Democratic Party

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!

The Growing Threat Of Donald Trump Against The Life Of His Opponent, Hillary Clinton: NOT A Laughing Matter!

Donald Trump has done it again–a threat against the life of his Democratic Presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton.

On August 8, Trump spoke of “Second Amendment” remedies, that those who oppose the limiting of gun rights in any fashion, and see Hillary as a threat to those rights, might have a solution to the threat, implying action against Clinton.

He was roundly condemned for this assertion, and Michael Hayden, the former head of the CIA and NSA, said if anyone outside the hall where the speech was given had said such a thing, he would be in a police wagon being questioned, and facing prosecution.

And Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, referring to the Newtown Massacre that killed 24 young children and six teachers in December 2012, said Trump was reckless and would have blood on his hands if such an event occurred.

But Trump went ahead and said on September 16 that Clinton should agree to have her Secret Service team lay down their arms and “see what happens”, so he has not learned from the earlier incident.

Trump should be told now that his freedom of speech does NOT include such reckless language that could endanger his opponent, and that if something untoward were to happen, that he could face prosecution for having presented “a clear and present danger”, under Supreme Court case Schenck V US (1919), which limits freedom of speech.

And this is all happening in the month when there were eight incidents involving President and assassination threats, and also the assassination of Huey Long in 1935, all covered in the chapters of my Assassinations book, which will be in paperback by March 2017.

Hillary Clinton’s Strong Advocates: Bill Clinton, Tim Kaine, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren!

Hillary Clinton has a tremendous edge that Donald Trump does not–support of Democratic party faithful.

Hillary has strong advocates who know how to arouse a crowd and motivate people, including her husband, Bill Clinton; Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine; President Barack Obama; First Lady Michelle Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; Second Lady Jill Biden; and Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Donald Trump cannot brag about such support, as key Republicans, including former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush; 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney; 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain; Speaker of the House Paul Ryan; former Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Ohio Governor John Kasich; and innumerable others, are not willing to campaign for him, and in many cases, have not endorsed him, and are critical of his campaign.

Hillary Clinton has a record of accomplishment and commitment, while Donald Trump has a record of failing at business and in marriage; being totally untrustworthy and unstable; and having large numbers of conservatives, intelligence and military officials, diplomatic leaders, and economists condemning his rhetoric and attitudes on a multitude of issues.

Trump is the most divisive figure in American politics since Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona 52 years ago, in the Presidential Election of 1964, but in many ways, Trump is more divisive and dangerous than even Goldwater was.

Prediction That Four States Will Decide Presidential Election—Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida–Is That Legitimate?

Many political observers are saying that four states are the true battleground that will decide who is inaugurated President on January 20, 2017.

Those states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida.

The question is whether that belief is legitimate.

This blogger thinks it is much more complicated than those four states, and that two of them–Pennsylvania and Florida—are assured for the Democrats as it is.

Yes, it is true that Pennsylvania west of Philadelphia and east of Pittsburgh is often called “Alabama”, but Pennsylvania has been reliably “Blue” or Democratic for six straight elections from 1992 onward, and that is not likely to change. If “Alabama” really mattered as much as some think, then how did our African American President win the state both in 2008 and 2012? If anything, with the economy far better now than it was in 2008 and 2012, and with Barack Obama’s public opinion rating now at 58 percent, the highest since his first year in office (2009), Pennsylvania is assured to go “Blue” again. Remember, all that is needed is to win the most popular votes to win the electoral votes, not necessary to win a majority, but just a plurality.

Florida, despite being Republican in state elections, went for Barack Obama twice, and now there are many more Puerto Rican citizens who have moved from the island to central Florida in particular, due to the tough economic times in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are citizens who just need to re-register at their new address, and the vast majority of them are Democrats, and therefore now lessen the Cuban influence on the state vote. And many younger Cubans are not automatically conservative or Republican as their elders are. With the I-4 corridor (Central Florida) becoming more likely Democratic, add much of South Florida to the equation (Broward and Palm Beach Counties), and the influence of North Florida and Miami-Dade County (where many immigrants turned citizens from Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and other nations in Latin America have migrated and not generally Republicans) are therefore outweighed, and with the better public opinion ratings of Obama added to the mix, the odds are that Florida will go “Blue” again.

Ohio is more difficult, and history tells us that every elected Republican President has won Ohio, so this is truly the crucial state but with Hillary Clinton having the edge in most polls. And one must remember Hillary has a built in edge in “Blue” States, and does not have to win Ohio, while Donald Trump must win it or have no chance to win the White House.

North Carolina went for Obama in 2008 but went “Red” for Mitt Romney in 2012, but polls now indicate that Hillary is favored, but again is not essential for Hillary to win the Presidency.

