You Have to Win the Electoral College

For John, BLUF:  Well, at least tie it, throwing the election into the House of Representatives.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Wargaming the Electoral College:  Welcome to the Thunderdome, 2024

From PJ Media / VodkaPunit, by Blogger Stephen Green, 27 March 2024, 3:45 PM.

Here is the lede plus four:

Welcome to the inaugural Wargaming the Electoral College column for the 2024 campaign. I've been doing this as VodkaPundit since 2004 and in my private life — inspired by "The McLaughlin Group" at the tender age of 19 — since 1988 when George Bush squared off against Mike Dukakis.

Coincidentally, that race took place years ago and was Joe Biden's first outing in the Democrat primaries. It's amazing to think about how long ago that was since today he doesn't look a day over a hundred and seven.

Democrats have been playing two very dangerous games with their lawfare against Donald Trump. The first is the damage they're doing to the political health of our republic. The second is the danger to themselves. It's clear that the Biden camp wanted a rematch against Trump, having beaten him (by whatever means...) once already. The lawfare campaign — waged locally but orchestrated from the White House — was meant to rally GOP primary voters to Trump. And that it surely did. But they may have taken it too far, perhaps causing independent voters to rally to Trump, too.

As always, thanks to the fine folks at 270toWin for their excellent online EC tool.

Let's go to the maps.

And from that point we see a series of maps, with analysis of different state decisions in November on obtaining the needed 270 Electoral College votes.  The US Electoral College has 538 electors, 535 from the 50 States and 3 from the District of Columbia.

In the view of the VodkaPundit, the breakdown is, at this point, fairly even, with a slight edge to President Biden, but 98 Electors in play (unlike the map, he gives Minnesota to President Biden).  but, it is seven months until the election, and, I assert, the half-life of a political memory in the United States is 90 days.  Even so, I like the examination of several possible future paths.

No discussion of Candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr.  Thus no examintion of how Mr Kennedy would pull votes from either of the main candidates, or even if he might win in one or more states.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Dissatisfied Sometimes Move

For John, BLUF:  People who are unhappy with theeir local governments are moving to places they find more congeniel.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Great Divorce? 2.6 Million Fled Counties That Voted For Biden

From Issues and Insights, by I & I Editorial Board, 19 April 2023.

Here is the lede plus one:

Is the country separating itself into two distinct camps?  One increasingly leftist and the other trying desperately to cling to traditional American values?  Census data seem to show that it very well could be underway. Last week, we commented on recent population data showing that people have been fleeing urban areas, noting that these are mostly Democratically controlled, and we pointed out that people have also been moving from blue states to red.

But we wanted to go deeper and get more precise numbers.  So, we matched Census net migration data from mid-2020 through mid-2022 for all the nation’s 3,000-plus counties (or their equivalents) and compared that with how these counties voted in 2020.  Our working assumption is that the results of the incredibly divisive 2020 election would be a good barometer of the devoutly held political views in those counties.

What we found was striking: There has been a vast migration out of counties that voted for Joe Biden into those counties that voted to reelect Donald Trump.

Census data show a net internal migration of almost 2.6 million (2,584,459 to be exact) from blue counties to red since Biden was elected.  (These figures don’t count immigrants or births or deaths, just those Americans moving from one location to another.)

Here are some of the findings from their look at the data:

• More than 61% of the counties that voted for Biden in 2020 lost population, while 65% of Trump-supporting counties gained population.
• Of the 555 counties Biden won, 335 (or 61%) lost population due to internal migration, our analysis found. Of the 2,589 counties that Trump won, 1,675 (or 65%) gained population.
• Two Biden-voting counties that lost the most from net migration were Los Angeles County, which was down 363,760, and Cook County, Illinois, down 200,718. While many of the blue counties that lost population were urbanized, the exodus was widespread and nationwide, including many far more sparsely populated liberal areas.
• In contrast, the biggest loss in any red county was Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, down just 18,470, followed by Worcester County, Maryland, which is in the southern part of the state, down only 17,545.
• In 13 states that had a net loss of population, red counties nevertheless showed gains. In California, which saw a massive net outflow of 871,127 people in just the past two years, counties that backed Trump had a net gain of 8,412.  New Jersey suffered a loss of 107,749 over the past two years, but counties in the Garden State that voted for Trump gained 22,507.  Michigan lost 43,188 overall, but its red counties had a net gain of 28,091.

Does this mean there will be a shift in voting for President?  That is not obvious.  The migrants may be moving away from "Blue" problems, but they may be bringing "Blue" attitudes with them.  A friend of mine in New Hampshire last week wrote about a quiet little town that attracted people from Masschusetts, who brought with them a desire for curbs and sidewalks and traffic lights and soon taxed the locals out of the town.

On the other hand, the recent wilding in Chicago may be the kind of thing that causes residents to change their minds on law and order and to move to find it, thus changing their political orientation at least somewhat.

However, businesses closing in downtown areas may also cause some to flee from those areas.  For example, Whole Foods announced in early April that it is closig its flagship San Francisco store over employee safety concerns.

