Why Clinton Lost

Hillary Clinton by Voice of America

Myriads of Clinton supporters have chimed in on why Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election.

Among the reasons cited, I have yet to read one which, in my opinion, accurately reflects the real reason why Clinton lost.

Why did Clinton lose?

To me, the answer is simple.

She lost because of her dishonesty.

That dishonesty was apparent to people who didn’t have partisan or ideological blinders on.

News of the Obvious

Clinton was more Nixonesque than President Nixon, but she wasn’t as slick as her husband, who committed perjury while he was in the Oval Office and got away with it.

Perhaps voters in 20 states wanted another corrupt politician in the Oval Office, but voters in 30 states didn’t.

That is why the states elected Trump instead of Clinton.

By the way, it would be a mistake to eliminate the Electoral College in response to Clinton’s loss, as the USA Today editorial board has pointed out.

States the editorial board, “Democrats are the wounded party now, but going into this election they thought they had a “blue firewall” of states that gave them a big Electoral College advantage. The way to win is to run better campaigns and better candidates under the existing rules, not try to change the rules after a painful loss.”

For what it’s worth, that the same editorial board didn’t want Trump in the Oval Office.

The Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Hank_M

    I’d like to think it was karma. You can’t treat people like shit, especially those charged with your well being (Secret Service, Military, etc), berate, abuse and discard people,
    sell out your country, lie incessantly, lie about your lies, destroy lives and be above the law without karma coming down hard on you eventually.

    On a side note I was hoping Wizbang would have a brief entry honoring our vets.
    As there isn’t, I’d like to thank them all here for their sacrifices and service. God bless you all.

    • I haven’t been in front of a computer today.

      A belated Happy Birthday to the Green members of the Blue/Green Team. Here is health to you and to your Corps…

  • Rondo

    Here is another reason

    • Paul Hooson

      Losing minority voters by landslides of 7 voters to 3 voters or 9 to 1 doesn’t add up to a bottom-line victory despite this spin. In the Rust Belt states, Black male voters somewhat avoided this election, while White blue collar votes were marginally better, creating three small electoral college victories for Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, flipping three states to win this election. In largely Black D.C., Trump garnered a mere 4.1%, probably the worst ever for a Republican, proving little traction among most Black voters for the candidate.

      Trump presented a winning message in three states, along with an overall depressed Democratic turnout. Otherwise, Clinton would have won this election last Tuesday.

      • Scalia

        You didn’t watch the video, right? If you’re going to respond to somebody’s post, please do so with something relevant, okay?

        • Paul Hooson

          Yes, I’m only responding to the math of the video. One contention was that Black votes increased from 7% to 8%, somehow contributing to a Trump victory. Nine votes for one candidate compared to one vote for another is no help to the candidate receiving one vote. What really counts is the decreased turnout among male Black votes that hurt Clinton in the Rust Belt states.

          • Scalia

            If you watched it then your reply shows that you missed the point completely. Of course, at this point it’s no surprise that you cannot follow a simple video.

      • Jwb10001

        “Trump presented a winning message in three states, along with an overall depressed Democratic turnout. Otherwise, Clinton would have won this election last Tuesday”

        And if a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass. It’s Clinton and the democrats that build their message around identity politics, it’s on them when the special groups don’t turn out for them. Perhaps they should have found another black candidate since it seems that “trumps” women on the identity priority scale. In other words live by the identity politics die by the identity politics.

      • Watch the video, Paul.

        • Paul Hooson

          I certainly did, several times in fact. The math conclusions of the video are not correct. I’m only responding to the wrong math assumptions in the video. Decreased Black male turnout in three Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania narrowly cost Clinton the election along with a slightly better White vote for Trump in those states. Part of my 7 years of college is in statistics, which tied in for my sociology and psychology studies.

          • jim_m

          • Paul Hooson

            My friend who works for the consulting firm hired by the Democratic Party of Michigan as their client is able to easily identify voter turnout problems as contributing to Clinton’s 12,000 vote loss in that state. State by state, professionals of both parties can identify what went wrong and went right in the 51 separate elections to elect slates of electors.

          • Name your source.

          • Jwb10001

            He can’t that would put him in danger, he’s already terrified that he’ll be pulled from his bed and drug off to an internment camp. So you can see how he has to keep his source confidential, right?

          • Retired military

            If I remember right he is in the pacific Northwest. If he is pulled out of bed then it will most likely be by Clinton supporters who are rioting and destroying their liberal city to protest Trump.

          • Jwb10001

            No I meant Paul’s very influential democrat operative in Michigan.

          • Wrong.

      • Retired military

        “Trump presented a winning message in three states,”

        Funny last time I checked Hillary presented a losing message in 31 states.

        • Paul Hooson

          Ok, take out ten pennies and lay them out on a table. Put nine pennies in one pile and one penny in a another pile. Which pile is a larger one? In D.C., Trump only received 4.1% of the vote in this largely Black or government worker election area for example. The video’s premise was such that Trump did marginally better among some minority voter groups, so supposedly won the election. This is not accurate. Black male voter turnout was lower in some Rust Belt states, allowing Trump to narrowly win due to slightly better numbers among blue collar White voters.

          • jim_m

            The point is that voter turnout was down compared to the last 2 cycles. The issue is entirely about the percentage of those actually voting. You are making all sorts of unfounded assertions about the people who did not vote, claiming to know how they would have voted. The reality is that you do not know what they would have done and statistically, they would be more likely to vote like those who did. Or are you going to argue with a statistical sample of 128Million people?

            For someone who claims to have studied statistics you know rather little about them.

          • Paul Hooson

            No. I don’t even understand your confused comment here, but my friend earns good money from his consulting job, and his statistics prove what went wrong for turnout for Clinton in Michigan only. You have 51 elections for electors in each state. In many states neither campaign made any effort. But, in Michigan the Clinton Campaign had wrongly assumed the state was safely in her “Blue Firewall” and did not do a great deal more than get out the vote efforts. Her campaign was not expecting such poor Democratic turnout, especially among Black males in Detroit, angry about the Clinton-era drug laws and crime law, avoiding the election.

          • jim_m

            Only a complete ass would have assumed that Clinton would get the same historically high levels of black voter turnout that 0bama did.

            Wait, what am I saying, of course a dumbass like you would believe that then.

          • Paul Hooson

            No, every election will have it’s own voter coalitions for each candidate. Some lifelong Democrats voted for Trump, while some lifelong Republicans could not stomach Trump. But, the horrible voter turnout in Michigan was not expected by the Clinton Campaign. I cannot explain the vote in all other states, but know enough what went wrong in Michigan with 16 electoral votes.