I would say beyond these four states, there are the states of Georgia and Arizona and Utah, all “Red” states, that indicate close races, with the possibility that they could go “Blue” for this election, and possibly beyond, particularly true for Georgia and Arizona, due to the increase in Hispanic and Latino population and voters.

So Hillary Clinton still has an overwhelming advantage, with eight weeks out from Election Day, to win the Presidency.

Reality Of American Politics: Win Majority Of Hispanic And Latino Vote Or Lose Presidency In The Future!

Statistics now show that any Presidential nominee from now on MUST win the majority of the Hispanic-Latino vote or lose the Presidency, which insures that Democrats will continue to win the Presidency until and when the Republican Party and its candidates stop attacking the issue of immigration, and accept that the white vote is simply not enough to win the White House. In 2016, it is estimated that to win the Presidency, Donald Trump would have to win 47 percent of the Hispanic-Latino vote, which means by 2020, it will be necessary to win the majority forever after.

George W. Bush won the Presidency with 35 and 40 percent of the vote, while John McCain won 31 percent and Mitt Romney won 27 percent and lost the Presidency.

The latest estimate is that Donald Trump is winning 19 percent of the vote, and that is before his vicious, nasty, hard line speech in Phoenix, which certainly lost him many more Hispanic and Latino votes.

The Hispanic and Latino vote, particularly the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, are growing rapidly, and already in population, all Hispanics and Latinos are about one out of every six people in America.

And when you add in the Asian American vote and the African American vote, it is clear the Republican Party is doomed long term, as 73 percent of the former and 90 percent of the latter group voted Democratic for President in 2012, and that both numbers will probably go up for Hillary Clinton.

So allowing white nationalists and hate mongers like KKK former leader Davide Duke to be connected to Donald Trump only insures disastrous defeat for Donald Trump and any future GOP nominee who continued to promote nativism and racism.

Donald Trump Could Be On Way To Worst Major Party Candidate Popular Vote Percentage Since William Howard Taft In 1912 And John W. Davis In 1924!

As Donald Trump moves forward, proving ever more his ability to alienate traditional Republicans and conservatives, and his racism, nativism, misogyny, and xenophobia leading to a likely low percentage among African Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, Jews, Social Justice Catholics, women, college educated, environmentalists, gays, disabled, and every other conceivable group, the likelihood that he might be on the way to the worst possible major party candidate popular vote percentage since 1912 and 1924 seems a strong possibility.

In 1912, President William Howard Taft, challenged by former President Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party, ended up third, the only time a major party nominee ended up other than first or second, and only received 23.2 percent of the vote, winning 2 states and 8 electoral votes, and Woodrow Wilson winning the election. TR as the third party nominee won six states and 27.4 percent of the total national vote that year.

Once we get past that unusual situation, the next worst performance by a losing major party candidate is John W. Davis , who lost to Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and won only 28.8 percent of the total popular vote, winning twelve states and 136 electoral votes. However, Progressive Party candidate Robert M. La Follette Sr won 16.6 percent of the vote in that election.

Next was James Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding in 1920, receiving only 34.2 percent of the vote, winning eleven states and 127 electoral votes.

Next was Alf Landon, who lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, winning only 36.5 percent of the vote, and two states and 8 electoral votes.

Next was George H. W. Bush who won only 37.4 percent of the vote in 1992 against Bill Clinton, but Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the vote that year as an Independent nominee. Bush won 18 states and 168 electoral votes in that election.

Next on the list is George McGovern who won 37.5 percent of the vote in 1972 against Richard Nixon, winning only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia and 17 electoral votes.

Next is Alton B. Parker who won 37.6 percent of the vote in 1904 against Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, but also won 13 states and 140 electoral votes.

Barry Goldwater, losing to Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, won only 38.5 percent of the vote, and had 6 states and 52 electoral votes.

Finally, President Herbert Hoover, losing to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, had only 39.7 percent of the vote, and won 6 states and 59 electoral votes.

So nine times, a major party nominee since the Civil War has won less than 40 percent of the total national popular vote, but with three times, 1912, 1924, and 1992, being complicated by a strong third party vote.

Five of these candidates who won less than 40 percent of the vote were Republicans—Presidents Taft, Hoover and the first Bush, and also Landon and Goldwater.

The other four were Democrats—Davis, Cox, McGovern, and Parker.

Potential To Add Seven Democratic Women Senators In November Races

The potential exists to add seven Democratic women to the US Senate, and replace one Democratic woman with another Democratic woman this November.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California is retiring, and Kamala Harris is running to replace her, although her opponent, also a Democrat, is Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. So no matter what happens, a Democratic woman in the Senate from California is being replaced by a woman from the Democratic Party.