The reason this matters is the impact of geography on the elections of Presidents.  Each state automatically gets two Electors, and then more based upon popultion. As population flows out of California or New York, those states may lose Electors, while other states gain Electors.  Mr William A. Galston, writing in The Wall Street Journal, tells us "What Drives Political Polarization".  Per Mr Glston, "A new study suggests that the jobs gaps between rural and urban places is a key."

In a way, internal migration is a way for politics to work itself out.  Small groups, which can not influence their own local governments can move and help influence the overall national approach by uniting with like minded people in their new locations.

November 2032 will tell us if there is an impact on voting patterns.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Using a Common Language

For John, BLUF:  What is the House Select Committee on 6 January investigating?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Understanding the 6 January Capitol Hill Imbroglio

From a blog by Ann Althouse, by Professor Ann Althouse, 30 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

"As one of the nation’s leading proponents of the insurrection hoax, Liz Cheney has pushed a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative.  Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to begin/Former president intensifies attacks on Liz Cheney at Wyoming rally and endorses her Republican primary challenger in midterm elections" (The Guardian).

I believe what he was calling a hoax was the "insurrection" characterization.  That's why he said "the so-called word insurrection."  Now, that's a bit inarticulate.  Obviously, "insurrection" is really a word.  The point is that entry into the Capitol doesn't fit the definition of an "insurrection," which isn't a surprising assertion.  Trump gets back at his accusers by calling the "insurrection" characterization "a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative."

Has anyone on the Cheney side ever explained how it could be possible to think that overrunning the building could overthrow the government?  I wish people on both sides would use accurate language, but of course, they won't.

Here is one of the 86 Comments:

If it was an insurrection it was one of the worst in recorded history.  I have heard nothing about plans to seize communications centers.  There seemed to have been no plan for sustaining an occupation of the Capitol Building.  The number of armed participants seemed small.  Yes, we need more of a Wikipedia definition of insurrection than a Dictionary version.  On the other hand, the Post-6 January judicial process seems slow, ineffective, vindictive and avoiding of any deep dive.

Pretty much sums up my views.  However, one wonders if what the Democrats in the House of Representatives are thinking is Coup?

In summation, I see the 6 Jsnuary hearings as being a political ploy by a coalition of Democrats and Anti-Trump Republicans, to try to smear all Republicans in anticipation of the November Elections.  I don't think it will work.&nsp; On the other hand, I don't think it will hurt Democrats in the Mid-Term Elections any more than will inflation of fuel and food prices.

In the mean time, individuals continue to misremember what happened.  For example, President Biden recently said that two Capitol Police were killed by the "Occupiers".  Didn't happen. Yet no discussion of the killing of Ashli Babbitt.

For the re4cord, I believe ethat Candidate Joe Biden received the necessary Electoral College votes to be President of the United States.  At the same time, I believe there were irregularities in voting in various states.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Corruption in 2020 Election

For John, BLUF:  Two key points.  The Electoral College elected Joseph Biden President and there is no changing that fact.  Further, no matter how many pundits disgrace themselves by denying it, there were pockets of corruption in the 2020 elections.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Explosive Pennsylvania Testimony Explains How Leftist Money Infiltrated Election Offices In 2020

Here is the sub-headline:

This evidence should be enough for the Pennsylvania legislature to recognize there is a real problem when private money and private actors collaborate with election officials.

From The Federalist, by Columnist Msrgot Cleveland, 8 pril 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

The Democrat governor’s office in Pennsylvania colluded with left-wing activists to secure millions of dollars in private money to run get-out-the-vote efforts in blue counties in the swing state in 2020, new, explosive testimony revealed.  The Pennsylvania legislature heard this testimony, backed up by email evidence, on Tuesday during the first public hearing on two new bills seeking to block private grants.

Tuesday’s public hearing began with statements by the respective primary sponsors of the bills that seek to ban dark money from elections, with Sen. Lisa Baker speaking in support of Senate Bill 982 and Rep. Eric Nelson encouraging passage of House Bill 2044.  Pennsylvania investigative journalist Todd Shepherd then testified at length on the results of his extensive probe into the insertion of private funds into the 2020 election.

With a series of PowerPoint slides, Shepherd revealed to lawmakers that beginning in July 2020, consultants working for leftist organizations coordinated with local election officials and Democrat Gov.Tom Wolf’s office to lobby five blue counties to apply for these private grants.  While the grants originated with the nominally non-partisan Center for Tech and Civic Life—an organization that Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s private foundation later infused with some $350 million in cash—emails reveal that a main consultant involved in targeting select counties, Marc Solomon, worked for the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, or the CSME.

Get out the vote efforts are good.  but they have to be fairly done.  To use state level governmental [political] power to steer money to benefit one or another party is ethically, and per the article, legally wrong.

Thus, what was done in Pennsylvania was wrong.  Learning about it doesn't change the outcome of 2020.  It is what it is.  That said, what we know today should influence what is done at the local, state and Federal levels in 2024.  To deny this is to show oneself to be, at best, corrupt, and at worse fascist in conduct.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trusting the Election

For John, BLUF:  There has been controversey about the 2020 election, from President Donald Trump saying it was stolen to Democrats saying it was perfectly clean.  I expect the truth is less absolute.  I also expect the average voter thinks there were some problems, and thinks it is rubbish to deny it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

More believe in cheating in 2020 election, hit ‘Zuckerbucks’

From The Washington Examiner, "Secrets" Column, by Columnist Paul Bedard, 23 December 2021, 10:46 AM.