          • Jwb10001

            Keep digging China can’t be far now!

          • Paul Hooson

            Clinton today told donors that she lost momentum due to FBI Director Comey’s vague and unclarified comments. The poll numbers did sharply tighten due to this. And, the vague comments might have been a violation of the Hatch Act, where public officials are not allowed to interfere in an election, close to the election.

          • When has any Clinton admitted fault, let alone guilt?

          • Retired military

            It was the press’s fault for being too tough on her. Ask Podesta.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, and he cleared her again before the election—and the press trumpeted that every chance they got. You obviously believe every word that Clinton says. Thankfully, the American people do not.

          • Retired military

            The poll numbers ALWAYS start to tighten the last 2 weeks till the election. ALWAYS.

            As far as violations of the Hatch act what about the numerous violations by Clinton of any one of half dozen national security acts. In a just world she would be in jail instead of running for President. If she was a repyublican she woulld have been in jail especially under Obama’s administration. Instead they coronated her and tried to give her the country.

          • Jwb10001

            So what? What was Comey supposed to do, he testified before congress that his investigation was complete, then state dept emails show up on freakin’ Anthony (I just love me some 15 year olds) computer, was he supposed to ignore that? Was he suppose to let incorrect congressional testimony stand uncorrected? Here’s another problem Comey didn’t put State Dept emails on Weiner’s computer, who did? Beyond that this activity only re enforces what people already believed anyway. But fine if it makes you feel better Clinton was a wonderful candidate and Comey is a republican plant whatever. Keep digging you sound smarter every time you post something new.

          • Retired military

            “ut, in Michigan the Clinton Campaign had wrongly assumed the state was safely in her “Blue Firewall” and did not do a great deal more than get out the vote efforts. Her campaign was not expecting such poor Democratic turnout, especially among Black males in Detroit, angry about the Clinton-era drug laws and crime law, avoiding the election”

            So why do you and other liberals think this is Trumps fault?

          • Retired military

            How about this. Take 50 pennies and put them into a pile
            Put 31 pennies on one side and 19 pennies on the other. Which side is larger?

            Also Trump received a larger portion of the minority vote than either McCain or Romney.

            As far as black male voter turnout being lower you totally dismiss the possibliity that it was because Hillary was SUCH A LOUSY CANDIDATE.

            Look at popular vote totals from California. Hillary got a million less votes than Obama did. Are you going to blame that on Trump?

            Trump got about the same number of votes as McCain and Romney. Hillary got millions less votes than Obama in the past 2 elections. Maybe the minority voters didnt like her as much as they did Obama. Did you ever think of that?

          • Scalia

            And before California, Trump was leading in the popular vote.

      • Retired military

        “In largely Black D.C., Trump garnered a mere 4.1%, probably the worst ever for a Republican, proving little traction among most Black voters for the candidate.”

        So Paul let me get this right

        96% of blacks vote for Clinton in DC and that is fine.
        53% of white women vote for trump nationwide and that is due to the fact that Trump stands for racism.

        Got it

  • This guy NAILS why the Dems lost. Hammered in a railroad spike with a 15 lb maul.

    https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/1044777035645189/?pnref=story

    • Jwb10001

      I stay way from politics on facebook, but when someone I know in the middle of his complete meltdown said,”I was angry at the people that voted for Trump” I just had to say, can’t really mean this. I tried to explain that I’m not a Trump guy and have no dog in the fight just that he’s way to nice a person to hold that view of his fellow citizens. Wow was that a mistake, I should send him this.

      • You probably should. It might get through where you couldn’t.

        • Jwb10001

          That’s the problem I wasn’t trying to get through I’m not a Trump advocate I wasn’t trying to change his mind I was only hoping to calm him down and help provide some perspective. It wasn’t even my friend that went nuts it was others that absolutely went into a rage at me when I even prefaced my comment with ” I don’t like Trump.” I got called names and got hateful BS thrown at me it was unbelievable. Some of these people are truly deranged.

          • Sorry, man. Got a young friend who’s been MASSIVELY disillusioned from her somewhat progressive stance, at least for now. It was the livestream feeds of people her age in screaming meltdowns that got her rethinking this whole political angle thing… She’s at least willing to entertain the idea that Trump isn’t Satan Incarnate.

    • Hank_M

      Wow! He get’s it.

      And interesting visuals with the TV and camera placement.

    • jim_m

      Brilliant!

      • Yep. A trifle crude – but he hits it dead on.

    • yetanotherjohn

      Shhhh. Never interrupt your opponent while they are make a mistake. Let them continue deficit spending their racism card. It’s worked so well to persuade those in the middle to move to the right.

      • I don’t think the ‘progressives’ will listen. The ‘liberals’ will, I think – but the ‘progressives’ think they’re God’s gift to humanity in general, so they won’t.

        • yetanotherjohn

          Do we even want to take a chance they will get a clue vs let them continue to dive off the cliff and push the left off the cliff with them.

          • Probably not. Anyway, we’ve got Trump for 4 years, we’ll see what occurs during that. So far, I think he’s operating on a business time scale instead of a political one… I think we’re gonna see some fast changes.

    • Scalia

      Way too much profanity, but he pretty much nails it, except the part where he thinks that reasoned argument will help liberals. He fails to note (because of his bubble) that the reason liberals resort to name-calling is because their positions are bereft of logic. Rational debate frustrates them, so they’ve got to discredit their opponents and silence them in order to move their agenda forward.

      • Ayup.

      • Retired military

        He left out the media. I mean that is who Podesta blamed.

      • Yeah – he doesn’t get THAT part of it, but he’s right in other areas. The sneering, the absence of dialog… Pretty much hits everything wrong with the ‘progressives’ here.

      • He does get a bit heated. 😉

      • jim_m

        No, I think he does get to that point. He says that they have lost the art of explaining their position and he does say that this is why they resort to all the name calling.

        Perhaps unsurprisingly, the profanity didn’t really bother me.

        • Scalia

          Good point.

      • yetanotherjohn

        The left doesn’t hear a counter argument from the liberal orthodoxy. As an example, he labels Trump a climate change denier. It would be interesting to ask him which climate change model he thought was most accurate. Then explain that none of the models have been accurate and only one or two have seen real world results even close to their lower predicted results. Then we could see if he really is open minded enough to change from the liberal faith or if this is really just a “let me explain it to you and then you can’t possibly disagree” sort of discussion he is really after.

