Popular Vote

Democrats Only Gain 6 House Seats, 2 Senate Seats In 2016 Elections: Can They Recover In 2018?

Ronald 74 Comments

The Democratic Party, which looked on the edge of becoming the dominant party in America, at least on the Presidential level, now is faced with the possibility of a long term status as the party that can win the coast lines and the majority of the popular vote for President, but still lose the Electoral College again and again, with twice in the past generation, 2000 and now 2016.

By all estimates, in the long run, whatever that means, the demographic changes in America will insure that the Democrats will eventually have a tremendous advantage, but for now, the situation is gloomy, as the Democrats only gained 6 House seats and 2 Senate seats, and the loss of Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Evan Bayh in Indiana, when both were heavily favored, was startling.

So the job is to recruit a future generation of leadership on the state level as well as the national level, and unfortunately, the Democrats on the national level have just shot themselves in the foot, by electing once again the same old team (all in their mid 70s) of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn to leadership of their party in the House of Representatives.

And picking an African American and first Muslim in Congress, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, as the Democratic National Chairman, which now seems inevitable with Howard Dean withdrawing from the race, is not exactly the greatest choice either.

So can the Democrats recover in 2018? They likely would gain some seats in the House of Representatives, but not control, and the Senate will be almost impossible not to lose seats, as 25 of 33 seats up for election are Democratic seats, so the future is gloomy, as the situation now seems.

Trump, The Most Repudiated Presidential Nominee In American History, Starts Off With Controversial Appointees

Ronald 7 Comments

Donald Trump not only is the most unpopular President in American history in public opinion polls before his election, and not only in the popular vote margin of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, nearing one million and counting, but also in the total repudiation of his candidacy by:

Republicans who refused to endorse and support him
Conservatives who also refused to endorse and support him
Economists who warned against his election, as dangerous to the economy
Historians who warned against his election, looking at history
Defense and Security personnel who thought he was dangerous
Diplomatic personnel who were alarmed at his nomination
Newspapers that were traditionally Republican and conservative endorsing his opponent
Foreign Governments alarmed by his candidacy

Now all of these opponents must come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump is our President Elect, and alarm is spreading, as Trump has announced Stephen Bannon as his Senior Counselor and Chief Strategist in the White House, despite his misogyny, racism, nativism, antisemitism, islamophobia, homophobia and white supremacy views.

Trump also is considering neocon John Bolton, a highly abrasive personality, who was a controversial recess appointment as UN Ambassador under George W. Bush, to be Secretary of State, with the leading alternative being abrasive and egotistical former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York!

National Popular Vote Bill A Major Electoral College Reform That Can Overcome 5 Times Where Popular Vote Winner Has Lost Presidency

Ronald 1 Comment

In the midst of the great disillusionment over having a popular vote winner losing the Presidency for the second time in 16 years, and 5 times in American history, attention is being brought to a method to overcome that travesty without the need for a constitutional amendment to end the Electoral College.

11 states with 165 electoral votes have passed legislation that provides that their states’ electoral votes will go to the national winner of the popular vote.

The bill has passed one house in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes, and would take place once states with a total of 105 electoral votes take such action.

It passed overwhelmingly in three Republican chambers, in Arizona, Oklahoma and New York, and in one Democratic chamber in Oregon.

More than 70 percent in polls on the topic support this change in the Electoral College, as a true example of democracy, so that never again do we have the horrible situation that has now occurred twice in a generation.

We would have a true national campaign every four years if this was enacted, instead of having only about 12 states gaining visits by the major party Presidential candidates.

Why should North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Nevada. along with a few other states, have the privilege of crowds being able to see the Presidential candidates, while, for example, New York, Texas, California, Illinois, and other states with large populations are denied visits, along with many other states?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Congressman Bob Barr, both of Georgia, both Republicans, have endorsed the change, even though each of the five times the popular vote winner in American history was a Democrat, and four times the Republicans won without the popular vote! So they have displayed bipartisanship on this issue.