Here is the lede plus two:

Angered by growing reports that Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg steered vote-generating donations to pro-Biden counties, more voters believe that cheating occurred in the 2020 elections.

Shoving aside repeated liberal media dismissals of cheating claims, those who believe it occurred increased from 56% in October to 59% in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll previewed for Secrets.

Asked “How likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?” just 36% said unlikely. What’s more, the largest group, at 40%, said that cheating was “very likely.”

To dispose of the background question, I believe that President Biden won sufficient Electoral Votes to become President of the United States.  Or, in an old expression, "Close Enough for Government Work."

At the same time I believe there was hanky-panky, as in Phildelphia and Atlanta.♠  Enough to swing the election?  I am doubtful.

I expect that, in reality, the average voter believes there is a certain level of corruption in voting.  When they are told the voting is totally clean they become doubtul of that claim to purity.  That is what happened in the 2020 November Election. The People reverted to that old Groucho Marks line:  "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"  The more the Media and the Democratic Party doubled down on the cleanness of the election, the more the average Citizens began to doubt.♥

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  My concern is the way "Poll Watchers" were excluded from the vote counting process.  Why exclude the Poll Watchers?  It could be the vote counters were just irritated with the Poll Watchers.  However, that is petty and looks like the existence of petty dictatorships in some locations, something that brings to mind Tammeny Hall.
♥  I think we see the same thing with regard to COVID-19.  The Federal Government made pronouncements early on that did not pan out.  Rather than acknowleding the early mistakes, "scientists" just changed the story.  However, the average Citizen became a little dubious, and some became very dubious.  This argues for being open and honest and trusting the citizens to understand that things evolve as new information becomes available,

Reviewing the Vote

For John, BLUF:  As we all know, the Electoral College elected Candidate Joe Biden President of the United States, back in January of 2021.  The question is, do we have a uniformly efficient, honest and effective voting system across the States and Territories?  This is about checking on that.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on

From The Boston Globe, by Associated Press Reporters Jonathan J Cooper and Bob Christie, 10 May 2021, 1:15 a.m..

Here is the lede plus three:

On the floor of Veterans Memorial Coliseum, where Sir Charles Barkley once dunked basketballs and Hulk Hogan wrestled King Kong Bundy, 46 tables are arrayed in neat rows, each with a Lazy Susan in the middle.

Seated at the tables are several dozen people, mostly Republicans, who spend hours watching ballots spin by, photographing them or inspecting them closely.  They are counting them and checking to see if there is any sign they were flown in surreptitiously from South Korea.  A few weeks ago they were holding them up to ultraviolet lights, looking for a watermark rumored to be a sign of fraud.

This is Arizona’s extraordinary, partisan audit of the 2020 election results in the state's most populous county — ground zero for former President Donald Trump and a legion of his supporters who have refused to accept his loss in Arizona or in other battleground states.  Theses ballots have been counted before and certified by the Republican governor.  Much of the country has moved on.

And yet, in this aging arena, Republicans are searching for evidence to support claims they already believe.

The opening is a somewhat snarky look at the ongoing vote recount in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The Reporters then go on to say:

The effort has alarmed voting rights advocates, election administrators and civil rights lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice, who this past week demanded confirmation that federal security and anti-intimidation laws are being followed.  Senate President Karen Fann responded Friday by telling the department it had nothing to worry about.

Why are various groups "alarmed" about this effort?  If this effort reconfirms the initial results it further tamps down concerns about the November outcome.  If it finds problems it gives us plenty of time correct those problems.

For an alternate view there is, from PJ Media, "The Morning Briefing:  What Are Democrats So Afraid of in Maricopa County?"

The disinformation campaign run by the Democrats about Georgia’s new election law shows how invested they are in making all of the “irregularities” from the last election permanent.  Those of us with questions about what exactly happened are just supposed to shut up.  Curiosity is racism or something now.

. . .

There’s been a lot of recent drama about the audit that’s been going on in Maricopa County.  The Democrats have been trying to shut it down and not having much success so far.  They are persistent little buggers though, and now they’re upping their game.

At this point I don't look to any media for truth.  It is the job of those of us out in Voter-Land to take all available information and to sort through it, looking for the kernals of facts and aligning them.

Good luck to us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The 2020 Election Goes to Court

For John, BLUF:  The 2020 Election is over and Joe Biden is President.  However, the autopsy is just beginning.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Surprise:  Some Courts Are Looking at the 2020 Election

From Stream, by Governor Mike Huckabee, 23 March 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Don’t believe the media narrative that court challenges to the 2020 election are over and that we need to “move along; there’s nothing to see here.”  Yes, most courts dismissed their cases without even looking at evidence, but some rulings have been made and there are still cases to be adjudicated.  John Solomon has been keeping up with the activity.

In fact, now that Joe Biden is comfortably situated in the White House and Trump has dropped his own legal challenges, courts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia are starting to rule that the way widespread absentee balloting was handled in these states violated state laws.

