Hillary Lost: Get Over It

All the post-election moaning, whining and carrying on by Clinton supporters is embarrassing to them and their followers. It’s time to face the facts of this election and to move on.

Some are whining because Hillary’s total popular vote topped Trump’s, but that’s irrelevant because that’s not the game they were playing. The Constitution says the winner is the candidate who wins a majority of the electoral college votes which are based on the population of each states as defined by seats in the House of Representatives plus two votes for the members of the Senate. That’s why Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North and South Dakota and Vermont each get three votes while California with 53 House members gets 55.

The losers want to change the rules of the game after it was played. Good luck, but it isn’t going to happen now or in the near future.

Should the electoral college be eliminated?

No! There are good reasons the person who gets the most “popular” votes should not be the winner. Not only would that make all but a few large states irrelevant, but it would change what campaigns are about, making it much easier for the person who raises the most money to win. That would be bad for our republican (small r) form of government.

The results of the 2016 campaign reflected the current rules. Clinton campaigned in the closing days in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Why? At one point she thought she was going to win by a land-slide and thought of campaigning in red states to try to alter control of the Senate, but her own polling showed her to be in danger in those four states. It is significant that she LOST all four states where she made the greatest effort to win.

The Liberal Double-Standard

A double-standard is when you advocate something for others that you aren’t willing to do yourself. Liberals are past masters at doing so, and this election is a perfect example.

Some want enough GOP’s electors to vote for Clinton to reverse the results. Not only isn’t that going to happen, but what would it mean if it did? Are you really advocating someone go back on their word? Should electors betray the people who voted for Trump in their states? Is that something you’d tolerate had Clinton won? I don’t think so.

What about those who call for Trump to abandon his campaign promises and retain Obama’s policies? They advocate this claiming the popular vote should dictate. Again, we have to ask had Clinton won in a close race, would you have tolerated Trump supporters calling on Clinton to abandon her policies for Trump’s? Hardly!

For Crying Out Loud

There’s been a lot of moaning and whining about the election results. College professors gave students the day off, and students could get free puppies and coloring books at one college. Why not baby bottles filled with chocolate milk, too?

But face it people: all this crying is a result of the Clinton campaign strategy to try to win the election by going LOW, by focusing on Trump’s negatives––some of which he provided, others they simply made up or were responsible for, such as the violence at some Trump campaign events that were instigated by paid Democrat Party protestors.

Giving in to the fear your party created is not becoming nor is it rational. You may not like some of the policies Trump and Congress will bring about, but right now you don’t know what will happen. You don’t know which policies Trump advocated during the campaign will see the light of day or in what form or whether Congress will go along or whether the courts will upload them.

Take the Supreme Court for example. First, he has to nominate a candidate; the Senate has to consent and the person has to take his or her seat. Then any issue you are fearful about has to be brought to the Court in the form of a case passed up by the lower courts. Not only can that take years, but the outcome of any case cannot be predicted in advance. Despite Justice Roberts’ recent rulings, justices swear to uphold the Constitution, not advance a president’s agenda. Maybe a Trump appointee will be more honorable than Roberts and other liberal justices have been.

I don’t expect you Democrats to go away or stop advocating your positions, but I suggest you abandon the silly season issues of the electoral college and focus on why you lost before you try to prevent Trump and Congress from implementing the changes the public is demanding. You lost because people did not want more of your party’s policies. They did not want more economic stagnation, or more foreign policy set backs, or more expensive and intrusive government interference with every aspect of their lives. They wanted America to be great again, which means they realize America is not what it could be. Maybe you should listen and look for ways to help bring about a revival of our society, to lift people up instead of tearing them down, and to being once again a beacon on the hill for those less fortunate throughout the world.

Neither Deserves to Win

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump deserves to win the presidency. Here’s why:

Why Clinton Deserves to Lose

Hillary Clinton assumed the Democrat Party owed her its nomination because she had tolerated Bill’s infidelities, played second fiddle while he served as governor of Arkansas and President, and then lost to Barack Obama in 2008 mainly because of the latter’s patrimony. In her mind she had paid her dues and therefore was entitled to be the nominee. The problem is the divine right of queens went by the wayside two centuries ago. Today you have to earn the right to carry your party’s banner and she hardly did so, but what’s worse is how she conducted herself as Secretary of State and head of the Clinton Family Crime Foundation. She traded on her status as the likely nominee for $250,000 a pop speaking engagements for herself and Bill and for donations to her foundation. That’s taking the mafia’s manner of raising money by threatening to burn down a business unless the owner donates a percentage of its weekly take and modernizing it. Want a government contract? Want a job? Want an audience with the queen? Donate! Assuming she deserved to win, Clinton put forth a platform of platitudes, offering incremental changes and pandering to Sanders supporters. People are not enthusiastic about her candidacy, which meant she could only win by attacking Trump’s qualifications. Fortunately for her Trump made that part too easy. If Hillary loses, she has only herself and her arrogance to blame.

Why Trump Deserves to Lose

Trump tells us he’s a very smart man. Fact is he’s too smart for his own good. He assumes his success as a businessman is a reflection of his being smart, and while that’s undoubtedly true in part, it’s not the whole story. There are also the hundreds of people who worked for him who enabled him to make good deals and whose advice he failed to follow when he made bad ones. Seeing himself as smart he failed to understand the nature of the game he had interjected himself into. He failed to understand you don’t go out of your way to make enemies in politics. You don’t insult whole groups of people. You do build an organization capable of registering voters and getting out the vote. You do know you need money to compete with your opponent’s fund-raising capabilities. Trump could have won handily had he not alienated Ted Cruz by attacking him on a personal level. Had Cruz campaigned as a Trump surrogate, he would have cut into the Hispanic vote now going to Clinton making it unnecessary for Trump to spend so much time in Florida. Trump could have spent more time in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. If Trump loses he has only himself and his arrogance to blame.

Empty Phrases, Empty Promises: A Review of the First Democratic Presidential Debate

Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic Party nomination Wednesday night by being the only adult on the stage. She was calm and rational. Jim Webb is in the wrong party based on his foreign policy positions; Lincoln Chafee should go live in Tibet; Martin O’Malley won’t even win the Maryland primary that’s how little the Democrats who know him think of him; and Bernie Sanders doesn’t live in the real world, but I have to give him style points for his theatrics. Let’s examine the issues.


  • Free Public College Education: How do you think the country’s hundreds of private colleges and universities feel about that concept? It will put most of them out of business as well as cause enormous problems because why would anyone even apply to a private college? The public institutions couldn’t handle the load, but even trying would double or triple whatever cost Sanders and O’Malley think they can cover by raising taxes on the rich.
  • $15 minimum wage: How can you complain about the high unemployment of blacks and Hispanics and then favor a policy that will guarantee even fewer will find jobs in the future?
  • Reforming the Criminal Justice System: May I point out incarceration rates have been on the decline, but the notion that anyone is in prison for smoking marijuana is total fiction. You can be sent to prison for selling very large quantities of marijuana, not for smoking a joint at a frat party or even on a street corner.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Let’s begin by admitting that 11 million or so illegals are here because our policies of the past fifty years virtually invited them to attempt the journey. Now we’re going to increase their benefits and people living in poverty in Mexico are going to stop trying to come here? Really!
  • Climate Change: The thing that always gets me about this issue is that the environmental organization spokespeople tell us it’s already too late to prevent things like the flooding of Manhattan. All that makes me want to do is not buy property in Manhattan.
  • Reign in Wall Street: Wall Street is a shortcut term for whomever the candidates want to blame for something bad. Sometimes it means corporations. Do they include Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc.––the MAJOR source of job growth in the economy over the past two decades? If not, they can’t attack Goldman Sachs and the other financial institutions. Why? If they didn’t exist to finance those high tech companies, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would never have been able to leave their garages. Wall Street must mean big banks, but banking is one of the most highly regulated part of our economy. That doesn’t mean an occasional rogue individual doesn’t take advantage of a loophole, but most of what big banks do is both legal and necessary. Banking allows individuals and businesses to function, which benefits society and by the way results in more taxes to finance the federal government.
  • Reign in Insurance Companies and Pharmaceuticals: Without health insurance, our society would be hampered by tens of thousands of families each year going into debt to pay medical bills; without pharmaceuticals we’d be suffering more and dying sooner. That’s awful. Let’s crush them.
  • Lobbyists Control Congress: That’s correct. Here are the worst offenders: AFL-CIO, AARP, and NEA.
  • Gun Control and holding manufacturers responsible: We hold auto companies responsible for manufacturing defects, not if I drive my car into a ditch because I was texting. That’s the only standard that can work. Holding gun manufacturers responsible for how their products are use is absurd. In terms of reforms that would make it more difficult for people with mental illness and criminal intent to obtain weapons, I’d be in favor if it can be done without violating the U.S. Constitution.
  • The Decline of the Middle Class: For half of Sanders’ 40 years of decline we’ve had Democratic presidents: Carter (4), Clinton (8), and Obama nee Barry Soetoro (7). But beyond that what is the cure? Sanders would tax the “rich” to pay for public works jobs. How did that work with TARP? Shovel ready jobs weren’t and make-work projects were invented so that individual states got their share of the money. O’Malley would increase education spending, but college grads are already having trouble finding jobs. Clinton would do a little of this and a little of that, but nothing that adds up to the simple truth that businesses, not presidents, produce jobs.


Here’s what we need: Teach entrepreneurship in high school, provide internships for young people to see how businesses work, and clear the regulatory climate to enable people to start and expand businesses. Right now, going over 50 employees is not worth it. College and community-based incubators, technical assistance and other programs can help young companies get over the initial hurdle, although not all will succeed. One thing we cannot do is pretend the best way to grow the economy is to expand the public sector.

The Democrats offered empty phrases that can’t stand up to scrutiny and they offered empty promises that they cannot deliver on. What’s their plan B? Blame the Republicans.

Warren the Ideologue gets it wrong again

Attention Elizabeth Warren supporters. Can you accept the truth that the woman you think is right for America is blinded by her anti-capitalist ideology to facts that don’t suit her model of how the world works?

I pointed out how she fudged the facts with regard to the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Pact. (See Why Ideologues Make Bad Presidents.) President Obama, who I normally disagree with, is right in criticizing Warren for being wrong on the facts.

Now the Washington Post (not me!) shows that Warren has gotten her facts wrong again–this time when she claims auto dealership markups are costing consumers $26 billion a year. The Post’s Fact Checker gave her four Pinocchios for using bad data to make her argument in favor of ending the excemption car dealers have from supervision by her Consumer Protection Bureau.

Giving the CPB the power to supervise auto loans would raise the cost to consumers as well as tax payers. Consumers would pay more for their loans since there would be yet another layer on top of the existing layers car dealers are required to fill out AND it would result in the CPB hiring an unknown number of enforcers to supervise and penalize car dealers thus increasing the federal budget by a few million a year.

For ideologues like Elizabeth Warren the facts of an issue are less important that the narrative her belief system (ideology) wants to convey. Playing on people’s inclination to believe that business owners will take any opportunity to screw the customer, she will try to impose new layers of regulation that harm consumers in multiple ways without fixing the problem they are supposed to fix.

One thing you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she’s more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. She wets her finger and puts it in the air to see which way the wind of public opinion is going before she decides what she believes. That’s not what we need either.

We need as a president a person with a strong core set of beliefs, but who also understands the American political system requires compromise to work. A presdient should be uncompromising on some issues, starting with the underlying values inherent in the Declaration of Independence and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. From that base s/he can be compromising where she or he can in order to advance the lives of our citizens while protecting our values on the world stage.

I’m hopeful the Republicans (I’m an Independent) will pick such a candidate to lead their party and this country in 2016.