  • Vagabond661

    I thought it was because she didn’t get to 270.

    • yetanotherjohn

      Well, true. But that’s more of a symptom than a root cause.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The first sign that your candidate cant win the general election, is when they cant win the nomination without cheating.

  • Because she had the charm of a warthog and a stench of corruption that would knock a buzzard off a shit wagon from a hundred yards away?

  • Paul Hooson

    The Clinton Campaign made some critical tactical errors by assuming that Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were secure states in her “Blue Firewall”. Improved resources and effort could have saved all three of these states, they were not hopeless causes. But, several factors worked against Clinton here. She didn’t expect a depressed vote among Black males due to some of her previous statements such as “super predators” or anger over the old Clinton drug laws which sent Black males to prison at disproportionate rates, Further the campaign failed to defuse Trump efforts to appeal to White working class whites in the Rust Belt who believed that even though Trump makes his neckties for .30 an hour in Bangladesh, that he would somehow limit foreign trade or would be tough on immigration despite his businesses importing 2,500 guest workers as staff.

    Few of Clinton’s ads were positive and presented good arguments on why she should be elected. Trump did a little better painting a vision for the country that many voters could grasp as concepts, especially in the Rust Belt.

    Although Trump is plagued by 4,000 lawsuits, of which about 75 are still active as well at least 11 allegations of some form of sexual assault and even one on and off lawsuit contending rape of a woman who was only 13 in the home of convicted sex offender who was a friend of Trump, Trump’s voters would not accept or believe his faults, keeping his support core together, while his relentless attacks of “Crooked Hillary” did seem to somewhat suppress her possible voter pool.

    Nonvoters played a huge role in this election. Clinton’s 60,827,933 was well below Obama in 2012 at 65,915,795 or 2008’s 69,498,516. Trump’s 60,261,913 was not only below Clinton’s numbers, but only slightly better than McCain’s losing 59,948,323, and even smaller than Romney’s 60,933,504. But, despite Clinton winning the popular vote, lower numbers of Black males in the Rust Belt in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as well as slightly better numbers among blue collar White voters cost her these three states by tiny margins as well as the election.

    Another big structural problem for Democratic candidates is the structural bias in the electoral college where many small Republican-leaning states are over-represented in the electoral college. Democrats generally need to run about two points ahead of Republican candidates to have a good statistical probability of pulling along enough states to win an electoral college majority. The 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 elections all were lost when Democrats won the popular vote by relatively close margins, but were not wide enough wins to pull along enough electoral votes. Democrats seem to enter presidential elections in a handicap situation, where they need to generally run 2 points better to win a presidential election. John F. Kennedy in 1960 is the sole exception to this rule, but allegations of voter fraud in Chicago by strong-arm Mayor Dalyn have long credited Daly as having helped to deliver both Illinois and the election to Kennedy.

    • Scalia

      Do you think that repeating yourself will make your arguments stronger, or are you forgetting that you’ve already made them? Your faulty logic has already been rebutted, but you slog on as if nobody’s replying to you. It’s like you take your queue from David Robertson.

      Hint: If you want to persuade us, you need to reply to your interlocutors. If you’re merely looking to mouth off, why do you need to do it repeatedly?

      • Jwb10001

        Paul is one of those that thinks if he says the same thing louder it will be more effective next I expect we’ll get a posting in all caps. “THE ELECTROAL COLLEGE IS BIASED TOWARD REPUBS” He must think someone changed the rules on Tues morning just so Clinton would lose.

        • Paul Hooson

          Electoral reform, basing the electoral college off the number of representatives only, short of abolishing the electoral college would more fairly give all voters a more equal value.

          • jim_m

            You are a dumbass. It would mean that voters in rural states with few people would never, ever get their concerns heard.

            No one from the Mississippi to the Rockies would get anything from the federal government. They elites in California and New York would plunder the middle of the county for their own gain.

            That is what you favor.

          • Jwb10001

            Great get on it, create a hashtag, start a petition knock yourself out. This election is over. Clinton lost to freakin’ Donald Trump it’s way, way, way past time people looked to the democrat process that gave the nomination to perhaps the only person that could lose to Trump.

          • Scalia

            What are you talking about? The Constitution says:

            Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

            It’s already based on their representatives, unless you’re objecting to the extra two for senators.

          • Jwb10001

            Don’t you know that only republican leaning states have 2 senators the others only get 1 so you can see how unfair that is.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, that must be what Paul is getting at.

          • pennywit

            I think he’s talking about a system similar to Maine and Nebraska. There, each congressional district is assigned an elector slot, and the elector is allocated based on the popular vote in that district. The state’s two remaining electoral votes are then allocated to the candidate who won the statewide popular vote.

            As reforms go, I’m actually in favor of that one. I’ve found myself rather disenfranchised in past elections because my state voted consistently Republican, but I preferred to vote Democratic — which meant that for much of my adult life, my vote literally counted for nothing.

            Of course, the shoe’s on the other foot here now. Because of growth in the cities, my state went purple, and is now pretty solidly blue … and the right-leaning voters now find THEIR votes aren’t worth spit.

            I’m actually open to my state changing its electoral-college allocation to that congressional district system, even though it would mean fewer electoral votes overall for my preferred candidates.

          • Scalia

            Paul’s been given numerous chances to explain what he’s talking about, but it’s clear from his replies that he doesn’t.

            As you know, it’s up to the states to decide how to allocate electors, and I’m all for states’ rights, you know. 🙂

          • pennywit

            OK … what do you think of this system, rather than a “winner take all” system?

          • Scalia

            Perhaps it’s just tradition, but I don’t mind winner-take-all. I wouldn’t weep if it were mixed.

          • pennywit

            I’ve seen a lot of people calling for the elimination of the electoral college in favor of a straight popular vote. IMO, that’s undesirable in all sorts of directions. Among other things, if you go with an unfiltered popular vote, then we really will be ruled by voters in urban areas, and rural voters will get the shaft in presidential elections.

          • Scalia

            Yes, of course. Trump led the popular vote until California’s results came in, but all of that is irrelevant. States elect the president, not individual citizens because the Founders clearly opposed ceding a national election to urban areas. I’m glad you’re resistant to that because it’s nothing but sour grapes for those who cannot accept a loss.

          • pennywit

            Hnnh. I was under the impression the founder were trying to ensure that neither urban areas nor rural areas dominated the country.

          • Scalia

            Yes, they were certainly trying to strike a balance, but they were quite concerned about mob rule (tyranny of the majority). That consequently led them to grant greater leverage to smaller states than they would have had under a pure democracy.