Then he touches on Michigan, Wisconsin and virginia.

Yes, due to the miracle of the Electoral College, Joseph Biden is President.  No doubt about it.  That does not mean that 2020 difficulties will not be uncovered.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Congress Is Coming Back

For John, BLUF:  Here is the scheedule for the House of Representatives for this next week, starting on Sunday.  Note that Sunday, at 10:00, is a meeting of the 116th Session of Congress, the Congress going out.  At Noon the new Congress, the 117th Session meetings and begins work.  On Wednesday they get down to counting the votes of the Electoral College.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

LEADER'S WEEKLY SCHEDULE

WEEK OF JANUARY 4TH

SUNDAY, JANUARY 3RD

On Sunday, the 116th Congress will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business and adjourn sine die.

The House will convene for the start of the 117th Congress at 12:00 p.m. Members are advised that there will be a recorded quorum call at 12:00 p.m. following the Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance.

Election of the Speaker of the House

Swearing-in of Members and Delegates

MONDAY, JANUARY 4TH On Monday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business.

H.Res. 5 - Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and for other purposes (Sponsored by Rep. Steny Hoyer / Rules Committee)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 5TH
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:00 p.m. for legislative business.

Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules:

1) H.R. __ – FedRAMP Authorization Act (Sponsored by Rep. Gerry Connolly / Oversight and Reform Committee)

2) H.R. __ – Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act of 2021 (Sponsored by Rep. Mike Quigley / Oversight and Reform Committee)

3) H.R. __ – Inspector General Protection Act (Sponsored by Rep. Ted Lieu / Oversight and Reform Committee)

4) H.R. __ – Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2021 (Sponsored by Rep. James Comer / Oversight and Reform Committee)

5) H.R. __ – Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2021 (Sponsored by Rep. Gary Palmer / Oversight and Reform Committee)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6TH AND THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK
On Wednesday, the House will meet at 12:00 p.m. for legislative business.

At 1:00 p.m., the House will convene for the Joint Session of Congress to count the electoral ballots for the President and Vice-President of the United States.

Members are advised that votes are possible during the Joint Session. Additional information regarding votes will be announced as soon as it becomes available.

Additional Legislative Items Are Possible

Regards  —  Cliff

A Good Examination of Voting Issues

For John, BLUF:  Sure, Joe Biden will be finally confirmed as President Elect on 6 January, when the Electoral College vote is counted by Congress, per the Constitution.  The process is an opportunity to review our election rules and perhaps bring attention to needed improvements.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

DOJ Researcher Releases Study Indicating Massive Election Fraud in Georgia and Pennsylvania

From American Greatness, by Ms Debra Heine, 29 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

A researcher at the Department of Justice on Tuesday released a 25-page report♠ indicating a high probability of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.  World-renown economist John Lott Ph.D., examined election results from Pennsylvania and Georgia, as well as potential election fraud in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

“This paper’s approach allows us to quantify how large a potential problem vote fraud and other abnormalities might be in the 2020 election,” Dr. Lott wrote.

The paper provides us a review of absentee voting in other Democracies.  I found that part very interesting.  Other nations are much more restrictive with absentee voting than the various States of the United Statess.

We are, in this paper, dealing with statistical extractations and suspicions.  In the first example the author is looking at Fulton County, Georgia.  The author compares 2016 and 2020 votes in Fulton and surrounding Counties and finds a 7.19% difference.

The fact that the shift happens only in absentee ballots, and when a country line is crossed, is suspicious.

This is not smoking gun proof, unless one is a statistician.  That said, it raises questions that have not been properly ventilated in the media.  Thus, a challenge in the Joint Session of Congress on 6 January would not be out of order as a way of calling attention to questionable election practices.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The post had a link that one would think went to the report, but SSRN give a 404 Error.  I wonder what that is all about?  I fixed it.

Challenges to the Electoral College Vote

For John, BLUF:  The Electoral College process is unfamiliar to most of us and here is an article that explains it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here’s how Congress will count Electoral College votes

From The Boston Globe, by Associated Press Writer Mary Clare Jalonick, 30 December 30, 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

The congressional joint session to count electoral votes is generally a routine, ceremonious affair.  But President Donald Trump’s repeated, baseless efforts to challenge Democrat Joe Biden’s victory will bring more attention than usual to next Wednesday’s joint session of the Senate and the House.

The congressional count is the final step in reaffirming Biden’s win, after the Electoral College officially elected him on Dec 14.  The meeting is required by the Constitution and includes several distinct steps.

Republicans who are echoing Trump's baseless claims of fraud have said they will officially object to the results, forcing votes in the Republican-run Senate and the Democratic-controlled House that will almost certainly fail.  A group of House Republicans had been looking for a senator to sign on because there must be support from at least one member of each chamber to force the votes.  That support came Wednesday from Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a possible contender in the 2024 GOP presidential primary.

