12/06/16 - Photos 1 | 2  

Alexander Hamilton would be appalled by Suprun's objections

Trump easily passes the test of Federalist 68, but Suprun's relied upon authorities do not

Texas Elector does not understand his role

Christopher Suprun has declared to the world in the New York Times that he will not vote for Trump despite his constituency voting for Trump. His argument for disenfranchising those who he represents is childishly simple and petty.

He does not understand Federalist 68 and actually appeals to the moral authority of those who advocate reckless globalization of the American economy and military, something that violates the very standards Federalist 68 erects. Suprun should resign because he does not understand his role.

A brief review of Federalist Paper No. 68

Hamilton is believed to have written Federalist No. 68, the paper often viewed as something akin to the legislative history of a portion of Article II Section I of the constitution, that part which lays out the electoral college. Federalist 68 essentially argues that the popular vote should play an important role in the selection of a president but an electoral college should have the final word so as to avoid the evils of corruption, foreign influence and lack of national consensus.

Hamilton thought that those with power to elect must have the opportunity to deliberate. He thought they must meet in their own states and not in a single national group so as to avoid heated decisions brought on by emotional incitement. He sought the avoidance of cabals and corruption, most notably from lurking and influential foreign powers.

Hamilton seemed to view the electors as trustees of their respective constituencies popular will except in circumstances of manifest corruption and foreign intrusion. He reasoned that the president should not be dependent on any established governmental group but the people themselves to avoid temptations toward corruption, and he saw the electors as a means of ensuring that outcome. He largely equated, therefore, electors and the popular vote with some narrow exceptions.

Where a majority cannot form, Hamilton wanted the House to elect the President as the only body capable delivering a majority consensus the people could accept. So he viewed the role of the elector as very limited with the moral authority to thwart the popular will only where corruption, foreign intrusion or lack of a national consensus clearly emerge, none of which are present in the case of Trump.

Hamilton did fear that a person who is skilled at dealing with only local issues of one state and gaining the popular support of only those in close proximity would not have have the ability to serve as president. This seems to hearken back to governing philosophy of those around Hamilton who formed the Tammany Society in 1786 and later Tammany Hall. Living in New York, Hamilton no doubt understood the deep tendency toward corruption of such individuals.

Mr. Suprun refers to the proscriptions of Federalist 68 as warnings against demagogy, electing someone who is unqualified and free of foreign influence. He broadly states that Trump fails to meet those standards without actually articulating them as I have, preferring to rely on some close approximation of the broad statement of the standards in the first sentence of this paragraph.

If anyone deserves the label here, Mr. Suprun is the demagogue. Alexander Hamilton likely would have been appalled at the simplistic application of his reasoning for the electoral college employed by Suprun.

After reading 68 closely one understands that it imagines three main evils, corruption, foreign influence and the election to president of one possessing qualifications insufficient to convince a considerable portion of the Union of his ability to succeed in that office, someone like a Tammany Hall boss.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Suprun glosses over the specifics of Federalist 68, relying on vague notions of what is warned of so that he can recite his specific objections to Trump without exposing their superficiality and outright error. Suprun cites objections seemingly lifted from the OccupyDemocrats website. His editorial is laughable when juxtaposing its intended grandiosity with its evident nothingness.

Trump's inability to unite America prior to taking the oath is the key objection

Suprun cites Trump's inability to unite America as his key objection to Trump. He cites his Tweet about SNL and claims Trump stokes fears. This violates Suprun's concept of the US as a shining city on a hill.

He then notes that Federalist 68 gives electors the task of determining if candidates are qualified, apparently in the broadest sense of the word with no guidance as to what renders one qualified. He employs his own subjective standard, stating that a lack of foreign policy experience and the requisite demeanor of a president disqualify Trump. Neither standard comes from 68. He notes the letter written by fifty globalist oriented Republicans stating that he would be a "dangerous president," ignoring the fact that these were almost all Bush loyalists.

Faithless elector Suprun ignores the fact that both Cheney and Rumsfeld support Trump, as well as fairly significant number of former NeverTrumpers. None other than Mitt Romney has praised the transition and stated that he can see Trump as the man to lead our nation into a brighter future. Also, many of the signers of that letter advocated and executed our invasion of Iraq and the mess following.

Would Hamilton have heralded the judgment of such strong advocates for decades long forays into deeply questionable foreign interventions? Of course not. Hamilton would have likely viewed advocates for such globalization with suspicion and potentially as unworthy of an elector's vote under Federalist 68, yet Suprun cites them in support. Nonsense.

Last Suprun alleges that Trump's business dealings in foreign nations implicitly renders him in violation of the proscription against presidents receiving foreign payments. He ignores the fact that Trump has announced plans to pass all of his business interests to his children.

Ultimately Suprun's objections are trifling and transparently motivated by politics. He is a Bushy, obviously, and like those he cites in his letter is just unable to accept Trump who is the personification of a firm rejection of Bushism. Bush was a mega-globalist. Federalist 68 stands in opposition to the kind of corrupt globalism we have seen, where multinational corporations and even foreign governments in the case of Hillary Clinton, have direct impact on our politics.

Trump stands in opposition to this very thing, advocating a strong nationalism, something Hamilton would have embraced. Trump passes the test in 68 because he strongly opposes corruption, unrestrained globalization and has clearly united a considerable portion of the nation behind him sufficient to succeed nationally.

Trump is a rejection of corrupt establishment politics, the kind politics Boss Tweed was famous for. Trump is not the danger the electors were established to avoid. If anything, he's the opposite.

Suprun's simplistic moralization based on preposterously vague electoral standards equates to the temper-tantrum of a Bushy. Because Suprun so fundamentally misses the mark in the fulfillment of his duties, he should resign and let someone who does not allow his or her political sentimentalities to govern his current judgment do the job.

Like me on Facebook!

Car carrying Fidel Castro's remains broke down


Yes, this actually happened. I guess all Cubans have equally worthless cars! Photo 1 | 2

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.




Green party drops Pennsylvania recount suit

The Green party wanted to pursue the lawsuit, but they ran out of money Photo was modified

According to the AP, they have dropped the case

The Associated Press reported Saturday evening that the Green Party is dropping its court case aimed at forcing a recount of Pennsylvania's statewide presidential vote.

The Green Party wanted to investigate whether Pennsylvania's voting machines had been hacked.

The AP also reported that the Green Party indicated that it could not raise the $1 million bond required by the court that was due on Monday. There was no real danger of overturning the Pennsylvania result.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

The Pennsylvania recount effort was not about overturning result




Amidst partisan firestorm, Megyn is going to have to settle for less

Megyn has reportedly lost a potentially rich deal at ABC (LA Times), left only with CNN, a network many of her current fans simply won't watch Photo was modified

Kelly essentially told reporters to butt out, leaves audience hanging

DrudgeReport reported Thursday that Megyn was considering an exit

According to Drudge, CNN's President Jeff Zucker is pursuing her and she might agree to join CNN. The report indicates that Zucker would promote her across all Time-Warner platforms and she may have the chance to compete directly with Bill O'Reilly.

Also according to DrudgeReport, she is "despised" by her peers at Fox News and it has only worsened since the release of her book. The LA Times reported that Bill O'Reilly has said that her book harmed the Fox News Channel by unnecessarily bringing up the Roger Ailes sexual harassment case.

Megyn Kelly's ratings are not keeping pace with her counterparts

In recent weeks, Megyn Kelly's ratings have suffered. She has finished as badly as fifth place on Fox News, trailing Hannity, O'Reilly, Special Report and the Five.

Tucker Carlson's new show has also debuted to phenomenal ratings at 7 o'clock. It is unclear whether Kelly might be feeling the heat due to her various counterparts' success. With her 9 o'clock slot, she has every reason to have high ratings because of O'Reilly's big lead in. She has also been billed as the future of the network and the networks "biggest star." Presumably the network's biggest star should not finish fifth place in the ratings.

Kelly may have been auditioning for a jump for some time

Kelly has been antagonizing Trump for over a year and a half and it's plausible to hypothesize that she calculated that as part of her move. Perhaps she reasoned that she would become a hero to the left for railing against Trump and leverage that into a prime spot at a liberal network (any network other than FNC).

Recently she was criticized for "auditioning" for other jobs after she accused Trump of being a "sexual predator" in an apparent attempt to create a clash with Newt Gingrich, an iconoclast toward the media. Vanity Fair described the conflict this way, "She positively eviscerated Newt Gingrich last month when he told her she was 'fascinated by sex' for covering the sexual-assault allegations made against Trump."