          • pennywit

            We’d like to think it was Solomonic wisdom, but there was also the practical problem of getting both big states and small states to sign onto the Constitution….

          • Scalia

            Well, their words certainly indicate that more than ratification was on their mind when they formed a republic.

          • pennywit

            During the campaign, as a thought exercise, I pondered what would be likely to happen if (say) Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin had done well enough in a state to carry home its electoral votes and prevented Clinton or Trump from getting to 270. The Constitution says that if nobody gets a majority in the electoral college, the whole mess goes to Congress.

            But I think in the most likely outcome in that scenario, the third-party candidate would have bartered his pledged electors to Trump or Clinton in exchange for support on some issue, a spot in the cabinet, or somesuch.

            That scenario disturbed me — it’s straight out of a parliamentary system. Not that a parliamentary system is the worst thing in the world, mind you, but if we want that, we shoudl write it into the Constitution.

          • Scalia

            I don’t think Trump would have went for it because the House is solidly in Republican hands. Hillary? I think she would have done anything to be president. So…that’s the nature of our system. Thankfully, it didn’t happen.

          • pennywit

            On the other hand, Trump is a dealmaker ….

            (And possibly a Loose Cannon who needs to be given 48 hours to bring in the bad guy or he’ll have to turn in his badge and gun).

          • Scalia

            True enough. If Hillary seriously negotiated the presidency with a third party, Trump would probably step in to cut a deal too. I shudder to think what that might entail.

          • pennywit

            Your firstborn child?

          • Jwb10001

            Would that even be legal? If the constitution says a tie or no clear winner goes to the house isn’t that sort of the last word, or since it doesn’t specifically disallow that would it be ok?

          • Scalia

            The electors are free to vote for anybody. Although they are pledged to the nominee of their party, there is no legal barrier to their voting for the other party’s nominee or anybody else. Hence, a third party candidate who wins a state may, in the event no candidate gets 270, ask his electors to vote for Candidate A or B. However, the electors are not obligated to follow his advice.

          • Jwb10001

            Thanks, interesting. Someone, somewhere posted something that said that in some states it is illegal for electors to vote for anyone but the person that won the state, do you know if that’s true?

          • Scalia

            That’s not true.

          • Scalia

            Some states require by law am elector to vote for the party nominee, but the penalty, add I understand it, is a small fine. Nothing actually prevents them from voting any way they want.

          • It’s a matter for the Several States. Full Stop.

          • Scalia

            Yep, that’s what I said above.

          • jim_m

            Currently, Hillary has 60.5 Million votes and Trump has 60.1 Million. That 400,000 votes is a difference of 0.33%, a percentage that would cause an automatic recount in just about any state.

            Now consider that there are ~190,000 voting precincts across the country. We now see that there is a difference of about 2 votes per precinct. How many weeks or months would it go before we know the result of the election? How much damage would be done to the country in the meantime? How easy would it be to steal such an election? (very for the dumbasses like Paul who can’t do math)

            If you think that 2000 was bad with Al Gore contesting Florida, or that this year is bad with the riots, consider how bad it would be with the vote undecided until long after Jan 20th.

            But simple truths like this evade the vacant mind of Paul. He searches for a solution to a problem we do not have. He is willing to court civil war and millions dead in order to sooth his fracture conscience. What a dumbass.

          • Retired military

            “more fairly give all voters a more equal value”

            How about instead you make the electoral college split up in all states to give proportional votes to the candidates. Oooohh THere goes about half of California;s 55 votes to Trump along with about half of NY’s 29 votes to Trump. But the dems would NEVer agree to that. That takes away the eletoral college advantage that THEY were talking about for the past year.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, given the overwhelming county majority the GOP holds, their whining about the EC is just that—noise from sore losers. When a cut out of California’s and New York’s EVs is contemplated, they’ll drop it like a hot potato.

          • Jwb10001

            Well also don’t forget that the GOP dominates in the states where congressional maps are drawn, that would be a gigantic advantage to the republicans and would make the state government freeze in place fighting of the makeup of districts. If the liberals agreed to that in this environment it would be political suicide.

      • jim_m

        Paul is not mentally competent. He is not capable of making a cogent argument to support his beliefs. His only hope it that he can shout down those who disagree with him.

    • Wild_Willie

      Paul you are pitiful and struggle to demonstrate an original thought. You are parroting the very wrong pundits. Tsk! ww

      • Scalia

        Yes, he is parroting them. I’ve read the same “analysis” on other websites, and then Paul shows up to say the same thing here.

        • Paul Hooson

          I have inside knowledge from a consulting firm friend who is contracted by the Michigan Democratic Party. – On the other hand, inside polling information in the Trump Campaign predicted a loss as he appeared behind, regardless of any public statements the campaign made. The win was a surprise to the Trump Campaign. -, But, IBD’s tracking did have Clinton running ahead by a single point on election day, which was close to being correct, however the distribution of votes with three narrow loses in the Rust Belt for Clinton were not assumed here.

          I was once a campaign chairman for state legislator candidate and have some professional connections to some persons involved in consulting, etc.

          • Scalia

            So, a Democrat tells you that the Trump campaign was surprised by Michigan, and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. That’s your prerogative, but no sane person would follow suit.

            Your “analysis” is jaundiced in favor of Democrats because you’re so pathologically opposed to Trump, you cannot see anything else. You’ll swallow any “data” that supports your warped viewpoint, and when posters cogently reply to your flawed arguments, you continue to repeat yourself without answering the rebuttals. After all this time, it’s clear you simply don’t have the mental capacity to logically defend your beliefs.

            You even want to trash the EC because you’re a sore loser. You have zero understanding of the EC and why our Founders created it. You have so little respect for those who disagree with you, you don’t take the time to understand their arguments, let alone to reply to them. Your broken record approach does nothing to convince anybody here, and until you can prove true interaction and understanding, you’ll continue to reap the scorn you deserve.

          • jim_m

            And yet Kellyanne Conway was on Fox last week saying that they knew three weeks before the election that it was going to tip their way in OH, MI, NC and FL. I guess she didn’t get the memo.

          • Jwb10001

            So Paul what’s the point of all this depressed vote stuff? If Clinton were even a 1/2 decent candidate shouldn’t she have been able to get those voters out. Or are you suggesting that they would only be motivated to vote for a black person (best be careful how you answer that I’m going to nit pic anything you say that might possibly sound like white hot racism.) Just what the hell is the point?

