Green Party candidate requests official recounts in three states in an effort to raise questions about the legitimacy of the 2016 Presidential Election.

Just when you thought that the burdensome, depressing 2016 Presidential Election was finally over, Green Party candidate Jill Stein has reminded us just how much the Liberal political establishment disrespects our electoral process.  Stein raised and spent millions of dollars on a campaign which was destined to never reach the five percent mark.  I can only assume that the money Ms. Stein spent on her exercise in vanity would have provided tens of thousands of poor Americans with food and clothing as winter approaches, but even Stein has her priorities, I suppose.  Stein has decided to pursue recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, states won by Donald Trump by very thin margins. According to Hillary for America attorney Mark Elias, "we believe we have an obligation to the more than sixty-four million Americans who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings so that an accurate vote count will be reported."  Why is Mr. Elias commenting on Green Party nominee Jill Stein's request for recounts?  Because, not surprisingly, the Hillary campaign has jumped on the recount band wagon as well.  But lets be honest, the Clinton campaign has been in cahoots with Jill Stein since the idea of a recount was broached.  The idea was to encourage Stein and the looney Green Party to request the recounts, so that if the results remain the same (which they should, notwithstanding Democratic shenanigans), then Hillary wouldn't appear to be a sore loser.  This entire development is full of bits of comedy.  The Democrats have so much confidence in our electoral system and the honesty of the American voter, that they fight tooth and nail against any voting identification requirements.  So if the Democrats have so much confidence in the system, then why do we need a recount in three states?  Can the system that is so foolproof that voter fraud is impossible, screw up in all three states that basically decided the election?

The insincerity of the recount circus is truly disturbing.  The Democrats will have us believe that they are attempting to ensure that every vote is counted, especially in the states which were decided by small margins.  Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were decided by small percentages, but in the end, they voted for Donald Trump.  What about New Hampshire and Minnesota?  Clinton won New Hampshire by less than four thousand votes (forty-seven point six to forty-seven point two), and Minnesota by less than forty-three thousand votes (forty-six percent to forty-five percent).  Colorado, Maine, and Nevada were also within a few percentage points.  But these states were won by Hillary Clinton, so the concern for the sanctity of the individual vote goes right out the window when a Democrat has been declared the winner.

When the leaders of this effort discuss the process and their motivation, they always mention the "popular vote".  They assume that the average American is so easily distracted, that they can create a national wave of anger around the idea that Hillary Clinton was the "legitimate" winner in the 2016 Presidential Election.  We went through this once before, in 2000, and many people were reminded regarding how our electoral system functions.  We have an electoral system to prevent large urban agglomerations from single-handedly picking our president every four years.  Enough people live in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, to arguably decide each and every national election.  Many years ago, persons much wiser than myself decided that each state should have an impact on national elections, and candidates should not focus their entire campaigns on just three or four urban areas.  I like the electoral system, but I can understand why someone wouldn't; fortunately, because we live in the United States of America, you can change the process through legislative action.  If you believe that the popular vote should decide the winner of our presidential elections, then get involved, build a movement, seek out like-minded persons and politicians, and draft an amendment to the Constitution.

As for persons who continue to disseminate the idea that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, therefore she should be president, I can only suggest a simple review of recent history.  Both Clinton and Trump earned their nominations after successful but contentious primary campaigns.  After earning their respective nominations, both candidates huddled with advisors and created plans to accrue the two-hundred seventy electoral votes necessary to be declared the winner.  Neither candidate discussed what steps would be needed in order to win the popular vote.  During the campaign season, the talking heads on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and everywhere else, continually analyzed the map of electoral votes, not of population.  If the popular vote were the deciding factor in the presidential election, Donald Trump would have made more than one trip to Texas.  In fact, he would have made quite a few trips to California, New York, and Illinois.  Trump did not need to make repeated trips to Texas, because Texas is a solidly red state.  But if he had campaigned heavily in Texas, I am convinced he would have added another one million votes to his total.  Trump did not campaign in California or Chicago, but regular visits could very well have added an additional million votes to his popular total.  But Trump didn't need to visit Bakersfield, or Cicero, or Syracuse, New York.  His team realized beforehand that he needed electoral votes, not the popular vote, so a plan was crafted by which Trump would sweep the bell-weather states of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and either Michigan or Pennsylvania.  Trump campaigned hard in those states, and for that reason, he is the President-Elect.

Someone is interested in my opinion regarding the GOP contenders for 2016.

Link: 2016 GOP Candidates


The post which debuts today provides a bit of modest insight into the 2016 presidential campaign of Secretary Hillary Clinton.  Actually, I have received more email inquiries regarding my thoughts on the Republican candidates.  Is someone out there in the blogosphere assuming that I'm not going to vote Democrat in 2016?  Probably a safe bet, so I'm taking the time to share a few observations about the field of Republican candidates that has thus far taken shape.  By the way, has Bob Dole made a decision yet?