This needs to be accomplished before 2020! There needs to be a national demand by the American people that the present situation never happens again!

Third Party Candidacy Of Donald Trump Could Make Historical Records!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is 15 and a half months until the Presidential Election of 2016.

But it is clear that the possibility exists that Donald Trump will break from the Republican Party, and run as a third party or independent candidate.

A new Washington Post poll indicates, for now, that in a three way race for the White House with Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, the results would be: Clinton 46 percent, Bush 30 percent, Trump 20 percent!

If that were to happen, it would mark the second time that a Clinton defeated a Bush in a race where a billionaire ran as an independent candidate, and was willing to spend unlimited amounts of personal fortune on the race.

If those numbers occurred, it would make Jeb Bush,or whoever was the GOP nominee, the second worst loser in American history, with only William Howard Taft, the incumbent President, in 1912 gaining only 23 percent of the vote and two states, and Progressive Party challenger, former President Theodore Roosevelt, ending up second, with 27 percent, and six states, the only time a third party nominee ended up second rather than third!

The issue that arises is could Trump, in a three way race, win any states and electoral votes, which Ross Perot failed to do in 1992, although ending up second rather than third in a few states.

Also, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the vote, the second highest in history to TR’s 27 percent in 1912. So Trump, with 20 percent, would end up ahead of Perot, and just might win a few states, unimaginable until now!

Multiple Losing Presidential Candidacies, And Those Who Lost, Then Won The Presidency

Ronald 2 Comments

The history of multiple candidacies for the Presidency is an interesting one, with five candidates being nominated more than once and losing each time, and five candidates being nominated more than once, and losing before winning the White House (with unusual circumstances for Grover Cleveland)

Those who ran multiple times and continued to lose are:

Charles Pinckney, Presidential Elections of 1804 and 1808
Henry Clay, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1832, and 1844
William Jennings Bryan, Presidential Elections Of 1896, 1900, and 1908
Thomas E. Dewey, Presidential Elections of 1944 and 1948
Adlai Stevenson, Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1956

Those who ran multiple times and first lost, and then won the Presidency are (with unusual case of Grover Cleveland described below):

Thomas Jefferson, Presidential Elections of 1796, 1800 and 1804
Andrew Jackson, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1828 and 1832
William Henry Harrison, Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840
Grover Cleveland, Presidential Elections of 1884, 1888, and 1892 (winning in 1884, losing in 1888, winning in 1892)
Richard Nixon, Presidential Elections of 1960, 1968 and 1972

Also, Jackson and Cleveland won the popular vote in the elections they lost in the Electoral College, so both actually won the popular vote three times, the only candidates to do that, other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won the popular vote and electoral vote four times, in the Presidential Elections of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944!

Additionally, Martin Van Buren ran a third time in 1848 on the Free Soil Party line and lost; and Theodore Roosevelt ran a second time in 1912 on the Progressive Party line and lost.

1913: A Year Of Two “Progressive” Amendments To The Constitution, 16 And 17!

Ronald Leave a comment

A century ago, as the Presidency of William Howard Taft came to an end, and as Woodrow Wilson was about to be inaugurated, the Constitution had two new amendments added within two months of each other—the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

Other than the original ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, never was the country to be so affected by constitutional change that transformed the nation, as with these two amendments.

President Taft, the so called “conservative” leaving office, supported both of these amendments, and they have have a massive impact on the nation ever since.

The 16th Amendment established the “progressive” federal income tax, at a time when we had seen the tripling of population, and the multiplication of social and economic injustice since the Civil War 50 years earlier. Without the federal income tax, there was no way that the nation could ever have moved forward and met its responsibilities to its citizens. The only problem was that over the years the wealthy would find all kinds of ways to manipulate the system, and so, today, the federal income tax is no longer very “progressive”. And also, there is a move on by conservatives and libertarians to repeal the income tax amendment, and have a national sales tax instead, a move that will not happen, but it if did, it would mean greater taxation based on consumption, and would hurt the poor and the lower middle class much more than the wealthy and upper middle class.