Did Ms Jalonick just use the phrase "baseless claims" twice in three paragraphs.  It sounds like she is selling something.  Selling something I am not buying.  Yes, I expect former VEEP Joe Biden to be sworn in as the next President of this Republic.  That does not mean that there is not a foul stench eminating from several locations where votes were counted.  On top of that, voting machines with proprietary software is just unconsionable.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse for also addressing this process and for talking about Democratic Party Congresscritters running their own objections to Electors over a number of recent elections where Republican candidates won.  Yesterday she had a Blog Post on this, "Mr. Hawley’s challenge is not unprecedented... Democrats in both the House and Senate challenged certification of the 2004 election results...".  Quoting from the NYT:

"... and House Democrats tried on their own to challenge the 2016 and 2000 outcomes, though without Senate support.  ... Senator Barbara Boxer of California... briefly delayed the certification of George W. Bush’s victory... cit[ing] claims that Ohio election officials had improperly purged voter rolls... which Mr. Bush carried by fewer than 120,000 votes.  Nancy Pelosi, then the House Democratic leader, supported the challenge....  The House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge and the Senate rejected it 74 to 1...  After the 2016 election, several House Democrats tried again, rising during the joint session to register challenges against Mr. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in various states.  The Democrats cited reasons ranging from long lines at polling sites to the Kremlin’s election influence operation."

Her punch line:

So... in the last three decades, every time a Republican won, Congressional Democrats challenged the certification of the election, and every time a Democrat won, Congressional Republicans did not challenge the certification.

That certainly puts a different light on what Josh Hawley is doing!

Indeed it does.

Regards  —  Cliff

Alternate Fallout

For John, BLUF:  Democrats and the Media seem obsessed by the idea that Donald Trump will lose the election in November, but will not walk away on 20 January 2021.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WHY THE NONSENSE ABOUT TRUMP REFUSING TO LEAVE OFFICE?

From Powerline, by John Hinderaker, 5 September 2020.

And. on 6 September 2020, New Yorker. Writer Jelani Cobb wrote Our Long, Forgotten History of Election-Related Violence.  He worked in the "Trump never leaving office" meme.
From the Powerline article, here is the lede plus two:

One of the Democrats’ more lunatic themes is their insistence that if President Trump loses the election, he likely will refuse to leave office, in effect staging a coup.  Most recently the claim was made by Bernie Sanders. 

The Election Outcome

For John, BLUF:  The next five months are going to be interesting.  Not too interesting, I hope.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘Are You Ready For A Trump Victory?’: Michael Moore Sounds The Alarm After Trump Closes Gap In Michigan Poll

From The Daily Caller, by Reporter Katie Jerkivich! 28 August 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Michael Moore asked people if they “are ready for a Trump victory” after the president closed the gap against Joe Biden in a new Michigan poll.

“Sorry to have to provide the reality check again, but when CNN polled registered voters in August in just the swing states, Biden and Trump were in a virtual tie,” the 66-year-old filmmaker captioned his Friday post on Instagram, along with a screenshot of the results of a poll showing Biden with 49% and Trump with 48%.

Mr Moore is a pretty bright observer of the scene, so his observation should be a wakeup call for Democrats.

But, for the long range thinkers, what is it going to be like post-20 January.  Yes, there is a small chance the Speaker of the House will slide in, but the odds are it will be either Mr Trump or Mr Biden.  I think the question is what will they do in victory or defeat?  we have former SecState Hillary Clinton saying:

Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.

Will either side concede?  More important, after Congress counts the Electoral College vote, will the loser move on?  Or, will it be like the last three and a half years, or worse?  Will the losing side take to the streets to disrupt governmet, or worse?  Will the losing side go for turning out the winning side?  Or will some states secede?  That last has been suggested by Mr John Pedesto if Mr Trump wins.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Will 2020 Resemble 1876?

For John, BLUF:  Democrats cry voter suppression and voter fraud while trying to rig the system to allow subversion of the Constitution and voter fraud.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How Donald Trump Could Steal the Election

Here is the sub-headline:

The president can’t simply cancel the fall balloting, but his state-level allies could still deliver him a second term.

MARCH 29, 2020 Jeffrey Davis Professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Here is the lede plus two:

Even under a normal president, the coronavirus pandemic would present real challenges to the 2020 American election.  Everything about in-person voting could be dangerous.  Waiting in line, touching a voting machine, and working in polling stations all run afoul of social-distancing mandates.  Already, Maryland, Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana have postponed their presidential primaries, while Wyoming, New York, and Ohio have altered their voting procedures.  Of course, other democracies face similar problems; the United Kingdom has postponed local elections for one year.

But under President Donald Trump, the possibilities for how the coronavirus could wreak havoc on the election are all the more concerning.  This is not a president who cares about the sanctity of the electoral process.  After all, he has never seemed particularly concerned about Russia’s efforts to manipulate the 2016 outcome (presumably because they were on his behalf), and he was impeached for demanding Ukrainian help in his reelection efforts.

Moreover, this is a president who has repeatedly joked about staying in office past the end of his second term and has frequently embraced authoritarian leaders and policies.  Making matters even worse, the Republican Party more broadly has displayed a willingness to bend the rules for its own political gain, frequently trying to suppress the vote (especially minority votes), purging voter rolls, and implementing aggressive racially based gerrymanders. Americans simply cannot trust that his administration will preserve the integrity of the 2020 election.