Kelly is not drawing competitive offers after Drudge's report

The LA Times is also reporting that Megyn is considering her options. She is currently making $15 million a year and that is seemingly not enough to keep her happy at FNC. Unfortunately, according tot he LA Times, nobody out there is willing to pay that amount.

CNN does not pay that much for on-air talent and NBC or MSNBC do not seem to be interested. The LA Times has also reported that ABC may have been interested in putting her on Good Morning

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

America, but has lost interest since the report of her search surfaced on the DrudgeReport.

There might be no worse time for Kelly to move to CNN

CNN has received enormous criticism for its extraordinarily unfair coverage of the presidential campaign, In a country where about half the people voted for Trump, CNN treated Trump like a monstrous racist deserving of nothing but condemnation. The criticism has had its impact on CNN as it has repeatedly finished behind MSNBC in ratings.

CNN's coverage frequently featured harsh condemnations of Trump and his defenders, most notably Van Jones attacking Trump supporters calling his election the result of a "whitelash." Trump reportedly dressed down CNN President Jeff Zucker over the harsh coverage in the election.

There is no sign of CNN learning how to cover news objectively in this post-Obama environment. CNN's most recent foray into extreme bias featured a CNN producer joking about the newly elected incoming president crashing and a CNN reporter laughing at the suggestion. One should assume that Kelly would lose a big chunk of her more conservative audience if she jumps to CNN. Bad for her. Bad for CNN. Bad for the deal. But can she stay at Fox?

Has Kelly already burned her bridge at Fox and with once loyal fans?

As mentioned previously in this article, Kelly's ratings have suffered, likely as a result of her very public battle with Trump and other conservatives. With her interest in leaving the network now being widely reported, and the fact that taking less money is apparently not a deal breaker, it would be hard to fault anyone who has until now remained loyal to her at Fox for abandoning her.

Rupert Murdoch has said he doesn't want her to leave, but he also went public with a statement that seemed like a take it or leave it ultimatum. He said, "we have a deep bench of talent, many of whom would give their right arm for her spot." Since that statement, Tucker Carlson has demonstrated that Megyn may not be that special by debuting with historic ratings, the hour up 40% from November last year.

Tucker has a markedly different take on the issues than Kelly. With Kelly faltering and Hannity and Tucker riding high, Rupert's son James Murdoch may be doubting his previous conclusion that she is a big part of the channel's future.

Both of the Murdoch sons are fairly liberal, but the Carlson hire came after all this started and is proving yet again that conservatism sells. Perhaps they are signaling that they took Levin's warning to heart. If the Murdoch boys stick with her, on the other hand, conservative Kelly critic Mark Levin has alleged that the future of Fox News will be in peril as the liberal Murdoch sons "are slowly but surely ruining that network."



Evidence of potentially widespread voter fraud emerges in Nevada

Edward Snowden and Waylon Jennings are both registered to vote in Nevada's 15th district Photos were modified 1 | 2

Nevada is one of the only states where Hillary over performed her polls

The real reason recounts were requested in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is that Hillary polled better in those states than she actually performed on election day. We know now that Hillary polled better almost everywhere than she actually performed because polling systemically overestimated Democratic turnout.

In at least one state, however, she actually polled worse than she performed on election day. Considering that there was a nationwide undercount of Trump's support in polling. a pattern repeated in the states, it is unusual that Hillary would over perform her polls in any jurisdiction. But she did just that in Nevada.

My poll average showed Hillary barely leading in Nevada, by only 0.1%, in the final average of Nevada polls. She ended up winning by a larger margin than that.

I wrote two days before the election that something unusual seemed to be occurring in Nevada based on a sudden surge of early vote on the last day of early voting. It seems now that much of that vote may have been fraudulent.

Additional potential evidence for voter fraud in Nevada

As outlined in an interview with Newsmax, the campaign of Stan Vaughan, a Republican Assembly Candidate for Nevada District 15, canvased his district by knocking doors. When an active voter on the list was not at the house when his campaign knocked on a door, his campaign would send a piece of mail via USPS to the address.

9,200 of the pieces of mail that his campaign sent were returned to the campaign by the Post Office. According to the USPS, mail may be deemed undeliverable for a several reasons, specifically lack of postage, incomplete, illegible or incorrect address, addressee is not at the address, mail goes unclaimed, mail was refused or the minimum criteria for mailability is not met.

In the event of renumbering of houses, renaming of streets, conversion from a rural to city-style address, or consolidation of mail routes or post offices, mail will be redirected to the correct new address. People who move will have their mail forwarded for six months.

We know, therefore, that mail that is returned is usually because of postage problems, the address



Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Then Democratic Senate candidate Masto encouraged people to vote after polls had officially closed

is incomplete somehow or the person simply does not reside at the address. Assuming that the majority of the mailings Mr. Vaughan sent were returned due to the addressee not residing at the address with no forwarding address, it is safe to conclude that this represents potential evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Mr. Vaughan then randomly selected 200 of the 9200 returned mailings to compare to the list of people who actually voted. He discovered that 185 of those 200 people in fact voted in this most recent election.

I contacted Mr. Vaughan regarding the specific manner in which the mailings were returned. If he comments, I will update this article to reflect that. He did, however, already give some indication of the reasons for the returned mailings in his interview with Newsmaxtv.

From within that group of 200, Mr. Vaughan said that one reason for the returned mail was the person had a forwarding address located out of state, indicating that a person who no longer resides in Nevada voted in the state. He also indicated the people listed as deceased both had an address on the active voter list and actually voted. People whose mailings were marked "Attempted, not known," also voted. Last, it was so bad that over one hundred people who potentially voted were registered at an address that is a vacant lot with no mail receptacle.

Mr. Vaughan also noted that the daily cumulative voting numbers showed that through November 2nd, 10,000 people had early voted. On November 4th, a total of 12,466 people had voted. As of Nov. 2nd, only 3600 Democrats had voted. On Nov. 4th 6800 Democrats had voted. So 3200 Democrats voted between Nov. 2nd and Nov. 4th, but the total number of voters only increased by 2466. This is an impossibility.

Mr. Vaughan identified as many as 15,000 fraudulent votes in his district. His district only represents one of forty-two voting districts in the state. Considering that Trump only lost by 28,000 votes and Hilliary over performed her polling in the state, it seems that voter fraud very well may have cost him the state.

This article will be updated as more information comes to light.


Drudge: Megyn Kelly may leave Fox News


On Thursday morning DrudgeReport indicated that Kelly may leave FNC Photo was modified

DrudgeReport is exclusively reporting that Kelly my leave FNC

According to Drudge, CNN's President Jeff Zucker is pursuing her and she might agree to join CNN. The report indicates that Zucker would promote her across all Time-Warner platforms and she may have the chance to compete directly with Bill O'Reilly.

Also according to DrudgeReport, she is "despised" by her peers at Fox News and it has only worsened since the release of her book.

Megyn Kelly's ratings are not keeping pace with her counterparts

In recent weeks, Megyn Kelly's ratings have suffered. She has finished as badly as fifth place on Fox News, trailing Hannity, O'Reilly, Special Report and the Five.

Tucker Carlson's new show has also debuted to phenomenal ratings at 7 o'clock. It is unclear whether Kelly might be feeling the heat due to her various counterparts' success. With her 9 o'clock slot, she has every reason to have high ratings because of O'Reilly's big lead in.

She has also been billed as the future of the network and the networks "biggest star." Presumably the network's biggest star should not finish fifth place in the ratings.


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Kelly addressed the question of her future on Twitter, but gave no specifics. Clearly negotiating.


Kelly interviewing Carrier employees last night




These guys all have big wins in Indiana

From saving jobs, important elections and national championships, these guys do well in the Hoosier state Photos 1 | 2

Trump's big primary win in Indiana secured the nomination for Trump

Trump saved irreplaceable Indiana jobs

According to the New York Times quoting Scott Paul, the president of Alliance for American Manufacturing, these jobs are "irreplaceable" for people who do not have college degrees as a means of fulfilling the American dream. These particular jobs were also filled by a very diverse workforce, about half African-American and half white.

The jobs pay well too, over $20 an hour including benefits for employees with a high-school education, which translates to $40,000 a year at full-time hours. When considering that one thousand jobs were saved, that translates to $40 million dollars in annual wages and probably another $10 million in benefits staying in the United States as a result of the deal.

Governor Mike Pence was able to offer state tax incentives to help make the deal. More details will emerge about the deal in coming days. Both Trump and Pence will be at an announcement ceremony tomorrow in Indiana.

Obama gets egg his face, again

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.


Employees react to the Carrier deal





Follow me on Twitter



Trump's political formula is brilliant, bold and effective

Trump understands that the left is driven by emotion Photos 1

Trump's opposition to flag burning only helps him, hurts Democrats

Justice Scalia joined with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court holding that flag burning represents protected speech, but he also said that if he were king he would ban flag burning. So Scalia essentially highlighted the supremacy of the rule of law while acknowledging his bias against flag burning.

