Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

2016 Election Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 26, 2016 40 Comments
Lawrence Lessing, professor at Harvard Law School, wants the Electors in the Electoral College to go rogue and vote for Clinton regardless of the election results the led to the Electors ability to vote.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions  — most important, the electors themselves.... In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 25, 2016 48 Comments
If this is the best that the Hillary/Stein camp can muster to justify a recount, Donald Trump can rest very easy tonight . . . On Tucker Carlson's new Fox News show this evening, guest host Ed Henry interviewed Ian Jackson of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party regarding a possible recount of the presidential vote in Wisconsin. Green Party candidate Jill Stein campaign has in recent days raised millions of dollars to fund such an effort. The responses from Jackson—who seemed a nice guy in over his head—were a string of painful pauses and hesitations, concluding with an admission that the Stein campaign would have to consider refunding money to donors.

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 25, 2016 21 Comments
The Democratic Party is about to engage in a battle for its soul. Whoever wins will decide what direction the party takes over the next four to eight years. There are at least three factions fighting for control. The far left activist base which wants to become the party of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The establishment, which backed Hillary and made sure she was the 2016 nominee. And finally, people like Tim Ryan who are rightly worried about becoming a small party made up of rich coastal elites and the poor.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on November 24, 2016 17 Comments
Amid the flurry of pay-to-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation, donations to the "charity" dried up over the past couple of years, and along with those, the Clintons' speaking fees also took a nosedive. The New York Post reports:
Donations to the Clinton Foundation nose-dived last year amid Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, pay-to-play allegations, internal strife and a black mark from a charity watchdog. Contributions fell by 37 percent to $108 million, down from $172 million in 2014, according to the group’s latest tax filings.

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 24, 2016 19 Comments
At this time of year, we're bombarded with articles about "How to talk to your family about politics at Thanksgiving" and this year it seems like there have been more than usual. I guess we can chalk that up to it being such a hard fought election. Most of these articles focus on ways to diffuse tense situations and get along but Helen Ubiñas of the Philadelphia Inquirer has a different suggestion. She wants people to fight with their Trump supporting relatives. From her column:
This Thanksgiving, don't play nice with the racist, sexist, misogynist Trump voters It's been a little over a week since President-Elect Donald Trump's victory, and I'm going to ask us to stop doing something that we are hardwired to do, to reject what is arguably the human race's best trait. Adapt. We shouldn't.

Posted by Mary Chastain on November 23, 2016 28 Comments
So it seems that computer scientists and election lawyers have advised the Hillary Clinton campaign to demand a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania because they have found evidence that shows the results "MAY HAVE BEEN manipulated or Shacked." I emphasize MAY HAVE BEEN because the evidence is not crystal clear. New York Magazine reported:
Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
Before Hillary supporters get all riled up, other experts have said any hacking did not change the election. One of the experts in the magazine article even said that the authors misrepresented what he said and had to clarify his points in a separate article.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 23, 2016 45 Comments
As half the country learned two weeks ago, we do not select our president by popular vote, our president is selected by Electors in our Electoral College; a safeguard against pure democratic rule. As far as modern history is concerned, Elector's votes are typically congruent with their respective state's popular vote. Now, a handful of Democratic electors are threatening to vote their conscience:
At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

Posted by Mary Chastain on November 22, 2016 8 Comments
When Wikileaks released Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in July, people immediately pointed fingers at Russia and cried that the Kremlin wanted to influence the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, who won by a large margin over Hillary Clinton. But National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers dashed those conspiracy theories this past weekend:
“I don't think in the end it had the effect that [the hackers] had hoped it might,” Rogers said during a panel at the Halifax International Security Forum.

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 21, 2016 21 Comments
Imagine if just after the 2008 election, a conservative pundit had said this of President-elect Obama: "how do you dog-train Obama? I mean it tough. Dog train. If he poops in the hall, you make his nose go in it." Western civilization as we know it might have ended right there. But on this evening's Hardball, that's precisely what Chris Matthews said—except about Donald Trump, of course. His point seemed to be that Trump must be brought to heel should he have the audacity to follow through on his promises to build the wall and end Obamacare.

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 21, 2016 15 Comments
On With All Due Respect, John Heilemann was aggressively questioning Kellayanne Conway, arguing that conflicts of interests would arise when the Trump administration makes decisions that could affect Trump business interests at home or abroad. Conway eventually had enough. She shot back: "look, John, I know the election results are very tough to swallow, particularly for those of you who just couldn't see it coming, couldn't even conceive of the possibility that the other candidate may actually win, that you don't understand America." Ouch.

Posted by Mary Chastain on November 21, 2016 12 Comments
The New York Times public editor Liz Spayd's op-ed contains a lot of harsh truths and realities for those who write for one of the world's most famous newspapers: drop the bias. Her office has received "five times the normal level" of complaints "and the pace has only just recently tapered off." Spayd does not flat out say that, but she portrays it in her eloquent article:
But I hope any chest thumping about the impressive subscriber bump won’t obscure a hard-eyed look at coverage. Because from my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office, I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage.
Accessibility by WAH