Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Radical but needed say Democrats


Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in the 2016 election by almost 3-million votes. Now to me that signifies there were about 3-million more people who wanted Clinton for president than T-rump. But the Electoral College gave the Oval Office to the idiot. Majority didn't rule and the Trump forces
found a way to manipulate the College. 3-million is no paltry figure and the whole thing should resonate with the voting public. Elizabeth Warren and Beto O'Rourke are in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, other presidential candidates aren't so clear. The EC was dreamed up to give small states equal representation in elections. This concept is, perhaps, outdated today and there is certainly enough evidence to prove the Electoral College is not equitable.

Monday, June 4, 2018

Trump to beat in 2020...if he's still around


And here is the left's voting problem
Now these are opinions based on the statements of political experts that were involved in past and current elections. They take into consideration the election of Barack Obama in 2012, and the fact that in 2016, "Voters were looking for something more "strident" than Obama’s "incrementalist agenda." In other words, they wanted a faster track than Clinton was exhibiting. Something like Bernie Sanders. Not sure, though, they wanted the ignorant bluster of a Donald Trump, but he was elected; they wanted action not promises. Trump was a mover and shaker and he excited people.

That's all proven to be big mouthed bullshit, but those who still support the Oval Office lunatic are solid in their backing. The last I heard they were around 30%, an easily beatable figure. The Democratic candidate was all wrong in 2016; it should have been Bernie Sanders but the fraud of DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, nominated Hillary Clinton. Maybe Sanders will run again, or perhaps the left could convince someone like James Comey, former FBI Director, to run as a Democrat. Think about that...James Comey running against Donald Trump. More on this later.

One of the main items on the Progressives/Democrats agenda is getting out the vote. According to Nate Silver's 538, the Republicans were able to get their voters to the polls much more aggressively than Democrats. Progressives naturally rejected Hillary Clinton because of the DNC fiasco, and the fact that it was this that beat their candidate, Bernie Sanders. If Sanders plans to run in 2020, and his age will be a factor, he must throw his hat in now. We also cannot rule out Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Whoever it is, the youth vote must be considered.

The Progressive/Democratic candidate must enthusiastically go after social media to spread its message to all ages and over all political persuasions. The Russia probe of Donald Trump should be a great handle for the left. If a Progressive candidate is nominated, the Democrats must get behind him or her. Many political pundits talk of the potential success of a Sanders/Warren ticket in 2020 winning big on the Progressive side, combining experience with youth, two people who seem to excite their followers to action, meaning voting.

If Trump does last, the candidates on the left will have the most corrupt administration that this country has ever experienced to run against. There are the Donald Trump daily lies, his Stormy Daniels and similar escapades, firing of FBI Director Jim Comey in obvious obstruction of justice in the Russian investigation, the scandal over Michael Cohen's consulting, more obstruction of justice, again, involving Comey, in defending Michael Flynn, and the list goes on and on. Never in the history of American elections has there been this kind of ammunition for a political party.

But...will the Progressives/Democrats be able to pull it off???

Read more: How Hillary Clinton blew it
                   How Trump won the election: volatility and a common touch
                   How did Trump win? Here are 24 theories

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Political Satire: Political scientists make startling discovery


Forerunner to Donald Trump
The earliest known politician has now been acknowledged to have had a gigantic cavity used for eating and excreting. Through all the years, and with all the evolution of the art of politics, this creature's huge opening began to spew a regular progression of invectives designed to out-dumb its opponent and win the competition at hand. The typical politician was born. Political scientists studied this critter for years, trying to attach their findings to a living human being. And then came the election of 2016, and Donald John Trump was elected President of the United States. The amoeba will never be the same.

Read more about the amoeba...


Thursday, December 22, 2016

To hack or not to hack


Russia covert cyberattacks
Apparently, the Russians decided to hack and there are many who think this had a negative effect on Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency. Taking it a step further, the U.S. has concluded that Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the hacking. I did an earlier post, "Why did Putin want Donald Trump in the White House?" that offered two options...
One, Putin feels Trump will look ridiculous to the rest of the world with his show business background and lack of experience, thus, make the U.S. more vulnerable in foreign affairs.
Two, the president-elect would undo all the sanctions placed on Russia by the United States putting Russia in a better financial position.
Any way you cut it, this country loses. Here's a statement by NBC News...
"The CIA has concluded that Russia mounted a covert intelligence operation to influence the U.S. election in an effort to help Donald Trump win, a congressional official knowledgeable on the matter told NBC News."
But the Senate's resident idiot, Mitch McConnell has rejected bipartisan pressure to create a select committee to investigate what has now been confirmed is Russian cyberattacks designed to tamper with the U.S. 2016 election. McConnell thinks his two Senate minions, Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), both on the Senate Intelligence Committee, can handle it. Outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says...
"...that keeping the investigation limited to the committees could be an intentional effort by McConnell to limit the effectiveness of the probe."
Now you can understand why I have designated Mitch McConnell the resident Senate idiot. The GOP won the election, McConnell was reelected recently--six more years of idiocy--and this slime ball is afraid an investigation will uncover the fact that everything above is accurate. And that Trump could have colluded with Putin to win the election. Another known fact is that the president-elect has yearned to do business in Russia for years with no luck. His connections to the country span three decades and Time has shown... 
"...since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle."
The election may be over, and the electors may have confirmed Donald Trump's presidency, but the mystery continues of just how did the 2016 election really conclude. 

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Which side of the nation are you on?


A nation divided
The results of the 2016 election have spawned a huge game of 'Who do you like?' In the cases of the high-profile politicians, nobody's winning, except Barack Obama. In a recent CNN/ORC poll the results were dismal for at least three:
For all Americans 
  • Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, 47% favorable, 35% Unfavorable
  • Hillary Clinton, 40% Favorable, 57% Unfavorable
  • Mitch McConnell, Sen.Majority Leader, 25% Favorable, 39% Unfavorable
Real Clear Politics rates Donald Trump currently, 39.5% Favorable, 56% Unfavorable. All of this is out in left field compared to Barack Obama's rating following his 2008 election, 70% Favorable, 25% Unfavorable. His current, Favorable 56%, Unfavorable 40%. In another Republican comparison, when George W. Bush left office, his Favorable was 27%, Unfavorable 66%. The key is the Dems needed someone like Obama in 2016...think Bernie Sanders.

We just experienced the most obnoxious election in recent history, perhaps ever.
"...more than 8-in-10 Americans say the country is more deeply divided on major issues this year than in the past several years."
"And more than half say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the US."
But here's hope for Progressives, "...nearly 8-in-10 overall hope to see the GOP-controlled government incorporate some Democratic policies into its agenda." CNN interprets the poll saying
"...'most' say they would like to see President-elect Donald Trump, who won with an Electoral College majority despite trailing in the popular vote nationwide, pursue policies that could draw in new supporters rather than appeal solely to those who backed him during the campaign."
Not sure who CNN's "most" is, but I do not see Progressives wanting new supporters in any Republican form, certainly not the Donald Trump ilk. But the feelings are unanimous that we are a split nation, "...with 85% saying so overall, including 86% of independents, 85% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats." And even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the general public still feels ill about her following the election.

As Progressives, we can only hope that Trump will do the right thing. If not, there is 2008. Unfortunately, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats/Progressives have been saying that too much in the last few years.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Real reason Donald Trump won


Is this reason for the low turnout?
All things considered, anger at Washington insiders, people didn't like Hillary Clinton, and on and on, the real reason Donald Trump won this election was the low turnout. Almost 5% less votes were cast in 2016 than 2012, and the latter was 3.7% less than 2008. The Bernie bunch let us down. The blacks let us down. And once again the Hispanics let us down. So in comes a stampeding group of Trump do willies who stumble through the process of electing...him.

A low turnout by lazy Democrats has always favored a Republican base, which at least rises to the occasion when it is important.

The outcome is that we are stuck with Donald Trump for the next four years--but maybe not says Michael Moore--as the President of the most powerful country in the world. More than scary, right? In case you are interested, this is the profile of the gang that elected your President. By "your," think you know what I'm talking about. Here is how Allen Clifton of Forward Progressive describes the supporters for the new President-elect:
1. They’re not very well-educated
2.They have delusional visions about how wealthy they might be
3. They really don’t know a damn thing about politics
4. They’re highly misinformed about nearly everything and extremely gullible
 5. They think they’re a whole lot smarter than what they actually are and tend to be extremely stubborn, if not outright arrogant
Now here is one I've never heard before, #2: They have delusional visions about how wealthy they might be. You mean even the dimmest of the Donald dimwits think they can do what he did? Take a million dollars from your father and turn it into four bankruptcies? Well, they would. And more power to them. But meanwhile we're stuck with, well you know what. But like I said earlier, maybe there is hope when Trump starts again with his bizarre antics.

Let me finish with a question. Can we surmise from the above plus other recent articles on Donald Trump's election; are his followers simply uneducated rednecks? Shades of the Tea Party.


Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...