Republicans Are Real Good at Blaming Everyone for Election Losses . . . But Themselves

I just heard Sean Hannity's rant from yesterday's radio show. He really loses it over the possibility that Trump will lose Utah to an independent candidate, Evan McMullin. In fact, it's been humorous to watch Trump supporters seethe in anger over conservatives who cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump. Hannity is now threatening a "reckoning" on November 9th if Trump loses the election. 

One thing that fascinates me about this particular campaign is just how early Trump set up the narrative of blame if he loses. Almost immediately after the Republican Convention Trump claimed that the election was rigged. He targeted the media. He tagged the system as corrupt. It was almost as if he knew coming out of the convention that he was going to lose, and he had to begin blaming someone, something, anything but himself, for the impending loss. 

This is set up to be the third time in a row that the Republicans will lose a national election.  And yet the GOP fails to recognize that it has become its own worst enemy. 

The 2012 election should have served as a game changer for Republicans. The exit polls showed that the Republicans lost in every ethnic group, and in big numbers, except for white men. Rationally, this should have signaled the need to change directions. 

Initially, it appeared that the Republicans were going to do just that. One of the biggest indications of a willingness to change emerged in an effort to address immigration reform in a constructive manner. Finally. 

But something happened on the way to that place. One of the more radical wings of GOP voters, Tea Partiers, discovered just how much pull they now had in the party. 

Republicans, who control a majority of state legislatures, concentrated efforts on drawing congressional district lines to ensure a majority in the House of Representatives for years to come. That is, they used the map and demographic information to concentrate the number of likely Republican voters into safe congressional districts. It's a process known as gerrymandering, which had been around almost as long as the US republic itself. By concentrating conservative voters in a single district, however, Republican state legislatures wound up giving disproportionate power to the more radical wings of GOP voters, namely the Tea Partiers.  The result was that incumbent Republican Representatives had far more to fear about a more conservative challenger in the primaries than a Democrat in the general election. 

Republican leadership then began giving in to the Tea Party more frequently. The Tea Party found it had the power to shut down the Government over a budget fight to defund Obamacare.  With its new-found power, Tea Partiers could then concentrate on defeating any common sense approach to immigration reform, by labeling the proposals "amnesty."  

Tea Partiers got drunk with the power. Any Republican who didn't subscribe to their views completely received the dreaded designation of RINO (Republican in name only).  Suddenly, Republicans known for their conservative leanings, such as Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, found that they were not conservative enough for this constituency. Indeed the hallmark of the Tea Partiers has been the refusal to compromise on any issue. 

So, instead of learning from electoral defeats, the party regressed. Its desperate efforts to cling to a majority in the House only gave power to a group of voters all too happy to alienate the rest of the country. It is this group of voters, with their no compromises attitude, that led to the nomination of Donald Trump. 

And once again, instead of being introspective and examining what is wrong with the Republican Party that it fails to attract voters on a national level, the stage is set for post-election finger-pointing.  If there is to be a "reckoning," it should not be aimed at conscientious conservatives who refuse to support a boorishly flawed candidate like Donald Trump. It should be with that wing of the party that refuses to let go of its outdated and divisive attitude, and that fails to see how its message is driving voters away. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

If a Pollster Called Me Today

Pollster:  This is ACME Polling Company. We're conducting a poll on the presidential election in Virginia. If the election were held today, would you vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

Me:  Well that depends. In your scenario, who was leading in the last poll out of Utah?

Pollster:  Sir, you live in Virginia. Who would you vote for?

Me:  My vote depends on two conditions: who is ahead in Utah and whether Virginia is in the margin of error. 

Pollster:  So you're undecided?

Me:  Oh no. I know exactly what I'm going to do on Election Day. It just depends on those two conditions. 

Pollster:  Are you voting for Trump?

Me:  If Evan McMullin is ahead in Utah and Virginia is in the margin of error

Pollster:  Are you voting for Clinton?

Me:  Over my dead body. 

Pollster:  So you're writing in Ewan McGregor?

Me:  I said Evan McMullin. 

Pollster:  I've never even heard of that guy. 

Me:  Not many people have. But no, if I want Evan McMullin to win, it's better that I not vote for him. 