      • Paul Hooson

        No, this is my own analysis based on the turnout figures I’ve seen. I know one man who actually works for generating Democratic turnout in Michigan through targeting likely Democratic voters, and looking at the turnout numbers proved where the Clinton Campaign failed in Black male turnout numbers.

        • Scalia

          Yes, and Trump could have won by greater margins if he had increased turnout too. Do you think that Democrat-leaning voters were the only ones who stayed home?

        • Jwb10001

          I just read somewhere that Clinton’s turn out efforts actually benefited Trump as they didn’t understand who they were turning out. Maybe your “source” in Michigan doesn’t know what he’s talking about. When one side’s turn out is worse than the other sides turn out usually that indicates one candidate was worse than the other. Clinton has just proved to be the worst candidate in recent memory look who she lost to. Oh and I’m waiting to hear how you get the required support to change the EC, here’s a clue or 2, a hashtag won’t get it done, an online petition will fall short.

        • Scalia

          Hillary Rodham-Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump. What does that say about Clinton? What’s misfiring in your neurons that you’re trying to twist and turn every which way in a pathetic attempt at explaining away this election? To you, Donald Trump is a lowlife scumbag, but Clinton still lost to him.

          You want to blame the EC, turnout, tactical errors, ANYTHING except the obvious: Hillary Clinton is the lowlife scumbag in this election, and that’s why voters rejected her.

          Get a clue for once in your life.

          • Jwb10001

            Paul should be up in arms that the democrats nominated a candidate so hideous that this election was even close let alone lost. Given that Michigan is basically the poster state for democrat neglect and failure I suspect his notion that better turn out would have saved Michigan for Clinton. I think he’s also missed the point that Trump wins with out Michigan so it’s all pretty much pointless anyway.

          • Scalia

            Yes, the election was lost to the Democrats regardless which way Michigan went.

        • Retired military

          “The Clinton Campaign failed to realize that these states were so close, so spent resources elsewhere, where she mostly won.”

          They also failed to realize what an absolutely LOUSY candidate Hillary was. look at the size of preeletion Hillary rallies and the size of preelection Trump Rallies. Ray Charles could see (and it was mentioned on these boards NUMEROUS TIMES) that Hillary would most likely have a turnout problem.
          IT sounds like the dems took the black vote for granted. Imagine that. The republicans have only been saying that for 20 years.

          • jim_m

            Trump spent half as much as Clinton. So she outspent him in virtually every state. This is not about failing to recognize that the election was close and could be tipped by more spending.

    • Retired military

      “Trump is plagued by 4,000 lawsuits”

      No mention of the 4000 criminal investigations of Hillary and the accusers of Bill

      Paul you just dont get it or else you refuse to.

  • EricSteel

    You want to know why Hillary lost? In my opinion, it comes down to one word;

    OBAMACARE.

    Millions of people across this country have been royally fucked by this law.

    In my case, before Obamacare my annual health insurance cost for my family of 5 was about $6500/year for premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. Next year, I estimate that my annual health insurance cost will be $18,000 for premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. That is more than what I pay for my mortgage in a year.

    I don’t qualify for subsidies, so it all comes out of my pocket. And really since I don’t get any subsidies, the truth is that the taxes I pay subsidize other people’s health care. That means I pay even MORE for healthcare.

    The fact is, I’m not alone, there are millions of people just like me across the country who now have to look in their kids faces and tell them no we can’t afford this or that; no we don’t have money set aside anymore for your college; yeah there is a reason I’m driving a 14 year old car.

    The Democrats dismiss us as heartless, they call us racists, Nazis, homophobes and xenophobes, rather than engage us. They forget that millions of us exist and that we also can vote.

    • Retired military

      Hillary and Obama were counting ont he illegals cancelling out your vote.

      It is really hard to beat the party of Santa Claus.

  • Dishonest, unlikeable, mean.

  • Retired military

    Students on college campuses whose education costs $100-$200k are demanding safe spaces and rioting and crying and demanding people “fix this shit”.
    Meanwhile you have 7-10 year olds homeless, or in broken homes, going to bed hungry, with one parent in most cases and they go to school and function every day much better than these supposed “educated elites”

    • Son’s going to a local college. There’s nothing like that going on, the students are busy studying.

      Maybe it takes a certain level of insulation from the real world to cultivate such a ‘tender’ mindset…

      • Retired military

        I was talking about schools like Harvard and Yale. I heard one student say that at 2 AM or so on election night at one of those 2 campuses the students got together for a “Primal scream ” (google it to see what it is if you dont know).

        Give me a freaking break.

  • Retired military

    Making my first predictions on the 2020 race here.

    1. Dem Presidential nominiee will be from either Ohio, Penn or Florida and will likely be Hispanic
    2. Dem VP nominee will be Michelle Obama.

    • jim_m

      Dem nominee is Elizabeth Warren. She’s ancient, white and a racial demagogue. That checks all the boxes.

      • Scalia

        She’ll also be Hispanic for the 2020 race.

        • Jwb10001

          She’ll be 1/2 native American, 1/2 Hispanic, 1/2 white working class, 1/2 African American. She can then be both president and vice president.

      • Retired military

        Doubtful they will go with the old hag.

      • She’ll be 75? Not really seeing it…

        • jim_m

          Dems don’t have anyone any younger. Who they going to run? Chelsea?

          Maybe they could run the islamist, Keith Ellison? But it’s hard to have him run for President when you have him as chair of the DNC

  • pennywit
    • Scalia

      Ok, I read the whole thing this time. Wong has some interesting observations, and I think he’s spot-on in a lot of areas. If the elites are going to put up with somebody as corrupt as Hillary, nothing they said about Trump (or what Trump did) would change their vote.

      • pennywit

        OK, now here’s something that will amuse you:

        http://www.salon.com/2016/11/11/yes-the-white-male-anger-that-fueled-trumps-victory-was-real-but-it-isnt-valid/

        I do think that racial privilege theory has some good points. I’m a white guy, born to an upper middle class family, and now in professional life, I’m in the middle class to upper middle class. I’m in a place of racial privilege and mild economic privilege, and I’d be blind not to see it.

        The problem, IMO, is that some of the racial privilege theorists have some pretty massive blind spots. The first, of course, is that so-called “microaggressions” strike others as really, reall penny ante stuff. Denied a job because of your race? Harassed in the workplace because of your gender? Have police pull their gun on you because you’re black? That’s a sizable injustice, and people can relate to it. But this microaggression shit is just ridiculous. Yes, It’s annoying. Yes, I get that microaggressions can build up over time and make a person feel discriminated against, etc., etc.

