After reading the commentary
below, please express your own thoughts. Instructions on how to do so are
written at the bottom of this column. Thank
you.
A number of readers have asked me why I have not included photographic images - either my own or any of the featured subjects that I'm writing about - with my last several commentaries. Posting a smiling picture of me is not how I feel these days... so I've decided - at least for the time being when writing about anything political - to refrain from displaying any photos.
President Obama pleaded with Democrats...to be certain to vote on election day. And because of only 106,919 Democrats who did not make the effort to go to the polls on Tuesday, November 8th...Donald Trump won the electoral vote. The figures are accurate...and my statement is true. Allow me to explain.
As this column is being published...the electoral vote tally is...Donald Trump 290...Hillary Clinton 232. A winner has not yet been named in Michigan.
The New York Times says Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin by only 27,257 votes. If 27,258 more Democrats had cast their ballots in "The Badger State"...the former Secretary of State would have been awarded the 10 electoral votes.
According to the Associated Press...Trump defeated Mrs. Clinton in Pennsylvania by 68,236 votes. If 68,237 more Democrats had taken the time to vote for Secretary Clinton..."The Keystone State's" 20 electoral votes would have been added to the Democratic nominee's total.
It appears as if Trump is likely to find victory in Michigan...but the AP says...it will be by a mere 11,423 votes. So with another 11,424 votes...Mrs. Clinton would have finished ahead in "The Great Lakes State"...and those 16 electoral votes would've belonged to her.
So let's do the math. If we deduct 10 electoral votes for Wisconsin from Trump's current total of 290...it brings his number down to 280. Reduce it by another 20... for Pennsylvania...and Trump has only 260 electoral votes...not enough to win the Presidency.
Now...let's add to Hillary Clinton's current total of 232 electoral votes...the 10 from Wisconsin...that would jump her up to 242. Another 20 from Pennsylvania...and Secretary Clinton would have 262. And if you top off her electoral votes with Michigan's 16...Mrs. Clinton would win The White House with 278 electoral votes...8 more than required.
Therefore...if we add 27,258 Democratic votes from Wisconsin...to 68,237 Democratic votes from Pennsylvania...along with 11,424 Democratic votes from Michigan...there's the 106,919 Democratic votes I noted above. And what bugs the hell out of me is that there were enough Democrats in those three states...who could have voted for Hillary Clinton...but simply stayed home on election day. Why? Why? Why?
As The Controversy is published today...The New York Times says about 123-million votes have been counted in Election 2016. But The Washington Post reports there are still some votes being counted in a handful of states...including about 4.3-million in California alone. But The Post notes that when all is said and done...the total number of ballots cast will reach about 134.5-million...which would mean more Americans voted in Election 2016 than in any other year in history. And although that sounds like a tremendous amount of people voting...it - quite frankly - is a shame.
According to the political data firm, TargetSmart...more than 200-million people are now registered to vote in the United States. Actually...200-million...81-thousand...377 Americans to be exact. TargetSmart says it's the first time ever that our country reached that milestone...and it's about 54-million more registered voters than 2008 when 131.4-million people voted. That number came down a bit to 129.2-million in 2012.
TargetSmart discovered that 42.6 percent of the new voters who registered this year are Democrats...while only 28.4 percent are Republicans. The balance are Independents who could sway one way or the other. Therefore...there's no question that Democrats could have elected Hillary Clinton to be the 45th President of the United States...and that the Democratic Party could have taken control of the U.S. Senate too.
President Obama...Secretary Clinton...Vice President Joe Biden...former President Bill Clinton...former Vice President Al Gore...and Senator Tim Kaine...among others... practically begged Democrats to vote...because every vote counts. Prior to the 2016 election, Al Gore knew that better than anybody else. Unfortunately...now so does Hillary Clinton.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of
GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B.
Duglin.
One of the chief goals of a blog...one of the major reasons to publish a
blog...is to entice others to express their opinions about the subject for which
the author is writing. The Controversy is being read by a tremendous amount of
people throughout the United States of America and all around the world. If you
agree or disagree with my commentary...your views are welcomed. Tell me that
you find pleasure in reading what I
write...or that it's not your "cup
of tea." Give your name...make up one...or remain anonymous if you
prefer. The Controversy is your outlet to speak your mind and to say what you
want about the topics discussed. Please share The Controversy with others by
posting it on Facebook, Twitter and on other social media forums. Please also
pass a link to everyone in your e-mail directories. The Controversy wants to
know your thoughts on the column above or on any other editorial or essay
written on this blog.
Now, please express your opinions. Just click on the word "Comments" below
and write your remarks in the box that appears. Make sure please that when you
finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish." Thank you
for your thoughts and thank you for reading The Controversy.
Copyright 2016 Gary B. Duglin and
TheControversy.net. All Rights
Reserved.
From exit polls and post-election polls it is said that as much as 20% of Sanders supporters stayed home and at least another 10% voted for Trump. Those that stayed home said one of the major reasons was how the Democrat party had treated Sanders and conspired to keep the nomination from him and how they did not trust or like Clinton. The 10% that voted for Trump wanted the above reasons and an outsider, someone who didn’t have Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. I know from reading your blog how you feel/felt about Hillary Clinton but per many of the polls upward of 70% of Sanders supports didn’t trust or like Clinton and over 35% felt she should have been indicted. These are Democrat Sanders supporters. That is why she lost.
ReplyDeleteYour numbers are bogus. The fact of the matter is...62-million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton - with several more million votes still to be counted - more than four million in California. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton is probably going to end up with between 2 and 5 million more votes than Donald Trump...and perhaps upwards of 10 million more. As I stated in the above commentary...107-thousand Democrats in 3 states. That is why the Electoral College has got to go. GBD
DeleteThe comments below will be followed by additional remarks in separate parts as it was an on-line conversation with Gary B. Duglin and two readers of The Controversy who debated elements of the above column on Gary's Facebook page. The two readers' full names were posted on Facebook, however, The Controversy will only publish their first names and last initial.
ReplyDeleteI guess they didn't care. Like the 46.9% of all registered voters that didn't vote at all. They evidently don't watch the political channel. Joseph P. - 10:29 a.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
It's a shame, Joe. All 200,081,377 Americans who were registered to vote on November 8th should have cast their ballots. With absentee ballots and early voting...there are no excuses. As a Democrat and a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton - and as I noted in my column - Secretary Clinton would have won the election if only 106,919 more Democrats in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan had voted. GBD - 12:25 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Maybe they just didn't like her! Wayne D. - 12:32 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
I don't believe that. GBD - 1:37 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Just because you don't believe it does not make it any less true. Joseph P. - 1:39 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
20% of Sanders voters stayed home and another 10% voted for Trump, the main reason given was their dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton. Wayne D. - 3:37 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
According to facts by numerous organizations, your percentages are way off. GBD - 3:40 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
But facts - as per The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and Politico show that's not true. GBD - 3:42 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
NYT/CBS poll says 67% of country finds Clinton untrustworthy. Wayne D. - 4:47 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
And Gallup says Trump has a 64% unfavorable rating. All of those numbers are obviously bogus since Hillary Clinton "won" the election by what will probably be between 2 and 5 million votes...possibly more than that. The bogus Electoral College is the only reason Trump was elected. GBD - 8:30 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
And the Facebook conversation continues...
Delete"Bogus"? Hummm.... GBD must be smarter than Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, Madison and a whole slew of founding fathers, chock full of world history knowledge and experience! Sure wish you could have been around to help them all write the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I don't know how they managed without you! That's why we are NOT a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The majority does not rule. Joseph P. - 8:38 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Joe, you make no sense whatsoever. I would think that somebody who is a school teacher would be more intelligent...and, therefore, you would not make such a statement as "GBD must be smarter than Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, Madison and a whole slew of founding fathers, chock full of world history knowledge and experience." Do you realize how moronic your statement is? I certainly don't like insulting you, Joe, but since you said what you said about me with regards to writing the "Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights," I don't think my comment is any worse than yours when you say, "I don't know how they managed without you." The fact of the matter is...if I lived in 1787, I would not have been any smarter than the founders unless I was clairvoyant...which they were not either. As I have written in several commentaries over the last year or more...if our founding fathers had a crystal ball, they never would have written the Constitution as they did. I have said over and over again that there is no way anybody from more than 200 years ago could have ever predicted how the United States of America would have turned out. That is why the Electoral College makes no sense today. We had 13 small colonies...13 small states. The reasons then don't apply today. For you to say that the founding fathers were "chock full of world history knowledge and experience" is ludicrous. We were a new nation. How much knowledge and experience could they have had? What they accomplished was a spectacular feat by all means, but they in no way could imagine in 1787 when the Constitution was written (in force in 1789) what our country would be like in 2016. It is impossible for anyone then to have thought that America would be a country of 50 states with more than 300-million people. I don't think you and others who feel the way you do have really thought this all through because none of it is logical at all. Now if you want to continue this conversation...let's keep the personal remarks out of it. GBD - 9:27 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
GBD, the founding documents of the United States of America were artfully crafted to take into account growth of the nation and were written so that any President would have to win over the majority of states, not just the most populous of states. You are witnessing the very reason for the Electoral College. Aren't you enjoying your civics lesson? Joseph P. - 9:48 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
And the Facebook conversation continues...
DeleteJoe, your insults are not getting you anywhere...so stop. If you believe the drivel you're spewing then you have no clue as to why the founders wrote as they did. The Electoral College has caused two great Americans - Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 - to have their Presidencies stolen from them. GBD - 9:57 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Insults? What insults? You need to read a few more history books, maybe a few more biographies of the folks that wrote our founding documents, or possibly read the Supreme Court rulings of the 2000 election. The nation is intact and operating as designed. Sorry your choices lost. Now pull up your big girl panties and get over it. Oh, and yes, I am a teacher, certified to teach social studies from grades 6-12. I do believe my "drivel." Joseph P. - 10:07 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Again...your insults are unbecoming. I know the history of our country, but apparently you're reading the wrong books. As for the 2000 election, don't get me started on that. If you really, truly believe that our "nation is intact and operating as designed" then I've got a bridge to sell you. As I noted to my brother yesterday..."Donald Trump is somebody who has some real skeletons in his closet that have not yet been revealed. And with everything he has done with other nations and with others in the United States, I wouldn't be surprised that definitive criminal acts may be discovered in Trump's world by him. If that happens, we're looking at America's first impeached President to be convicted and removed from office. There are too many people in this country that know too much about Trump and somebody's bound to squeal like a pig. He has always said that Hillary Clinton should be indicted...well...Mrs. Clinton has done nothing to be charged with a crime. Don't be shocked if Trump is the one going to jail in the not too distant future. GBD - 10:26 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Then why is Rev. Sharpton asking for President Obama to pardon Hillary before he leaves office?....... Joseph P. - 10:29 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
I've already been through this issue with others so I really don't want to take the time tonight here. The fact of the matter is that in order for Mrs. Clinton to be pardoned, she has to either be indicted and/or convicted of a crime...or...she needs to "admit guilt." Hillary Clinton will NEVER, EVER admit to being guilty of anything criminal because she has never committed a crime. Therefore, President Obama will never pardon her for something she did not do...nor can he. And I know this law quite well as it's been discussed over and over and over again by network legal correspondents, other lawyers and Constitutional scholars. GBD - 10:32 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
And the Facebook conversation continues...
DeleteJust wondering what the Reverend knows that we don't. GBD, I know in your world Hillary walks on water and saves the world, but the facts are we had two candidates running for office that had more people against them than for them. Both had the highest negatives of either party nominee ever! When all of the city dwellers, (insert Democrats) show up to vote, they out number the country folks, (insert Republicans) then Democrats win. But when Hillary offers only more of the same we just had, forgetting that BO got in promising change, and DT is talking about change.....That's how you lose the election. It has nothing to do with qualifications, only marketing and numbers. Just ask Mr. Obama. Joseph P. - 10:44 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Apparently the good Reverend Al Sharpton, who I happen to like, hasn't been watching his own network (MSNBC) as many of the legal experts and Constitutional scholars have appeared on that arm of NBC News, as well as on other networks too. But the statement I made earlier is very factual. Without an indictment or a conviction...or without admitting guilt...the President isn't pardoning Hillary Clinton for anything. And she won't admit guilt because she's not guilty of anything. If you really think that the "change" that Donald Trump has talked about is what Americans of any sort really want...wait 'til he tries to do some of the things he has campaigned about...and cannot succeed. There will be no wall...there will be no deportation of between 11 and 16-million undocumented immigrants. Remember...about 5-million of those 16-million are children who were born in the United States...and who by all rights...and by all laws...they are American citizens. If you're born in our country - no matter who your parents are - you are a citizen of the United States. I won't be surprised if Trump doesn't even get one Supreme Court Justice confirmed. There is only one that needs nominating now, but I'm hoping no current liberal-thinking Justice retires or dies within the next four years. Right now there are 48 Democrats (46 Democrats plus 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats) and 51 Republicans in the Senate. There is one run-off election in Louisiana in December. Even if the GOP candidate wins, there is a good possibility that the new Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will be able to sway 3 moderate Republicans to vote against whomever Trump nominates. We could end up with an 8-Justice High Court for the next four years...and unless there is tremendous agreement with certain decisions...nothing will get done. I doubt that Roe vs. Wade will then be overturned. And obviously, I don't think it should be as women have the right to choose as they so desire. I could go on and on, but you get my point. GBD - 11:29 p.m., Friday, November 18, 2016
Lord knows you "could go on and on"........Plato said, "Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something." Joseph P. - 12:27 a.m., Saturday, November 19, 2016
Do you enjoy insulting your friends, Joe? I think we're done here. I don't want to bore you with my wisdom. GBD - 1:24 a.m., Saturday, November 19, 2016 - End of Facebook conversation
The comments below will be followed by additional remarks in separate parts as it was an on-line conversation with Gary B. Duglin and two readers of The Controversy who debated elements of the above column on Gary's Facebook page. The two readers' full names were posted on Facebook, however, The Controversy will only publish their first names and last initial.
ReplyDeleteEpictetus said, "It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting." GBD, My life's work is to educate the ignorant. I have only been trying to help you understand reality do you could stop being so easily offended and enjoy the benefits of living in a constitutional republic. America is the land of opportunity! Anyone can grow up and be President here! Joseph P. - 9:24 a.m., Saturday, November 19, 2016
Gary, you need to check your sources on Presidential Pardons. The leading Supreme Court case on Presidential Pardons is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.'' In Murphy v. Ford (1975), a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support. No requirement of the admission of guilt is needed. President Obama can preemptively issue a pardon which would stop all criminal investigations. In Murphy v. Ford it was stated that no proof of involvement in a crime was even needed for a Presidential Pardon. Wayne D. - 9:27 a.m., Saturday, November 19, 2016
Joe, I told you that we're done here. You're sounding as bad as the man who is apparently going to be President. I refuse to have any further conversation with someone who is insulting and offensive. Your "life's work" can be to "educate the ignorant" but I'll be more intelligent about America's political system on your best day. I don't need you to tell me that you've "been trying to help (me) understand reality." I don't care what you think when you are speaking in the same tone as the disrespectful and demeaning Donald Trump. I will not sink to your level - or to the level of Trump - and belittle you. If that is what you must do to argue a point, then I have no interest in being involved with the discussion. You and your cronies need to speak in a more courteous fashion and not in the out-of-line manner that you have been projecting. This is a public forum and it's time to close this subject. I refuse to continue debating someone who attempts to degrade another person. You can believe or disbelieve my thoughts, but I base my speech on facts...not fiction. You and others who support a bigoted racist madman can fall behind his dictatorial ways as the Nazis did by following Adolf Hitler, but I have no intention of doing so. If you spoke the way you have to me here...in person...I would merely smile and walk away. So that's what I'm doing now. Here is my smile. And here I am walking away. This conversation is over. Any further comments on this matter from you will be deleted. GBD - 1:19 p.m., Saturday, November 19, 2016
DeleteWayne...you don't seem to get it. To pardon someone, the person being pardoned has to admit guilt, if not indicted or convicted of a crime. Hillary Clinton will NEVER admit guilt as she is NOT guilty of a any criminal act. President Obama will not pardon Secretary Clinton as she will not accept a pardon as she would then be admitting that she committed a crime. SHE WILL NOT DO THAT. Now, as I noted to Joe above, this conversation is over. GBD - 1:27 p.m., Saturday, November 19, 2016 - End of Facebook conversation