Pollster:  I'm sorry, have you been drinking or doing drugs?  Because that will invalidate my poll results. 

Me:  No. I'm perfectly sober. You see, McMullin has no chance to win in Virginia. His best shot is to win Utah and hope that neither Clinton nor Trump get 270 votes in the Electoral College. So it's better that I not vote for him in Virginia. 

Pollster:  Then you are voting for Trump. 

Me:  Not necessarily. You see, I can't abide the man. So if I can avoid voting for that's my preference. I'm only voting for him if McMullin is ahead in Utah and Virginia is within the margin of error. 

Pollster:  So then you're voting for McGregor. 

Me:  McMullin. But no. You see my heart is with Gary Johnson. 

Pollster:  But you are using your vote to try to help Ewan McGregor to win?

Me:  Evan McMullin. Yeah, it's the best shot to defeating Trump and Hillary. 

Pollster:  With only one state?

Me:  Right. If he gets votes in the Electoral College and if no one else gets a majority of the Electoral College, then when the House votes they can choose from the top three vote getters in the Electoral College. 

Pollster:   You're joking. 

Me:  No. Read the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution. 

Pollster:  I'm sorry. I don't have a box for that. I'm putting you down as undecided. 

Me:  Well if you're going to do that, then put me down for Jill Stein. 

Pollster:  I'm not asking anymore. Goodbye.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Could the Electoral College Save Us this Year?

Any middle schooler who pays attention in civics class can tell you that here in the United States, we do not directly elect our president.  Instead, we elect people to sit in the Electoral College, and it is the Electoral College who in turn selects our president.

Our Founding Fathers actually intended for the Electoral College to be an actual group of people, who would meet after the election, deliberate and vote on who they, the electors, wanted to be president.  It was meant to protect the process from demagoguery, and the passions of the masses.

But that is not how it works today.  In every state, except Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the popular vote wins that state's Electoral College delegation.  So in effect, the U.S. presidential election becomes fifty-one separate elections (although the District of Columbia is not a state, it does get to participate in the Electoral College). 

Not all of those separate elections are equal.  Each state gets that same number of electors as the number of representatives that the state has in the House of Representatives, plus two to represent the state's Senate delegation.  The District of Columbia gets three electors.  States with large House delegations get more electors.  But since each state is guaranteed at least three electors, voters in smaller states, like Utah and Wyoming, wind up with a disproportionately large say in who our next president will be.

Every four years, we hear arguments that the Electoral College distorts the popular vote.  It is anti-democratic, and as such it should be eliminated in favor of direct election of the president.  Indeed, twice in U.S. history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote.

This year, there is an outside shot that no one will win a majority of the Electoral College vote, and that an independent candidate could become our president.

The Constitution provides that a person must win a majority of the Electoral College to win the presidency.  If no one wins a majority, the choice for the next president goes to the House of Representatives.  But, the House votes by state delegation, where each state gets one vote.  And, when each state votes, they can only select a person who has won at least one Electoral college vote.

For the most part, the United States has a two party system.  That is, when a person is voting for president, they are mostly voting for a Republican or a Democrat.  As long as only the candidates from the two parties receive votes in the Electoral College, then one of them will likely win a majority.  There are scenarios where the two major party candidates can tie in the Electoral College.  But those are unlikely scenarios.

However, the equation changes if a third party candidate were to win the popular vote in just one state.  If that were to happen, then it could be possible for none of the candidates to win a majority in the Electoral College, and therefore throw the race to the House.

This year, there are a lot of voters who are dissatisfied with both nominees from the major parties.  However, because the U.S. electoral system is rigged to favor Republicans and Democrats, most voters view third party candidates as a wasted vote.  Thus, even if they do not like either candidate, they choose the candidate they dislike more, and vote for the opponent.

But things are a little different this year.  In the latest polls an independent candidate, Evan McMullin, is leading both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the popular vote in Utah.  Thus, there is a realistic chance that for the first time in over a hundred years, a candidate who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican could win a state's entire delegation to the Electoral College.  If the math were to work out in the rest of the states, there is an outside chance that neither Clinton nor Trump will win a majority of the Electoral College.

All things being equal, this would normally favor the Republican candidate.  It would mean that the vote would go to the House, with each state getting one vote.  Even if the Republicans lose the House in the congressional elections, Democrats will likely be concentrated in the populous states, such as New York, California and Pennsylvania.  As far as state delegations are concerned, the majority will likely favor Republicans.

But, whether they say it publicly or not, Republican leadership does not like Donald Trump.  He was the outsider who cashed in on his name recognition and the popular discontent with politicians in general to win the Republican nomination.  His temperament and the perception of his chauvinism has made him a damaged candidate.  Indeed, after recordings of Trump's vile comments on women were released, some Republican candidates, including Speaker Paul Ryan, have refused to campaign for him.  Republican leadership may be eager to throw Trump under the bus if the opportunity were to come and choose a different candidate.

And there is where the Electoral College could save the republic.  If Evan McMullin were to win Utah, and if neither Trump nor Hillary won the majority of the Electoral College, it could give Republican leaders a real chance to reject the two major party candidates, viewed as severely flawed by many Americans, and make a more rational choice.  One could only hope.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Paul Ryan Is in an Impossible Position

I feel for Paul Ryan. I really do. He's in an impossible position. He recognizes that fueled with angers voters in the Republican primaries were conned into voting for a bully and a buffoon disguised as a populist. 

Donald Trump has spent a lifetime perfecting the art of self-promotion. He tapped into the discontent of the Tea Party voters, who demand nothing but complete allegiance from their politicians, and convinced them that he was the outsider ready to take-on Hillary and the big government Democrats. Trump's boorish, crass and vulgar personality was no deterrent; it's what the Tea Party voters wanted. Cashing in on his name recognition, his reality TV experience and the wealth envy of many in the electorate,Trump was able to sweep in and steal the nomination from a GOP pool that was fractured and unfocused. 

Republican leaders knew who Trump was. But by time they realized that his candidacy was a serious threat, they failed to rally around a single, respectable candidate who could challenge him. 

When it became clear that Trump was going to win the nomination, the Republican leadership were not quick to embrace him. But faced with the prospect of a fractured party going into the convention, party leaders, like Ryan, had no choice but to accept and endorse Trump as the party's nominee. To do otherwise would endanger Republican efforts to hang on to the House and Senate. 

But Trump has never had to worry about working well with others. All of his career, he has been able to use his money to bully those around him. He never had to compromise, he never had to be considerate of others. So why should he start now?

And then the video of Trump's lewd and disgusting comments about how a star gets to treat women broke. Look, we all knew Trump was a chauvinist. We all knew Trump values women more for their looks than for their intelligence. We all knew he had no real respect for women. But as long as his chauvinism was disguised as mere comments about a woman's appearance, it could be dismissed. 

There was no disguising his comments to Billy Bish. Faced with this reprehensible attitude on how women could be treated, how he could use his celebrity status to engage in otherwise unwelcome behavior, Ryan took the steps to do the honorable thing and distance himself from Trump. 

Unfortunately, because of his position in the Republican leadership, he does not have the freedom to do what his former running mate, Mitt Romney, could do and completely denounce Trump. Like it or not, Trump is the standard bearer for the Republican Party. Realistically, Ryan cannot outwardly withdraw his endorsement of his party's nominee. 

So Ryan has done the best he could do under the circumstances and distance himself from Trump. His reward has been to find himself in the crosshairs of Trump's irresistible urge to spew his hatred through Twitter. His reward is to find the Tea Partiers hurling the worst insult they can think of at him: RINO (Republican in name only).

In truth, I pity Paul Ryan, a man who was thrust into the national spotlight only four short years ago to shore up the conservative credentials for Romney's candidacy. Now, the man once touted as a conservative policy wonk finds that he is the target of a vitriolic wing of his party's supporters which find him not conservative enough. In the end, when Trump's candidacy goes down in flames, Ryan will be made the scapegoat for daring to put civility and personal principles over voters' hatred of Hillary. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

No One Is Entitled to Your Vote

No one is entitled to your vote. Let me repeat that. No one is entitled to your vote.

Why?  Your vote is yours. It is personal. It represents your choice; your voice. 

For millennia before the American Revolution, people struggled to have their government hear them. Even today, the majority of people in this world suffer under oppressive governments where they have no voice. Your right to have your say in how this government should be run has been hard fought and won. And you get to use it as you seem fit.