        But the whole “white privilege” thing seems like a sick joke to somebody who’s working for wages that are two-thirds or one-half what he used to make ten years ago in real dollars. He’s not trying to reclaim “privilege.” He’s looking for decent jobs to come back to his community, and he’s tired of liberal elites talking down to him.

        It’s a point I’ve tried to make to some of my friends who are a litlte more into racial privilege theory — that it’s just as important to recognize disparities in economic privilege, and maybe (gasp) recognize that the blue-collar former factory worker has a lot in common with minorites who are dealing with their own economic woes.

        • jim_m

          Really? So you are going to claim that people of Indian descent can’t make it? Asian? It isn’t about racial privilege. It is about culture and class. People in the middle and upper classes have an advantage, yes. It is not due to their race.

          Blacks used to have a vibrant middle class. The dems have done their utmost to destroy that.

        • Scalia

          Boy, Marcotte surely lives in her bubble, doesn’t she? Reaching back to a 1921 race riot to prove her point? The bovine excrement is pretty thick there. I doubt she even knows a conservative, let alone being able to competently write about what they believe.

          While I have no doubt that some liberals actually believe the tripe they write, people living in the real world can see the hyperbole in screeds like that. Concentrations of “people of color” have been ruled by Democrats for decades, and they’re still blaming white folks for their problems? The ones who decry stereotypes don’t hesitate to employ them when talking about whites. The hypocrisy is piled high and deep, but Democrats have to gin up racial animus in order to hide their own failures. To keep their rainbow coalition, they have to create boogeymen out of white people.

          As a part Asian who while growing up trailer courts has been called gook, chink, Jap, slant-eyes, yellow and monkey, I have no sympathy for people who want to blame their laziness on others. I’ve had to work my tail-end off for everything I have, and every failure that has come my way I lay squarely on my shoulders. Well meaning but misguided folks only perpetuate the problem when they parrot falsehoods like that. As my parents taught me, work had and the sky’s the limit; blame others and you’ll live on the bottom.

          • pennywit

            Well, on the flip side, I have a few friends and colleagues of the nonwhite persuasion. Successful in their fields, solidly upper middle class or lower upper class. And from what I’ve learned talking to them occasionally, they navigate a very different world that is colored by negative assumptions people make about them based on their race.

          • Those racists would be dhimmocrats.

          • Scalia

            The conservative whites I know and have worked with couldn’t care less what color of skin their fellow employees have. They respect hard work and will reward and promote accordingly. We’re not living in the 1920s or the 1960s for that matter. This white privilege stuff is merely another excuse-making effort to keep Democrats in power.

            Many, MANY whites have worked their way out of poverty, and many, MANY racial minorities have done the same. I know Hispanics who came here dirt poor. They packed out small, dirty apartments and worked their tail-ends off for hours on end every week until they could save enough to start a family and buy their own house. They are now prosperous with big homes, big cars and big bank accounts. They didn’t gripe about “white privilege.” They worked because there was opportunity to work in the USA, and they made the most of it. It’s another example of a solution in search of a problem.

          • pennywit

            I’m a little more cynical than you are in that regard; there are just too many damn cases out there of legitimate discrimination out there (involving economics and criminal law, off the top of my head) for me to really believe that racism is not still a major force in American life. And just as a rural white doesn’t like a somebody from outside the community showing to explain why the economy of the last two decades was actually a good thing, I don’t think that an African-American who lost his job or got roughed up by the police wants me to show up and tell him that racism really isn’t a factor in the United States anymore.

            That said, I think there are limits to the “racial privilege” paradigm. It’s good for identifying bona fide cases of racial animus, but it also exaggerates racial identity, and if its adherents carry it to a ridiculous extreme, they risk alienating potential political allies.

          • Scalia

            I think there’s a world of difference between real racism and white privilege. I don’t question that racism exists among all races (not just whites), so it follows that racism will rear its head. That’s a far cry from saying that white privilege prevents minorities from succeeding.

            Besides, what’s the net effect, pennywit? Racial quotas? More aggressive affirmative action? Whites en masse taking lower-paying jobs so minorities can have their jobs? Laying guilt trips on whites? The net effect appears to be political. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, Democrats have run these areas for decades. If there’s a problem, blame them. Democrats control entire states, but according to them, the problem is just as great as it has ever been.

            As you noted earlier, it inhibits finding real solutions. I think that many purveyors of that type of thinking are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. In their misguided effort to help minorities, they end up hurting them by perpetuating a false meme.

          • pennywit

            BTW, did you ever read the “knapsack” essay?

          • Scalia

            Must have missed that one. Where’s it at?

          • pennywit
          • Scalia

            Oh, yes. I read some of that previously. Somebody else had recommended it to me as something authoritative on the subject. Reading through the whole thing, I think the piece is ridiculous from top to bottom.

          • pennywit

            My response to that kind of essay is less “agree or disagree” and more “grumpy.” If somebody, say, wants high-school history textbooks to reflect more of Native American culture, or wants to make the case to me that Thing X constitutes some form of racism/sexism/discrimination, whatever, I’m certainly willing to evaluate that thing or that idea on its own and offer my own ideas in response. But if somebody gets into the “be aware of your privilege” thing, my response tends to be “Get out of my grill.” My inner thoughts are my own, and nobody else has claim to them.

            This probably hit its apogee in an online forum where we were discussing some bit of objectively sexist posturing by a college fraternity. All the other liberals in the forum (including a mix of folks) were expressing horror and saying the fraternity should be able to do that. I looked at it, said that it would be fine to try to make the posturing socially unacceptable, but the state-funded university should stay out of it because the posturing (in that case) constituted free speech and was thus protected. I was also distinctly unsympathetic to the tales of psychological harm by women from witnessing the sexist posturing. Somebody asked me, “Think long and hard about the difference between you and other people discussing this .. ” I knew what he wanted me to say (re: race and gender of other debaters). I went with “Yes, I recognize the difference. I’m right and and all of you are wrong.”) I don’t think that won me very many friends.

            That said, I do try to come up with a certain awareness of where I am in life vs. where other people are in life. I’m fining with having that awareness. But I don’t need people getting up in my grill about it.

          • Scalia

            I’m certainly willing to evaluate that thing or that idea on its own and offer my own ideas in response. But if somebody gets into the “be aware of your privilege” thing, my response tends to be “Get out of my grill.” My inner thoughts are my own, and nobody else has claim to them.

