Monthly Archives: November 2016

Whither Conservatism?

Donald Trump’s historic victory to the White House demands that liberals and conservatives alike reevaluate their paradigms for political persuasion and, ultimately, victory.

whither-conservatism

Conservatives are at a crossroads. The establishment GOP, as currently constituted, is dying. The Tea Party GOP emerged triumphant in down-ticket races. The Alt-Right coalesced with grassroots populists to form the New Trump Party, becoming its #TrumpTrain constituency.

In a Trump administration, who will wield the reins of power? Alt-Right? Constitutionalists? Statists? To whom will Trump turn for counsel? The president-elect’s choice of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist suggests the Alt-Right will have significant power in his White House.

I have always said that Trump is the only GOP candidate who could lose to Hillary Clinton. I stand by that claim. Any other GOP nominee would arguably have done better than Trump against the Democrats’ utterly abysmal nominee.

Hillary was the worst candidate the Democrats could have nominated for their party. She literally drove people away from her. The electorate repudiated her as a person and for her policies.

Had, for instance, Ted Cruz been the GOP nominee, he could have drawn a clear distinction between himself and Hillary – in both personal morals and public policies. Instead, Trump’s worst character traits and ugly behavior almost sabotaged his own campaign.

Trump’s consigliere, Ann Coulter, attempted to distinguish between Trump’s personal baggage and his positions on the issues. She said, “I’m talking about his issues. No-one is voting for Trump because of his personality.” (But, wait, didn’t her latest book praise Trump, the man?

Coulter hammered home her point, arguing, “Issues, issues, issues. He wins on the issues, that’s why he keeps being attacked on his personal baggage, but nobody is voting for Trump the man.”

The problem with Coulter’s reasoning is that few people really trust the man on the issues. Time and again, Trump has proven himself untrustworthy as a person and ignorant on the issues.

Hence the #NeverTrump movement.

Henceforward, we must all exercise wisdom as we navigate through these unchartered political waters.

From #NeverTrump to #VerifyTrump

Those who are #NeverTrump should support the Trump administration wherever possible, as long as it is in keeping with conservative principles and the Constitution. We must switch from being Never Trump to, as Ronald Reagan might have phrased it, Verify Trump.

Trump, like the Vladimir Putin he so admires, cannot be trusted. We cannot believe either his words or his promises. We must look to his actions. Verify Trump by verifying that his actions further what is truly best for America.

Examine his staff appointments, his judicial nominations, his executive orders, and the like. Keep him on his toes. Curtail his progressive inclinations. Prevent him from continuing Obama’s unconstitutional executive imperialism. Restrain his inner tyrant.

From #TrumpTrain to #TrainTrump

Trump devotees must do something similar. Jump off the Trump Train and climb aboard Train Trump. In other words, stop worshiping the man and treating his varied and conflicting promises as holy writ. Instead, train the man you have elected President of the United States.

Train Trump to do what is right for America (and not just himself). Train him in the Constitution and founding documents of this great nation. Train him in the benefits of the free market and limited government.

If those who were Never Trump and those who are on the Trump Train can unite to tame the untamable ego of the newly-elected Narcissist-in-Chief, perhaps America will not only survive, but thrive, under a Trump presidency.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Hillary Lost by Every Measure

The worst possible Democrat candidate lost to the worst possible Republican candidate. For good or ill, President Trump is the outcome.

hillary-lost-by-every-measure

Some Democrats have gone berserk, claiming the will of the people is being thwarted by the nefarious Electoral College. Both history and logic elude them.

David French remarked on the historical nature and rationale for the Electoral College, arguing that it “is a wise and just way to elect the leader of 50 diverse states with different political cultures and different political needs. Giving voters in a few densely populated urban centers the power to swamp the electoral desires of the vast heartland in perpetuity would create its own form of instability. The Electoral College is a modest, though important, way to preserve a delicate balance of power between competing political constituencies.”