The 17th Amendment, the most democratizing amendment we had yet seen, called for direct popular election of the United States Senate, a move encouraged by muckraker David Graham Phillips and his book, THE TREASON OF THE SENATE, published in 1909. Instead of corrupt politicians in state legislatures choosing US Senators, an indication that the Founding Fathers did not trust the masses to choose their Senators, the decision was to allow the people to choose their Senators for a six year term.

How could anyone find fault with this, even with the recognition that often states may make “bad” choices for their Senators? Whatever we think about the choices, it is still better to have the people select their Senators, and in a sense, to be held accountable if they make an embarrassing, or disastrous choice. This is the power of the people, a movement toward direct democracy. And yet, there is a movement among conservatives to repeal this amendment, as well as the 16th Amendment.

Fortunately, it is very difficult to accomplish an amendment, and only the repeal of prohibition of liquor, the 21st Amendment effectively negating the 18th Amendment, has ever occurred.

We can look back on a century of the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment, and applaud what progressives accomplished a century ago!

Barack Obama Joins A Unique “Fraternity”: Presidents Who Have Won A Second Term In The White House!

Ronald Leave a comment

Barack Obama last night joined a unique “fraternity”—Presidents who have won a second term in the White House.

The following Presidents won a second term:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses Grant
Grover Cleveland (with one term in between where he won popular vote, but lost the electoral vote in 1888)
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt (who won 4 terms before 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution)
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama

So 17 Presidents, out of 43 who have held the office, have had a second term.

Of course, Lincoln, McKinley and Nixon failed to finish their second term, with the first two assassinated, and Nixon resigning.

This is a select group, a little more than 40 percent of our Presidents, but what it offers is the likelihood that Obama will end up in the top ten of our Presidents if he has any major success in his second term!

Will 2012 Presidential Election Mirror 2000 Presidential Election?

Ronald 1 Comment

There is a growing possibility that the Presidential Election of 2012 will become a reprise of the Presidential Election Of 2000, where the winner of the popular vote does not win the Electoral College, and therefore does not become President of the United States.

This time, the Democratic incumbent, Barack Obama, would be the lucky recipient, while last time the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, was to become the fourth Presidential nominee to fail to win the popular vote but become President, after John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Some would say that such a result, with Obama being reelected, although losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, would be “justice” for what happened to Al Gore, the Democratic nominee in 2000.

But there is a major difference, in that Obama is already President, while Bush was competing for the position, but was not yet our President.

It would be the first time that a sitting President was reelected without the popular vote of the American people, and would make Republicans say he was “illegitimate” to be our President, something already said, but still would be a great tragedy,and probably guarantee another four years of stalemate and gridlock.

It would make, more likely, a move by the Republicans, if they controlled the House of Representatives, which seems likely at this point, to move to impeach the President, as they succeeded in doing to Bill Clinton in 1998.

It would be a political circus, which would paralyze the nation, and the Republican Party would do everything it could to undermine Obama, and to attempt to make it seem as if he was a failed President, to stain his name in history, even if they had been unable to dislodge him from the White House.

It is hoped that this whole scenario will not happen, and that Barack Obama will end up winning the popular vote, but with the impending Hurricane Sandy, likely to cut down voting totals in the Northeast and Midwest, considered strongly Democratic at least in the Northeast, it could assist Romney in winning the national popular vote, and even the Electoral College win is certainly possible for Romney, although still considered unlikely.

With the impending storm, there is a lot to pray for, regarding safety of the population in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as the future of the nation after the Presidential Election Of 2012. We are living in very difficult times, and have to hope for reason and tolerance, without any certainty of either occurring!

