Voting

New Quinnipiac And Marist Polls And Other Polls Show Sharp Turn Against Donald Trump In Battleground Midwest States

New Quinnipiac and Marist Polls show a sharp turn against Donald Trump in battleground Midwest states, crucial to the Democratic Party’s chances to keep their Senate seats and gain at least two to have a majority, as well as undermine Donald Trump for the 2020 Presidential election. Other polling estimates also show great promise for Democrats at this point.

The polls indicate a 12 point advantage for Democrats in key races for Congress, and the Midwest heartland is particularly showing evidence that Senate seats being defended are in good shape with a bit more than 100 days to the midterm elections on November 6. The House seats look promising too for Democrats to gain a majority, but the problem of Republican gerrymandering after the 2010 midterm elections remains a challenge in many areas of the nation. Governorships are also extremely important with the 2020 census and reapportionment of seats in Congress and the state legislatures on the horizon.

Women have become candidates in much larger numbers than ever before, and young people and minorities, and suburban whites all seem ready to take action to make Congress and President Trump accountable for the reprehensible behavior of the Republican Party in the past 18 months and earlier years.

No one can afford to be lax about voting, as only voting can change things, and yet, there is concerning evidence already that the Russians are again engaged in interference in midterm elections in several states. Just today, it was made clear that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill had had interference by Russian attempts to undermine her close reelection contest.

We must be vigilant, and it is a crime that Trump and the Republicans in charge of Congress refuse to allocate extra funding to work against Russian interference.

It is also outrageous that Trump is now stating that he thinks there is interference, and that the Russians are trying to work against him and help the Democrats, a totally preposterous concept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defense Of Liberalism And Progressivism: All Major Reforms Brought About By The Political Left!

Lawrence O’Donnell on THE LAST WORD on MSNBC this evening utilized an episode of the old series, THE WEST WING, to defend liberalism and progressivism, demonstrating what all people of those persuasions know, but sometimes forget to use in defense against conservatives: that ALL major reforms in this country have come about due to those defined as on the political left!

Liberals and Progressives, (interchangeable names) brought about the following, whether Democrats or Republicans:

Anti Slavery Movement
Woman Suffrage
Social Justice Reforms
Labor Reforms
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Laws
Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid
Environmental Reforms
Consumer Reforms
Women’s Rights Movement
Gay Rights Movement
Disability Rights Movement
Immigration Reform
Anti Vietnam War Movement

What can conservatives claim, except to help the rich get richer; help corporations monopolize; undermine labor; exploit and condemn the poor; support religious groups that wish to restrict human rights; work against consumer rights and environmental regulation; deny voting rights; support slavery and segregation of blacks; deny woman equality in all ways; exploit immigrants and deny them equality; deny the “safety net”; work against equal rights for gays and the disabled; and support military adventures overseas that enrich corporations.

Would any conservative wish to deny the above? If so, write and comment on this post!