French also observes that the #NotMyPresident “protestors” actually engage a “absurd notion” because “neither candidate was playing [to win the popular vote game].” French notes, “Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes.”

Precisely correct. Both Trump and Hillary campaigned state by state for electoral votes, not the popular vote. They courted swing states, targeted battleground states, and sought to turn the color of one state into another. In other words, both candidates targeted states, not the electorate.

Their entire strategies were based upon the rules governing our election process. And Hillary lost. By those rules.

Hillary Also Lost the Popular Vote in More States

(The following is a Facebook post by Adele Bloom, used by permission, emphasis added.)

I’m seeing a lot of posts stating that Clinton won the popular vote hands down and we should, therefore, scrap the electoral college and go with popular vote only. These allegations are ludicrous and I am going to attempt to explain why using good old-fashioned math.

First, with regard to the electoral college, the process was established in 1787, shortly after the birth of this country, as a means to ensure that the less heavily populated parts of the country would receive equitable representation. A “popular vote” election process would give absolute power and control over the entire country to only those people living in the more heavily populated urban areas, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, and Miami, just to name a few. How can people in those urban areas have any idea how to adequately determine what is good and beneficial for the dairy farmers in Wisconsin, or the ranchers in Wyoming, or the citrus growers in central Florida, or the grains farmers (wheat, corn, etc.) in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska? This is why the electoral college was established.

Second, Clinton did not win the popular vote by a landslide (some of the posts I’ve seen have indicated that Clinton had a million votes more than Trump). In reality, this election was very close in the popular vote (Trump 59,611,678 vs. Clinton 59,814,018, a difference of only 202,340), but not in the electoral college (Trump 279 vs. Clinton 228). In addition, there are 3 states that are still counting (Arizona – Trump is leading, Michigan – Trump is leading, and New Hampshire – Hillary is leading.) However, since we are a country divided by states and each state deserves equitable representation, without taking into account the electoral college’s guidelines of a certain number of delegates per state based on that state’s population but merely look at the percentage of votes received for each candidate in each state, the end result can be determined by some very simple calculations.

The following is the state-by-state breakdowns of the popular vote for each:

Alabama – Trump – 63% / 35% (won by 588,841)

Alaska – Trump – 53% / 38% (won by 37,408)

Arizona – Trump – 50% / 45% (winning by 84,526)

Arkansas – Trump – 60% / 34% (won by 299,175)

Florida – Trump – 49% / 48% (won by 119,770)

Georgia – Trump – 51% / 46% (won by 231,323)

Idaho – Trump – 59% / 28% (won by 217,522)

Indiana – Trump – 57% / 38% (won by 525,823)

Iowa – Trump – 52% / 42% (won by 148,133)

Kansas – Trump – 57% / 36% (won by 241,221)

Kentucky – Trump – 63% / 33% (won by 574,108)

Louisiana – Trump – 58% / 38% (won by 398,469)

Michigan – Trump – 48% / 47% (winning by 11,837)

Mississippi – Trump – 58% / 40% (won by 215,532)

Missouri – Trump – 57% / 38% (won by 530,864)

Montana – Trump – 57% / 36% (won by 99,447)

Nebraska – Trump – 60% / 34% (won by 211,961)

North Carolina – Trump – 51% / 47% (won by 177,529)

North Dakota – Trump – 64% / 28% (won by 122,607)

Ohio – Trump – 52% / 44% (won by 454,983)

Oklahoma – Trump – 65% / 29% (won by 528,146)

Pennsylvania – Trump – 49% / 48% (won by 68,236)

South Carolina – Trump – 55% / 41% (won by 294,142)

South Dakota – Trump – 62% / 32% (won by 110,259)

Tennessee – Trump – 61% / 35% (won by 650,292)

Texas – Trump – 53% / 43% (won by 813,774)

Utah – Trump – 47% / 28% (won by 152,148)

West Virginia – 69% / 26% (won by 298,741)

Wisconsin – 48% / 47% (won by 27,257)

Wyoming – Trump – 70% / 22% (won by 118,299)

In the 30 states that Trump won (or is winning), he averaged 56.6% of the total votes cast and Clinton averaged 37.5% of the total votes cast. (Trump had a total of 8,352,373 more votes than Clinton in these states.)

California – Clinton – 61% / 33% (won by 2,518,729)

Colorado – Clinton – 47% / 45% (won by 50,614)

Connecticut – Clinton – 54% / 42% (won by 185,441)

Delaware – Clinton – 53% / 42% (won by 50,478)

District of Columbia – Clinton – 93% / 4% (won by 248,670)

Hawaii – Clinton – 62% / 30% (won by 138,012)

Illinois – Clinton – 55% / 39% (won by 859,319)

Maine – Clinton – 48% / 45% (won by 19,894)

Maryland – Clinton – 61% / 35% (won by 624,305)

Massachusetts – Clinton – 61% / 34% (won by 881,699)

Minnesota – Clinton – 47% / 45% (won by 42,947)

Nevada – Clinton – 48% / 46% (won by 26,434)

New Hampshire – Clinton – 48% / 47% (winning by 1,437)

New Jersey – Clinton – 55% / 42% (won by 462,853)

New Mexico – Clinton – 48% / 40% (won by 64,849)

New York – Clinton – 59% / 37% (won by 1,505,863)

Oregon – Clinton – 52% / 41% (won by 192,125)

Rhode Island – 55% / 40% (won by 59,635)

Vermont – Clinton – 61% / 33% (won by 83,045)

Virginia – Clinton – 50% / 45% (won by 185,689)

Washington – Clinton – 56% / 38% (won by 380,388)

In the 51 states (D.C. is counted as a state for election purposes, although it isn’t officially a state) that Clinton won (or is winning), she averaged 55.9% of the total votes cast and Trump averaged 38.2% of the total votes cast. (Clinton had 8,582,426 more votes than Trump in these states.)

Based on percentages alone, with Trump getting 56.6% of the votes in the states he won and 38.2% of the votes in the states he lost, that gives him an average of 47.4% of the total votes cast in all states. Likewise, with Clinton getting 55.9% of the votes in the states she won and 37.5% of the votes in the states she lost, that gives her an average of 46.7% of the total votes cast. Therefore, based on the popular vote alone in a state-by-state analysis, although Clinton had more total number of votes (predominantly due to the heavy populations in California and New York), Trump had the highest average percentage of total votes cast per state overall.

However, as shown above, even when calculating the results on a state-by-state basis (without taking into consideration number of delegates per state based on the electoral college), the end result is the same. If the winner is, instead, determined by number of states won based solely on popular vote and not on delegates, then Trump had the majority of the votes in 30 states. Hillary had the majority of the votes in only 20 states, plus D.C.

Therefore, based on basic math, Trump still wins a state-by-state competition 30 to 21.

Media Advisory: New book released – #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia

#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia explains what Donald Trump’s “New American Revolution” portends and why we should oppose it.

nevertrump

The Alt-Right is a central feature of the Trump movement. The Alt-Right worldview permeates every aspect of the Trump phenomenon, its self-identity, its view of America and the world, and its view of individuals and liberty itself.

Ann Coulter is the high priestess of the Alt-Right and Trump’s consigliere, propagandist, muse, and wannabee consort. (Coulter offers herself up as the model, the quintessential American.)

The Alt-Right has transformed patriotism into an isolationistic nationalism which eschews both foreigners (outside) and immigrants (inside) alike. It redefines the very terms “American” and “citizenship.”

The Alt-Right is the mirror image of leftist social justice warriors.

The New Trump Party also borrows much from the antebellum Know-Nothing Party: anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, nativist, and isolationist.

#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia is available at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9JQU7Q/.

For removal from future distribution, please reply to this email.

###