Category: 2016 election

Was 2016 the most winnable election in modern history?

These tweets and the blog post that inspired them discuss the false concept that 2016 was the most winnable election in modern history.

Nate Silver writes: “The background conditions in 2016 (no incumbent, average economy, Democrats in power for 8 years, high partisanship) weren’t particularly favorable to Clinton; instead, most “fundamentals” models from political scientists saw the race as a toss-up.”

Jon Cooper also makes an excellent point about voter suppression.

Sad!

 

Are Cohen and Trump guilty?

I agree with the tweet below.  There’s nothing to worry about if Cohen and Trump are innocent.  However, I think they’re guilty of something.

This column notes that comments from Trump defenders “…all start with the premise that Trump has something to hide.”

Sad!

Democrats don’t have an advantage in the electoral college

Trump has repeatedly said that Democrats have an advantage in the electoral college.  That’s not true.

For example (in this analysis in The Nation):

“Gallup has identified 11 “strong Republican” states where support for the GOP outstrips support for the Democratic party by at least 10 percent. These states have 65 percent more representation in the Electoral College than they would if electoral votes were distributed evenly. ”

I am in favor of ending the Electoral College.  Twice in five elections in the 2000s, their results differed from the popular vote.

Here’s a column advocating keeping the Electoral College from an unexpected source – Al Gore’s former campaign chairman.

How does Trump know Stormy Daniels made up the story about the attacker?

“How could Trump possibly know whether or not a man harassed Daniels in 2011? Was he in the parking lot in which the alleged incident happened? If not, there is no possible way he could possess factual proof that Daniels is making up this story.”

More information from the New York Times

I believe Daniels and I believe Trump/Cohen are behind the attack.

Sad!

Another payoff for a Trump story

The company that owns the National Enquirer paid $30,000 to a former doorman who had heard rumors that Trump had fathered a child in the 1980s.  

The rumor has not been confirmed but the payment has been verified.  Why pay for a story that isn’t true?  Sad!

Update:

From this column in the Washington Post:

“During the 2016 election, there was a comprehensive, organized and well-funded effort to quash potentially embarrassing stories about Donald Trump’s alleged sexual transgressions, beyond what was actually visible in public, and only now are we beginning to appreciate its scope.”