Popular Update...

The Left will not drop the "popular vote" victory by Hillary.  It is a fact that she received more votes (as Mrs. Bannon would say - despite the fact that we know every election they DO find voter fraud in the way of dead people voting, entire boxes of ballots filled out in one handwriting, etc.).

However, the Left can not decide if they want to scrap the Electoral College because they think it had something to do with slavery, or that the Electoral College was a product of the genius of Alexander Hamilton, whom they now love because he is a black musical on Broadway, and electors should not cast their ballots for Trump because the Left wants Hillary (the logic of that argument escapes me).

Either way she received more votes, and the Right would be claiming the same thing (though I believe with less tears) if the roles were reversed, and, none of it matters.

Part of the genius of the Electoral College is that it apportions the voting according to the states - so that while a populous state DOES have influence in relation to it's greater population, it does not overwhelm the influence of the smaller states. We are a Republic.

It is worth noting...(drum roll please)...that if you remove San Francisco and Los Angeles Counties and 4 of the 5 boroughs of New York City...Trump wins the national popular vote.  Not by a lot, but it points out the lunacy of Hillary's claim to be the choice of the people nation wide.

Nation Wide Popular Vote Totals

"The Left always wants to change the rules
 after the game has started...bigly"

Hillary Clinton	65,844,610	(+2,864,974)
Donald Trump	62,979,636

Liberal Nests Popular Vote Totals

	Hillary Clinton	Donald Trump
San Francisco	312,443	34,493
LA County	1,893,370	620,285
Brooklyn	595,086	133,653
Queens	473,389	138,550
Manhattan	515,481	58,935
Bronx	318,403	34,424
	4,108,572	1,020,340

Remove those counties and Trump wins 61,959,296 to 61,736,038, a victory by 223,258 votes.

The Right must, and I believe does, acknowledge that Hillary received more votes than Trump, but the Left must acknowledge that it does not matter...

That Was Then, This Is Now...

This is a dangerous precedent for a President. Obama was Campaigner in Chief for Hillary, and now he is trying to undermine the credibility of the next President.



In this fist video Obama mocks Donald Trump for his claims that he distrusts the establishment with regards to the election.



In this video Obama's spokesman claims Donald Trump benefited from Russian hacking, without mentioning that the emails "hacked and leaked by the Russians" were actual emails written, and actual subjects discussed by corrupt political insiders.

Stop It...

L.A.-based Lawyer Sues FBI Over Clinton Email Warrant

First of all, people do stupid things all the time, not all those things deserve a story on Fox News. I could just leave it at that. But I clicked on the article, and it angered me, so I will post about it. That is what blogging is all about.

I work with lawyers all the time - and frequently I find that they can not see the forrest for the trees. This clown is suing the FBI to see the search warrant that lead to the search of Anthony Weiner's devices (phones and computers).

Again, I should stop right there - he read an article in the NY Times, and based on that, filed a lawsuit.

Several quick points - he wants to see the search warrant to see if there was probable cause, and mentions that probable cause is mentioned in the Constitution.  A search warrant is a document that a law enforcement officer provides to a judge proving...probable cause. Next - the probable cause he seeks was pretty much all over the press - Anthony Weiner was using his device (phone or computer) to send messages to an underage person. The nature of those messages made the transmission to a minor...a crime.

But, then again, we live in a country where people sent millions of dollars to the accounts of a person who received 1% of the presidential votes, to fund a recount.

What Bias?

The New York Times admitted it can not be unbiased, and then after the election of Donald Trump, admitted they were out of touch with the American voter.

From the Washington Post today:

It is a wonder that Republicans ever win elections...

Happy Thanksgiving...

In honor of the first Thanksgiving, the NFL gave us Cowboys vs Redskins...

...among other things.

Hillary Spotted Again...

There she is, under the pile of burning ruble...

Popular Perspective...

All this nonsense about the Popular Vote vs the Electoral College is just like the Left, they always want to change the rules, change laws, after the game has begun. The far Left want a full Democracy, either because they do not understand our nation's history, or because they never liked it. I believe it is largely the former, because are not they the ones who claim to want to protect every conceivable minority (not race minority, statistical minority).

Election by County (can not find one by Congressional District)

The original system created by the Founding Fathers was the Electoral College. Put one way, our elected leaders elect our leader. This is a Republic. Each Representative and Senator gets one vote. Then it changed, for the better in my opinion. Each State gets the number of votes equal to it's number of Representatives and Senators. However, the State's get to decide how to divide those votes. And almost all have chosen winner take all in a popular vote (does not sound like they gave it much thought).  1828 was the last time a significant state split its electoral vote when New York went 20 for Andrew Jackson and 16 for John Quincy Adams (Maryland always split their vote until 1836 when either they changed it, or they all got on the same page - I have not researched it).

People saw winner-take-all in both the Republican and Democrat Primaries as both were hotly "contested" (Bernie contested the vote, but the final counting was not really a contest). My informal survey results - people do not like the winner-take-all for primaries...unless their candidate won.

I believe in the Electoral College, but I believe in awarding votes by Congressional District (not county). In that way, Presidential Candidates would have "battle grounds" all over - not just in a few states. It would have the added benefit of BEING WHAT THE COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON. It would still be a "popular vote" and every vote counts and matters, but it would be more representative. Instead of just letting the Congressmen vote for who they want, each district would tell them who to vote for. The Senators could be assigned by the statewide popular vote.

To say this would then just mirror the House of Representatives would ignore the Senate - and also would ignore the fact that in places like southern New Jersey where Democrat Hillary Clinton won 54,472 to 47,882 in Atlantic County, yet Republican Congressman Frank Lobiando won 53,679 to 41,386.

So let me give you some perspective. My analysis...the voting public nation wide in the current voting scheme is basically 50/50. I will concede that. So far the 2016 results look like this:

Hillary Clinton 61,324,576
Donald Trump  60,526,852

That is a 797,724 vote lead by Clinton. Democrats (the goofy ones, but some of the leaders too) claim that number of votes is a mandate to throw out the founder's vision of a Republic, or a reason for Republican Electors to vote for Clinton (that one seriously shows the lack of understanding of who "electors" are).

Perspective. Clinton is winning California by 3,071,770.  So in the rest of the country, Trump wins the popular vote by 2,274,046.  Three times Clinton's lead in the nationwide popular vote. Unfortunately, California still matters, and she is winning the popular vote - but that is like giving the win to the football team with the most yards, not the most points. Trump gets the W, and now they will treat him just like they treated W.