Maggie Hassan, Governor of New Hampshire, is trying to defeat another woman, Republican Kelly Ayotte, for her Senate seat, and has a good chance of winning

Also, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada is running to replace Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, but is in a tough race, that may be the only Democratic seat in danger, against Republican nominee Joe Heck.

Tammy Duckworth is running for the Illinois Senate seat held by Republican Mark Kirk, and is favored to win.

Katie McGinty is running in Pennsylvania against Republican Pat Toomey, a race seen as very close.

Deborah Ross is running in North Carolina against Republican Richard Burr, another close race.

Ann Kirkpatrick is in a very competitive race in Arizona against well known Republican Senator John McCain.

Finally, Patty Judge is running in Iowa to replace Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a tough fight.

There are 20 women in the US Senate now, 14 Democrats and 6 Republicans. One woman, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, will be replaced by a man, Chris Van Hollen. And Kelly Ayotte could be the one Republican woman who leaves the Senate if she loses to Maggie Hassan.

So the end result could be 5 Republican women and a grand total of 20 Democrats if all the women listed above were to win.

That is certainly unlikely to happen, but if it did, we would have the highest number of women Senators in any Congress in American history—25!

Three Women Of Multi Racial Heritage Running As Democrats For US Senate And Favored To Win

Three women of multi racial heritage are running as Democrats for the US Senate, and are favored to win their races.

These three women are:

Tammy Duckworth of Illinois
Kamala Harris of California
Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada

Duckworth has a Chinese mother and white father and was born in Thailand; Harris has an Indian mother who migrated from India and a father of Jamaican heritage; Masto is a Latina of Mexican heritage.

All three are superbly qualified, and would bring to the Senate the first women of multi racial background, of other heritages than White Anglo Christian or Jewish.

Duckworth was severely wounded in Iraq, losing both legs and damaging her right arm, and is a true hero. She served in the Illinois and US Department of Veterans Affairs, and has been a Congresswoman from Illinois for the past four years.

Harris served as District Attorney of San Francisco and is now California Attorney General.

Masto was Attorney General of Nevada from 2007-2015.

Masto will have the toughest race, while Duckworth, and especially Harris, seem certain to win at this juncture.

The US Senate would become much more diverse and representative if these women are fortunate enough to be elected.

The Mountain And Desert West America Going “Blue” For the Future, Following The Pacific Coast States!

There are growing indications that much of the Mountain and Desert West part of America is going “Blue” for the future, following the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii.

Already, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada are leaning in that direction, and it seems inevitable that Arizona will join that group of states soon, and also Montana may join in that move.

The states of Wyoming, Idaho and Utah are less likely to do so, but growing Hispanic-Latino and Asian American population in much of the Mountain and Desert West makes Democratic gains in both Presidential elections and state elections much more likely over the next decade.

In the controversy over Hispanic-Latino population growth, many might be surprised to learn that Asian American population is growing at a faster clip in the West, and just as Hispanics and Latinos tend to do, Asian Americans–whether Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi–as well as others, tends to vote Democratic.

The nativism appeal of Donald Trump and the general Republican party line is a warning sign to these Asian American groups, and history reminds us of the discrimination visited in the Western states against particularly Chinese and Japanese immigrants and citizens in the American past.

The Alienation Of Millennial Voters Endangers Voter Turnout Which Could Undermine Democratic Party And Progressive Values

Depending on which public opinion polls one follows and believes, it might be true that many millennial voters are “turned off” by the present election contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and might vote in large numbers for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson or Green Party nominee Jill Stein in November. Or they might just stay home and not vote at all.

Millennials, defined as those under 30, but also sometimes including those under 35, are hostile to the “Establishment” and the normal way of dealing with politics and government, as represented by the stalemate, gridlock, and paralysis so common in recent years in Congress and in state governments, as the two major political parties refuse to work together and cooperate for the nation’s future.

The problem is that the present situation seems likely to be perpetuated, as the House of Representatives, at the least, still seems likely to remain Republican, maybe with a smaller margin, while the US Senate may go Democratic by a few seats, but not enough to avoid filibusters by the minority. So new people might be in charge, but the overall situation is unlikely to lead to the real possibility of progress on major domestic problems, and controversy over foreign policy may be further enhanced.

The danger is that alienation may bring about the possible election of Donald Trump, which would be a national nightmare, and undermine the Democratic Party and progressive values, including the future direction of the Supreme Court.

The nation can ill afford the possibility of a “loose cannon” with the backing of extremist right wing forces, termed the “Alt Right” by Hillary Clinton this week in a Reno, Nevada speech, gaining power and promoting ideas and programs that would undermine the Bill of Rights; promote confrontation and conflict between races, ethnic groups, and different genders and sexual orientations; and put the nuclear codes in the hands of a dangerous man who could undermine our relations with foreign allies and provoke war due to his lack of discipline and mental stability.