Donald Trump seems to have played some version of this same game. Trump tweeted that flag burning should result in one year in jail or loss of citizenship. One can imagine, however, Trump saying in his next 60 Minutes interview that while he favors such sanctions for the act, he accepts the holding of the Court and defers to the rule of law.

It seems that Trump has chosen an area of controversy in which he has located a credible escape hatch, namely, the Scalia explanation for opposing flag burning. This escape hatch allows Trump to boldly state his opposition to flag burning, a position a majority of Americans share, while at the same time acknowledging his inability to impose such sanctions.

The Washington Post looked at this in an article titled, Donald Trump's basic position on flag-burning isn't really all that controversial. The author pointed out that polling from a decade ago, the most recent polling, showed a majority thought flag burning should be illegal. While they favored a legal ban, a majority opposed the method of a constitutional amendment to ban the practice. The author reasoned that there is little reason to assume public opinion has changed substantially.

It is a good bet that a majority still holds the opinion that the practice should be illegal but would oppose a constitutional amendment banning it. I surmise that many people view a constitutional amendment as warranted in only the most serious matters and only on rare occasions, almost never, and this issue does not arise to such status. I also surmise that while the American public would oppose a constitutional amendment it may in fact support the Court reversing its decision on this question, rendering such bans permissible by legislatures.

Either way, Trump is in a golden position. He gets to oppose the extraordinarily unpopular act of burning an American flag in stark terms, thereby garnering good will with a majority of Americans, while having no legal ability to do anything about it short of picking Supreme Court Justices who might reverse the Court's holding on the question. President-Elect Trump has already identified the pool of twenty-one candidates he will select from for the Court, so that hard part is done.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Scalia said if he were king, he would ban flag burning, but he knows he's not king

The President-Elect, therefore, can reap the political reward of strongly advocating a majority position while his opposition protests his statement by doing what many Americans truly hate to see, burning the American flag. Elite opinion opposes Trump, so a normal politician might worry about offending the New York Times and other elite opinion institutions, but his entire candidacy represented a rejection of that very establishment, so he is free to utilize this political strategy.

Trump's opponents look terrible

People will remember these images of anger and rage because images stay with us better than words. Trump's tweet will not be remembered like these images of people burning flags will be, because it was in the written word, never spoken by him. To those who are not strong on this issue one way or the other, Trump will come out looking much better than his opposition. This is political jiu jitsu at its best.


Romney's statement after dinner with President-Elect Trump Tuesday night

Romney says he has "increasing hope that President-Elect Trump is the very man who can lead us to that better future."


BREAKING: After Stein appeal, Judge orders no hand-recount in Wisconsin

The recount is dying for Stein. Now she should stop raising money. Photos 1 | 2

At 8:45 PM CST, according to the AP and mcclatchydc.com, Jill Stein failed to show that the machine recount was brought into question by any mistakes or irregularities.

Stein's lawyers had asserted that the most effective way to assess if a cyberattack had occured was through a hand recount. The judge disagreed.

Stein had originally asserted that Wisconsin's voting machines had been hacked, but had no evidence to back that up.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Stein continues to allege possibility of hacks without evidence


Trump's flag desecration Tweet reflects a Clinton proposal

Trump tweeted a flag burning law that Hillary Clinton proposed in 2005 and the left savaged him, many who supported Hillary Clinton in the election

Was Trump just making a point about leftist media and NeverTrumpers?

The left went nuts about Trump's tweet, but never mentioned the fact that Hillary Clinton had proposed this very thing in 2005. All of the people below supported Hillary Clinton explicitly or at least would have preferred that Hillary be elected over Trump.

David Frum, a NeverTrumper, seemed to support Hilary in the election. But when Trump repeats her proposal, he lashes out . . .

Like our website? Like us on Facebook.

Hillary Clinton proposed a $100,000 fine and a one-year jail term for burning the flag


There is some old footage of Hillary talking about the bill in this liberal blog (Some bad language)

Trump's Tweet discussed

Follow me on Twitter 


It looks like President-Elect Trump has found the man to replace Obamacare

What has Congressman Price proposed to replace Obamacare? Image

Price is the likely HHS secretary pick

According to the New York Times, citing a transition team official, President-Elect Trump has tapped Congressman Price to head the Health and Human Services Department. He will control a $1 trillion budget and administer health programs that cover over 100 million citizens.

Congressman Tom Price is a medical doctor who worked in private practice as an orthopedic surgeon and spent some time teaching at the Emory University School of Medicine. He attended the University of Michigan to receive his medical degree.

What has Congressman Price proposed to replace Obamacare?

Congressman Price has proposed replacing Obamacare with a plan intended to put patients and doctors in charge by prioritizing innovation, accessibility and affordability.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

He has proposed doing this by utilizing individual health pools and expanded health savings accounts. He has also proposed tax credits for the purchase of health insurance and reforms aimed at stemming lawsuit abuse directed at medical professionals.

This approach puts Congressman Price right in line with the mainstream Republican approach of looking for private sector solutions whenever possible while relying on government when necessary, such as in the implementation of high risk pools.


Winning the electoral college with 306 votes is a popular vote win

The electoral college cools the passions of current popular will by spreading popular power over time. History has shown us why this is a better system. FRENCH REVOLUTION- Death of the Princess De Lamballe, by Leon Maxime Favre

Trump won a big popular vote victory as measured by House seats

To win 306 electoral votes, a candidate must win jurisdictions that govern a majority of the population of the United States. Electoral votes are allocated in part based on population and Trump won a majority of those electoral votes. Trump did not win because of electoral votes that are allocated in proportion to Senate seats which are not popularly allocated. He won a majority of electors based on allocation by House seats, which is a popular vote win.

If we subtract the electoral votes allocated by Senate seats, Trump won 246 electoral votes to Clnton's 192 electoral votes. This includes only electoral votes allocated by popular vote.

The sustained popular will, not the latest popular vote, governs presidential elections in America

Our founders designed a complicated system of government that spreads out power as much as possible. Not only is power spread throughout different branches of government, but power is spread over time as well.

Popular will is not determined in a single election in our system. The elected branches of government are elected on a staggered schedule so that no one wave of populist will in one election can sweep a party into power. Rather, the popular will is expressed every two years in the House, every four years for the president and every six years for the Senate. To truly take dominant power a party must perform well in several successive elections.

But even then we have a federal judiciary that is appointed for life. So to gain dominance over the judiciary a party may have to perform well in as many as five or six federal elections over a period of ten to twelve years. The senate is only elected every six years and the president every four, so to really dominate in the judicial selection process a party needs to dominate for quite a long time.

Does that mean that the federal judiciary is not an expression of popular will? Not really, it's just an expression of popular will in the past, a popular will sustained over time.

In the same way, the presidential election we hold every four years is really the result of the expression of both current and past popular will extending as far back as eight years. The census takes place every ten years. The census determines how many congressional representatives each state has, which in turn determines how many electoral votes a state has. You might ask, but isn't the census just a straightforward headcount? How could that be political?

The census is very political. The political part comes in when the Census Bureau attempts to count people who have traditionally been hard to count, usually racial and ethnic minorities, poor people and immigrants, both legal and illegal. Yes, illegal immigrants count for the census. The primary controversy with regard to the census centers around statistical sampling. The Census Bureau did not use it in 2010 but it has been used in the past.

Essentially methods would be used to estimate how many people are not being counted, including racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and legal and illegal immigrants. This approach would likely give more congressional seats to California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois, and other states where illegal immigrants tend to gravitate. As you can see, it has the potential to influence the presidential election for this reason.

  Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.


Beyond the census, the presidential election is also an expression of the popular will as expressed in state elections for as many as eight years prior to the actual election. State legislatures and other organs of state government actually draw the new congressional district lines once the Census is completed.

How these lines are drawn can influence which party is more likely to win each district. Who controls congress can potentially influence who wins the presidency in the case that no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. The party that controls congress also controls funding for the Census Bureau, so that probably has an impact on how the Census is conducted.


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.


So you can see that each presidential election is kind of like the ultimate expression of a series of recent elections, begining every ten years when the Census is taken. One reason this presidential election was signficant is that the 45th president, Donald Trump, will be in power when the 2020 Census is taken.


Eliminating the electoral college would favor non-diligent voters

The presidential election involves the least amount of effort to learn about and engage in on the part of the voter. There are only a few candidates and everyone in popular culture comes out for this election one way or the other. Every potential voter, as a result, knows about this election and seems to have an opinion on it. The presidential election will force itself upon the most disinterested person, often causing him or her to form opinions that he or she would never form on a less covered and consequential race.

