treat the symptoms. Yikes!!
In this case, the real damage of crying foul before a foul is committed is the voting results will be deemed tainted and the winner will be demonstrably delegitimized. If Clinton wins, she will not have the support of Republicans and about half of the country.
If Democrats don't hold 60 seats in the Senate and control the House, Clinton is doomed to fail and again most in the country will pay an enormous price and there is a very real risk of a full blown depression. Red flags are waving everywhere right now. I hope people are reading the many other (non-political) excellent articles and stories published in the NYT each day.
It doesn't matter if elections are in fact rigged because ultimately it's the perception that will inflict enormous damage. For many years, the Republican Party has acted with impunity to tear apart the socioeconomic fabric that holds the county together. Sadly, some in the media have aided and been an accessory to these treasonous activities. I don't see anyway that this can possibly end well. The patient is sick and we're not even doing anything to treat the symptoms. Yikes!!
6
Cool. It's been four years already... It's that time when we get national amnesia about the Electoral College and why it exists. Just as predictable as the grousing about Daylight Saving Time, only less frequent. We don't use popular vote because we have many large states with small populations that would have no political influence at all if we didn't give them some leverage. Honestly, who would give a rodent's rear about New Mexico (0.65% of the population) if they didn't have a voice in the Electoral College?
8
Republicans ache to impeach whoever is a Democratic President. Too bad for them that Obama never gave them a sliver of an argument (although they tried to get traction with his use of executive orders). They will go after Hillary -- if she is elected -- the day she steps into the Oval office regardless of what Donald may be saying now about possible rigged elections and will try to impeach her. Republicans may even try to impeach her retroactively on actions of hers prior to her taking the oath (again, if she is elected).
10
@PStJTT Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but your math seems off to me. If we ditched the electoral college in favor of a popular election, all voters would have exactly the same level of influence on the election. Our concern should be for the PEOPLE in the states, not the states themselves. (Are you arguing in favor of EC votes for geographical features?) Under a popular election system, those NM voters you're worried about would count just as much as voters in IA and OH, who currently receive so much attention (not solely because of EC votes, incidentally, but because of uncertain EC votes).
The EC is, quite plainly, a relic of slavery, which isn't exactly a great reason to keep it. (Some might well argue it reinforces other relics of slavery.)
If you're worried about disenfranchisement, why not start by worrying about conservative voters in deep blue states, liberal voters in deep red states, or--most of all--third-party voters in every state? (And what about DC?! And gerrymandering?!)
Perhaps a better (though I think still unconvincing) argument against switching to popular vote is that it might further increase the already pernicious role of money in politics, because ALL voters would be targeted rather than just a few. However, that seems to me like an argument against money in politics more than an argument against a popular election.
The EC is, quite plainly, a relic of slavery, which isn't exactly a great reason to keep it. (Some might well argue it reinforces other relics of slavery.)
If you're worried about disenfranchisement, why not start by worrying about conservative voters in deep blue states, liberal voters in deep red states, or--most of all--third-party voters in every state? (And what about DC?! And gerrymandering?!)
Perhaps a better (though I think still unconvincing) argument against switching to popular vote is that it might further increase the already pernicious role of money in politics, because ALL voters would be targeted rather than just a few. However, that seems to me like an argument against money in politics more than an argument against a popular election.
2
My own interpretation of Trump´s "rigged election" comments is that he is beginning to innoculate his fragile ego against a potential loss. It would be psychologically devestating for him to have to face that he was exactly the kind of loser he so clearly despises. A rigged election would help explain that away. Mostly to himself.
107
Bingo.
11
All officers in the U.S. military need to be reminded that they took an oath to defend the Constitution and defend the country against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.... Just in case Trump and his followers have crazy ideas about not conceding the election and trying to pull off a coup d'état to overthrow Hillary Clinton as president.
Unfortunately with Trump, we can no longer assume that such things are unthinkable.
Trump and his supporters' use of words like a "rigged election" and pushing for executing Hillary by firing squad is not a joking matter. That's how governments routinely are overthrown around the world.
This is one of those times where we need to be reminded that a peaceful, functioning democracy is the exception in the world and it takes extraordinary effort to maintain that peace and harmony.
Unfortunately with Trump, we can no longer assume that such things are unthinkable.
Trump and his supporters' use of words like a "rigged election" and pushing for executing Hillary by firing squad is not a joking matter. That's how governments routinely are overthrown around the world.