Medicare Will Decide The Election: IF Obama Wins Florida AND New Hampshire Of “Battleground” States, He Wins The Presidency!

Ronald Leave a comment

Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet The Press just demonstrated how close Barack Obama is to a victory for the White House.

Showing an electoral vote map with 237 electoral votes in Obama’s camp and 191 in Mitt Romney’s camp, Todd demonstrates that there are NINE true “battleground” or “swing” states, and if Obama wins Florida and New Hampshire, he has the second term he wants in the White House! And the issue of Medicare, brought to central focus by Paul Ryan and his budget plans on that program, will be the center of the victory of Obama for the Presidency!

Even if Romney wins the other seven contestable states—Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada—he would lose the Electoral College 270-268, due to Florida’s 29 electoral votes and New Hampshire’s 4 electoral votes!

But, to assume that Obama would really lose all seven of those states is also delusional, as it is certain that he will win some, and probably, most of them!

This author has been saying this for a long time, and has found some readers of this blog, conservative and Republican friends and associates, and people on Fox News Channel and talk radio, act as if only the public opinion polls, which often show a close race in many states and nationally, should be paid attention to, but that is NOT the case!

The election is decided by the Electoral College, NOT the popular vote nationally,and do not forget that George W. Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000, but was declared the winner of the Electoral College! The same happened to Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford Hayes, and John Quincy Adams in the past!

But to conclude that, somehow, Barack Obama will lose the national popular vote, with the Republican alienation of Hispanics-Latinos, African Americans, women, young voters, the middle class, senior citizens, gays and lesbians, the poor, labor, educators, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and secular voters—in each case, the majority, not all of any group, of course—indicates that those believing what they do are indeed delusional, and cannot be helped by ordinary medical intervention!

Nate Silver Gives Odds For Republican Presidential Candidates A Year Before The Presidential Election

Ronald 1 Comment

Nate Silver of the NEW YORK TIMES on Friday explained, according to his statistical model, the odds of any GOP candidate for President having the opportunity to win the popular vote in the 2012 Presidential Election..

Note he does not say that any of these candidates will win the election, because, of course, the Electoral College will decide who wins the White House, and four times the popular vote loser nationally (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) has won the election.

According to his model, the best candidate with the most opportunity to win is Jon Huntsman, the former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, who has so far made no dent in the public opinion polls.

And yet, Silver’s argument is that with a 2.5% growth of the economy in 2012, a fairly tepid growth thought to be the most likely and best scenario, Huntsman has a 71 percent chance of winning the popular vote, as compared to 58 percent for Mitt Romney. No other candidate can win under this model, with Herman Cain having a 41 percent chance, Rick Perry a 30 percent chance, and Michele Bachmann having a 12 percent chance.

IF there is a stalled economy with no growth, Huntsman’s chances rise to 90 percent, Romney to 83 percent, Cain to 70 percent, Perry to 59 percent, and Bachmann to 34 percent.

If GDP grows only 2.3 percent instead of 2.5 percent, Huntsman has a 73 percent chance of winning, Romney 60 percent, Cain 44 percent, Perry 32 percent, and Bachmann 14 percent.

If the economy grows by the unexpected amount of 4 percent GDP growth, then Huntsman has a 55 percent chance, Romney 40 percent, Cain 25 percent, Perry 17 percent, and Bachmann 5 percent.

Notice that Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are not even considered in this model drawn up by Nate Silver.

It ultimately comes down to what the author has said many times; that Jon Huntsman, despite his poor performance in polls so far, is by far the best bet for the Republican Party against Barack Obama, BUT the Tea Party does not care for him; evangelical Christians will not like him for being a Mormon; and unless he can win New Hampshire, he will have no opportunity to move ahead, and right now it seems unlikely.

And since Romney has many of the same problems as Huntsman, as listed above, and has actually less of a chance than Huntsman among key GOP groups, it looks likely that the Republican Party will blow the chance they theoretically have to win the White House!