I like Scott Walker.  He really seems like a decent fellow.  Geez, do the lefties up there in Wisconsin hate him.  I like Walker because he understands just how far out of balance our relationship with organized Unions has become.  My father was digging coal out of the mountains in Harlan County, Kentucky, when he was twelve years old.  I fully understand the need for workers to create a Union.  Working together for fair pay, competitive benefits, and a safe working environment is as American as it gets.  But somewhere along the line, the major Unions in this country graduated from "Unionizing" to "Politicizing".  Once the Unions became politicized, the criminal element was introduced.  The struggle in Wisconsin was a real microcosm of the selfish, damaging attitude that many Unions express today.  When Scott Walker realized that Wisconsin was in a financial mess that could only be solved with sacrifices, he demanded that everyone participate in the process.  No one was too good to compromise and give up a little to right the ship of state.  He took on a tough opponent, but he stood strong for ALL the people of Wisconsin, and in the end, he won.  In the past month, a bit of hay has been made about the fact that Gov. Walker dropped out of University before finishing his degree.  Normally, it would make no difference to me, but when I heard Walker himself claim that he was just a semester away from graduating, I was perplexed.  In fact, a review of Marquette University records shows that he was more than a semester away from graduating.  It was more likely a year and some change. If a great job opportunity offered itself when I was still a year away, I would have taken the job, with the intention of finishing the degree later.  My real concern with Gov. Walker is that regionally, he doesn't help his own candidacy.  He has failed to deliver his own state in the last two presidential elections (he's not alone), and, Walker or no Walker, the GOP will not win Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota or Wisconsin.

I also like Rand Paul.  For those of you who are loyal readers of my blog, God Bless You.  Also, you will recall that last month I was a bit angry with Senator Paul regarding his comments on Cuba.  He has since revisited those comments to my satisfaction.  Rand Paul is intelligent, charming, good at raising money, and comes from an important state (Not Kentucky, but Ohio, just next door!).  I fully approve of his stated positions on Obamacare, immigration and the economy.  As for everything else, I'm a bit in the dark.  I can't help but worry that unless he has stated otherwise, I can assume that his opinion is the same as his father's (Rep. Ron Paul of Texas).  Sorry, folks, but I'm against legalizing drugs.  The reason the War on Drugs has failed is because it hasn't been enforced stringently enough.  I'm also a little wary of Rand Paul's foreign policy positions.  He has a bunch of work to do in that arena.  Ted Cruz is someone else who really appeals to me at certain times.  He is able to discuss the intricacies of international economics and how it impacts the average American, and immediately   switch over to an in depth analysis of the last three ballistic missile treaties with Russia.  This guy is sharp, and I am convinced he loves Texas, which goes a long way with me.  Cruz is intelligent and crafty enough to be President, but he has a tendency to piss people off.  I worry that a Cruz nomination creates a President Hillary. Another concern: my old man told me never to trust a man without any lips.

I love Dr. Ben Carson.  In a totally platonic way, of course.  This gentleman is kind, compassionate, brilliant, charming, and black.  I would love to see the GOP nominate an African-American who loves his country, to follow-up the one the Democrats gave us, who in my opinion, doesn't.  We are an inclusive America, and the Republican field of candidates (so far) includes an African-American and a Hispanic-American.  If Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb can be coaxed into the race against Hillary (don't count on it), then the Democrats will be represented by four Caucasian politicians.....interesting.  Dr. Carson would bring the experience of a neurosurgeon to the White House.  He is also the sum of his beginnings, and he remembers the days of frightful discrimination that our nation struggled through.  Like most, I'm in the dark regarding his foreign policy ideas.  I would also like to hear his thoughts on immigration and the real-time problems we are having on the border.  Another possible candidate is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.  I'm afraid that for me, that boat has sailed.  And lets hope that its a study boat, because the Governor appears to have put on much of the weight that he so famously lost a few years back.

Speaking of large folks, I don't think Chris Christie will be running in 2016.  He has been obliged to deflect quite a bit of negative press (much of it undeserved).  But Christie is a smart politician and a young man.  he would be best advised to continue focusing on getting healthy (which the average American sees as an admirable accomplishment) and looking toward either 2020 or 2024.  What about Jeb Bush.  Jeb Bush is a very nice man.  I'm sure he is a wonderful father and a dedicated family man.  He comes from good stock, that's for sure.  But when it comes to delivering Florida for the GOP, he has failed terribly.  In fact, if he were the GOP candidate, there's no guarantee that he would be able to deliver Florida in 2016.  He has done some really good things as governor, but I'm taking a hiatus on voting for Bushes for President.  No more Clintons and no more Bushes.  At least for a few more years, please. 

I won't spend much time on Marco Rubio.  He's a charming man, speaks well, and is destined for great things.  I think its a bit early for Marco, but he has to try the waters eventually.  He has been a bit inconsistent regarding immigration, which is one of the top three issues pour moi.  He is forty-three years old, but doesn't look a day over thirty.  This will not help during a national campaign, when the average voter is looking for wisdom and experience.  Also, he has been unable to deliver Florida.  That is a very important factor in my book.  Its one of the reasons I lean towards Rand Paul.  Long before he was a presidential candidate, Rand Paul was helping to turn Kentucky from a borderline blue state into the solid red state that it is today.  That effort cannot be undervalued.  But as things stand today, given my lack of knowledge regarding some important positions taken by various candidates, I would say that on April 14, 2015, were the primary today, I would vote for Dr. Ben Carson, with Senator Rand Paul my second choice.