The author is Jeff Davis.  Do you think there is any relationship?

Much of this is about the Electoral College and the author manages to paint a number of scenarios without ever mentioning the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  Is this a joke?  The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been designed to circumvent the US Constitution by changing the way Electoral College members vote.  Under the Compact it doesn't matter how your state voted, the Electoral College members are directed to vote based upon who won the majority, or more likely, the plurality of the national popular vote.  The author gives us a lot of background information with little impact, except to stir concern about elections.  For example, the Hayes-Tilden Contest of 1876.♠

Then there is Russiagate, with any Ukraine involvement being denied.  Not mentioned was Chinese playing with the election.  But then the Chinese are the friends of Progressive Democrats.  Just ask the Chinese.  Or maybe Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy.  Or Massachusetts House Representative Seth Moulton.

And, I am not impressed by the idea of massive vote by mail.  I voted by mail for 30 years straight.  It took planning and it took effort on my part, like remembering to punch out the chads and making sure they were gone on my punch ballot, but it was worth it to vote.  However, I worry about relaxing the strict rules to make it happen nation wide.  The recent law suit in Nevada by Mrs Clinton's Lawyer, Marc Elias, a partner at Perkins Coie law firm, suing Nevada over ballot harvesting sets a bad example. 

• "We ask that your office and the office of the Nevada Attorney General immediately announce a suspension of prosecutions under this statute for all elections for which mail-in balloting will be the primary means of voting in the state," Elias said.
• At the same time, Elias called for Nevada to stop throwing out ballots when signatures on voters' ballots appear different from those on voters' registrations, saying "lay election officials have never had the necessary expertise" to make an accurate determination.

No rules on ballot harvesting and no checking of signatures.  All I see is voter fraud.  Thanks, Jeff Davis.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  There was apparently a lot of fraud in the voting, including one of the Carolinas, where 101% of registered voters voted.  Those would be Democrats,  And there was the threat of violence to keep some from voting.  That would be Democrats threatening.

Nullification

For John, BLUF:  A lot of Speaker Pelosi's actions in the recent past don't make sense to me and some others.  Perhaps this is the explanation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mr Steve Bannon, on Ms Maria Bartiromo's Sunday Morning Futures Program this morning (Fox News), just used the term "nullification" to describe Speaker Nancy Pelosi's actions with regard to Impeachment.  That is what is happening.  The Democratic leadership wishes to nullify the 2016 election.  That would serve to reverse the legitimate results of the Electoral College, which was based on the legitimate votes of American Voters who bothered to actually vote in November 2016.

My wife reports that earlier in the show Ms Bartiromo opined that the reason for holding up on Impeachment was to help former Vice President Joe Biden in the Iowa Caucuses, by tying down Senator Bernie Sanders in the Impeachment Trial, when he needs to be campaigning in Iowa.

This is not an attractive look for Speaker Pelosi, especially after the way the Democratic Establishment rolled over Senator Sanders in 2016.

Regards  —  Cliff

Marginalizing the Electoral College

Wikipedia
For John, BLUF:  The Republic has used the Electoral College for over two hundred years and the result has been satisfactory.  What we don't know is that will happen if it goes away.  The result could destroy support for the Constitutional arrangement in some parts of the nation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NYT:  Impeachment rightfully gives losers tyranny over winners

Here is the sub-headline:

At the NYT, hard Leftist Michelle Goldberg explains that impeachment offsets the tyranny of the Electoral College, giving losers their rightful victory.

Of course it does.  This is all about sore losers, a pitiful subset of society, Bless their little hearts.

From The Bookworm Room, by the Bookworm, 20 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

You’ve probably had your fill about impeachment.  You’ve read the articles about its being a kabuki farce, about Pelosi’s unconstitutional quid pro quo demands on the Senate, about the plan to leave the impeachment hanging in the House without ever offering Trump the chance to defend himself, about the hypocrisy of the rushed vote (“this is constitutionally an emergency”) followed by the Emily Litella “never mind,” about the Democrats’ plan to smear Trump’s name in the history books, about the effort to disable Trump (“the impeached President”) from appointing a Supreme Court justice in the event RBG passes on his watch, and about all the other silly stuff that Schiffty, Pelosi, Nadler, and their ravening pack of political wild animals have imposed on America.

Still, I have one more thing to add to the mix for today I read an honest opinion piece from the New York Times.  In it, you get a window straight into the Leftist rejection of our system of governance.  And no, I don’t usually read the New York Times, because I have better things to do with my life, but I couldn’t let this one go by.

This is about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (“NPVIC”).  This agreement between a number of states would thwart the Constitutionality mandated method of electing the President by finding a new way of binding Electors.  That said, I can see problems with "faithless Electors.

All that said, the problem with 2016 is that Candidate Hillary Clinton didn't receive the majority of the vote, as the table below shows:

CANDIDATES	PARTY	VOTES	PERCENTAGE
Trump / Pence	Republican	62,984,828	46.09%
Clinton / Kaine	Democratic	65,853,514	48.18%
Johnson / Weld	Libertarian	4,489,341	3.28%
Stein / Baraka	Green	1,457,218	1.07%
McMullin / Finn	Independent	731,991	0.54%
Castle / Bradley	Constitution	203,090	0.15%

Source is Wikipedia

There are two kinds of voting majorities.  In the United States we say "plurality" and "majority" (with British English the terms are "relative majority" and "absolute majority").  With regard to the popular vote, Ms Clinton won a plurality, but not a majority.  If she had won sufficient electoral votes, Mrs Clinton would still be a minority President.

If, and to me it is a big if, we want to go with the popular vote we will need to either have a runoff, to get someone to a majority of the votes, or we can go with "Rank Choice Voting".

What we know for sure is that Mrs Clinton and her running mate, Mr Kaine, absolutely failed to win a majority of the votes cast.  To whine about the Electoral College is to quibble over how any given candidate failed to win straight out.

For the Democrats there is a so far hidden problem with NPVIC.  Candidate Trump could lose California and New York by small margins and win big elsewhere and thus get a plurality of the popular vote, thus beating whoever the Democrats throw up in 2020.

Sadly, our legislators, down on Beacon Hill, in the Great and Glorious General Court, voted to joint the NPVIC.nbsp; People we elected.  Sad.  Very sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pierre Trudeau, Minority Winner

For John, BLUF:  Our neighbors to the North didn’t just vote in a minority Prime Minister, they voted in on whose party came in second place in the vote.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

JUSTIN TRUDEAU—ILLEGITIMATE PREMIER?

From Power Line Blog, by Mr Steve Hayward, 22 October 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

A few days ago I was on a panel disputing the subject of replacing the current electoral college method of selecting the president with the “national popular vote compact,” in which states adding up to more than 270 electoral votes would pledge to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner, regardless of how any particular state’s voters may have come out.  This effectively abolishes the electoral college.

Picture this scenario:  Trump wins the popular vote next year but loses the conventional electoral college narrowly, but under this scheme California’s electoral votes would go to Trump and make him the winner after all, even though he’ll likely lose the vote in California by 2.5 million or more.  Would this abject contradiction of local majority sentiment really please California voters?  I’d love to see this happen, just to watch liberal heads explode when yet another grand reform blows up in their faces.

One of the republican merits of the present electoral college system is that the winner’s electoral majority by necessity takes in or expresses a wider range of interests than are contained in a mere numerical majority, especially a numerical majority that is now so lopsided or concentrated in a few metropolitan areas on the coasts.  Take out Los Angeles County, the Bay Area, and the New York metro area, and Trump carries the rest of the country by a large majority.  Think those three urban areas are well representative of a cross-section of American interests and opinions?  Ask yourself this:  the most popular vehicle in America is the pickup truck.  Yet you don’t seen many pickup trucks in these major urban areas, and when you do they are typically owned and driven by small service enterprises.  Are the interests and opinions of pickup truck drivers (and NASCAR fans) less legitimate because they are not shared by a narrowly concentrated numerical majority?  Federalism and the electoral college are good means to strike a balance between majority rule and minority rights and interests, though I will admit that if I was a Democrat, seeing my party lose two presidential elections in 16 years due to this subtle system would drive me nuts, too.

Which brings me to Canada’s election.  Justin Trudeau is the “winner,” even though his party lost the popular vote!  The Conservative Party won the largest share of the vote, but Trudeau’s Liberal Party won more seats—though not an overall parliamentary majority—and will thus form a minority government.  (See chart below.)  CNN calls it “a humiliating night for Trudeau.”

I still like the Electoral College, for bringing in many parts of the nation.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Electoral College

For John, BLUF:  The election of Donald Trump in 2016, because he better gamed the Electoral College, seems to upset the Democrats.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

No, the Electoral College Is Not ‘Affirmative Action’ for Rural Voters

From The Daily Signal, by Ms Tara Ross, 27 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez loves to hate on the Electoral College. Once again, she has the nation up in arms about America’s unique presidential election system.

The Electoral College, the New York Democrat said on Instagram last week, is a “scam” that “effectively weighs white voters over voters of color.”  Then on Friday afternoon, she doubled down, tweeting that the Electoral College is nothing more than “affirmative action” for rural voters.

In her view, rural areas are too white—and too powerful in presidential elections.

Perhaps Ocasio-Cortez should take a step back in time.  Civil rights leaders once had a different view, and they came out in force to argue for the preservation of the Electoral College.

Given the size and diversity of these United States, the Electoral College is a tool for ensuring that all voices are heard.  If we change the system, and marginalize certain segments of the nation the response will come, and it will be surprising and disliked.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Peaceful Transitions

For John, BLUF:  President Trump has a large following, but that following would not overthrow the Constitution, even if Secretary Hillary Clinton were to win the Electoral College in 2020.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What if Trump won’t accept 2020 defeat?

Here is the sub-headline:

The situations all seem far-fetched, but the president's comments have people chattering in the halls of Congress and throughout the Beltway.

From Politico, by Reporters Natasha Bertrand and Darren Samuelson, 21 June 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

In 2016, Donald Trump waffled over whether he would accept the election results if he lost.