That concept seems to be under attack from many fronts this year. The attacks stem, in part, from the imperfect system we have.  Over time, the US electoral system has developed structures and rules that give the two major parties immense advantages. So it is assumed that only by voting Democrat or Republican that your vote has any chance of winning. And it is only through winning that your voice can be heard.

To be clear, your vote is an imperfect way to communicate to your government. We do not live in a pure democracy. We will in a representative republic. In our system, we elect people to represent us in making policy and legislative choices. Your vote, therefore, can be difficult for our government to interpret. Are we choosing a particular person, a political party, a particular issue?  Or are we making some other statement?

Into this system, you have people who say that if you are not voting for one of the parties with the institutional advantages, you have no chance of winning. Therefore you are throwing your vote away. Worse, they assume that the major party opponent of their chosen candidate must be defeated. So if you are not voting for their candidate, you are only allowing the other to win. It is this line of thinking that leads people to insist that one candidate or another deserves your vote. 

While a two party system ensures that one party or another controls the system to make laws and implement policies, it has major flaws. Our government addresses a large number of complex issues. In order to win the mechanisms of government in a two party system, the parties must form alliances among those various issues. One result is that some issues get drowned out.  

Another flaw stems from the way candidates for president are chosen. The primary system gives disproportionate power to the fringes of each of the major parties. It also gives an advantage to candidates who can manipulate name recognition and popularity. 

And so, many voters are left dissatisfied with the choices the major parties feed us. As we express our desire to reject both choices, we are met with the voices who insist that our vote must be used to win. Our vote must therefore be constrained to the two choices the parties gave us. 

But this view is limited and parochial. Our republic is more than merely a mechanism to institute major rule. It is designed to protect minority rights. It is a system set up to ensure that fundamental freedoms, such as speech, association and religion, are protected even if they are in the minority and unpopular. 

And it is in this system that we exercise our vote. In the privacy of the voting booth, the vote is personal. It is a reflection of our autonomy. It is a celebration of our freedom to choose. It is a memorial of those defended our democratic ideals. 

Honor those who died and sacrificed to protect this precious right. Revel in this incredible freedom. Exercise this right the way you see fit and tell your government how you think things should be run. Don't be intimidated by those who insist that their candidate is entitled to your vote. Vote your conscience and your conscience alone. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Trump Is No Authoritarian Danger; Hillary Is!

A number of my friends, and a good deal of the pundits, seem to be taking this "The sky is falling" attitude, when it comes to this year's presidential elections. That is, they are seriously motivated by this fear that if Donald Trump were elected president of the United States, but somehow this would signal the beginning of an authoritarian rule in the United States.

But the reality is if there is a danger of true authoritarian rule coming to the United States, Trump is not the candidate fear; Hillary Clinton is.

This is not to say that I am a big Trump supporter. The fact of the matter is I find him to be an ignorant, boorish bully. I have no intention of voting either for him or for Clinton in the November elections. Trump simply does not possess the skills or support necessary to turn the United States Government into an authoritarian government.

Consider the sources of Trump's popularity and power. Trump's numerous business failures have been well documented. It is also well documented that if he had just taken the wealth of each started out with and invested conservatively, he would have amassed a far greater personal wealth that he currently has. So it can't be seriously argued that Trump has any real business acumen.

To the contrary Trump is only been able to maintain his position by using his money to bully people. For example, a number of contractors on Trump's real estate development projects allege that they have been forced to except far less than the original agreed-upon payment because the threat of litigation costs make it far more rational to except the meager amount Trump offers then to fight him.

If Trump were to become the president, he would not be able to rely upon his personal wealth to bully others. There is far greater danger of Trump becoming frustrated with the need to deal with Congress and other world leaders instead of just getting what he wants.  His frustrations with no being the sole boss in charge is more likely cause him to quit than establish authoritarianism.

As for his supporters, they are drawn mostly from the Tea Partiers who have recently dominated the direction of Republican politics. These are people who have failed to recognize the lesson of the 2012 presidential election that the GOP has lost its appeal to various segments of the population. They are also drunk on their own Kool-Aid, as they cannot see that their success in the 2014 mid-term elections had much to do with gerrymandering and not the popularity of their agenda. While an annoyance in today's political atmosphere, tactically these are not people to be feared.