            Exactly. That’s the essence of what Thomas Sowell told a liberal egghead when he esentially said, “Don’t tell me how I’m supposed to think.”

            Not only did I disagree with that piece, it was totally devoid of any solution, except to voluntarily back away and be more inclusive. In this case, it’s a false problem without a solution.

          • pennywit

            Related:

            http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study

            The strategy here is interesting. Rather than call somebody racist or go with the “check your privilege” thing, it goes, “OK, here, let me tell you a little bit about what XYZ black person dealt with.” A better approach?

          • Scalia

            I got off that guy’s train rather quickly when he blamed Trump’s election on Americans’ racist and bigoted attitudes toward transgendered and gay Americans. Apart from agreeing that calling people racists will not help, the article goes downhill from there.

            Case in point: Years ago Bill Maher hosted a show called Politically Incorrect. On one of the shows he had a female comedienne (I forget her name, but she’s very liberal) who used the word “Chink” in one of her jokes. Her joke was actually lampooning ignorant people who think they’re being sensitive when they use such slurs (in the spirit of All in the Family). Another guest was a Chinese journalist who got twisted into a pretzel and insisted that words like that had no place in any kind of humor, satire included. His whole approach was a put-yourself-in-my-place appeal. It didn’t work. He ended up sounding stupid and way too sensitive.

            I’ll tell you what—if I were trans, I wouldn’t expect the whole world to rework their restrooms for way less than 1% of the population. If I really looked female, I could easily enter restrooms “under the radar” without any problem. I also wouldn’t expect people to deny biology in order to protect my overly sensitive feelings. Many, many liberals conflate tolerance with acceptance.

          • pennywit

            *Sigh*. That’s why, aside from the adage that if you are something you may joke about it, I think most comedians ought to stay away from racial humor. A talented comedian can do incredible things with racial humor. But if you’re not that talented comedian, you’re going to crash and burn.

            I’m thinking that the empathy approach might work a little better with racial issues — esp. workplace discrimination — than it does with the trans rights issues. (Although the dialogue results were kind of interesting, if you ask me).

          • Scalia

            Talent is the key with almost everything. It’s not restricted to comedy, so race shouldn’t be off limits. The good ones succeed and the bad ones flop.

            It has often been observed that shows like All in the Family and The Jeffersons couldn’t be run today. I think that speaks volumes on how far PC has run amok. If some liberals had shown a tithe of the respect they demand from others, there might be greater cooperation and understanding.

          • pennywit

            That’s the cultural aspect of the 2016 election, IMO. If you’re looking to add (say) an ignorant, doofus, or uneducated character to any TV show, book, etc., chances are it’s a southerner. It’s an easy, lazy joke, and I expect Southerners are just as annoyed with the stereotype as blacks, gays, and so forth are about stereotypes of them!

          • pennywit

            This reminds me of a discussion I had about same-sex marriage licenses with somebody leaning liberal. After Obergefell, it was clear that a clerk of court could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And it would be discriminatory for a particular court to say “Come back at X time to get your license, because that’s when the guy who handles same-sex marriage licenses will be here.”

            So, it seems to me that it’s fine that if a clerk has an objection to same-sex marriage, he should be able to say, “Hey, wait just a couple minutes, let me get Joe,” and then Joe could come over and get it.

            The response I got to this was “I SHOULDN’T BE JUDGED ON MY WEDDING DAY!!!!1111”

            And I was kind of gobsmacked. I mean, I believe in same-sex marriage, and I believe that people should be able to get their marriage licenses w/ minimal inconvenience. But … damn. You have to give at least a little bit!

          • Scalia

            You’re one of the more reasonable liberals out there. Many of them in the blogosphere are the new fundamentalists. Any give is apostasy in their eyes. Any dissent makes you a heretic to be destroyed. That’s a recipe for war, and we definitely don’t want that.

          • But should it eventuate it will be war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt.

          • pennywit

            I guess i am, a little bit. Mostly, my natural instinct is to look for compromises where possible.

          • The historical problem (for as long as I have been following politics) is that the dhimmocrats promise to reciprocated for a compromise made by Republicans later, and later never arrives. Hard to negotiate in good faith when one side is faithless.

          • Scalia

            While we’re at it, why don’t liberals put themselves in other people’s shoes? I’ve had numerous debates with liberals, women included, who absolutely refuse to see the legitimacy behind the privacy concerns of millions of women who are uncomfortable using the restroom or being in a state of undress in front of men.

            Why can’t liberals understand that the numerous men who were arrested because they dressed like women to enter women’s restrooms will now have it easier because they no longer have to disguise themselves in the hope of getting a peek? There’s no psychological evaluation, doctor’s certificate, or even a dress standard that would prevent any man from entering women’s restrooms. You can wear a tuxedo and walk into a locker room without legal recrimination. All you’ve got to do is claim you’re a woman. You can look like John Wayne and walk into a shower full of women by simply claiming you’re a woman.

            Liberals have their gall to insist that we put ourselves in other people’s shoes. They should try it themselves sometime.

          • pennywit

            I’ve been batting around my own paradigm for this kind of thing. Sort of a “universal rights” approach. The idea being that you identify universal rights — rights to property, rights to own a firearm, right to free speech, right to competent counsel, and so forth — and examine whether, in specific instances, or in general, those rights are being respected for all people. If they’re not, then you try to take action to remedy it. Not by throwing around phrases like “white privilege,” but saying, “This is happening to this person or group of people. It is unfair. It needs to change.”

          • Jwb10001

            I want to trade in my “white privilege” for cash, it’s done nothing for me.

          • pennywit

            Another thought: Another issue with the racial privilege paradigm, IMO, is that while it’s useful for cultivating an awareness of racial injustice, it also obscures points of commonality. If a Latino or African-American person living in poverty faces many of the same issues as a white person living in poverty, and the debate there would do well to focus on the wider issue of poverty. If you think of it as “Latino poverty,” “black poverty,” or “white poverty,” you’re impeding the search for ideas.

          • Those are features of identity politics. Keeps the clients on the plantation.

          • You’ll always be able to garner votes by pandering to an aggrieved group, and if they aren’t already aggrieved, you need to educate them on how pissed off they ought to be…

          • pennywit

            Isn’t that the essence of politics, though?

          • Jwb10001

            And when you do that for as long as the Democrats have, the group that is the boogie man becomes the aggrieved and votes Donald Trump in to the White House.

          • Anything they find offensive is still going on, even if it was almost a hundred years ago.

        • Retired military

          “But the whole “white privilege” thing seems like a sick joke to somebody who’s working for wages that are two-thirds or one-half what he used to make ten years ago in real dollars”

          An who has been in charge those 8 years.