Celebrities campaign against Trump and target Democrat voters


The Democrats in particular have the ability to mobilize their voters in the urban areas much more so in presidential years because of this in-your-face quality of presidential elections. Turnout for presidential elections is much higher than non-presidential year congressional elections. So the Democrats, as a result, would love it if the popular will as expressed in presidential years alone influenced who actually becomes president.

But presidential year popular vote is just one half of the popular vote equation in our system. Half of all federal elections for congress take place in non-presidenital years and vice versa. Because non-presidential year federal elections do not generate as much popular interest from celebrities and in other ways, the electorate in non-presidential years looks very different than presidential year electorates. People who are more diligent about voting, who are also much more likely to be informed, show up to vote in these non-presidential years. As demonstrated in the previous section, non-presidential year elections influence who wins the presidency.

This fact has a calming and cooling influence over our presidential elections. Rather than leaving the selection of our chief executive up to an excited populace raging in a presidential year, we spread out the power not only to electors within states but to the popular will as expressed in previous non-presidential elections when the diligent voter dominates. It puts more power in the hands of those who dedicate themselves to voting each and every election, people who are generally more informed. This is a very good thing for stability and the rule of law.

The House of Representatives defends current popular will

We must remember also that the popular vote already does dominate our system of government even when a president who does not win the most recent popular vote is elected. We do not have a king, but the people are sovereign. The House of Representatives is the most direct expression of that popular sovereign will, and the House alone has power to initiate all revenue bills, impeach federal officials including a president, and elect the president if no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. The House can always check the president.

The left's extraordinary hypocrisy

Most of the what the left considers social progress in our nation has resulted not from popular will, but by imposition of a minority view by an unelected and virtually unaccountable panel of nine judges in the form of the Supreme Court. The integration of schools, the creation of a privacy right that supports abortion and same-sex marriage all came from the least democratic branch of our government.

Short of full-scale revolution, the electoral college is here to stay

All of the complaining about the electoral college rings hollow. The only way to change the electoral college is through a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen when it benefits the majority of states. The founders baked this into the constitution in such a way that it's not going to change. So anyone arguing for it seems to be arguing for revolution, because that's the only way the electoral college will ever go away.


Jill Stein is just promoting herself with the recounts

Stein knows Hillary can't win. The recounts are designed to stoke anger and Stein hopes to gain followers.Some modifications made to photo

Some have speculated that Jill Stein is doing Hillary's work, but that's unlikely

If Jill Stein was doing Hillary's work, it's unlikely that Stein would be insulting her as a hypocrite, phony and a corporatist sellout on Twitter. But she has insulted HIllary and the Democrats plenty on Twitter tonight.

Stein also attacked the Democrats tonight

The Stein Scheme: Get in front of an angry mob and become their hero

It looks like Stein is trying to capitalize on the anger of Hillary supporters by calling for a recount, which Hillary was not going to do on her own, and harnessing the anger of disappointed Democrats for her own purposes. It's an obvious opportunistic play on the part of Stein.


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

Clinton would not call for a recount on her own because there is no chance of overturning the results of the election. Stein knew this and simply did what Clinton would not do because Stein has nothing to lose. She already caters to radicals and is not viewed as a serious candidate, so she risks nothing by calling for pointless recounts.

The upside: she galvanizes the radical left behind her and likely garners some more support in four years. The downside: the media and Democrats continue to view her as a marginal candidate, which they already do, so its nothing new and is an acceptable loss.

Stein did not expect, however, that the remnants of the Clinton campaign would embrace her recount effort. It is not aimed at winning and everybody knows it so why would Clinton do it? Clinton's embrace of this recount undermines Stein's attempt to represent the hero of the angry left.

Clinton wants to deprive Stein of that street cred because if Stein becomes another Ralph Nader, a third-party candidate who can get real votes, it threatens the Democrats. So Clinton's people are going to join Stein in this effort to share in the credit for irritating Trump, which is what the angry left wants right now. They are just doing it to blunt Stein's ability to peel away votes from Democrats. It's not about 2016. It's about 2020.

Stein responds to Trump's almost certainly accurate claim that she is just promoting herself

Finally, Stein makes clear that she is truly a radical lunatic by saluting Castro

Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.

What next?

A self-described social justice warrior who executed children and starved political opponents to deathSome modifications made to photo

Castro murdured and imprisoned in the name of social justice

Fidel Castro was a true believer in Marxist communism. He ordered seven pints of blood to be extracted from those who were sentenced to execution for imaginary crimes against the state. Subsequently that blood was sent to the communists in Vietnam to support their fight against the "capitalist pigs".

Early in the communist revolution, thousands were summarily executed and tortured brutally. Thousands of Cubans were shot by firing squads including many children.

In the years following Castro allowed people to suffer and starve in his political prisons. Prisoners,

Cubans react to the death of Castro

 Trump on Cuba


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

including teenagers, were sometimes beaten to death by prison guards and denied medical attention, which also led to deaths.

Many have also died attempting to flee the monstrous communist regime, including many children. In 1971, for example, the Cuban guard rammed a boat full of people attempting to flee resulting in the deaths of three children. In 1994 twelve children ranging in age from six months to eleven years died when the Cuban Coast Guard sank their vessel.

Many have died attempting to reach freedom. The crisis continues today.

Obama's normalization of relations with Cuba

The Obama White House has changed course in Cuba, beginning a process of normalization of relations with them. The rationale is that our approach hasn't worked because other governments do not embargo Cuba, thereby undermining our embargo. The White House claims to want to promote democracy in Cuba, yet they have not made any real demands on the regime to enforce this.

The White House opened our embassy back up in Cuba despite no changes on the part of the regime. The Obama White House argues that it is better to encourage and support reform than to isolate the nation, pushing it to fail. Opponents of their approach, led by Senator Marco Rubio, argue that Obama's approach is naive as to how the world works and will lead to a tightened grip to power by the regime for decades into the future.

Trump promises to reverse Obama's concessions

President-Elect Trump has vowed to reverse Obama's concessions to the regime. Perhaps two events have happened in the last two and a half weeks, Trump's election and the death of Fidel Castro, that will lead to the liberation of our long-suffering Cuban friends to the south.

Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.

Michigan vote certified, no recount has ever overturned a lead this size

If elections fall within 2000 votes in Michigan, an automatic recount is triggeredSome modifications made to photo

Trump leads in Michigan by more than Hillary led in New Hampshire

Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton for the presidency in the state of Michigan by a margin of 10,704 votes according to the Michigan Secretary of State. Despite the certification, no national television network has yet projected Trump the winner of Michigan's sixteen electoral votes. This is extremely unusual even in races decided by 0.23% of the vote.

In fact, the state of New Hampshire was called for Clinton on November 11th by CNN when Clinton held a 0.2% lead, ahead by only 1,437 votes. Instead of projecting Trump the winner of Michigan two weeks after the election when the vote has been certified, the networks refuse to project Trump the winner, instead preferring to trumpet calls for a recount in the state based on phantom vote hacking, something that is virtually impossible in Michigan because it uses all paper ballots.


But it is true that the exit polls showed Hillary tied in Michigan, so should that make us think a recount is warranted? Not at all because the exit polls gave Hillary better numbers than she actually received in almost every state. Only in California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Texas did Clinton do better than the exit polls predicted.

These exit polls failed miserably. They routinely understated Trump's level of support by large margins. The exit polls missed Trump's number by 11 in New Jersey, 10.7 in Missouri, 9.6 in Utah, 8.4 in Ohio, 8.2 in Maine, 8.2 in South Carolina, 5.9 in North Carolina and the list goes on. Of the twenty-eight state exit polls reported here, Trump's vote was understated by an average of 3.6%.

What one might find quite interesting, however, one state where the exit polls almost nailed the final result, which only happened in about six states, was Michigan. The exit polls predicted a tie and Trump won by 0.23%. So the exit polls do not provide a good argument for a recount.

There is also the concern about vote hacking. Fortunately for democracy, the likelihood of vote hacking making a difference in Michigan is virtually zero. All ballots in Michigan are paper ballots, so vote hacking of electronic machines seems unlikely. While some imagine fanciful scenarios whereby the machines that count the paper ballots are hacked, the Michigan elections director doubts that vote-hacking is a legitimate concern.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

Comparing Trump's Michigan lead to other margins that actually justified a recount

How does a lead of 0.23% and 10,704 votes stack up in comparison with past recounts. In a word, the lead looks insurmountable. Let's look at five recounts, some of which overturned the result and some that didn't.