This is one of those times where we need to be reminded that a peaceful, functioning democracy is the exception in the world and it takes extraordinary effort to maintain that peace and harmony.
101
Sad but true.
7
My concern is not the military. My concern is the presence of millions of preppers and militia groups, beyond Trumps (and anyone's) control, who may take matters into their own hands. It doesn't take much to see how Trump's comments on a rigged election and subsequent loss would incite a hundred thousand Cliven Bundys to grab their Ar-15s, a couple hundred cases of ammo and a truck load of nitrate to "occupy" federal, state and county facilities to "win back America" from the commies, immigrants and blacks. The ensuing chaos would be widespread, devastating to the economy, distracting for the military and government, and give Putin and ISIS a hand up in global affairs. Trump has planted the seed in their minds. Do not take the threat lightly just because it seems illogical. What grows from these seeds and in their minds is not logical and never will be.
42
The fact that we are even debating what a Trump-incited coup or smaller level insurrection might look like just shows how crazy Trump and his imbecilic supporters have turned the country.
25
Donald Trump seems to be hemorrhaging support in his own party, and I am not just referencing the high profile departures in the last few days. I occasionally tune into conservative talk radio just to see what the biggest stories in the grassroots movement are going to be. Last week and this week has had a huge surge in voters calling in to say that they cannot vote for Trump. They hate Hillary Clinton, but are not going to vote for Trump. It's unclear whether this means they will be voting 3rd Party or just not showing up at all. It seems that these die hard Mark Levin listeners are the grassroots "get out the vote" kind of supporters that Republicans have relied on for years. Most of these listeners seem to live in the south & sunbelt so it's possible the polls in this region are even for worse from Trump than we think. I think Arizona & Georgia in particular may be close in November unless he finds a way to unify the part of the party who actively get out the vote up and down the ballot year in and year out.
9
If Trump drops out under pressure from Republican Party leaders what percentage of his voters go with him, undermining attempts to strengthen election chances by appealing to a broad section of the electorate? Far better to try to push Trump to a narrow victory, then after January 20th impeach him for threatening American security through his attacks on our international partners. In one blow the Republicans establish themselves as responsible patriots no matter how much it costs and push Mike Pence into the Presidency. President Pence would be a huge gain, even at the cost of losing the Senate temporarily. Otherwise it makes sense to saddle Trump personally with a 2016 defeat, permitting the Republican Party to claim it was the consequence of a flawed, inept candidate but the underlying estructure and philosophy of the party remains intact. This would enable the Republican establishment to set the 2020 stage as a fake titanic battle between two fake titanic candidates......Cruz and Ryan. Trump would disappear down the memory hole except for whispers he was really a Democratic plant all along. But dumping Trump now exposes Republican leaders to charges of elite manipulation, a charge certain to be amplified by the Clinton campaign. It would not take the absence of large numbers of Trump supporters in states like Arizona to swing them to the Democrats. They do not have to vote Democratic, just go golfing or shopping. A vote for Trump elects President Mike Pence.
1
The Electoral College system does Not only matter when it's a close election.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 3/4 of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.
In the 2012 general election campaign
38 states had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (OH, FL, VA, IA)
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1 or 2 states would have elected the 2nd place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 3/4 of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.
In the 2012 general election campaign
38 states had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (OH, FL, VA, IA)
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1 or 2 states would have elected the 2nd place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
2
Which is why we're all driving around with distilled corn syrup - ethanol - in our cars, despite the fact that using it is counterproductive in many ways.
3
The best way to shake off Trump after the election is simply to ignore him. And this means the media not wallowing in the scandalous remarks he will surely make. He is a joke now but he is a threat. After the election he will be only a joke. Treat him as such.
86
Trump will more than a joke if he loses in a landslide. He will become the loneliest person in the world -- a Twilight Zone episode if ever there was one!
Please put a colon after "Nate" and "Toni" when using this format, thanks.
26
Points taken.
1
This comforts me. I don't see how Trump could win these three states, and he may even lose North Carolina. The fact that one polls shows the candidates tied in Georgia, of all places, bodes very well for the sane people of the world.
33
It would comfort me except all through the primary I kept hearing the reasons why he wouldn't win the nomination and now he's won the nomination. I know it seems unthinkable to many that he could win the election, but he could win the election. We aren't home safe until he is defeated. His folks get out and vote. We need to get out and vote too or we'll all be reading the analysis of why The Upshot called it wrong.
23
Considering the DNC email scandals and even the sitting president's comment, it might work warning that the election is rigged.
It's hard to look at PA and FL polls with Clinton holding 8+ point consensus leads, then toss in all these red states that are suddenly competitive--AZ, UT (???), GA, and see any credible path for a Trump win. Pundits keep saying there could be a turning point moment in Trump's favor, but given his and Clinton's performances so far, what are the odds of Donald Trump not shooting himself decisively in the foot several times between now and November 8th?
7
I think your 8% poll lead for Clinton is only in a head to head analysis.
When you include the Green Party and Ralph Nader ( I mean Jill Stein) Clinton's lead is razor thin.
When you include the Green Party and Ralph Nader ( I mean Jill Stein) Clinton's lead is razor thin.
3
If Trump loses we are going to hear a lot about how he was "stabbed in the back by the Republican Party", Redux Germany WWI. Makes sense too since one of his ex-wives said that the failed Austrian art student's collection of speeches was by his bedside.
20
Sane I am.
I do not like Donald J Trump.
I would not like him here or there.
I would not like him anywhere.
I do not like Donald J Trump.
I do not like him,
Sane I am.
I do not like Donald J Trump.
I would not like him here or there.
I would not like him anywhere.
I do not like Donald J Trump.
I do not like him,
Sane I am.
65
Candidly, I am thoroughly enjoying watching the Republican Clown Bus loss it's wheels and careen off the cliff into oblivion in slow motion.
11
You know, Trump is 70 years old. Yes, I know, he could live another 20 years and be a threat, screeching from the sidelines. But more likely he will fade into cartoonish obscurity. Despite the expensive suits that hide his bulk, he is overweight and I doubt he gets much exercise other than walking to his plane. His anger level is consistently high, a bad sign for men his age. Why would men in their 40's worry about how he will hurt their careers years from now? He won't be around.
24
I fear he has already paved the way for someone even worse.
9
Trump is already showing signs as though he is ready to "fall apart" or have some kind of psychotic break. What would happen if he simply walked away from it all?
5
Rigged Election? I believe that was Bernie Sanders plan.
2
Ahhh, the so called "Green Party". That is the group that put W in office (although they go to great lengths to TRY to deny it.) It's the group that was ostensibly formed to defend the environment. But, as a result of its election follies in 2000, has done more damage to this planet than any much maligned oil or coal company could ever imagine.
Will they pull off the same malicious feat again in 2016? Will they somehow undermine the Democrats just enough to make sure all environmental progress made these past eight years is reversed? Will they be the end of the Paris Agreement (Trump has promised to "rip it up")? Will the ensure fracking happens "everywhere without regulation" (per Trump)? Will they shut down clean energy in favor of more coal mining (supported by Trump)?
Let's please not waste a single vote on that misguided organization. PLEASE!
Green = Orange (Trump).
Will they pull off the same malicious feat again in 2016? Will they somehow undermine the Democrats just enough to make sure all environmental progress made these past eight years is reversed? Will they be the end of the Paris Agreement (Trump has promised to "rip it up")? Will the ensure fracking happens "everywhere without regulation" (per Trump)? Will they shut down clean energy in favor of more coal mining (supported by Trump)?
Let's please not waste a single vote on that misguided organization. PLEASE!
Green = Orange (Trump).
178
Amen, Will !!!!!!!
10
If I were a member of the Green Party, I'd be flattered to think that my organization consisting of several thousand people has the power to decide the election. Unfortunately, it's one of those urban legends that keep popping up during every close presidential race. Sadly, Gore lost because W. ran a better campaign even though Gore's IQ is probably higher than W.'s. His sighing during the debate turned off a lot of undecided voters. They have no problem with a smart person, but nobody likes a smart alec. Underestimate your opponent at your own peril and I see this happening with the Clinton people. A lot can happen between now and November and the Khan controversy will become a distant memory.
So if Clinton loses, don't blame it on a few thousand Bernie people. She's running against a buffoon and the race should have been a landslide but it's not. And you wonder why. She has only herself to blame for failing to close the deal with the American people. To blame it on a third party is is like saying the Warriors lost to the Cavaliers because of the referee's bad calls or because Draymond Green was suspended in Game 5.
So if Clinton loses, don't blame it on a few thousand Bernie people. She's running against a buffoon and the race should have been a landslide but it's not. And you wonder why. She has only herself to blame for failing to close the deal with the American people. To blame it on a third party is is like saying the Warriors lost to the Cavaliers because of the referee's bad calls or because Draymond Green was suspended in Game 5.
2
@Michael N.
About 96,500 voted for Ralph Nader in Flordia during the 2000 election. Gore "lost" by about 500 votes. Green Party voters are more sympathetic with Democratic policies than Republican policies; therefore, we can deduce that Nader votes did indeed cost Gore the presidency that year. And by doing so set back environmentally positive policies and enabled two devastating wars. Yes, the Green Party is responsible.
About 96,500 voted for Ralph Nader in Flordia during the 2000 election. Gore "lost" by about 500 votes. Green Party voters are more sympathetic with Democratic policies than Republican policies; therefore, we can deduce that Nader votes did indeed cost Gore the presidency that year. And by doing so set back environmentally positive policies and enabled two devastating wars. Yes, the Green Party is responsible.
64
I'm hopeful that for once Florida will go Democrat by a comfortable margin and end it all early. I am glad to be living here this year so my vote may actually help defeat Trump. Clinton did win by an overwhelming majority in the primary, but I suppose so did Trump. It's going to come down to how many Central/South Floridians come out to vote for Clinton.
75
This. Hillary Clinton should personally go door to door in Florida nonstop until midnight of November 8. She wins Florida and it's over.
14
In the 2016 Florida primaries Hillary Clinton received 1,097,400 votes while
Donald Trump got 1,077,221 votes, so it seems that Clinton has an edge there. However, Clinton ran against 2 other candidates while Trump had 5 opponents, so it appears that Trump has more merit there. The total number of votes for the Democratic candidates was 1,702,872 while the Republicans got 2,355,183 votes, so on paper Trump seems stronger there. Since more than twice the number of voters will probably turn up in the presidential election than in the primaries, it is difficult to predict who will win.
Donald Trump got 1,077,221 votes, so it seems that Clinton has an edge there. However, Clinton ran against 2 other candidates while Trump had 5 opponents, so it appears that Trump has more merit there. The total number of votes for the Democratic candidates was 1,702,872 while the Republicans got 2,355,183 votes, so on paper Trump seems stronger there. Since more than twice the number of voters will probably turn up in the presidential election than in the primaries, it is difficult to predict who will win.
1
Have any students mock elections been conducted for this election cycle? I am wondering both, how parents are transmitting their opinions to children, and also whether there is a reverse causality at work, with children's opinions influencing parents?
17
These are great questions.
5
Might be a bit early, since it's still summer vacation. In 2012, Scholastic ran its mock election from August 15 through October 10.
It'll be interesting when it happens, though.
It'll be interesting when it happens, though.
6
Back in 1948, my second grade class had a straw vote--of course, we all went home the day before and asked our parents how to vote. So when Truman won, we second-graders were not surprised. It was years before I discovered how surprised everybody else was!
Straw votes in schools might be really good indicators....
Straw votes in schools might be really good indicators....
1
This probably also has a lot to do with Drumpf's failure to raise money. The rats are deserting his ship. I, on the other hand, am sending money to democratic candidates in those, and other, states, to assist in the sweeping out of Congress. Hillary just raised $63 million, so she doesn't need my 50 bucks.
27
Not so fast there ChesBay. Trump and the Republican Party just raised $82 million in July. HRC and the Democratic Party need your $500, not just your $50, to help HRC, as well as the down-ticket candidates who are needed to ensure a Dem-friendly, if not controlled, Senate and House! If you personally can't afford $500 (not many can), find 10 friends and colleagues who might not otherwise donate to pitch in their $50 with you. Your investment of your time to achieve that goal is worth the other $450 and then some.
5
@JCG Or we could put that amount of energy into campaign finance reform so we might inch toward a system of 1 vote per person rather than 1 vote per dollar.
1
The irony is that with a different messenger, that is, a nationalist one but without Trump's personality defects and the racism around the edges, the Republicans would be 15 points ahead in the polls. And that tells you two things: 1) that Hillary is very unpopular; 2) that nationalism, stripped of bigotry, will be a winning formula for whichever party can get the message right.
I'm not sure though that either one of the major parties can actually put together a believable nationalist message, simply because the special interests behind both parties stand in the way. We may be looking at a three-party future, which probably means Democratic dominance in national races for years or decades to come.