          What do you think Trump has been saying.

          As for white privilege, I am white, born in a major city, my parents lived in the projects. I started working for a paycheck when I was 13 and go the hell out of town and joined the army at 18. Today I am the most successful person in my familiy. That is because I busted my ass and worked hard and tried to get away from the crap I grew up in.
          others can do the same. Black,white, hispanic or whatever ethnic origin. Yet most choose to wallow in it and want hand outs.

          All those idiots protesting and their parents are paying $50k a year tuition should receive Fs for every paper, test or class they dont attend. Instead they get safe spots, coloring books, puppies, and options to take a test or not.

          • pennywit

            I could have used a puppy during grad school. I had stress-related nosebleeds at exam time. That was fun.

          • Retired military

            I posted somewhere else but will paraphrase here.
            You have kids that are 7-10 years old who are from broken homes, single parent families, homeless, parent (s) dont have a job, living hand to mouth that go to school everyday and function. Yet the snowflakes need safe spaces, no tests and puppies.
            Want to be under stress Pennywit? Try this. Be on guard duty on the DMZ when Park Chunge Hee President of South Korea was assasinated. I was 19 at the time. Yet you had stress nosebleeds in grad school. LOL. Give me a break.

          • pennywit

            I don’t think I compared a stress nosebleed to military service. I simply found the experience unpleasant.

            As far as the college students and their “safe spaces” and such, I’m mostly skeptical. A student’s dorm room, as his home, ought to be a “safe space” for him, I think. Beyond that, it’s a bit precious.

            And, IMO, trying to police “microaggressions” and similar crap is itself a sign of excess economic privilege. If the microaggression is your biggest worry, then you’re actually doing pretty well.

          • Retired military

            “If the microaggression is your biggest worry, then you’re actually doing pretty well.”

            But they dont recognize that Pennywit. To them if facebook goes down they think their life is over. They have zero perspective on stuff they should stress over so everything that happens that is against their plan (be it tests, grades, or elections not going their way) they think it is the end of the world. As I said I live in Texas. I dont think I saw one tear shed when Obama got elected.
            People need to grow the hell up.

          • pennywit

            They’ve got to learn to recognize it, or they’re in for a hell of a life.

            RE: Elections. I’ve seen people on both sides of the aisle (usually folks who were extremely committed to their candidates) shed a tear or two and/or head for the open bar if their candidate loses. They usually recover by the next morning or so, though, and I figure they’re entitled to whatever they want to feel.

          • Or waking to the collision alarm (not proceeded by “This is a drill”) at 400 ft with only emergency lighting…

          • Retired military

            I think I will take the DMZ over that Rodney

          • One of the reasons I’ve since gone almost entirely gray.

          • Scalia

            Me too!

          • pennywit

            PS. I know of at least one law school — George Mason, as I recall — that partnered with an animal shelter to bring in puppies during exam time. Stressed-out law students truly felt relief playing with a puppy during study breaks … and A LOT of the puppies found loving homes with the law students.

            Of course, living with a lawyer might be hellish for the puppy …

        • jim_m

          “White Privilege” means that you get to be part of the 158M people working to provide entitlements for the 104M nonworking people on the government dole.

          White Privilege means that you get to be disproportionately a part of the front line combat troops that die for our country.

          White Privilege means that you get to be called a racist for breathing because you are genetically racist according to the left.

          White privilege means that in Chicago I can be dragged out of my car and beaten by black thugs on account of my skin color.

          My white privilege leads me to tell you to F off if you think there is anything about my skin color that makes me privileged in this country today.

  • Retired military

    I am sick and tired of hearing the dem talking heads saying that the violent protests are Trump’s fault and he needs to do something.

    a. Trump has no offical power to do anything to stop these
    b. I have seen numerous articles today on Yahoo about faithless electors giving the election to Hillary.

    To Pennywit, Bruce, Whos the buster and other liberals on here I have a question.

    Say the electoral college gives Hillary the election and Trump supporters riot.

    Do you think that the MSM will then blame Hillary for the riots and say that Hillary needs to do something to stop them?

    • Jwb10001

      The left is master of twisting the language, ie, why are these people anti Trump instead of pro Hillary. You can bet your ass if the situation was reversed it would be Trump supporters refuse to accept election results. Obama is the absolute master of this renaming military interventions, calling terrorism work place violence, renaming the climate and Iran treaties as something not requiring the approval of people’s representatives.

      • jim_m

        why are these people anti Trump instead of pro Hillary

        Because nobody was ever pro-Hillary.

        • Chelsea, perhaps…

        • LiberalNightmare

          They’re all racists – they cant accept a white president.

      • pennywit

        Hell, I wasn’t really pro-Hillary, and I voted for her. Strictly anti-Trump.

        • Jwb10001

          And that’s really the whole election isn’t it? More people voted against Hillary than against Trump in the right places and she lost. The people in “fly over country” were more pissed, enough of them were former democrat voters to turn the election.

  • Vagabond661

    More than just Hillary lost. The Elites lost. The Media lost. We The People Won.

  • jim_m

    Keith Ellison, the rep from MN who is a 9/11 truther, anti-Semite, and ally of radical islam is the future of the democrat party. If this is the direction that the DNC chooses to go for the next 4 years I look forward to seeing whether it is the Green party or the Libertarians that replaces the dems as the second major party.

    The GOP has been changing, reluctantly and fitfully as its base drags it into the future. The dems seem to be fixated on moving toward ever more radical, anti-American ideologies.

    • Retired military

      Just remember that 2018 is just around the corner.

      Lets see. The dems want to keep Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the house. Schumer as minority leader of the Senate. So real change there.
      And they have 25 seats up in the Senate for reelection in 2018.

  • jim_m

    Tell you what. Let’s have that Constitutional Convention to settle the issue of the Electoral College.

    The GOP controls both houses of the state legislature in 33 states, one state away form being able to call a convention on their own. Can you imagine what a GOP dominated convention would produce?

    So bring it on lefties. This is what you want? Let’s go!!

    I’ll bet that US Constitution is looking really good to you just the way it is right now.

  • Retired military
  • Retired military

    Paul

    Where are you at in this video

    https://youtu.be/Kb6SMHULl-4

  • Off Topic Question:

    Should the Democrat’s practice of weaponizing the IRS now be practiced upon them?

    or

    Should all IRS, Treasury, and DoJ officials who covered for IRS weaponization be prosecuted to the full extend of the law?