There have been five notable recounts in the last twenty years. In the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race the Republican was ahead by 261 votes initially, but after two recounts ended up losing by 129 votes. There were about 2.8 million votes cast total and the initial margin separating the two was 0.009% of the vote.

In the 2006 Vermont Auditor's race, the initial count showed the Republican up by 137 votes. After the recount the Democrat took a 102 vote lead. There were 250,609 total votes case and the initial vote margin was 0.05% of the vote.

In 2006 in Florida's 13th congressional district, the Republican led by 350 votes initially and held the lead after a recount. There 238,249 votes cast and the initial vote margin was 0.14% of the vote.

In the 2008 Minnesota US Senate election, Al Franken trailed Norm Coleman by 215 votes. After the recount Franken took a 225 vote lead. There were 2.9 million votes cast and the initial vote margin was 0.008% of the vote.

Last, who can forget the presidential election of 2000 in Florida. The state would determine who won the presidency. After all votes were counted, including some military votes a few days after the election, Bush led by 930 votes. His lead would dwindle to 537 votes. The total votes cast was 6 million and the initial margin was 0.016% of the total vote.

In Michigan in 2016, the initial vote margin is 10,704 votes cast. There were a total of 4.8 million votes, so the initial margin is 0.23%.


So when comparing the lead Trump holds in Michigan to other statewide elections where recounts were called for, Trump looks safe. In every case of a recount on a statewide level the vote margins are in the hundreds, not the thousands. A vote lead of 10,704 votes is a very large lead to overcome in a recount. In fact, it looks like an impossible mission.

Like the facts presented clearly and fairly? Like us.

Hillary's despondent supporters are looking for any shred of hope

Jill Stein is joining the call for recounts, and why you don't have to worry about Hillary actually winningSome modifications made to photo

Jill Stein has now joined the "computer scientists" and a slew of deeply disappointed Hillary supporters on Facebook looking for any shred of hope in calling for a recount in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. She is attempting to raise $4.5 million for the recount effort.

The basis of the claim is that Hillary performed worse in areas where electronic voting machines were used. The computer scientists did not release their analysis or any proof of hacking.

In only one state, Wisconsin, a few computer scientists claim that in counties where electronic balloting machines were used, Hillary's vote was 7% lower than in states where paper ballots were used. There is no evidence of an irregularity, just a suspicion.

J. Alex Halderman, one of the computer scientists behind this call for an investigation, openly states that he does not believe that hacking caused the discrepancy. He suspects that the reason for the difference in pre-election polling and the results is likely bad poling.

More significantly, it doesn't appear that Pennsylvania's machines can be hacked because they were built in the 1980s and have no ability to connect to the Internet. If Pennsylvania is not in the mix then Hillary cannot win mathematically.

As for Michigan, the entire state uses paper ballots, so there is no chance that computer hacking unfairly influenced the election. If computer hacking could not have been a factor in Pennsylvania or Michigan, why did the computer scientists call for recounts in those states?

One might reasonably conclude that the difference in the exit polls, which showed Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and the actual vote, which Trump won, is the real reason behind the investigation request. The close margins of victory for Trump plus exit polls showing a Clinton win represent the only possible reasons for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

The problem with this analysis is that the exit polls were badly flawed. For example, CNN exit polls showed Hillary performing better in just about every state than she actually performed. In Ohio the exit polls showed a tie but Trump won by 8.5%. In Iowa the exit polls showed Trump winning by 3.9 but he actually won by 9.6. In Georgia, the exit polls

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

showed a 1.4 point win but he won by 5.8. This pattern of under-polling Trump's support is repeated in almost every state. The polls in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin fall right in line with this pattern.

I want to underscore just how bad the exit polling was. In the actual vote, Hillary underperformed her polling in nearly every state. Yet exit polling is the only reason computer scientists, Jill Stein and Hillary dead enders are calling for a three-state recount. It looks like many Hillary backers will believe polling no matter what happens in the real world.

Wisconsin is the only state where the 7% Clinton under-vote is alleged

The computer scientists make it sound like there is an allegation of a 7% under-vote in all three states, but it's just Wisconsin

Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.

With Melania under siege from the left, Hilfiger says he would be proud to dress her

Increasingly Melania and even Barron Trump have become targets of angry attacksSome modifications made to photo

According to the Daily Mail, Tommy Hilfiger, a designer that most people have actually heard of unlike Sophie Theallet, said that "any designer should be proud" to dress Melania Trump. He also said that Melania is "a very beautiful woman" and that Ivanka is also "beautiful and smart."

Also according to the Daily Mail and Women's Wear Daily, Hilfiger said that he does does not think "people should become political about it."

The designer flap has come amidst several other attacks on Melania, specifically she received harsh criticism and mockery for speaking out against cyber-bullying. Apparently she is not permitted to speak out on any issue on which her husband does not have completely clean hands. Is this what modern feminism wants, blaming the wife for the alleged sins of the husband?

In addition, Gigi Hadid mocked Melania Trump in a shocking way, seeming to make fun of her accent and making a tortured reference to the claim of a plagiarized speech. Hadid did go on to apologize to "anyone that I offended." That's great, but the AMA audience still laughed at the mockery and her letter is really rather sparing on the apology. All of it is shocking.

Finally, Rosie O'Donnell has mentioned Barron Trump in what seems like a sympathetic context on the face of it, but could be intended to hurt Melania and Barron in particular by either stating a falsehood or violating their privacy in a profoundly unacceptable way.

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

Michelle Obama's designer, Sophie Theallet, says she will not dress Melania, and others should refuse as well

Gigi Hadid mocks Melania Trump

Follow me on Twitter

Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.

TRUMP EFFECT: Dow Jones hits 19,000 for the first time in history

Despite dire predictions from the dominant liberal media, the Dow Jones is hitting record highs - Some modifications made to photos 1 | 2

The CNN Money headlines reads, "Stunning! Dow hits new high of 19,000 as Trump rally continues."

Prior to the election, the media all but handed the presidency to Hillary Clinton. Investors seemed okay with Hillary winning, as share indexes increased. When it began to look like Trump might catch her, shares dropped. But now we see that this was largely a result of fear of uncertainty and not a fear of Trump.

Once Trump won the White House, the market has soared. The expectations that Trump's tax cuts and reduced regulations could increase overall demand in the economy and increase growth seems to have pumped the Dow.

The Dow will certainly drop back below 19,000, but hitting a new

mark is always significant, especially in such a charged political environment when media prognosticators had predicted drops.

Video: See what Trump said in his message to America this morning

Follow me on Twitter




Trump rips CNN head Jeff Zucker and CNN to his face in front of rest of media

According to New York Post sources, the meeting was a "f---ing firing squad" Photo was modified

According to the Hollywood Reporter, today Donald Trump met with several television network anchors and executives from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC. People who attended included George Stephanopoulos, Chuck Todd, Jeff Zucker, Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Rose, Lester Holt, John Dickerson and Norah O'Donnell, among others.

According to a source that spoke to the New York Post, Trump told CNN head Jeff Zucker that "I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed."

The source also said to the New York Post, "The meeting was a total disaster." That source said that Trump said repeatedly that, "We're in a room full of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong."

 CNN's questions more badgering than inquiries

Follow me on Twitter




Trump's best friend in politics, the hostile millennial protester

The more hostile and disrespectful the protester, the more they help Trump win in 2018 and 2020 Photo was modified

President Obama was a community organizer, which in many respects is a friend to protest. So it is not surprising that the current president encouraged the protester against Trump, telling them, "don't be silent" and "organizing matters." We are seeing a lot of protesters take the president up on his advice and go into the streets protesting against Trump. Many, however, are protesting angrily, blocking traffic, engaging in absurd theater to make equally absurd points, or even openly disrespecting the newly elected Vice President, all to protest the election.

The vast majority of those protesters fall within the millennial generation. They are the single largest voting bloc by age group, yet they turned out in the lowest percentage. So they are literally protesting their own laziness in screaming fits by blocking traffic and standing for five hours pretending to be a slave, apparently suggesting that Trump's election indicates people who voted Trump want slavery back.


Perhaps chief among them is one Brandon Victor Dixon, a thirty-five year old millennial who took his opportunity to protest Trump's election by calling on the Vice President-Elect to protect and uphold the inalienable rights of "the diverse America," after calling on the audience to record and share the statement on social media. That was a modern protest, disrespecting the VP-elect in as public a way possible after he attended your show, a show of support for diversity on the part of Pence, or at least one would think. Go figure.

Many millennials simply can't accept the election. The problem for them is that much of the older Democratic coalition has left the Democrats to vote for Trump. They did this amidst all of the fury of the pre-election protests and outrage poured upon America from

Hollywood, academia and in social media. Their anger didn't persuade those former Democrats to leave Trump before the election and it will not persuade them now.



Even worse for the Democrats, the generation following the millennials has shown signs of being much more conservative than millennials. The screaming student-loan class seems to be isolated in America. The next election will see many more members of that next generation, Generation Z, begin to vote.

It is a good bet that this new younger injection of conservatism will help to offset the overwhelmingly liberal millennial generation. That, in conjunction with Trump's new coalition that includes a large portion of former Democrats in the Industrial Midwest states, will likely be enough to secure victories for Republicans in 2018 congressional elections and the 2020 presidential reelect.

We know this because all of the protesting and accusations of racism and sexism did not work this time. They pulled out all the stops and delivered a full-throated condemnation of Donald Trump and all his supporters and it failed. What makes them think it will work after Trump has had a chance to actually lead as president and is not merely a former reality show star? Trump will have the biggest platform of any person in the world for four years so people will hear him unfiltered. A strategy of outrage and condemnation will not work against a president.

All the screaming in the world will just accomplish more of what happened in 2016, driving women and millennials who do not like conflict and controversy to tune out while Trump's determined coalition grows and becomes emboldened. Scream if you must, but with every scream you just sink the Democratic party's hopes of winning further into quick sand. It may very well be true that the Democrats are stuck with this protest mindset, in which case they will lose for a good while longer.

Follow me on Twitter




Is General Mattis the next General Patton? A closer look

Photos 1 | 2

President-Elect Trump Tweeted about his impression of the interview with General Mattis:


SEE MORE . . . .


1 out of 8 African-American men voted for Trump

The old Democrat strategy of charging racism is failing. Many minorities simply do not believe that Trump is a racist.


Nearly one in eight black men voted for Trump

Thirteen percent of black men voted for Trump, this according to the official exit polls. This more than doubles Romney's performance with African-American men. Considering that the exit polls, like any other poll, rely on the respondent to tell the truth, it is reasonable to assume some black men who voted for Trump may not have admitted it. The shy Trump voter was a common feature in polling this year that only a few poll analysts anticipated.

Polling throughout the states and nationally demonstrated that more people voted for Trump than said they were going to in the polls. The polls seemed to hide between one and two percent of Trump's vote due to the shy Trump voter. This is based on where he polled verses how people actually voted.

Trump would have fared a little better with blacks overall

So apply the shy Trump voter to the exit polls, we see Trump probably pulled 14 to 15% of black men and 5 to 6% of black women. Hillary also polled especially strong with all women in the electorate. African-American women only voted for Trump at a 4% rate.

Considering the sharp gender gap throughout the electorate, it is fair to assume that more black women would have voted for Trump if he had been running against a man. It's fair to assume he probably would have pulled about 9 to 11% of the overall African-American vote if polls were accurate. Had he run against a man, he may have received as much as 13 to 15% of the black vote. The Democrats need to rethink their basic strategy of appealing to the charge of racism.

Follow me on Twitter





There were many fake social media stories, often thanks to left-wing sites

Here is a list of fake left-wing websites designed to fool conservatives

President Obama slams social media for pushing fake conservative news

Our president slammed social media yesterday as responsible for allowing "fake news" stories to receive more clicks than real news. Obama was parroting a BuzzFeed story, yes BuzzFeed, that claimed that more fake news stories were clicked on social media than actual news. The allegation by BuzzFeed and the president implies that fake news allowed Trump to get elected. Whoa! Back it up now. Let's take a closer look.

President Obama needs to take a closer look at the fake news industry

There are several problems with this analysis. First, BuzzFeed should not throw stones. They represent the fount of nonsense on the Internet. Small point, but nonetheless it had to be said. Second, the mainstream media has lost credibility with a vast majority of Americans. Only 32% of Americans trust the media. The rest think they are dishonest.

This is true because many news stories that are trumpeted as significant rest on anonymous sourcing or badly flawed political polling. The mainstream media campaigned for Hillary Clinton and constantly attacked Trump using whatever sources and polls it could get it hands on, many of which were flat out false and wrong. The president should condemn a media that was so dishonest, but he does not.

As for fake news, there is no doubt that it's out there. A publisher of fake news did take credit for electing Trump, but one should take that claim as seriously as his websites, not at all. Some of the fake sites are run by conservatives, but by no means do conservatives have a monopoly on fake news sites. Far from it, if anything, it's the reverse. One of the main websites listed by BuzzFeed is the Burrard Street Journal (read BS Journal). This is a website run by liberals designed to trick conservatives into circulating its stories.

As pointed out by the Stream.org, another liberal website that spins fake news typically designed to fool conservatives is the World News Daily Report. This website bills itself as a website for conservative Jews and Christians. Another website called YourNewsWire.com also attempts to mislead conservatives. Finally MrConservative.com is worth mentioning as a typically liberal website that gains clicks by often mocking conservatives, but occasionally pushing story lines that conservatives might share.

LIBERAL FAKE NEWS WEBSITES - Designed to Mislead Conservatives

1. Burrard Street Journal

2. World News Daily Report

3. MrConservative.com

4. DrudgeRetort.com

5. theMideastBeast.com

6. Borowitz Report

7. DailyCurrant.com

8. theUSpatriot.com

Often people consider polling just another way of pushing a political narrative. This election seemed to prove that in many ways. Here's a list of poll aggregators and how they performed in analyzing the polls.

POLLING- Most accurate poll aggregating websites

1. PoliticalRef.com - 0.1% popular vote error, called 48 of 50 states

2. RealClearPolitics.com - 2.4% popular vote error, called 46 of 50 states

3. Sabato's Crystal Ball - No popular vote prediction, called 45 of 50 states

4. fivethirtyeight.com (Nate Silver) - 2.7% popular vote error, called 44 of 50 states

5. HuffingtonPost.com - 4.4% popular vote error, called 44 of 50 states

Follow me on Twitter



Photos: 1 | 2-First two images were modified and merged


Trump has split the Democrats into two bitterly divided camps

Trump has trapped the Democrats: They must remain committed to environmental and immigration policies that will doom them politically

Obama can boast of a fifty-seven percent approval rating, a number any president would be thrilled with. The problem for the Democrats is that Obama has virtually no ability to transfer that popularity to any other Democrat. Obama leads a coalition of millennials and African-Americans that carried him to two relatively easy presidential victories. Obama's army is driven by a purist commitment to leftist ideals but not to the policies themselves.

In other words, they love the idea of Obama's leftist goals but seem unwilling to back them up at the ballot box when anyone but Obama is on the ticket. So they are in love with an idea of leftism, just not leftism itself. Obama is the face of that dream, which is why he enjoys such high favorables. They will happily protest and scream at those they disagree with, often while crying, but they don't actually vote unless their man is on the ticket.

Schumer, Matthews and others have implied that Trump's appeal was primarily economic

Obama's leftism has cost the Dems dearly on a nationwide scale

Republicans now dominate at all levels of government. When Obama came into office, the Democrats held control of the House with a strong majority and the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority. Obama promptly lost that filibuster proof majority by forcing Obamacare through, resulting in the highly unlikely election of Scott Brown after Ted Kennedy's death. He then lost the House shortly thereafter in 2010 when the GOP won a massive landslide, netting sixty-three seats.

The Supreme Court was controlled by conservatives at a 5-4 margin when Obama took office and will soon be controlled again by a 5-4 conservative majority when Trump takes office.

Now in 2016 the GOP has held onto control of the Senate and its huge lead in the House, holding 239 of 435 seats. Democrats also now have the fewest number of state legislatures in the party's history. The Democrats have only 18 of 50 governors and only five of those governors have Democratic controlled state legislatures. Also, the GOP controls 31 of 45 lieutenant governor offices and 31 of 50 secretary of state offices.

Obama is staying in Washington so don't expect a new Democrat party

The president will remain in Washington as a shadow president haunting Donald Trump, but in reality he will be more of a menace to the Democrats. He will no doubt make his opinions known regularly, probably more so in print than on television as a faint nod to tradition and decorum.

Obama's presence will lock the Democrats into cement, stuck to his leftist approach and likely dooming the party to defeat in the next midterm and in four years. Trump has broken down the blue wall and he will probably only increase in popularity in those states if the Democrats do not shift their focus from social justice and environmentalism to jobs and the economy.

Obama will attempt to lock the Democrats into his vision for social justice and environmental emphasis. The Democratic social scene is important in D.C., and Obama will be there with his thumb on it constantly. Any attempt to diverge away from Obama's leftist vision for America will likely be met with severe social and even official condemnation.

