Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Republican Base--or CONSERVATIVE Base?

Pundits and analysts say the 35 or 37 percent Trump approval crowd is a "Republican base" but its history suggests otherwise. While people in said group are conservative, their voting history is more skittish. Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Dixiecrats, and other Independent candidates have won their votes instead of GOP candidates --and still others have won their votes in state level races.

As far as being reliably conservative, they are; as far as being reliably Republican, not so much.

So a 35% vote becomes more like 17% when you look at reliability of  the conservative base vote as GOP fans.

Such phenomena best  explains "moderate Republicans"--and why the GOP is never going  to give this "base" 100% of what it  wants. Even when GOP has been reliably conservative itself, it has found it self left in the lurch sometimes.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

What Grover Cleveland's political history really reveals about Electoral-only victories

I just watched a discussion on "Meet the Press" about the "failed" Clinton campaign of 2016 in which various persons blamed Hillary for the "failure" of the campaign.
With a nearly 3 million Popular vote lead over Trump, it is difficult to call Hillary a "loser" in the campaign.
Yet, corporate talking head shills found a way to rationalize such a fluke as if it were under the control of the politicians involved.
Some of the participants put down Hillary's bringing in anti-woman sentiments as a factor, but, the truth is, even doing that is putting the outcome on a level of discussion it doesn't really deserve.
The political career of President Grover Cleveland is the best illustration of what is really involved when there is a gap between Electoral and  Popular vote.
In 1884, Cleveland was elected President, in both the Popular and the Electoral vote.
In 1888, he was up for re-election, but failed to achieve a lead in the Electoral College, though a modest lead in the Popular vote.
Cleveland came back in 1892 and won election again, in both the Popular and Electoral vote. In each case, historians and journalists found that the whole thing was best explained by FLUKES in the election system--oddball failures of election machines (newfound gadgets) and election clerk errors around the nation, but most especially in one or two states.
The real lesson in 2016, has also been that--as, indeed, errors or manipulations best explained the outcome in the other three Electoral gap elections since our two parties have existed, 1876, 1888 a and 2000.
In 1876, even many Republicans have acknowledged that a fishy "Electoral Commission" which worked in several ways to ensure the election of "Rutherfraud" B. Hayes, by shifting a single Electoral vote to Hayes, a Civil War general opposed to slavery versus Tilden a Democrat who had advocated removal of US troops from the Reconstruction South.
In 1888, flukes and errors explained the Electoral/Popular gap.
In 2000, a complex failure by the news media in "calling" Florida too soon for Gore, caused some w. Florida panhandle voters to leave the poll lines a bit too early, while a computer in s. Florida was videotaped "counting backwards" to favor W. Bush. And the counts got down to as low as 34 votes in later media recounts using each of the four "ballot interpretation" methods in Florida that were forbidden of carrying forward when the Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointees, shut down any future recounts in Florida and gave the Electoral College--though not the Popular vote--to W. Bush.
Ironically, in 2004, Bush seems by many new and old pieces of evidence to have similarly won a lead in the Popular vote--partly in the wake of 911--but possibly failed to legally win the Electoral College, as Kerry got an apparent lead in Exit polls in Ohio, which, combined with data now about uncounted Provisional ballots and some locked up voting machines in Cuyahoga County there (which resulted in some OH election officials being convicted of violating the Voting Rights Act) strongly suggest Kerry was the first and thus far only Democrat to win the Electoral College but lose the lead in the Popular vote, with Bush playing Gore's role in an even bigger Popular vote lead over Kerry while losing in the Electoral College. (That, in turn, might be a cautionary tale to the GOP as to whether they should support efforts to abolish or amend interpretation of the Electoral versus Popular vote).
Now, in 2016, we see a series of odd looking failures to adequately examine ballots in at least 5 states, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, deprived America of an accurate election outcome.
Was Russia involved? Perhaps, we don't know but it's looking like it. But key here, is understanding that, when one candidate fails to achieve the Popular vote, they have likely failed in the Electoral College and an adequate examination of the outcomes after the fact has repeatedly revealed that.
There is no "failure" by a candidate to explain this, it is a product of flukes and fishiness.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Another Example of An Impossible "Coalition"

Trump faces a serious problem: he was elected by an "impossible" coalition. These are not unheard of in U.S. politics and history.

Now, it's true that there are always factions within the two parties, and that these are sometimes at odds over a range of relatively innocuous issues. There is also the "swing" state issue, which creates the phenomena of the "Blue dog" or conservative Democrat and the Liberal or "Moderate" Republican.

But, on rare occasions, especially when a single or possible two major issues dominate the Presidential campaign, we get what we are witnessing now: an IMPOSSIBLE coalition.

One of the most recent examples of this was in 1968-72, and in that case it was the single issue of the Vietnam war.

Humphrey was attempting to form such a coalition between war hawk Wallace Democrats (former Dixiecrats in some cases) and the far Left and liberal doves, who wanted a de-escalation or  immediate exit from Vietnam.

Wallace's politically impossible position was to somehow win voters in the South who weren't being swayed by Nixon to vote Republican for the first time in a lifetime in support of strong military in Vietnam and a slowing of busing in the South, while simultaneously pulling the black support he still had to have to survive as a viable and sizable third party entity in the South and swing states.

One result was the God-awful 1968 Chicago Democratic convention, which brought to a blood soaked (literally) head the contradictory positions. The result was that divided Democrats couldn't carry Illinois--and in losing it, lost both the Popular vote and the Electoral College that year.

To use analogies from that, then, today the Tea Party represents the core in the more solidly Red states while moderate Repubs are in the Swing and border states--today's "Wallace" or conservative faction from 1968. These were pivotal to a GOP victory in the White House race.

Trump played for Tea Party support in one set of states in order to get that narrow margin of the Far Right he needed to beat out other Republicans for the GOP nomination. That would have SEEMED to have committed him to Far Right economic and political positions, across the board. Yet Trump appealed to such conservatives ONLY IN THOSE SELECT STATES. His rhetoric THERE matched the wishful thinking hopes of the Far Right, which finally thought it was hearing from someone who was 100% where they were on issues.

Yet, equally pivotal, this year, for Trump, ended up being those on the Left who balked at supporting Hillary's more centrist views on foreign policy, corporate America and limited public health care act set up under Obama. When Trump left Alabama (for example), after talking there like the conservative's conservative, he went up to Michigan and spoke exactly the OPPOSITE, saying he was interested in what Bernie Sanders, who was on the Left of Hillary's positions on several public positions including the narrow coverage of the current health care system--and that he would responsibly bring back jobs to the American industrial heartland.

New data now suggests that Russia also circulated "fake news" at key Left websites that helped to exaggerate the Left's break with Hillary. In any case, the coalition for Trump thus created put him over in pivotal Democrat and Swing states--the ones in which we saw the Green Party question and attempt to recount.

Those Left voters are simply not supporting Trump now that the Congressional Budget Office numbers show the "repeal and replace" is not an improvement over what we had already.

Meanwhile, any attempts by Trump to maintain credibility with his Left supporters, watered down his "purist" approach to "repealing" Obamacare. That, in turn, caused that purist group in the Far Right to refuse to back his own health care bill. 

Back to the drawing board means further conflict-fraught discussions, meetings, and formings and re-formings of the GOP. All in all, not a pleasant harbinger for the "Hubert Humphrey" of 2017, Donald Trump.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

And Behold, A New Heaven and a New Earth

As some have foreseen, we have dramatic new proof of life in the universe beyond Earth, as NASA announced the discovery of a new solar system containing up to seven earth-like planets. This adds to a growing list of exoplanets that could be inhabited by life, including intelligent life.
It requires us to continue to grow up in our perceptions about ourselves, our planet and our universe.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Electoral College Tragedies

So now, we begin a new scandal-ridden, incompetent , controversial, probably ultimately tragic, Electoral-only Presidential administration.

How we proceed and progress as a nation a this point may affect many generations to come

As usual, the likes of these administrations demonstrate, once again, the tragedy of our current Electoral College system.

As has been the case almost invariably in such outcomes, an incompetent extremist who could not ultimately win a general election has been given all power-- instead of merely some sharing of power in a "consolation prize"  signifying a winning of a majority of the states.

Such outcomes have not served our nation well. There have been four since 1876 and the beginning of our current two parties.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

happy the Presidential race has setlled out so far to Hillary surviving

with Trump now the one in greater jeopardy.
With the clearance by the FBI, it seems the Clinton candidacy is once again viable and the Dems can plan on running her.
Meanwhile, there is still the dissension within the GOP ranks, so that Trump has a ways to go in getting full support from his fellow Republicans.

Can Hillary overcome the negatives due to the FBI spokesman's remarks today about "reckless" e-mail.

On another topic, I am currently working with two new updates for my website, maxstandridge.net
One is a pro-Bush item, regarding another way in which a radio ad might have appeared only one or two or three times, at a station or stations. This has to do with an article appearing some years ago in Quill, the magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists. The article discusses an event in which filler was used to produce a bizarre and controversial item in a publication.

A similar phenomenon could have occurred in an on-air situation at the radio station(s) in question.

On the other hand, an "anti-Bush" aspect of at least the Guam water-landing might have to do with the interesting, coincidental timing of the "orbit" maneuvers of Bush and the Japanese naval and land-based aircraft during the Battle of the Philippines Sea. The fact two occurred so closely in time could be a signal that something had been communicated ahead of the event pertaining to a "signal" from or about Dulles's prearranged courier at the time of that battle. Bush orbited his carrier, and didn't land on it again, at the same time the Japanese were orbiting the Marianas in their aircraft.

There are several interesting aspects of this.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

A Triple Jeopardy for America?

My concern at this point in time, is coming from three directions:
we are approaching an election in which two sizable third party turnouts may occur.
On the Right, or Center-Right, appears to be the Libertarian Party. Pulling more GOP voters than usual by having moderate candidates, they could cost Trump some Electoral votes, if certain key events which will be postulated below, DON'T happen.
On the Left, is the Green Party, as well as the various Socialist Parties around the nation. These are probably going to have a big turnout this year, as well, with another, similar potential impact on the Democrats that the Libertarians may have on the GOP.

At the supposed Center, we have two candidates:

Hillary Clinton, the supposed presumptive nominee at this point. On National Security issues, she is perceived as strong, but on economic issues she has embarrassingly weak polling among those who place economic issues at the top of their agenda at this point, especially young people, and, most embarrassing of all, perhaps, among young white women. She also seems inordinately secretive at this point, even after several months of opportunity, of reveal what she said in various meetings and speeches before, various corporate groups. This latter could probably be exaggerated, since speeches before groups, even corporate groups, are frequently funded by individual donations that are pooled to appear to be one larger one. But it is still something to make one pause.

Donald Trump, the apparent GOP nominee, assuming he's going to pass muster legally. His controversial and contradictory "positions" and lack of a structure policy position on many issues, has left many people who genuinely want a GOP victory, groping to find a reason to support him. He seems able to command a dedicated cadre, but, like Sanders supporters, these people are not strongly associated with either major party and often show no real commitment, or even interest, in the two major parties.

But the biggest concern, aside from these essentially popularity issues, is what has just been being mentioned: where do EITHER of these folks stand, legally, at this point.

Will Hillary end up being indicted by a hostile Congress which would do anything to bring her down, even if normal channels might not? She remains somewhat closed about both her potential ethical problems vis a vis some larger corporations, as well as the issue of her possibly National Security related e-mail issues.

As tor Trump,  he is currently embroiled rhetorically with a judge who actively investigating, and must make a ruling on, his business dealings at the controversial "Trump University." Whether there is merit to the case against him on that issue, he has raised a new level of difficulty for himself by putting into the picture, by his own actions and words, the possibility of a Contempt of Court issuance against him by the said judge in the case.

Should the latter happen, Trump would be either a flawed candidate, or, if successful, an Impeached President.

With those daunting prospects hanging out in front of them, is it any wonder some Democrats and Republicans who are concerned about the well-being of their respective Parties, are wondering just what they are getting themselves into if these are, in fact, the nominees?

But there is yet another--at third-- daunting daunting prospect hanging, at least, the Democrats:
What is it becomes impossible to run Hillary by the time of the convention, and Sanders is therefore able to secure the nomination, through some process or other?

Then, we are only one serious and significant terrorist attack away from a possible Trump Presidency.

So, let's look at all three of these things. Recent ISIS internet and media traffic is calling for massive levels of terror attacks internationally, on a scale they have only recently begun to assert. This is probably in the wake of some fairly significant geographic losses and the consequent potential embarrassment for their cause. By bringing off a series of minor, or one or two major, terror attacks here in the States and Europe, they could actually impact our Presidential election, with Sanders perceived as weak in the whole area of national defense among voters who are so far only "registered" and not "likely" in the current contests.

Meanwhile, Sanders at the helm of the Democrats going into the election after this, the Dems go down to defeat. Hillary appears to be indicted for her e-mail offenses.

Meanwhile, our new President, Donald Trump, is cited for Contempt of Court, which is at minimum a Misdemeanor. He must, then, stand for Impeachment.

Holy Smokes, folks.