The source of Hillary Clinton's power and popularity, however, is far more troubling as she has demonstrated the skill set and the temperament that lends itself to authoritarian tendencies.

There is no doubt, Clinton is a brilliant tactician in the Machiavellian mold. She has taken a long-term view, skillfully and patiently putting all the pieces in place for her effort to rise to power.

Early in her career Hillary allied herself with a gifted and charismatic man who turned politician. Despite his obvious and almost pathological faults, Hillary has been unwavering in her support of Bill. Indeed, it is clear that Hillary made a deal with Bill a long time ago to protect his rise to power that has served her purposes well.

By this point, it is clear that the Clintons have a marriage that has been mutually beneficial for their respective political careers, but not one based on love or respect. Bill's womanizing can hardly be denied. Hillary's steadfast public support has enabled Bill to avoid the consequences for his behavior, which some have claimed has ventured into the area of sexual assault.

But Hillary did more than merely tolerate Bill's philandering. She chose to denigrate and slander those who would attempt to sully Bill's reputation. Dating back to 1978, Juanita Broaddrick reports that Hillary discouraged her from reporting her claim that Bill raped her. Hillary's attack on the character of the other women who came forward to accuse Bill is nothing more than the very victim attacking feminists decry in rape accusations. She likened Gennifer Flowers to money-hungry trailer park trash. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, instead of acknowledging the truth, she attributed the scandal to some phantom "vast right wing conspiracy" to distract the public. Even after the truth of the allegations was shown, Hillary never offered an apology for deliberately and knowingly misleading the public. For her, it was all about the preservation of power.

And standing by her man has served Hillary well. Bill's charisma and skill has repeatedly saved her from her own scandals from the Rose Law Firm to Whitewater to her wanton and reckless handling of classified information.

Her willingness to mislead and distract followed her to her stint in the State Department. She was more than willing to promote the preposterous position that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, which left the US Ambassador and three others brutally murdered, was caused by a spontaneous protest over a silly and amateurish YouTube video in order to cover up the utter ignorance and incompetence of the Obama Administration's Middle East policy.

Indeed Clinton tolerates neither criticism nor dissent. The voting public has all but forgotten how Hillary, as an unelected public official in her husband's first term, met in secret with advisors to formulate the Democrats' first major attempt to nationalize health care. While working on the plan, she shielded herself from the transparency critical to a functioning democracy.

And then there's her temperament: easily angered and according to both Arkansas State Police and Secret Service sources, full of contempt for the security details assigned to protect her.

Of great concern with Clinton is the cult of personality she commands. She has always had the unmitigated support of the militant feminists. But, for whatever reason, otherwise intelligent and reasonable people have chosen to ignore her faults and her corruption, and place her high on a pedestal. Indeed, the loyalty of her followers is so strong, so sycophantic, that they cannot accept that anyone can oppose Clinton on reasonable grounds. Instead, the intolerance and bigotry of her followers causes them to accuse anyone who voices objections to Clinton of misogyny. It is this intolerance of dissent among her followers that is indeed the most frightening aspect of Clinton's candidacy.

So blinded are these followers to Clinton's faults, that they cannot accept that the FBI report is a damning condemnation of her lawlessness. The result of the FBI investigation into Hillary's use of her personal email server was clearly that she broke the law. However, despite the clear proof of illegality, the FBI Director bent over backwards to find some reason not to prosecute Hillary. They mistakenly view this as an exoneration, instead of a clear act of corruption meant to protect the nominee from the president's party from scandal.

Indeed, it is this complete lack of tolerance and blind adherence of her loyal following that truly, and frighteningly, conjures images of the Nazi Brown Shirts. These are people more deserving of fear than the bumbling Tea Partiers.

There's a scene from the original Independence Day where Jeff Goldblum's character likens the appearance of the alien ships to a game of chess. A master chess player patiently waits until all of the pieces are properly in place before pouncing. For Hillary, the danger is that the pieces may be in place for this election.

Her patient, Machiavellian plotting, combined with her temperament, her inability to speak the truth and her intolerance of dissent all combine to create the real warnings signs of an inclination to authoritarianism should she be elected.


By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.