The media controls the liberal agenda almost as much as the Democratic party does in Washington, and Obama holds sway over them no less than does a king over his court. As Schumer and Pelosi attempt to pull the Democrats away from the most radical policy goals that Obama and Ellison hold for America, there will be resistance from Obama who will be spending more time in Washington than President Trump likely will.

The army of millennials that Obama leads make up Obama's power base and he will be able to fire them up at will. The more the protesters scream in the streets at the behest of Obama, or even if they do so without his request out of the longing for the empty feel-goodism Obama offered, they will further lock the Democrats into Trump's trap.

One of Obama's Supreme Court appointments, Justice Sotomayor, seemed to encourage the protesters to continue in their rage. She is not alone. Obama's media and pop-culture army is raging against Trump and will continue to for the next four years.

Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and other pop-culture leaders of the Obama left will continue to mock Trump and anyone who supports him. These people are purists, so dedicated to the leftist assumptions about economics, social justice and the environment that they feel obliged to proselytize in the only way they know how, by demeaning any view that disagrees with theirs.

Slavish commitment to environmental policies will hold the Democrats back

The issue of the environment will split the Democrats in the Midwest severely over the next four years. While the vast majority of Democrats will hold fast to the left-wing vision of a world dying from human abuse, some will split off with an eye toward creating jobs. Trump has promised to reinvigorate the coal industry and promote exploration for and production of traditional energy sources.

The Democrats will naturally resist this, but some will seek a middle-ground position, one that mollifies both sides but pleases neither completely. This is the only possible approach for Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania because they have to remain somewhat loyal to the national party's views. For this reason, they can never adequately satisfy miners, auto workers and other members of the new Trump coalition.

Trump won those three states by small margins, but he won them nonetheless. Trump will likely have no problem holding onto his coalition because the dominant forces, namely Obama, Ellison, Bernie Sanders and the leftist media will likely not budge, preferring to rely on confidence in their innate ability to win over reluctant voters back from Trump. They will likely fail.

Matthews: "What are they (protesters) doing? They lost"


Big-city liberal mayors and Obama will defy Trump on sanctuary cities

The blue wall in the Midwest crumbled in large part because of immigration policy. The Democrats are committed to open borders and no party representing labor interests will maintain its hold on its base when it embraces open borders. Border control is essential to maintain a healthy labor market.

The sanctuary city issue is emblematic of the Democrats' commitment to open borders. Each time Rahm Emmanuel, a former Obama lieutenant, or Bill de Blasio threatens to hide illegals from the authorities headed by Trump, they remind the voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania that the Democratic party is more committed to illegal immigrants who lower wages and take jobs than to the working class.

Obama will not yield on these issues. Even if he wants to, the student loan class, aka Obama's millennial base, will remind the working class in the industrial Midwest that the Democratic party does not care about them and that they are racist, stupid and worthy of condemnation.

The Democrats are in a trap that Trump has masterfully set. If the Democrats compromise on sanctuary cities, building a strong border and enforcing the immigration laws, they will further demoralize the snowflakes that they rely on to deliver electoral victories as well as their minority base. This base combined to sweep Obama into office but now Obama policies have been firmly rejected by the working class in America. The same thing is true on environmental issues. The Democrats are stuck in a no-win situation.

Follow me on Twitter



Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - images were modified and merged


Obama's policy legacy lies in tatters

The president's supporters have little recourse left but to shout in the streets

One attempting to analyze this election might be tempted to underestimate the significance of it. That person would err. This election holds broad and lasting implications for Obama's legacy and the future of America.

I will outline briefly below the profound and lasting nature of the 2016 election. I will lay out Obama's most significant accomplishments and outline the prospects of those achievements lasting beyond Trump's first one hundred days.


Obama Achievement

Fate of that Achievement

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (Obamacare) - Obama's signature achievement was the passage of what was considered universal healthcare, although it actually left millions without insurance.




Virtually all of Obamacare is certain to fade into history. Because the funding provisions were passed through reconciliation requiring only a simple majority in the Senate, the GOP can starve the law if they can't perform a full repeal. But considering that the law is unpopular and the Democrats are defending over twenty US Senate seats in 2018, they may be able to fully repeal the law. But either way, the law will die.

SUPREME COURT LEGACY - When Obama took office conservatives held the majority on the Court by five seats to four, although Kennedy is not conservative on some issues. When Scalia died the conservative majority disappeared for the first time since 1971. Obama held two seats for liberals by appointing Sotomayor to replace David Souter and Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens.



Obama never achieved a majority in the Court. Trump will appoint Scalia's replacement and reclaim the conservative majority, likely before officially taking office. That appointee faces very good prospects for confirmation. The fact that it is Scalia's replacement will give some Democrats cover for not filibustering a conservative appointment. Beyond that, the Democrats are already likely to lose Senate seats in 2018 and a prolonged battle would likely make that a certainty considering Democrat voters' propensity to skip midterm elections.

WALL STREET REFORM - Obama passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill. The bill increased capital requirements for banks, requires living wills for large banks to avoid destructive bankruptcies, limits banks' abilities to use customer money in trading and creates a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intended to limit abusive lending practices.





Trump seems likely to appoint Jeb Hensarling, or at least Hensarling will impact the legislation that reforms Dodd-Frank, and he wants to deregulate the industry and "put the market in charge." Hensarling would rely primarily on the increased capital requirements of Dodd-Frank, and probably increase them, to provide stability to the economy. Regulations would then be reduced, thereby allowing the mass of small community banks to lend more freely, aiding in the creation of small business jobs. It seems virtually certain that Dodd-Frank will be stripped. Again, the Democrats in the Senate will be gun-shy here, easily accused of depriving Trump of the means to improve the economy, an issue the public trusts Trump on.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS - Many of Obama's accomplishments came through executive orders. Some of the most significant are listed here.

Climate Change - EPA regulations, Clean Power Plan, The Paris Agreement

Immigration - Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program

National Security - Obama tightened rules around interrogations and Iran sanctions

Trade - There were orders in support of continuing/ starting NAFTA and the TPP

Obamacare - There were orders that support Obamacare

Gender Identity - Obama signed "guidance" for the implementation of Title IX equating gender identity with biological sex. Some schools have been punished by the DOJ and Dept. of Education for insisting on separate bathrooms, locker rooms and showers for boys and girls

Executive Amnesty - Obama exempted some aliens from deportation. Although a court has limited this, Trump will need to rescind it.

Life and Religious Liberty - Obama has increased taxpayer funding of abortions and mandated the insurance coverage of abortion inducing drugs, contraception and gender reassignment surgeries and therapies.

These executive orders, and likely a good number of others, probably won't last through Trump's first week.










FOREIGN POLICY: Obama has promoted a policy of a relatively weak American role in the world. ISIS formed under his tenure largely out of a desire on the part of Obama to draw an end to our involvement in Iraq. This withdrawal of our forces resulted in a vacuum of power that ISIS promptly filled. Obama has also taken a position that America should not take a leadership role in the world on any of the major issues facing the world, but should stand in solidarity with allies on all issues whether the international consensus is damaging to America's interests or not. This is true on economic issues, refugees, environmental issues and the approach to interrogating and imprisonment of terrorists.

Obama's foreign policy approach will not survive past January 20, 2017. Trump has committed to destroying ISIS. He will not delve into specifics but makes clear that he will do what it takes to get the job done, including working with Russia and taking military actions that might result in civilian casualties if ISIS continues to shield its military assets with civilians. Trump takes an America first approach to most international issues. This is true economically, environmentally, with respect to refugees and how terrorists will be dealt with. In each case, America's best interests come before any other consideration. This stands in direct contrast to Obama's approach.

TAX RATES: The corporate tax rate under Obama is the highest in the world at 39.1%. This is a combination of the 35% federal tax rate plus the average state rate. Obama created seven tax brackets at the following percentages/income level for married couples filing jointly 10/18k, 15/74k, 25/149k, 28/227k, 33/405k, 35/407k, 39.6/above 407k.

Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 15%. He assumes that this will bring $4 trillion back to the US from overseas. There is no way of knowing for sure just how much capital will return, but much of it will. Trump proposes to lower the income tax rates to 12/75k, 25/225k and 33/above 225k.


2020 CENSUS: Obama surely hoped to hand the baton off to a Democrat successor so that the Census Bureau would make assumptions and take approaches beneficial to the Democratic Party when conducting the 2020 Census.

Trump's election prevents the Democrats from taking this opportunity to impact reapportionment and potentially place more seats in locations more favorable to their electoral prospects.

Follow me on Twitter



Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 -First two images were modified and merged


Both Comey letters hurt Hillary because they reminded voters of who she is

Clinton obstructed FBI investigators at every turn, an approach that fit a decades-long pattern of corruption

The letters underscored Wikileaks exposure of a corrupt primary process and decades of corruption

The day that Comey released his second letter stating that no new emails were found, I wrote the following article, Trump will not lose ground over Comey's announcement, may gain in MI and PA. In summary, I wrote in that article that simply raising the issue of Clinton's corruption, even in a light that was positive with respect to one particular bad act, hurts her. This was true because Americans had decided what they believe with respect to Clinton's corruption, and most thought she was corrupt.

Even many Democrats who were voting for Clinton were doing so in spite of their belief that she was corrupt. The fact that the DNC and the Clinton campaign conspired secretly to defeat Bernie Sanders surely provided more than enough evidence for a great many in the Democratic party to conclude she was corrupt.

Comey announcing that no new emails were found sounded to many of us who have concluded that Hillary was corrupt like another example of her escaping justice. She hired five of her closest aids in dual roles, both in their named role and as her attorneys. This is a move worthy of a mafia boss; it stinks of corruption.

Comey's initial recommendation against indictment, that expressly labeled her as reckless and indirectly dubbed her an obstructer of justice, brought Hillary's polls down and allowed Trump to take the lead in several polls. In the same way the two letters late in the election achieved the same political impact of reminding voters that both

Clintons skirt the edge of legality and ethics as a matter of course.

Clinton faults Comey for suggesting she did something she didn't do, but it's what she did do that hurt her

In yesterday's New York Times Clinton is quoted as saying, "our analysis is that Comey’s (first) letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum." The Clinton campaign also believes the second letter hurt her because it reminded voters, particularly white suburban women, who were already distrustful of Clinton about the email scandal, and that reminder put enough of them them over the edge to Trump to defeat her.

While Clinton sees this as a key unfair development that led to her loss, one looking at the overall campaign objectively would see this as an example of a fatal weakness that existed because the media let her skate through the primaries without any real scrutiny.

Had Clinton received even ten percent of the close attention from the press that Trump received, she likely would not have won the nomination. The Democrats pushed her to the nomination by rigging the primary process as much as possible. She enjoyed the virtually unanimous support of super-delegates. We know now that Donna Brazile was feeding debate questions to the Clinton campaign.

These letters were released against the backdrop of Wikileaks showing a deeply corrupt Democratic party. Wikileaks demonstrated that Clinton was surrounded by people who trashed their fellow Democrats in private and held Americans in low regard. Wikileaks demonstrated that favors were traded for donations to the Clinton foundation.

Any development that raised the issue of her 33,000 deleted emails, which appeared to any objective observer to likely evidence a scheme of pay-to-play corruption involving the US State Department and the Clinton Global Initiative, was bound to hurt Clinton because of the storm of corruption swirling around her, not because of any suggestion that she did something she did not do.

Follow me on Twitter

Photos: 1 | 2


Media distorts Trump's words on Obamacare repeal, provides no context

By Marc Nozell from Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA - 20160208-DSC08296, CC BY 2.0

Yes, Trump is still proposing the repeal of Obamacare. GOP has always proposed keeping the two most popular provisions.

Trump will propose market-oriented solutions

TV and radio journalists breathlessly repeated the claim that Trump is considering keeping big portions of Obamacare rather than repealing the law in full. As one might expect, some callers to talk radio took the bait, but most seemed to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps this might have been news five years ago when the GOP was first proposing to repeal the law. Since that time, every Republican proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has retained its two most popular provisions.

Namely, the requirement on insurers to accept those with pre-existing conditions and the option for young people to remain on their parents' healthcare plan until age twenty-six.

With respect to pre-existing conditions, the GOP has proposed more "targeted, fair and sustainable" methods for achieving the goal. The market-based proposal would protect any health insurance consumer with a pre-existing condition by guaranteeing acceptance into an insurance plan so long as the individual remains continuously covered.

The proposal would make buying insurance affordable for all by allowing a tax credit for those

who cannot afford it, which is a payment to the individual regardless of whether that person has paid taxes or not. Self-employed people would also receive a tax credit. In addition to the tax credit, small businesses could band together to increase buying power, putting them on par with large corporations.

Medicaid would be reformed in that states would be granted more latitude to do what is necessary to cover their populations. Medicaid faces a crisis because half of all healthcare providers no longer accept it. Reducing restrictions on states would likely give them the flexibility they need to save the Medicaid system.

GOP proposals also retain the option for young people to remain on their parents' healthcare plans until age twenty-six. The plans could be individual plans or through an employer.

Democrats and liberal journalists criticize the GOP proposals that Trump will likely adopt as "necessarily less generous and less comprehensive than the ACA." They accuse Republicans of lying about their proposals. These opponents to the GOP proposals assert that requiring the consumer to maintain continuous coverage undermines the guarantee of coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

Requiring any element of responsibility on the part of the consumer, even when the GOP proposes giving people money to pay for it through a tax credit, is too great a burden for American citizens to bear in the minds of Democrats.

Follow me on Twitter

Photos: 1 | 2


Comparing Results in 2016

Missed States are Depicted in Purple
#1 PoliticalRef.com | See Analysis
Called 48 of 50 - Missed 2 states
Popular VoteElectoral Vote
The Ref: Clinton 47.9, Trump 47.1
Actual Vote: Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.4
Error: 0.5%

Actual Results | See Results
Popular Vote: Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.4
Electoral: Clinton 232, Trump 306

Sabato's Crystal Ball | See Analysis
Called 45 of 50 - Missed 5 states
Popular VoteElectoral Vote
Sabato: No popular vote prediction

Huffington Post | See Analysis
Called 44 of 50 - Missed 6 states
Popular VoteElectoral Vote
HuffPo: Clinton 47.3, Trump 42.0
Actual Vote: Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.4
Error: 5%

RealClearPolitics.com | See Analysis
Called 46 of 50 - Missed 4 States
Popular VoteElectoral Vote
RCP: Clinton 45.5, Trump 42.2
Actual Vote: Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.4
Error: 3%

fivethirtyeight.com | See Analysis
Called 44 of 50 - Missed 6 states
Popular VoteElectoral Vote
538: Clinton 48.5, Trump 44.9
Actual Vote: Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.4
Error: 3.3%

Follow me on Twitter


From Brexit to the Trump Revolution 

Brexit was a harbinger for an even bigger western wave, the Trump Revolution Photos 1 | 2

There was a hidden Trump vote that did not show up in the polls that was worth 3.1 points. The RealClearPolitics average of four-way race polls showed a lead for Hillary of 3.3 points. One had to look no further than the Brexit vote for evidence. Pollsters said it wasn't comparable, but I fail to see why. The establishment attacked Brexit in the same way it attacked Trump, with charges of racism, ignorance and constant polls showing a Brexit loss.

But Brexit didn't lose even though most of the final polls showed that it would. Almost every poll showed the Remain side winning, one respected poll by as many as ten points. Yet the the Leave side won by four points. Clearly when the media and pop culture establishment has its favorites, it can create a perception that it is winning. Even supporters of Brexit who wanted Leave expected that they would lose because of the media and celebrity campaign aimed at convincing them they would lose.

So even though Brexit supporters thought they were going to lose, and the polls almost exclusively showed Remain winning comfortably, Brexit won. The same types of themes and players are involved in the American 2016 election as in Brexit. Brexit was considered racist by the establishment because of its focus on British nationalism and wanting to limit immigration.

Donald Trump is considered racist by the establishment because of his emphasis on American nationalism and wanting to limit immigration.

Brexit was viewed as protectionist by the establishment, including the Conservative party establishment who exalts completely free trade. Donald Trump is considered protectionist by the establishment, including the conservative establishment who also prize completely free trade above everything, including human rights. The conservative establishments in both nations prefer to ignore the virtually slave labor that Brits and Americans must compete against, all for the sake of "free" trade.

Both nations are also suffering from long-term economic stagnation in the labor market. The labor voter is frustrated in each nation and one can easily imagine workers who typically do not vote turning out to vote with the very targeted approach of the Brexit campaign and Trump. One can also imagine those same people refusing to talk to pollsters who they view as hostile to them.

The media treated Trump in the same way it treated Brexit, as racist, ignorant and protectionist. It launched Democrat laden polls at Trump supporters, padding Hillary's lead, stridently condemning Trump and all who would even consider voting for him, as they did with Brexit. Some of the same pollsters are finding Trump behind by similar margins as they found Brexit behind, such as Ipsos. In many ways, Brexit and Trump are cousins. We should have expected that there is a hidden vote for Trump as there was for Brexit. The average of polls heading into the Brexit vote showed Remain winning by two points, although it ultimately lost by four points, a six-point swing. The pollsters missed Trump's performance by three points.

One wonders how much Trump have won by if the media had not spent three months discouraging and attacking Trump supporters.

Follow me on Twitter