Since then, Trump has repeatedly joked about staying in office beyond the two terms the Constitution allows.  Jerry Falwell Jr., Trump’s most prominent evangelical supporter, has suggested Trump should get two years tacked on to his first term as “pay back” for the Mueller investigation.  The president’s own former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has warned that “there will never be a peaceful transition of power” should Trump fail in his reelection bid.

This, from the crowd that has yet to accept the results of 2016.  While I have no faith in the words of Barrister Michael Cohen, what the Reverand Jerry Falwell, Jr, says makes some sort of sense.  But, mostly I put this down to the chattering class (1) having no sense of humor and (2) having no interest in doing journalism and thus just make stuff up.  This is just rabble rousing and the rabble are the TDS Democrats.

This isn't Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Left Evaluation of President Trump's Chances In 2020

For John, BLUF:  If he can avoid war and recession, President Trump stands a good chance in 2020.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What Are the Chances of Trump Being Reëlected?

From The New Yorker, by Mr John Cassidy, 19 June 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

On Tuesday night, in Orlando, Donald Trump formally launched his 2020 reëlection effort with another big rally.  After what happened in 2016, it behooves political analysts and commentators to approach the upcoming campaign with caution.  So, I will put it no more strongly than this:  with sixteen and a half months to go, the President and his campaign staff have reasons to be concerned.

The good news for Trump is that he retains a solid base of support, and the demographic to which he has the strongest appeal—white Americans who don’t have a college degree—still represents a very big chunk of the electorate.  Plus, the unemployment rate is just 3.5 per cent, and most Americans are optimistic about the economy.  The bad news for the Trump campaign is that other demographic groups seem to have turned even more heavily against him, and a strong economy has failed to lift his approval ratings.  Moreover, recent polls suggest that he is in trouble in a number of battleground states, including the three that were key to his victory last time:  Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

You probably don’t need reminding that, thanks to the vagaries of the American political system, Trump won with just 46.1 per cent of the national vote, and a favorability rating that was considerably lower.  On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, 37.5 per cent of American voters had a favorable opinion of him, according to the Real Clear Politics poll average, which suggests that either the polls were wrong or large numbers of people voted for him despite not particularly liking him.  After his victory, his favorability rating rose to the low forties during the transition, where it has largely stayed.  The latest R.C.P. poll average showed him with a favorability rating of 43.8 per cent, which is pretty close to his latest job-approval rating—44.3 per cent on Wednesday.  It doesn’t seem to matter what he does or says: these numbers don’t change much.

Among whites without a college degree, according to the network exit poll, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by more than two to one—sixty-six per cent to twenty-nine per cent.  This slice of the electorate represents Trump’s heartland, and according to the exit poll it accounted for about a third of all voters in 2016.  (Thirty-four per cent, to be precise.)  However, some political experts believe that estimate is too low.  In a 2017 study that drew on actual voter files, national-opinion surveys, and their own post-election polling, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, of the Center for American Progress, and Rob Griffin, a political scientist at George Washington University, concluded that forty-five per cent of the voters in 2016 were whites without a college degree—eleven percentage points more than the figure from the exit poll.

"[T]he vagaries of the American political system…"?  This seems like an ignorant attempt to cover for Mrs Clinton not knowing the rules of the game.  They are pretty straight forward—win 270 or more Electoral College votes.  Everything else is rubbish.  Whimpering is unseemly.

If you are a Democrat you are desperate to see the wind blowing your way.  However, your fellow Democrats have so poisoned the environment that polling is no longer reliable.  And identity politics ends up pitting one group against another.  I think President Trump stands a good chance in 2020.

At a personal level, I detest the term "white".  In a day and age where every snow flake is triggered by the wrong noun or pronoun, I would like some accommodation.  Please say Caucasian.

Regards  —  Cliff

Shredding Our Norms

For John, BLUF:  Trust in a process, once lost, may be hard to regain.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Barr:  "Resisting A Democratically Elected President" Is Destroying Our Norms And Institutions, Not Trump

From Real Clear Politics, by Mr Tim Hains, 31 May 2019.  Based on 31 May Interview of Attorney General William Barr by CBS News legal correspondent Jan Crawford.

Here is a key excerpt:

In an interview aired Friday on “CBS This Morning,” Attorney General William Barr explains why he opened an investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.  He doesn’t say what the evidence is, but Barr tells CBS News legal correspondent Jan Crawford that there is evidence that makes him believe senior government officials may have acted improperly to authorize surveillance of President Trump’s 2016 campaign.  He says that led to “spying” on the campaign.

He said the hyper-politicized nature of politics today is a danger to longstanding institutions and he took the job of attorney general because he is at the end of his career. . . .

“One of the ironies today is that people are saying it is President Trump who is shredding our institutions.  I really see no evidence of that.  From my perspective, the idea of ‘resisting’ a Democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him, and really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president.  That’s where the shredding of our norms and institutions is occurring,” Barr said.

The inability of Democrats to accept the outcome of the 2016 election, resisting in various ways, including talking of Impeachment, trying to subvert the Electoral College, or characterizing the President as a liar, will not end well.  It could cost them the election in 2020.  It could lead to a tit-for-tat retaliation against a Democrat President.  It could lead to the unraveling of the ties that band together this very diverse nation.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff