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.
well, a quick update--she hasn't.
ReplyDeleteNow we are in the last hours before the Electors meet. It is now the 13th of November, and they will meet to vote in a little over a month. With several states still in controversy, I've noted at Facebook, several articles online that seem to confirm that there are even enough Electoral votes that are in controversy. It is unclear what the final result will be in Michigan and Arizona, and, assuming Hillary carries New Hampshire, we have a question about possible provisional ballots in Wisconsin
ReplyDeleteand with some Electors indicating an interest in voting for third party candidates such as Evan McMullin (even among Republican Electors), there could be as many as 7 Electoral votes for him.
In addition, there is a possibility of Hillary getting it close enough in Wisconsin to trigger a mandatory state recount. In Michigan, provisional ballots are in question and haven't all been processed yet. And in Arizona, it is turning out there are hundreds of thousands of ballots that haven't been counted, too.
On top of that, there is the controversy as to whether Trump may have made himself vulnerable to investigation and possible prosecution under the Logan Act, for having contacts with the Russian government without authorization of our government.
So, we have a situation in which there are enough Electoral votes in play to make the election outcome in doubt, and, to top that off, this possibility of an impeachment of Trump should he become President.
The federal Constitution requires and Elector only to "vote the Conscience" and otherwise leaves them free to vote for any person who is currently living and legally eligible to serve as President.
There has been some talk of OH and PA Electors, individually, voting for Sanders, and also Evan McMullin. Among the field of possible votes, then, there is some interest in trying to influence Electors to "vote the Conscience" to spare the nation the turmoil of a Trump impeachment or investigation which could result, at the very least, with his being asked to step down by his own party to avoid further controversy, a few months into his Administration.
Petitions are being circulated to the Electors, and Hillary currently has built a growing lead in the Popular vote. AT this point in time, at least, pressure does seem to be building in the whole area of controversy as to how some Electors may feel obligated to vote for these numerous reasons.
So we are entering that uncomfortable and too common United States election scenario that has popped up a few times over the centuries, an Electoral College-only President. From 1876, when the two Parties' names were first appearing, there have been four occasions when the Popular vote winning candidate--always the Democrat--was forced to concede. In only one of these instances, that of 1888, when incumbent Grover Cleveland was defeated for re-election by Benjamin Harrison, does there seem to have been little controversy as to the outcome. 1876 was highly controversial and today can be seen on the surface to have been a "stolen election"--as subsequent history texts and articles have indeed described it. In 2000, a controversial Supreme Court ruling along party lines decided the election in favor of W. Bush by refusing to continue a recount in Florida when ballots seemed to be trending toward Gore. That controversy has never really been put to bed when, now, we seem faced with a similar scenario.
ReplyDeleteFaced with these appalling or at least disconcerting outcomes, our system strives to cope by giving control of the Congress to the opposing party as soon as possible, and to grant such victories in a manner that is as non-partisan as possible. But these Court-decided elections are clearly not what was intended by the framers of the Constitution. A controversial recount is again in process and is again about to be probably short-circuited by a court decision along party lines. There have been numerous--at least 7--efforts to abolish the Electoral College, and all have failed. It is still with us today, and must be dealt with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete